Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I don't harbor anything towards the DNG format . I've stayed pretty neutral on it for a long time. I just don't have a need for it. Never have. I'm a C1 guru have been for years.
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!
Godfrey, I hear you on how the DNG "standard" is supposed to work, but my comments are directed to the reality. That Adobe "free" software license does have a few strings attached - like in perpetuity only as long as Adobe doesn't revoke it. Which, they have the ability to do should they wish to. Adobe owns the patents, they haven't put them into the Public Domain as they would should they truly be interested only in a "universal RAW" file format that everyone can use. Adobe is the only one in the DNG drivers seat, and they intend to always stay there it looks like to me. Not judging is that good or bad, mind you. Just interpreting their license.Huh? Your statement above is terribly inaccurate.
Whether you consider DNG proprietary or not depends on whether you mean Adobe owns the standard or if you consider the standard to be 'secret' the way most proprietary standards are. Usually, proprietary carries the implication that something is not only owned by some specific company as well as that it is secret. DNG is a standard owned by Adobe but it is publicly disclosed and licensable for redistribution at no cost "in perpetuity." For more information about the Adobe Digital NeGative standard, see
Photoshop Help | Digital Negative (DNG)
All of Adobe's image processing software apps support it, of course, but so do most of the other major image processing and data asset management software packages as well. While I don't have a definitive list of which software titles do or don't support it, all of the dozen or so image processing apps I own and/or use are perfectly capable of working with DNG files to the point of their being transparent compared to native, proprietary-format raw files. That includes (outside of Lightroom and Photoshop) Flare, VueScan, OS X's Preview.app, iPhoto, Aperture, PhotoRAW, Cumulus, RPP, DarkTable, dcraw, Iridient Developer, and a couple of others I use even less frequently.
I'm surprised that there would be any issue using DNG files in Capture One at this point in time. Hasselblad, Leica, and other camera manufacturers output DNG format files as their native raw output.
G
Wow, left one Looks much better on my Screen. Specially the red.Godfrey, I hear you on how the DNG "standard" is supposed to work, but my comments are directed to the reality. That Adobe "free" software license does have a few strings attached - like in perpetuity only as long as Adobe doesn't revoke it. Which, they have the ability to do should they wish to. Adobe owns the patents, they haven't put them into the Public Domain as they would should they truly be interested only in a "universal RAW" file format that everyone can use. Adobe is the only one in the DNG drivers seat, and they intend to always stay there it looks like to me. Not judging is that good or bad, mind you. Just interpreting their license.
But what bothers me the most is the differences in the actual DNG file vs the Sony compressed ARW. For a supposed to be "transparent" file format, have a look at the differences here:
This was a strait up conversion using the Adobe DNG converter, latest version. I deliberately used my Leica 35mm Summicron so that there was no chance of additional processing by Sony to adjust for a Sony supplied lens. This is also why the ARW file shows zeros in the focal length and f stop fields. Sony does a ton of processing in the background in camera, including lens optimization routines for their lenses. This coding is in their ARW file. Does Adobe keep it for the DNG?
Please note the file size of both files. What do you figure was in the extra 5.4 Megabytes of information that Sony felt was valuable enough to save, but Adobe decided to toss out?
Note the lens focal length and f stop shown in the metadata for the ARW file, but missing in the DNG. Do you suppose that info is there in the Sony file because Sony uses it to adjust for lens distortions depending upon the Sony lens used?
These files show two different dimensions for the image and a variance in the number of actual pixels. Transparent to me means exactly the same. These files are far from equal.
The two preview jpg's baked into each file are showing a genuine color difference to my eye. The ARW preview is closer to the actual scene as shot, so I would give it the more accurate color credit. The DNG is too magenta, and has a difference in the tonal range.
I know everything is supposed to play nice with everything else in Adobe DNG Land in theory, and by the Adobe DNG license everybody should sit in a meditation circle chanting while Joan Baez sings Kumbaya in the background, but don't bother trying to open up a Hasselblad DNG in C1 - it isn't ever going to happen any more than any two of those RAW converters you named off are going to give the same transparent image. Each one of them is going to output a different looking JPG or TIFF, each colored in their own proprietary way, some of them looking better than some of the others. Or that is the way I am seeing it. Please give this a test for yourself and decide what your eyes tell you.
Thanks. That was my point exactly. I tested this myself in the past.Godfrey, I hear you on how the DNG "standard" is supposed to work, but my comments are directed to the reality. That Adobe "free" software license does have a few strings attached - like in perpetuity only as long as Adobe doesn't revoke it. Which, they have the ability to do should they wish to. Adobe owns the patents, they haven't put them into the Public Domain as they would should they truly be interested only in a "universal RAW" file format that everyone can use. Adobe is the only one in the DNG drivers seat, and they intend to always stay there it looks like to me. Not judging is that good or bad, mind you. Just interpreting their license.
