Adobe Digital Negative (DNG)

Adobe aimed to pull everyone into a shared standard -- like their hugely successful TIFF and PDF standards -- with the Digital Negative initiative, which has not been taken up widely (e.g., Wikipedia).

Anyone out there have any light to shed? Wishes or insights?

All the best,

Chris

By now means a brilliant software specialist but my 2 eurocents:

the raw format of each camera is specially tailored at the brilliancy and idiosyncrasies of that particular sensor. I would say that transforming these data to a DNG would just be an extra computer step (in camera or at home). In my view it is better to convert the raw to enduse, rather then taking an extra step.

Gerard

The main advantage of the DNG format (if it is as widely adopted as other formats developed by Adobe) would be ensuring the perennity of our photos (or at least extending their lifespan).

Given the fast growth of the digital camera markets, new models appear regularly, each with its own format. How could I be sure that in 25 years, the RAW converters then available (if any?) would still support my D1X RAW format, or that my current RAW converters that do support it will themselves work on the OS available then?

By now means a brilliant software specialist but my 2 eurocents:

 

the raw format of each camera is specially tailored at the brilliancy and idiosyncrasies of that particular sensor. I would say that transforming these data to a DNG would just be an extra computer step (in camera or at home). In my view it is better to convert the raw to enduse, rather then taking an extra step.

 

Gerard

16bit TIFF files are BIG. For example the raw files form my 5D are typically around 10 to 12MB the converted TIFF files are 75MB uncompressed and not that much smaller with LZW compression. That's a huge difference in disc space.

I don't know this in great detail, but from what I've read, I think it is possible to preserve all essential information in converting to DNG. I think camera makers can adopt DNG without compromising image quality if they choose to.

I'm keeping my raw files in the native format and not converting to DNG. Converting would limit my raw converter choice to essentially just Adobe, and I happen to like a least a couple of other ones better. I don't loose any sleep over the possibility that I'll not be able to find a converter for my current files in the future. For the worst case I have a copy of the source code for dcraw, but really doubt it'll ever come to that.

The idea of a standard raw format in a good one, but I don't think that the major camera makers and the other raw converter vendor would trust Adobe enough to go along. Some do. For example the Pentax K10D has a DNG output option.

Im planning on converting all my images to DNG, but for the next few years I'll archive the NEF files as well. I think it's vital that a an open and documented file format is used for images instead of a closed, secret proprietary format like Nikon's or Canon's formats. It's true that some software will no longer work after that, but I consider that a loss for those programs, not for me One less customer for them. I dont think this situation will last long though, more and more programs/manufacturers are supporting DNG.

Cor

grumble grumble

grrrrrr

more thinking required..

i hate that

if you are converting your raws to dng using the adobe DN converter, you can embedd the orginal raw in the new DNG as an option. It makes a bigger file, and I don't no how reliable extracting the original data is, as I have not tried it. You just need to check one of the check boxes in a dialogue box before converting. Anyone have experience with this?

I would be in favour of open RAW (maybe DNG), but not if it compromised the range of converters, because they all have heir strengths and weeknesses. I like the Canon converter landscapes with lots of subtle hues of green, but I hate its speed and usability.

Can anyone tell me us if their is any change to to the data in the conversion, or if it is essentially the same, just organised differently?

I think that I am right in saying that Leica, Hasseblad and now Pentax have adopted DNG as a raw file or option from their cameras. But it will still take one of the two major players to make the move and I'm not sure what the incentive is for them to do so. As photographers DNG has numerous advantages for us, as manufacturers the big two probably see it as being constrainting - commercially restrictive as well as possibly having an unknown effect of raw format development. I'm not sure what I thnk!

Other Adobe formats really didn't take off until a free reader was available. If you could open an image without Photoshop installed would help.

Other Adobe formats really didn't take off until a free reader was available. If you could open an image without Photoshop installed would help.

Funnily enough, Bibble can read native DNG files (generated by Leica cameras, for example), but cannot read Nikon RAW files converted to DNG formats, even with the original RAW files embedded inside...

I convert the .CS2 files from my 5D to .DNG as I import them. The reason for this is that the lossless compression in DNG is better than that in the .CS2 files. I see typical images shrink by 20%. When you have thousands of raw images, this really adds up. It does add time to the import step, but not dramatically more than just the download.

How could I be sure that in 25 years, the RAW converters then available (if any?) would still support my D1X RAW format, or that my current RAW converters that do support it will themselves work on the OS available then?

A very real concern!!! I cannot open images I took in 2001 (with a DCS2000 or similar..) without opening photoshop 5.5 with the required plugin, under the the old "classic" OS on my mac. It is possible that I could find a different converter somewhere, but I imagine as time goes it'll be harder and harder to find something that will open these "ancient" files. And eventually they will be lost, unless I convert each and every one of them to TIFF. One by one, as the plugin from back then doesn't have a batch option

Other Adobe formats really didn't take off until a free reader was available. If you could open an image without Photoshop installed would help.

This is only relevant for Mac users, but:

RAWs display fine in iPhoto and other bundled apps like Preview. Anyone know if DNG's do, too?