Adjustment slowdown with DNG?

[digitaldog]

Also, to clarify about the hash issue..  It's an image data hash - and nothing gets thrown away in the important image data - nor the other proprietary (but useless to me) data, like maker notes, etc.
YMMV regarding the usefulness of proprietary data.

Exactly! So we've got some proprietary data that only the company that produced it understands. How is that useful to anyone using any product outside said company?

[Bob Rockefeller]

How is that useful to anyone using any product outside said company?

When using Aperture, there's a feature to show focus points and the active focus point when the image was shot. It's very handy.

With a straight NEF RAW file, the feature worked. With a DNG conversion of the NEF (without the original RAW embedded), it did not. Somehow Aperture could use Nikon data that wasn't available in the same way (or at all?) in the DNG.

Does anyone else have real-world examples?

[digitaldog]

When using Aperture, there's a feature to show focus points and the active focus point when the image was shot. It's very handy.

AFAIK, focus points isn't proprietary data from the camera manufacturer. I suspect Aperture just didn't play nice with the DNG or the conversion didn't store that data but that's a guess. Again, I believe other raw converters (not Adobe's) support focus points so the data can't be proprietary.

[Bob Rockefeller]

Is proprietary data manufacturer's data that is unique to the manufacturer, but exposed by its SDK?

Or is it secret data that has to be reverse engineered?

I had assumed it to be the former. Which would give the user of the SKD freedom to use, or discard, that data. The DNG converter could "translate" that data it felt relevant and discard the rest. Which could bother some people.

[john beardsworth]

Is proprietary data manufacturer's data that is unique to the manufacturer, but exposed by its SDK?

Or is it secret data that has to be reverse engineered?

I had assumed it to be the former. Which would give the user of the SKD freedom to use, or discard, that data. The DNG converter could "translate" that data it felt relevant and discard the rest. Which could bother some people.

Yes, unique to manufacturer and usually (not 100% reliably) in the SDK. Generally they are in the MakerNotes and are technically proprietary but they are not encrypted and apps can freely read and use the data. AFAIK Apple used the Nikon SDK which documents Nikon's focus point data. Same for Canon?

Adobe's DNG converters do not discard the focus points but store the data in an unparsed state. If someone wanted to parse that data from a DNG, I'm sure they could do so.

[Hoggy]

For Lightroom, this free plugin shows focus points:
http://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com/

Ironically, it DOES work for my converted Canon G7X & S100 DNG files (without embedded original CR2), but not for either my Pentax K-3 or K-30.  However that leads me to believe that Pentax does not save focus point information for those cameras.

[Walter Rowe]

One point I will offer in support of continued improvement for DNG support in Capture One is in being able to convert legacy archives of DNG files. While I stopped converting to DNG 3-4 years ago, I have over 30,000 DNG files from years prior that I would like to catalog and convert in Capture One.

When Apple announced the discontinuation of Aperture, I looked at going back to Lightroom and at Capture One. I found Capture One to produce superior results and I like the interface better than Lightroom. It was also significantly faster than Lightroom. This was Capture One 8. I opened case with PhaseOne and made the argument that (a) their software doesn't do a good job for DNG files made from camera original raw files, and (b) they could win over a lot more Aperture users if they fixed that.

I was very pleased to see Capture One 9 went a long way in addressing this. I had lots of exchanges with the support team at PhaseOne who gave the developers lots of my DNG files and who relayed my own experiences regarding DNG files with Capture One 8.

For many of us, the argument over whether to use DNG is immaterial. Discussiions over whether DNG files are inferior to the original camera native raw files is immaterial. We have tens of thousands of DNG files in our archives that we have to maintain. Continuing to improve DNG support in Capture One will enable more and more people to move their legacy archives into the tool.

[Bob Rockefeller]

For many of us, the argument over whether to use DNG is immaterial. Discussiions over whether DNG files are inferior to the original camera native raw files is immaterial. We have tens of thousands of DNG files in our archives that we have to maintain. Continuing to improve DNG support in Capture One will enable more and more people to move their legacy archives into the tool.

I agree.

But I do find it ironic the format that was intended to make legacy images more likely to be assessable in the future is the format that is causing problems for people wanting to move to CO!

[digitaldog]

But I do find it ironic the format that was intended to make legacy images more likely to be assessable in the future is the format that is causing problems for people wanting to move to CO!

What's ironic Bob isn't a file format container that's openly specified. What's ironic are companies that fail to properly support the format as specified or update the format as it progress.

[Bob Rockefeller]

What's ironic Bob isn't a file format container that's openly specified. What's ironic are companies that fail to properly support the format as specified or update the format as it progress.

That's what's ironic. A "future-proof" format that hasn't been accepted by at least CO and therefore isn't "future-proof." Just plain RAW files are handled just fine - the format we were supposed to be protected from by DNG. I wonder if there are others with partial support? Or is CO the odd man out here?