But what bothers me the most is the differences in the actual DNG file vs the Sony compressed ARW. For a supposed to be "transparent" file format, have a look at the differences here:
This was a strait up conversion using the Adobe DNG converter, latest version. I deliberately used my Leica 35mm Summicron so that there was no chance of additional processing by Sony to adjust for a Sony supplied lens. This is also why the ARW file shows zeros in the focal length and f stop fields. Sony does a ton of processing in the background in camera, including lens optimization routines for their lenses. This coding is in their ARW file. Does Adobe keep it for the DNG?
Please note the file size of both files. What do you figure was in the extra 5.4 Megabytes of information that Sony felt was valuable enough to save, but Adobe decided to toss out?
Note the lens focal length and f stop shown in the metadata for the ARW file, but missing in the DNG. Do you suppose that info is there in the Sony file because Sony uses it to adjust for lens distortions depending upon the Sony lens used?
These files show two different dimensions for the image and a variance in the number of actual pixels. Transparent to me means exactly the same. These files are far from equal.
The two preview jpg's baked into each file are showing a genuine color difference to my eye. The ARW preview is closer to the actual scene as shot, so I would give it the more accurate color credit. The DNG is too magenta, and has a difference in the tonal range.
I know everything is supposed to play nice with everything else in Adobe DNG Land in theory, and by the Adobe DNG license everybody should sit in a meditation circle chanting while Joan Baez sings Kumbaya in the background, but don't bother trying to open up a Hasselblad DNG in C1 - it isn't ever going to happen any more than any two of those RAW converters you named off are going to give the same transparent image. Each one of them is going to output a different looking JPG or TIFF, each colored in their own proprietary way, some of them looking better than some of the others. Or that is the way I am seeing it. Please give this a test for yourself and decide what your eyes tell you.
This is the revocation clause:Godfrey, I hear you on how the DNG "standard" is supposed to work, but my comments are directed to the reality. That Adobe "free" software license does have a few strings attached - like in perpetuity only as long as Adobe doesn't revoke it. Which, they have the ability to do should they wish to. Adobe owns the patents, they haven't put them into the Public Domain as they would should they truly be interested only in a "universal RAW" file format that everyone can use. Adobe is the only one in the DNG drivers seat, and they intend to always stay there it looks like to me. Not judging is that good or bad, mind you. Just interpreting their license.
If you're going to have issues with that, don't get involved with ANY software development, of any kind. This kind of revocation clause is in the redistribution license of all SDK providers' products, and the Adobe clause for conditions under which they can revoke a license grant are more restrictive to Adobe than they are for virtually any other provider's license I've read.Revocation
Adobe may revoke the rights granted above to any individual or organizational licensee in the event that such licensee or its affiliates brings any patent action against Adobe or its affiliates related to the reading or writing of files that comply with the DNG Specification.
Any Compliant Implementation distributed under this license must include the following notice displayed in a prominent manner within its source code and documentation: "This product includes DNG technology under license by Adobe Systems Incorporated.”
I'm unimpressed that these differences that disturb you so much are of any significance at all. The Sony ARF raw format is damaged anyway with its 11-bit encoding, so eh? why should I care?But what bothers me the most is the differences in the actual DNG file vs the Sony compressed ARW. For a supposed to be "transparent" file format, have a look at the differences here ...
Who said I had any faith like that at all? I don't trust Adobe one wit, which is why a publicly disclosed file format for my files is so much more attractive to me than a proprietary one. I trust Sony, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, et al even less. They have a long history of making changes that degraded my options.Godfrey, blindly having trust that Adobe won't attempt to tie you into their ecosystem is naive at best. ...
LOL!"I'm done with this foolish discussion. It's a waste of time."
We'll see.
Any number of things can make a difference of 6MB between the original raw file and the DNG conversion: differences in the size of the JPEG due to resolution or compression differences, differences in the size of the sensor data due to how the OEM camera compression worked vs how DNG's lossless compression algorithm works, or whether the test was done with DNG Converter's fast load data, or other possibles.I don't know tossing 6MB into oblivion or roughly 16% of the data seems kind of like a "big deal" when you can immediately see a difference in the "untouched" file.
I'm not disputing that a "universal standard" isn't a good idea - it is. That being said converting to DNG when there's proprietary data in the original RAW is not. I think that's where the discussion turned. People simply stated that converting from the original changes the RAW in some capacity.
Yes. 70% of the world shoots photos with smart phones these days. ;-)The world mostly shoots jpg. Honestly.