Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
The buffer goes down to 6 shots from 7 and it takes a bit longer to write. The DNGs on my DP2Q are around 100-110MB each, roughly double the size of the X3F files.I'm super excited to see Sigma supporting DNG raws. SFD is interesting too.
It's a bit unfortunate that the DNGs are 150MB though. How's the camera perform speed-wise when shooting DNG vs. X3F?
You and I have both ruined photos using too small apertures. F4 to f6.3 (f5.6 better) is perfect. Will SFD prevent diffraction?That looks very good. My shots of Flamstead church from last year were ruined by diffraction - I was shooting at f11, so I'd be interested to go back and try it again with the new firmware and stacking in the future. I'll give the dng's a go tomorrow on my walk to work.
LouisB
The OOC DNGs are uncompressed, you can run Adobe's DNG converter or ACR to save them with lossless compression. Extra step but... if serious about shooting DNG then probably worth it.It's a bit unfortunate that the DNGs are 150MB though. How's the camera perform speed-wise when shooting DNG vs. X3F?
I think you will find that DNGs are superior to the X3F files. I've got to play with them more but the results so far are very promissing.Thank you, I had some fun playing around with these in Lightroom last night. I haven't shot a Quattro for a couple of years now, so it's hard for me to comment on the differences prior to the 2.0 firmware. I'm mostly editing A7rII files these days, which are of course much more resilient to push/pull in post than these Quattro files.
On the plus side though, LR's processing of Sigma's DNG files is SUPER fast compared to my Sony RAWs. At first I thought it was just 42MP vs 19MP files, but I opened up some of my old GF1 12MP RAWs and editing the Sigmas was still smoother. The option of shooting DNG does make the Quattro lineup more appealing to me (if I could get past the form-factor). I did note that the camera RAW profiles are available to select in LR as well if you want them (standard, vivid, landscape, etc...).
The question still stands whether DNG is inferior to X3F though. Early testing from others shows that you can use Adobe's converter to compress the ~100MB DNGs down to 33~50MB, which suggests at least a similar level of detail to typical ~45MB X3Fs. Have you tried any back-to-back testing between the two RAW formats?
I guess I wasn't very clear what I meant about the file sizes. I think I read somewhere that what Sigma is doing with their DNG RAWs is just a rough and dirty bit translation from RAW, which results in a much larger DNG file size. What that suggests to me is that there's little to no loss in data when using the DNGs instead of X3F, but it's hard to say for sure without some testing.I think you will find that DNGs are superior to the X3F files. I've got to play with them more but the results so far are very promissing.
I don't quite understand the idea of compressing the DNGs. I'm not familiar with how that affects files. You seem to imply it improves detail but that seems counter-intuitive to me.
LouisB
Yes, to be accurate I'll have to use a tripod but I will give it a try some time this weekend.I guess I wasn't very clear what I meant about the file sizes. I think I read somewhere that what Sigma is doing with their DNG RAWs is just a rough and dirty bit translation from RAW, which results in a much larger DNG file size. What that suggests to me is that there's little to no loss in data when using the DNGs instead of X3F, but it's hard to say for sure without some testing.
Adobe's DNG Converter does a lossless compression algorithm to get the file size down to 33-50MB, which matches closely the X3F file size. If it were much smaller, I would suspect there is some loss but this at least suggests there is a lot of data in the DNG (compared to a 10MB or so jpg). Sigma could potentially do a similar lossless compression in-camera, but I'm guessing the various Quattro processors simply aren't powerful enough to do so in a reasonable time. I think Lightroom allows for automatic compression on import, but I didn't try it yet.
If you have time, could you take a DNG and X3F file or the same subject to compare?
I see the opposite in my tests. The DNG and X3F are very similar with a slight edge for the X3F in shadow quality after boosting them.I think you will find that DNGs are superior to the X3F files. I've got to play with them more but the results so far are very promissing.
Someone on DPR was showing this as well, but also noted that if you increase the color NR to 50 or so in LR, the two look very close. It may be that SPP's color NR is just more aggressive by default.I see the opposite in my tests. The DNG and X3F are very similar with a slight edge for the X3F in shadow quality after boosting them.
Also in the highlights there seems to be a minimal advantage for the X3F. And then there are some color artifacts in the DNG that the X3F seems to render better. Also blues can look different.
Hi TomBy design, linear DNGs are open to interpretation by RAW developer software (discovered having pitted Iridient vs ACR); no colour space, white balance or gamma is applied.
Regards blues, SPP and the JPG engine correct the cyan cast that appears inherent in Foveon files, thankfully it's very easy to do manually. With DNG, it's also possible to profile the camera to apply this correction automatically in a way that's not possible with the X3F!
Due to using the in-camera colour conversion and noise reduction routines, X3F will prove superior until SIGMA greatly improve camera processing power; that would allow for NLM which appears superior for denoising Foveon RAW data.
Cheers,
Tom.