[Walter Rowe]

What's ironic Bob isn't a file format container that's openly specified. What's ironic are companies that fail to properly support the format as specified or update the format as it progress.

I concur. You cannot blame the file format for software makers not supporting it.

[digitaldog]

That's what's ironic. A "future-proof" format that hasn't been accepted by at least CO and therefore isn't "future-proof." Just plain RAW files are handled just fine - the format we were supposed to be protected from by DNG. I wonder if there are others with partial support? Or is CO the odd man out here?

Who promised anything about future proof? Why would you or anyone else blindly accept it? Just plain raw files are handled fine as are DNG's (with their advantages some of us like) in all kinds of other products. C1? Not so sure. So Bob, is it the format or the people who write software that handle it? Just look, if you will, at this discussion of focus point data that is 'said' to be proprietary but isn't. It isn't at all natively supported in an Adobe product, DNG or proprietary raw without a plug-in. So what? It's there, can be used if desired.
I know you want to 'defend' C1's history of sloppy implementation of one file format, fine. As I and other's have said, it only serves to keep potential customers from coming into the C1 fold.
Yes! CO is one of the odd man out here. The products I select, several not from Adobe work as they should.

[Bob Rockefeller]

I know you want to 'defend' C1's history of sloppy implementation of one file format, fine. As I and other's have said, it only serves to keep potential customers from coming into the C1 fold.
Yes! CO is the odd man out here.

No, I have no reason to defend CO and its DNG support. I would like that support because I do have some DNG files.

But Adobe does put DNG forward as a future-proof format:

The solution to this is Digital Negative (DNG), a publicly available archival format for the raw files generated by digital cameras. By addressing the lack of an open standard for the raw files created by individual camera models, DNG helps ensure that photographers will be able to access their files in the future.

- from https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html

The ironic thing, to me, is that due to CO's poor implementation of support for DNG, some photographers are having trouble moving their images to "the future," if CO is the future for them.

My point from the start of this was to let CO users know about CO's potential slowdowns for DNGs without the original RAW embedded. And I mentioned that problems such as CO's poor support and Aperture's inability to find Nikon focus point data in a DNG were some of the reasons I moved away from using the format.

So that's the nut of it. Some DNG files are causing CO problems, maybe even crashes. If you have such problems with your DNG files, that could be why. And it provides a good chance to open a support request with the details and the DNG file involved. Enough support requests and enough example files might get CO's problem fixed.

[digitaldog]

But Adobe does put DNG forward as a future-proof format:
- from https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html

Nowhere do they guarantee future proof. Does it help? Yes. Does it have other advantage for some? Yes.
 
You seem to continue to ignore that there are products that properly and fully support DNG while there's one you use that doesn't. It's pretty clear to me and a few other's how that can be rectified.

Some DNG files are causing CO problems, maybe even crashes.

So your proposition is, this isn't a CO bug, it's an issue with DNG? Seriously?

[Bob Rockefeller]

Nowhere do they guarantee future proof. Does it help? Yes. Does it have other advantage for some? Yes.
 
You seem to continue to ignore that there are products that properly and fully support DNG while there's one you use that doesn't. It's pretty clear to me and a few other's how that can be rectified. So your proposition is, this isn't a CO bug, it's an issue with DNG? Seriously?

Enough. I made no such proposition.

If you like DNG, use it. If you don't like CO, don't use it.

[digitaldog]

Enough. I made no such proposition.

I believe you did but whatever.

If you like DNG, use it. If you don't like CO, don't use it.

I will and do use DNG: kind of obvious. I will not use buy CO until they properly support that file format! They can. They should. But if they don't, I'm happy with at least three other, very good raw converters that properly support DNG. That CO apparently is unable or unwilling to support a file format like other, much smaller companies suggests to me, perhaps others, CO isn't worthy of my money. That's THEIR burden.

[Walter Rowe]

I will not use buy CO until they properly support that file format! They can. They should.

Have you tested version 9? DNG support is excellent for my files vs prior versions.

[digitaldog]

Have you tested version 9? DNG support is excellent for my files vs prior versions.

Nope, not yet. Your report does sounds encouraging. So at least the damn app doesn't quit as reported with DNG's that do not have the original proprietary raw embedded? Performance of DNG vs. not, any comments?

[Walter Rowe]

I have DNG files for Nikon D100, D200, D300 and D800 as well as Canon G5 and G11. All look excellent in V9 and seem to render with equal performance as my camera native raw files.

[David Grover / Capture One]

Nope, not yet. Your report does sounds encouraging. So at least the damn app doesn't quit as reported with DNG's that do not have the original proprietary raw embedded? Performance of DNG vs. not, any comments?

Seems like you should try Version 9 out then Andrew.