DNG puzzle

[PeterAit]

I have never used DNG files before today when I had the occasion to export some from LR. The original files were Sony RAWs which tend to be in the 80 MB range. Yet the exported DNGs were all 37-45 MB. It's my understanding that the DNG format preserves all the info in the RAW, so how can I get a 50% file size reduction? Thx.

[digitaldog]

I have never used DNG files before today when I had the occasion to export some from LR. The original files were Sony RAWs which tend to be in the 80 MB range. Yet the exported DNGs were all 37-45 MB. It's my understanding that the DNG format preserves all the info in the RAW, so how can I get a 50% file size reduction? Thx.

A. There are options for lossy or lossless conversions so check your settings.
B. It's to be expected that the DNG when ideally converted is smaller in size than the original in many cases, due to better compression. It usually isn't as dramatic as you report so do check on A above and your settings for conversion,.

[Frans Waterlander]

Be aware that DNG discards proprietary camera information. Opinions vary on how much of an issue that is. DNG hasn't taken off like it was supposed to and now several folks recommend to leave it alone.

[digitaldog]

Be aware that DNG discards proprietary camera information. Opinions vary on how much of an issue that is. DNG hasn't taken off like it was supposed to and now several folks recommend to leave it alone.

Be aware it's proprietary and useless in any raw converter other than the manufacturers. If you understand what proprietary actually means.
Opinions are like ass*oles, everyone has them even when they are based on misunderstandings of technology.
IF the questions arise, what are the advantages of a DNG workflow, some here can provide that data point but the OP isn't asking that (yet) but rather about why his DNGs are smaller in size than his proprietary raws. He knows that's to be expected (one advantage of the format, a small but pertinent one).
As for DNG not taking off, please provide a lick of data to back up who and how many use it vs. those that do not. You may be correct but you may just be making stuff up.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts again. 

[Frans Waterlander]

Yes, I actually know what proprietary actually means, actually.

DNG was supposed to become the de-facto standard format and it hasn't; that's a fact. Many people now recommend not to use it; that's a fact; I researched this issue quite extensively.

[digitaldog]

DNG was supposed to become the de-facto standard format and it hasn't; that's a fact. Many people now recommend not to use it; that's a fact; I researched this issue quite extensively.

Many recommend DNG too. I researched it! 
http://digitaldog.net/files/ThePowerofDNG.pdf
https://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/
Attempt to stay OT! The question wasn’t about not using this file format but about file size of the converted DNG: read the question again! And the correct answer.

[Frans Waterlander]

Many recommend DNG too. I researched it! 
http://digitaldog.net/files/ThePowerofDNG.pdf
https://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/
Attempt to stay OT! The question wasn’t about not using this file format but about file size of the converted DNG: read the question again! And the correct answer.

One undated article and one dated 2012. And these demonstrate DNG has become the de-facto standard and that many today not recommend using it?

[digitaldog]

One undated article and one dated 2012. And these demonstrate DNG has become the de-facto standard and that many today not recommend using it?

Why is your posting goals here to get threads locked down and post off topic rubbish?
The 2012 article (and the 2nd) is as pertinent today as it was when published. Your political need to infuse your political opinions san's facts about DNG is utterly off topic.
Why don't you start your own post here, or another duplicate on PhotoNet entitled "I'm an self described expert in file formats and why I don't recommend using DNG". Then you'll be on topic and those of us that do not desire to read political topics can ignore it.
The OP asked a question you've failed to address and the question was answered before you arrived. So I can only suspect once again, based on your posting history in multiple forums, that your goal is to get Jeremy to lock another thread you’ve posted in. I don't see the goal so please, PLEASE stop and if you must post here, write something that's about the topic of the DNG puzzle about size. Assuming you have any knowledge, after all your extensive research (when, published where?) that might provide a lick of useful data to answer the specific question asked here. 

[Frans Waterlander]

The OP used DNG for the first time today, so I give him a heads-up. Any problem with that, Andrew?

[digitaldog]

The OP used DNG for the first time today, so I give him a heads-up. Any problem with that, Andrew?

What part of off topic is a foreign concept to you? No need to attempt an answer....

[digitaldog]

In an attempt to provide actual data to actually further answer a question with visual specifics, this is for Peter. Notice the fly-out comments about the options for lossy/lossless:

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

So true, so very true.
Now another advantage of DNG in LR: Fast Load data!

[Frans Waterlander]

What part of off topic is a foreign concept to you? No need to attempt an answer....

To somebody just now starting to look into DNG, no, it's not off-topic to give a heads-up about its drawbacks. I don't want people to start using DNG without knowing the drawbacks. Switching to DNG looked like the right thing to do many year ago, but now I regret having thousands of files in that format. Better safe than sorry.

[digitaldog]

OT posts continue to be mysterious concept for you. Lack of attention. That’s a drawback.

[john beardsworth]

Be aware that DNG discards proprietary camera information.

Nope, it's preserved in an unparsed metadata block.

[Jeremy Roussak]

To somebody just now starting to look into DNG, no, it's not off-topic to give a heads-up about its drawbacks. I don't want people to start using DNG without knowing the drawbacks.

Yes, of course it is off topic. Your posts have contributed nothing. Peter wasn't asking for advice on whether to start using DNG; he had a very specific query about file sizes and you've not helped to answer it by creating an argument about the advisably of converting images to that format.

Try to stay relevant.

Jeremy

[digitaldog]

Nope, it's preserved in an unparsed metadata block.

Indeed there are provisions for private metadata, good call.
But keep in my some FUD that’s OT is from someone who this week alone didn’t know the difference between a bug and a feature in ACR found in Adobe Elements. That post had to be shut down too.

[Telecaster]

Here's an actual answer to Peter's question. Sony offers two Raw file options: uncompressed and loss-y (that is, some info is thrown away) compressed. The uncompressed Raws are very big while the compressed ones are much smaller but somewhat compromised. DNG, however, offers a third option: loss-less compressed. It's compression scheme is pretty efficient, thus the size reduction.

Geezus!

-Dave-

[john beardsworth]

Yes, there is a sense of "crying wolf" a bit too often.

As for the original question, I think it's worth saying that DNG sometimes produces a smaller file size, sometimes not, and it is mostly dependent on the efficiency of the camera's compression. Some people  see this as a reason for adopting DNG, but it's better to see it as only a by-product (and not pay much attention to it).

[digitaldog]

Here's an actual answer to Peter's question. Sony offers two Raw file options: uncompressed and loss-y (that is, some info is thrown away) compressed. The uncompressed Raws are very big while the compressed ones are much smaller but somewhat compromised. DNG, however, offers a third option: loss-less compressed. It's compression scheme is pretty efficient, thus the size reduction.

Geezus!

-Dave-

Sounds quite similar to post #2 

[Frans Waterlander]

Yes, of course it is off topic. Your posts have contribute nothing. Peter wasn't asking for advice on whether to start using DNG; he had a very specific query about file sizes and you've not helped to answer it by creating an argument about the advisably of converting images to that format.

Try to stay relevant.

Jeremy

Giving a newbie to the issue a heads-up about the possible drawbacks is not OK? My posts have contributed nothing? Are we now only allowed to strictly answer a question and not digress in any way, shape or form, even if it is intended to be helpful? Good grief!