Adjustment slowdown with DNG?

[Bob Rockefeller]

I was on a tech support call for a different problem, but the support agent mentioned that CO does not support DNG format files that do not have the original RAW file embedded. In those cases, CO will slow down, beach ball, and even become unresponsive for minutes at a time.

Converting to DNG would, it seems to me, often be done without that original RAW to save space. And is yet another reason not to use DNG format.

I wonder how many people reporting CO slowdowns, not associated with the catalog, are working with DNGs that don't have the original RAW embedded?

[digitaldog]

And is yet another reason not to use DNG format.

And is yet another reason not to use DNG format, in Capture 1. Elsewhere?

[Bob Rockefeller]

And is yet another reason not to use DNG format, in Capture 1. Elsewhere?

In my view, no where. I am constantly finding little things about DNG that cause problems. Even Jeff Schewe now recommends against DNG.

I just don't see the advantage to DNG. Will Lightroom one day no longer be able to decode an .ORF for my OM-D E-M1? Doubtful.

[digitaldog]

Even Jeff Schewe now recommends against DNG.

Really? In C1 or everywhere. And even if he does, it's not going to stop me from using it, I find multiple benefits to the format; not within C1 of course.

[Bob Rockefeller]

Really? In C1 or everywhere. And even if he does, it's not going to stop me from using it, I find multiple benefits to the format; not within C1 of course.

Yes, in general. On the LuLa video for Lightroom CC. And the second edition of his The Digital Negative downplays its use greatly.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. It has tripped me enough times that I don't.

How does it help you?

[digitaldog]

How does it help you?

What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.

Yes, in general

"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain

[Bob Rockefeller]

What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.
"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain

Let me move this over to a new topic since I've wandered off the original purpose: to see if some of the folks reported slow adjustments in C1 are working with DNG that don't have the original RAW file embedded.

[digitaldog]

Let me move this over to a new topic since I've wandered off the original purpose: to see if some of the folks reported slow adjustments in C1 are working with DNG that don't have the original RAW file embedded.

Since by your own admission, you don't use DNG, does it matter?
But the more important question is, DNG or C1 issue or a bit of both?

[Bob Rockefeller]

Since by your own admission, you don't use DNG, does it matter?
But the more important question is, DNG or C1 issue or a bit of both?

I posted this topic as a way to help C1 uses who may have this problem. It might matter to them.

[digitaldog]

I posted this topic as a way to help C1 uses who may have this problem. It might matter to them.

And it matters to me too Bob. FWIW, I suspect I was using PhaseOne products and software before you. Way back when LightPhase, was around, circa 1998. LONG before C1 and DNG existed.

[tho_mas]

How does it help you?

What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.

Andrew... you didn't adress Bob's question in how far DNG helps you...
And I am interessted in an answer to...: what's wrong with original RAW-files and in how far converting to DNG improves your workflow?

[digitaldog]

Andrew... you didn't adress Bob's question in how far DNG helps you...

I've gone on record many times here about why DNG helps me.

• No sidecar files
• Smaller than proprietary raw
• Openly documented file format
• Ability to embed one or more DNG camera profiles into container
• Ability to embed one or more set of rendering instructions even from differing converters
• Data verification!
• Ability to embed sizable, high quality JPEG of current rendering (you can pull that out and make a nice print, just in case)
• Better performance (in the converter I use)

[tho_mas]

No sidecar files

who cares? And by the way... this is not a capacity of DNG, but of the RAW-softwares...

Smaller than proprietary raw

sure, because proprietary data (that CAN be utilizesed by the manufacturers software!) gets stripped

Openly documented file format

:-) the file format is documented, yes. Does Adobe also documet what data gets stripped and why and how they uitilze the data they throw away? this is a lame argument...

Ability to embed one or more DNG camera profiles into container

only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.

Ability to embed one or more set of rendering instructions even from differing converters

Again only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.

Data verification!

Are you kidding? DNG throws away proprietary data. Only the reamaining data gets documented. DNG wnats to be the smallest denominator of RAW-files. And to some extend it is. But only data documented in DNG is verified... NOT the data that IS actually contained in native RAW files... that get stripped...

Ability to embed sizable, high quality JPEG of current rendering (you can pull that out and make a nice print, just in case)

nice feature.

Better performance (in the converter I use)

well, in the converter you use... not in all converters.

[digitaldog]

who cares? And by the way... this is not a capacity of DNG, but of the RAW-softwares...
 sure, because proprietary data (that CAN be utilizesed by the manufacturers software!) gets stripped
 :-) the file format is documented, yes. Does Adobe also documet what data gets stripped and why and how they uitilze the data they throw away? this is a lame argument...
only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.
Again only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.
Are you kidding? DNG throws away proprietary data. Only the reamaining data gets documented. DNG wnats to be the smallest denominator of RAW-files. And to some extend it is. But only data documented in DNG is verified... NOT the data that IS actually contained in native RAW files... that get stripped...
nice feature.
well, in the converter you use... not in all converters.

