Godfrey
Well-known member
You just don't want to let this end, Jono. I will respond this one more time, then I'm unsubscribing from this message thread as I don't have the time to waste in nitpicking this topic to bits, nor do I feel it is of service to the original poster.
Actually, the fact that Adobe tools and Open Source dcraw-based tools support native .RW2 format processing already, one with and one without the inclusion of the lens correction metadata, means that .RW2 format RAW files will be exactly as processable into the future as every other RAW format out there.
When the update to the Digital NeGative Specification format to incorporate this new form of lens correction metadata has been completed, there will be no problem writing the DNG files' sensor data in mosaic form as well as linear form so that all applications honoring the DNG specification can do the appropriate processing job to the manufacturers' intent. As I stated in my original post.
One of the reasons I don't use Capture One or Aperture is incomplete support of a specification they list as supported but isn't, really.
- demosaic into channel representation, which assigns chroma values in photosite quantization space.
- gamma correction
- interpolation of photosite values to channel valued RGB pixels in 32bit, 16bit, or 8bit space
- export to target file as RGB (TIFF, JPEG, etc)
The linear representation DNG file essentially does the first of these steps, leaving all the RAW metadata inserted by the camera intact and without doing any of the gamma interpolation and other image processing adjustments.
Could you write the data as a TIFF file in this form and do the processing manually? I'm sure you could ... DNG is, after, simply a well-defined specialization of the very general TIFF file format structure (which, btw, Adobe also owns and maintains). But you'd give up the standardization of the RAW file format that the DNG specification was intended to supply.
The intent of the linear representation form is to allow generalized processing of RAW data by applications that might not yet have been updated with the mosaic decode specifics for new hardware. Not supporting it essentially reduces the scope and value of an application's DNG support.
I am not willing to waste my time researching who or what is doing what out there ... there are over 40 different applications that can consume and work with DNG files at the present time, and there are at least 10 cameras and other devices that can generate DNG files.
I believe VueScan creates linear DNG RAW files from a wide range of image scanners. I don't know of others off the top of my head.
I use Lightroom because I find it works best for my uses, and because my testing and evaluation indicates no advantage to using other software.
I test about six or seven different RAW converters every year as versions are released. I have yet to find any substantive advantage to changing my workflow on the basis of quality of output from any of them. I have seen none of the alleged "poor demosaicing" problems that you seem so bent out of shape by, and in general this insistent, picayune decomposition of every statement reflects your bias and preferences as much as my opinions reflect mine. It's a waste of time and energy to argue about it.
Yes: please just agree to disagree and stop trying to bicker with me. If you like some other software, fine. If you don't like the G1, fine. Use what you like, make nice photographs.
I'm done with this discussion. You're making this forum into DPR all over again.
ALL native RAW file formats have the same future support issue. There is nothing different about Panasonic as opposed to any others, including Nikon and Canon. Nikon, in particular, has inserted their own, private, encrypted metadata into .NEF files and only under coercion from their userbase released *some* of it to Adobe to enable Adobe to do a better job of processing NEF files.
Actually, the fact that Adobe tools and Open Source dcraw-based tools support native .RW2 format processing already, one with and one without the inclusion of the lens correction metadata, means that .RW2 format RAW files will be exactly as processable into the future as every other RAW format out there.
When the update to the Digital NeGative Specification format to incorporate this new form of lens correction metadata has been completed, there will be no problem writing the DNG files' sensor data in mosaic form as well as linear form so that all applications honoring the DNG specification can do the appropriate processing job to the manufacturers' intent. As I stated in my original post.
The DNG specification is what it is. Either you implement it fully or incompletely. In my opinion, an incomplete implementation means that you don't actually support it. Period.
One of the reasons I don't use Capture One or Aperture is incomplete support of a specification they list as supported but isn't, really.
The RAW conversion process, in first order approximation, requires the steps:
- demosaic into channel representation, which assigns chroma values in photosite quantization space.
- gamma correction
- interpolation of photosite values to channel valued RGB pixels in 32bit, 16bit, or 8bit space
- export to target file as RGB (TIFF, JPEG, etc)
The linear representation DNG file essentially does the first of these steps, leaving all the RAW metadata inserted by the camera intact and without doing any of the gamma interpolation and other image processing adjustments.
Could you write the data as a TIFF file in this form and do the processing manually? I'm sure you could ... DNG is, after, simply a well-defined specialization of the very general TIFF file format structure (which, btw, Adobe also owns and maintains). But you'd give up the standardization of the RAW file format that the DNG specification was intended to supply.
The DNG Spec includes the linearly represented DNG format. Not supporting it means you are not supporting the full DNG spec. Period. Aperture and Capture One seems to implemented with the notion that supporting a subset of the DNG spec is sufficient for their purposes. You seem to agree with that.
The intent of the linear representation form is to allow generalized processing of RAW data by applications that might not yet have been updated with the mosaic decode specifics for new hardware. Not supporting it essentially reduces the scope and value of an application's DNG support.
You can write the code to do it by signing up for the DNG use and distribution license and writing code to the specification.
I am not willing to waste my time researching who or what is doing what out there ... there are over 40 different applications that can consume and work with DNG files at the present time, and there are at least 10 cameras and other devices that can generate DNG files.
I believe VueScan creates linear DNG RAW files from a wide range of image scanners. I don't know of others off the top of my head.
And I won't be buying any of their software either. They don't fully support the DNG specification.
My comments have NOTHING to do with "liking" Lightroom.
I use Lightroom because I find it works best for my uses, and because my testing and evaluation indicates no advantage to using other software.
I test about six or seven different RAW converters every year as versions are released. I have yet to find any substantive advantage to changing my workflow on the basis of quality of output from any of them. I have seen none of the alleged "poor demosaicing" problems that you seem so bent out of shape by, and in general this insistent, picayune decomposition of every statement reflects your bias and preferences as much as my opinions reflect mine. It's a waste of time and energy to argue about it.
Yes: please just agree to disagree and stop trying to bicker with me. If you like some other software, fine. If you don't like the G1, fine. Use what you like, make nice photographs.
I'm done with this discussion. You're making this forum into DPR all over again.