DNG Support

[jjj]

David Grover -

Plus DNG support has been improving steadily in recent months. I.e we can now read the DNG 1.4 standard. Not just native DNG if you were not aware.

Improving that support more is an ongoing story which certainly isn't over yet!

David as the thread you replied in has now been closed, can you explain further about DNG and future camera support.

[Denis de Gannes]

Why are we raising a debate DNG or NO DNG this has been beaten to a pulp for the past 10 years, with no resolution. None of the major camera manufacturers have moved one iota toward acceptance of the DNG option.

Simply way I look at it is, if you have decided to confine yourself to Adobe Products then your choice is simple follow the crowd.

If you prefer to keep your options open and also utilise other products available in the market then look at the pros and cons and make your own informed decision. The only software company that fully endorses and supports the development of DNG is Adobe. This is like a Windows/ OSX debate.

This debate is headed for an eventual closure the same as the earlier thread.   

[jjj]

Why are we raising a debate DNG or NO DNG this has been beaten to a pulp for the past 10 years, with no resolution. None of the major camera manufacturers have moved one iota toward acceptance of the DNG option.

Simply way I look at it is, if you have decided to confine yourself to Adobe Products then your choice is simple follow the crowd.

If you prefer to keep your options open and also utilise other products available in the market then look at the pros and cons and make your own informed decision. The only software company that fully endorses and supports the development of DNG is Adobe. This is like a Windows/ OSX debate.

This debate is headed for an eventual closure the same as the earlier thread.   

With an attitude like that and an ignorant rant that actually has nothing to do with what is being talked about, congratulations on helping it head that way.
 

[Denis de Gannes]

Quote "With an attitude like that and an ignorant rant"
And you have already started the process.

[David Mantripp]

Quote "With an attitude like that and an ignorant rant"
And you have already started the process.

No, he didn't. You did. jjj asked about C1's improvements to DNG support.  Maybe he would like to be able to use C1 with an existing library of DNG files.  Who knows ?  He certainly didn't start any kind of DNG advocacy.

I'm also interested in this, as I have a batch of images from a while back which are DNG.   Would I use it in the future ?  Possibly, if I thought any of my photos were actually going to be of any interest to anybody in the future.  But I don't, so I don't bother.  Perhaps you should read what Jeff Schewe has to say about DNG.  He's fully "confined to Adobe", right?  You might be surprised.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm also interested in this, as I have a batch of images from a while back which are DNG.

Hi David,

If you also have the original Camera Raws, and assuming they were not DNGs from the start, why not use those originals?
It is known that DNGs are not fully supported in Capture One, not yet at least, so I have difficulty understanding why people insist seeking problems, instead of using better source files if they are available.

For the moment, let's face it, DNG is in some areas an Adobe specific tuned file format. That is fine if you are fully immersed in Adobe's product offererings and remain so. Some other application producers either ignore some of the metadata and (re)create their own, based on only a fraction (e.g. without some specific calibration data) of the (partially converted) available Raw data, others use the Adobe supplied libraries and just take what is offered as output.

Yet other producers have such a different approach, e.g. for their basic color engine, that it takes serious additional effort (i.e. cost) to convert between models, with all risks of errors because parts of the Adobe Color model are undocumented. It is not enough to describe the meta data fields, which are publicly documented, but the meaning and origin, and how to use those data elements is quite a different thing.

It would obviously be nice if Capture One could transparently use DNG input in all its variations and create superior conversions, but we're not there yet.

Cheers,
Bart

[David Grover / Capture One]

Ok story goes like this.

Prior to Capture One 8.3.1 (it might be 8.3 - but I am in an airport right now, so not in the best place to check!), there was limited DNG support unless we supported it natively from the camera.  Like Ricoh GR off the top of my head.  This fits with the policy of supporting cameras as opposed to file types.

Each camera in Capture One has different noise reduction settings based on ISO, performance and other factors.  And a bespoke colour profile created by us.  Supporting a camera means we produce about 700 images.  I believe thats important background information!

Since we have been able to import Lightroom catalogs for a while, it is unfortunate if you had decided to take a DNG workflow decision* as DNGs not supported by Capture One would therefore not be imported.

The current situation is that we now support DNG 1.4.  So ANY DNG file will work in Capture One but not with Capture One colours.  We have a default DNG profile.

So if you did decide to import your Lightroom catalog into Capture One, everything would be visible. 

I agree that a completely fluid DNG experience in Capture One would be the best solution.

David

*Don't read that as DNG bashing.  I personally think using DNG has too many flaws to your future workflow and security to show any benefit over using the original manufacturers RAW file. 

[jjj]

If you also have the original Camera Raws, and assuming they were not DNGs from the start, why not use those originals?
It is known that DNGs are not fully supported in Capture One, not yet at least, so I have difficulty understanding why people insist seeking problems, instead of using better source files if they are available.

There are two separate types of DNGs, so to speak.
1 - Other raw files converted to DNG. Which is what it seems you are talking about Bart
2 - Camera that natively produce DNG files. Which is what I and many others have talked about with regard to C1

A major benefit of DNG is that if you buy a new camera that saves to DNG, then you do not have to wait for your software of choice to be updated to include the 'new' variation of raw file, which at times can be no more different than the file saying the new camera's name in the header or wherever. So not new, not different and not improved at all, but still unusable until everything is updated. Not to mention that  if your new camera was only introduced in the recent version of LR, you may want to avoid that update and thus be unable to work on your images in your favourite programme.
C1 however seems to be the exception to this as it didn't support DNG, it only supported individual cameras and not all cameras at that. My previous small camera I always carried with me a Ricoh that saved to DNG and was never supported for example and nor are Pentax MF cameras [at least last time I looked] and they've been around for a long while.