1. I care.
2. No, more effective compression in most cases. The metadata doesn't add up to much size wise.
3. I don't use nor ever will use the camera makers raw developer so that proprietary data is useless. An openly documented format (TIFF vs. PSD) is important to me.
4. I use a dedicated DNG workflow but, you don't have to to use DNG camera profiles! I want that data (I roll my own) with the raw data, DNG provides that.
5. I use a dedicated DNG workflow, I don't think storing just one set, let alone multiple parametric edits in the catalog or sidecar is as safe, for me, as having that in the DNG container.
6. I'm not kidding, I'm referring to checking the hash tag inside my raw converter of choice for data verification (got nothing to do with proprietary data I don't need).
7. Yes.
8. Of course, in the converter I use. Going full circle, be nice if C1 treated DNG as a first class citizen or not at all. Half baked doesn't make any sense to me. How about you?

[digitaldog]

sure, because proprietary data (that CAN be utilizesed by the manufacturers software!) gets stripped

Actually there are  provisions for private tags where that data can be stored. But what's the point? ONLY the manufacturers raw converter understand it (that's what makes it proprietary  ). Hell will freeze over when one of them supports DNG so the data seems useless to me.
As for data verification for DNG:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2013/08/dng-verification-in-lightroom-5.html

[tho_mas]

8. Of course, in the converter I use. Going full circle, be nice if C1 treated DNG as a first class citizen or not at all. Half baked doesn't make any sense to me. How about you?

I feel the same! Personally I think C1 should NOT support editing generic DNGs, TIFs, JPEGs and PNGs. The way it is implemented totally sucks! I also think - based on how C1 is desinged - they also should skip the whole "catalogue" feature... because you need extremely well equipped computers to make it work seamlessly (high speed disks, lots of RAM, super fast graphic cards, mulitple cores). C1 looks like a fully equipped cataloguing and RAW developping tool. But it is NOT! It's a RAW-processor... but it is clearly the best RAW processor out there... as long as you work with native RAW-files...
Just my 2 cents...

[digitaldog]

I feel the same! Personally I think C1 should NOT support editing generic DNGs, TIFs, JPEGs and PNGs. The way it is implemented totally sucks!

I have two non Adobe raw converters that support DNG I'd be happy to use full time IF I bailed out on Lightroom. The irony is, C1 could be on the list IF the company didn't do stupid stuff like support the format half baked as it is. They should either abandon it totally or a smarter move, fully support it. They should behave like the folks writing Affinity Photo (which not only supports DNG, it could be a PS replacement for me if again, I bailed on Adobe). In that product, they support PSD with layers! Amazing; you get all your layers, blend modes, etc. But not Layered TIFF. I asked them to consider this as it would aid in migration from Adobe customer to Affinity because there are customers with Layered TIFFs. And they said yes, it's coming. Now that is smart. The C1 folks could learn from that mindset and aid their bottom line.

[David Grover / Capture One]

I feel the same! Personally I think C1 should NOT support editing generic DNGs, TIFs, JPEGs and PNGs. The way it is implemented totally sucks! I also think - based on how C1 is desinged - they also should skip the whole "catalogue" feature... because you need extremely well equipped computers to make it work seamlessly (high speed disks, lots of RAM, super fast graphic cards, mulitple cores). C1 looks like a fully equipped cataloguing and RAW developping tool. But it is NOT! It's a RAW-processor... but it is clearly the best RAW processor out there... as long as you work with native RAW-files...
Just my 2 cents...

Hi Thomas,

I run a mid 2014 MBP with 16GB RAM, 2.8GHZ Intel Core i7, 2048GB graphics card and my catalog runs seamlessly.

Staying away from DNG discussion. 

David

[Hoggy]

Hi Thomas,

I run a mid 2014 MBP with 16GB RAM, 2.8GHZ Intel Core i7, 2048GB graphics card and my catalog runs seamlessly.

I run a ~2012 AMD A8-3500 maxed out with 8GB RAM, 4 core, 512MB 'shared' video memory, under Windows 10.  C1 runs just fine here in catalog mode.

Staying away from DNG discussion. 

I would too, in your position.
However I'd like to prod you into coaxing the Phase One/C1 team to become more adept at dealing with and utilizing DNG features, asap.  Especially regarding saving develop instructions and multiple snapshots/variants into it - alongside [LR, in my case] data.   That belt-and-suspenders approach is important.  I don't like having a single point of failure, even though I do religiously backup C1&LR catalogs.

......
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.

[jvpictures]

I am using DNG converted from original .fff files within C19 and I am getting quite the same (good) results than originally processing the H files within Phocus.

I am a longtime C1 user (started with version 3 or so) and like to use C1 more than Phocus, that's why.

DNG is a great benefit to me for fff files and C1. However, a full native support of fff files within C1 would even be better, but that will never happen, as I was told.