Opticallimits

Full Version: Recommendations for a RAW converter for Canon
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(10-16-2019, 06:00 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: [ -> ]DNG is just a container format (a glorified TIFF) to store the RAW data.
It's not the most space efficient, but with the low cost of mass storage today, it's not really an issue.
If one wants to have universally accessible files (esp. in the future), DNG is better than any proprietary formats.
It also allows one to use older software versions without being forced to upgrade (as in David's case).

DNG loses everything a manufacturer stores besides what you call "RAW data". That makes DNG worse than most proprietary formats, also worse than CR2/3.
(10-16-2019, 06:00 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: [ -> ]DNG is just a container format (a glorified TIFF) to store the RAW data.
It's not the most space efficient, but with the low cost of mass storage today, it's not really an issue.
If one wants to have universally accessible files (esp. in the future), DNG is better than any proprietary formats.
It also allows one to use older software versions without being forced to upgrade (as in David's case).

I don't think about costs - I just think about all the time backup processes need, all the time to read the files and that for a worse version? I would not delete the original RAW, DNG are about double the size of it - so you fill any storage 3 times faster than without DNG.

D500 is on Iridient's list of supported cameras. Unfortunately it's only for Mac...
Then there's Affinity Photo. For windows. For 40 €. "I need DNG to work my pictures in Adobe PS 6" is one of the uttermost lame excuses I ever read about DNG. But of course, it's better to stick to 3 year old concepts and complain about the workflow...
(10-16-2019, 07:02 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-16-2019, 06:00 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: [ -> ]DNG is just a container format (a glorified TIFF) to store the RAW data.
It's not the most space efficient, but with the low cost of mass storage today, it's not really an issue.
If one wants to have universally accessible files (esp. in the future), DNG is better than any proprietary formats.
It also allows one to use older software versions without being forced to upgrade (as in David's case).

DNG loses everything a manufacturer stores besides what you call "RAW data". That makes DNG worse than most proprietary formats, also worse than CR2/3.

Most data stored by manufacturers are irrelevant if one shoots RAW. The only relevant manufacturers meta-data are correction matrices which is not needed anymore if the converter applies the correction (ML only).
Color settings and other parameters related to the jpeg engine are irrelevant if one shoots RAW and post-process anyway.
For years I converted my RAF Fuji files to DNG (using Iridient) which in turn I imported into LR.
For all intent and purposes, nothing useful was missing from converting them to DNG.
Only recently I reverted to using RAF files when using C1 and now RawTherapee.
(10-16-2019, 08:35 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-16-2019, 07:02 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-16-2019, 06:00 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: [ -> ]DNG is just a container format (a glorified TIFF) to store the RAW data.
It's not the most space efficient, but with the low cost of mass storage today, it's not really an issue.
If one wants to have universally accessible files (esp. in the future), DNG is better than any proprietary formats.
It also allows one to use older software versions without being forced to upgrade (as in David's case).

DNG loses everything a manufacturer stores besides what you call "RAW data". That makes DNG worse than most proprietary formats, also worse than CR2/3.

Most data stored by manufacturers are irrelevant if one shoots RAW. The only relevant manufacturers meta-data are correction matrices which is not needed anymore if the converter applies the correction (ML only).
Color settings and other parameters related to the jpeg engine are irrelevant if one shoots RAW and post-process anyway.
For years I converted my RAF Fuji files to DNG (using Iridient) which in turn I imported into LR.
For all intent and purposes, nothing useful was missing from  converting them to DNG.
Only recently I reverted to using RAF files when using C1 and now RawTherapee.

 D500 RAW files go from 21.8 Mbs to 38mbs when converted to DNG !! ...... why it gets bigger I don't know ??

  That's a considerable burden on disc space when for safety you keep two or three images.  You also lose the focus point Nikon kindly shows in the NEF image, pity,  all other useful exposure info remains.
Having done a little reading I have found out that ......... if you use the menu setting "uncompressed RAW files" in the D500,  the dng file will be slightly smaller than the uncompressed RAW version.
 If you use "RAW lossless compression" (which I do) the adobe converter will convert the file and "uncompress" it at the same time ... making the DNG larger than the NEF lossless compressed version.  

 In camera "lossless compressed RAW" files give a greater shot capacity (200 buffer) but the conversion does not benefit hard drive disc storage capacity.

 I think that's right ...............
I Finally downloaded adobe DNG converter and tried to work with DXO... and guess what ? it refused to edit my raws because the camera is not supported, although they are in DNG format
Several warned me about DXO marketing strategy and how odd they were, now I understand them...
(10-20-2019, 09:16 PM)toni-a Wrote: [ -> ]I Finally downloaded adobe DNG converter and tried to work with DXO... and guess what ? it refused to edit my raws because the camera is not supported, although they are in DNG format
Several warned me about DXO marketing strategy and how odd they were, now I understand them...


That criticism makes no sense. Why would a camera be supported just because you change the RAW format? Does DXO magically have a correct colour profile for the camera when you DNG-ed it? Is magically known what kind of CFA is used (thinking about Fuji here, for instance)? Are all of a sudden lens correction profiles adjusted to the unknown camera? Or are perhaps sharpening functions dependent on measured AA-filter characteristics?

DXO wants to understand certain things from a specific camera, and just because you convert to DNG does not make them know more about unknown cameras.

DXO Photolab 2.3.0 does support the EOS RP.
All raw converters with DNG support would read and edit any DNG file except DXO
And all then do not take into account the camera model and its sensor/camera profiles for cameras they do not really support.
(10-21-2019, 07:07 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]And all then do not take into account the camera model and its sensor/camera profiles for cameras they do not really support.

  I think Pentax's DNG files are just a standard adobe DNG profile ....... every Pentax camera works fine with no updates required for reading new camera RAW files.
   My only experience with an unsupported NEF RAW file is from the D500, which is probably not fully supported with respect up to it's absolute profile precision, nonetheless it's images reproduce extremely similar results to the D750 ........ which is the last Nikon camera CS6 supported.
  Personally, I think it's a non issue as there is a choice of the following profiles when converting to PSD (or to your preference format) .....

...Pro-photoRGB ..... colormatchRGB ..... adobe RGB ..... and sRGB IC6 ..

 ProphotoRGB has that magic ingredient for me in that it has at least a stop better headroom in the red band ......... which is the band where digital cameras seem to struggle the most.  
 Photo media is sooo full of ...... red flowers, red clothing and other where the reds are just an ugly splodge of totally saturated reds with zero detail left, to me it just looks plug ugly .........

   ......... yet barely a word is said about it !!
Pages: 1 2 3 4