[jjj]

The current situation is that we now support DNG 1.4.  So ANY DNG file will work in Capture One but not with Capture One colours.  We have a default DNG profile.

To clarify - So am I to take it that any camera that saves raw camera files as DNGs, can now be opened in C1, even if you haven't profiled them? Plus, can you then make profiles yourself and save them for such cameras?

I agree that a completely fluid DNG experience in Capture One would be the best solution.

Glad to hear it, but in what way is it not yet fluid?

So if you did decide to import your Lightroom catalog into Capture One, everything would be visible. 

But would all smart and dumb collections be? As if you use LR properly, you will have an extensive collection of such things, not to mention publish or export presets.

[Denis de Gannes]

No, he didn't. You did. jjj asked about C1's improvements to DNG support.  Maybe he would like to be able to use C1 with an existing library of DNG files.  Who knows ?  He certainly didn't start any kind of DNG advocacy.

I'm also interested in this, as I have a batch of images from a while back which are DNG.   Would I use it in the future ?  Possibly, if I thought any of my photos were actually going to be of any interest to anybody in the future.  But I don't, so I don't bother.  Perhaps you should read what Jeff Schewe has to say about DNG.  He's fully "confined to Adobe", right?  You might be surprised.

The point I am making is simply that the use of DNG or not is a matter of choice, labelling someone as "ignorant" or a particular raw processing software program as "inferior or deficient" because they do not support or subscribe to the use of a workflow that includes the use of the DNG format is not being objective.
I believe that if a pol were done you would see that users that do not use a workflow option with DNG are in the majority.

If Adobe were so confident that DNG workflow was clearly the best option for working with RAW files then they should change LR and ACR to only process raw files that have been converted to DNG.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A major benefit of DNG is that if you buy a new camera that saves to DNG, then you do not have to wait for your software of choice to be updated to include the 'new' variation of raw file, which at times can be no more different than the file saying the new camera's name in the header or wherever.

Hi,

This is not quite true. Each new camera needs to be profiled in some way. There may be a different (Bayer-)CFA, or the camera has slightly different sensor characteristics.

DNG is not a miracle worker, it's just a file format. The meta data that it stores needs to be interpreted by the Raw processor that uses the Raw data+metadata instructions, so the metadata needs to be properly formatted first (and some tags are converted or calculated to fit the Adobe processing method). For example, (some?) Canon Raws get an Exposure Bias/Offset added that Adobe prefers, but is undocumented and it's calculated or derived. If that's left out, or guessed wrong, the file will render too dark or to light by default (and who knows what else it causes).

And then there are lens corrections or dust data that may or may not need to be accommodated, or new features. It would be nice if all others did that work for Adobe ...

Cheers,
Bart

[fdisilvestro]

Bart,

But if the camera outputs natively in DNG, wouldn't all that be sorted by the camera manufacturer and be readily available? (Yes, dream on)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

But if the camera outputs natively in DNG, wouldn't all that be sorted by the camera manufacturer and be readily available? (Yes, dream on)

Hi Frank,

That's the point, it would mean that the camera makers would have to do it for Adobe. There is no automagical support for a new camera just because the Raw is formatted as a DNG. Someone still has to do the work, which takes time/effort/money.

DNG by itself is just a container of which the metadata fields/tag descriptions are published, but not what the contents of the fields/tags is supposed to do in a Raw converter. Capture One would e.g. have to either ignore, or convert the Adobe formatted metadata, and convert everything to their color model, which apparently is not all that simple because their color model works rather differently (e.g. ICC scene referred profile versus DNG output referred profile).

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

DNG is not a miracle worker, it's just a file format.

Indeed! And it would be lovely if companies who say they support this file format, do so fully and correctly. Are we there with C1?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Indeed! And it would be lovely if companies who say they support this file format, do so fully and correctly. Are we there with C1?

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102186.msg841495#msg841495

[digitaldog]

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102186.msg841495#msg841495

So you're doing what, confirming they do not correctly support DNG as discussed in that old post?

[AlterEgo]

If Adobe were so confident that DNG workflow was clearly the best option for working with RAW files then they should change LR and ACR to only process raw files that have been converted to DNG.

they actually do that... internally... that's why there is not difference between how they work with supported original raws and DNGs converted from those (if conversion is done by the same release version/level of ACR/LR/DNG Converter, to keep the same bugs intact)

[AlterEgo]

A major benefit of DNG is that if you buy a new camera that saves to DNG, then you do not have to wait for your software of choice to be updated

if you like the color rendering from raw converter manufacturer you still have to wait for it... and then with no changes in the format itself it is the issue with software that intentionally blocks you work with a raw file, not with the format itself... just like Adobe software blocks opening a raw from a new camera in native non DNG raw format when there is absolutely no changes in the tags that it is using... that way they create an impression for some uneducated users about the "major benefit of DNG".

[Denis de Gannes]

they actually do that... internally... that's why there is not difference between how they work with supported original raws and DNGs converted from those (if conversion is done by the same release version/level of ACR/LR/DNG Converter, to keep the same bugs intact)

I have not seen this info previously. Could you provide a link to the source of this information?

[AlterEgo]

I have not seen this info previously. Could you provide a link to the source of this information?

you can try yourself with any non DNG raw file - if you find a difference between rendering from it and from DNG (non lossy) saved from it first with ACR/LR that you are using - congratulations, you have a bug - please file a bug report with Adobe