Your thoughts on DNG?

[Chris Breeze]

I'm interested to hear what people think of Adobe's DNG format. Are you using it archive your images? If so, are you also keeping a copy of the original raw files (either separately or embedded in the DNG file)? What pro's and con's have you found?
I'm planning to meet with Adobe next week at PMA and would be interested in any feedback. One of the things I think would be useful is to have a Downloader Pro plug-in which uses the Adobe DNG converter to create the DNG files automatically. This isn't possible at the moment but would help automate your workflow (although it would add considerably to the download time).

[colinmoss]

I'm interested to hear what people think of Adobe's DNG format. Are you using it archive your images? If so, are you also keeping a copy of the original raw files (either separately or embedded in the DNG file)? What pro's and con's have you found?

DNG is wholly logical - the thought of all those proprietory RAW file formats out there - getting a file off a backup CD (or DVD) in a year or so .. scary.

I am currently converting all my RAW files to DNG immediately on downloading to my PC before I even start to work on them. Oddly, I find that PhotoShop shows the thumbnail of DNG as looking better than most of the thumbnails of the Canon RAW images I started with!

I think I may amend the workflow soon and only keep the DNG version, but want to avoid being the only person using the digital negative equivalent of Betamax!

Whatever, DNG seems a good answer to a problem.

[Snapping Sam]

I'd love to see Breezebrowser Pro support DNG's - I personally use Kodak 760's and Breezebrowser doesn't support them (yet!!) - and it will save you huge efforts constantly updating your program to cope with new formats.... but give full support to DNG's and use Adobe's converter program. As soon as this happens we'll no longer archive the .DCR fils - just the DNG's. The more programs that support the DNG format the greater the pressure that will be made on camera manufactures to add or replace their own proprietry formats. As you can see from early cameras there was just one colourspace... usually sRGB but now we get a choice. I'd love to see camera options of "save DCR or save DNG" (or whatever the manufactures format)

On the downloader pro front, I think a catche to copy the exsisting format, then post process to DNG's - as many users would prefer to get their card back quickly to continue shooting... - so that cards can be copied in 3-5 mins, and then let the computer chomp away in the background.....

Have fun in Orlando - I can stongly recommend "Hooters" accross from the centre - you'll find lots to look at!

[Chris Breeze]

One issue is the loss of shooting data hidden away in undocumented MakerNotes. This is partially addressed in the latest update of the DNG converter by having the option to embed the original raw file in the DNG file (and extract it later if required).

BTW BB and BBPro can already display DNG files using the embedded thumbnail.

If the DNG converter accepted command line arguments it would be possible for a plug-in in DLPro to fire it off after the files have been downloaded. You could then remove the memory card without having to wait for it to finish.

[Evo2Me]

Theoretically DNG is a wonderful idea - if camera manufacturer choose it for in-camera saving. As long as I have to shoot camera RAW, then use a converter to get DNG, then convert the DNG into a TIFF (PSD, JPG, JP2 ...) I don't see where the advantage is.

So, the main question in my mind is: Adobe, which camera company will adopt DNG at least as one possible in-camera format?

[keff]

I am sitting very much on the fence on this issue. Irrespective of what I think of it, unless camera manufacturers take it up, then it will not suceed, as per Adobe's intentions. I doubt if I would ever not keep the original out of the camera raw file. If I did use DNG, I don't think I would want to convert as part of the download. If the plugin could be written such that it would e.g. only start converting after all downloading was complete, and then in a low priority process/thread to enable more downloads, possibly.

Steve

[rod evans]

I feel somewhat 'inadequate' that I can not add to this discussion. I understand the 'design principles' behind DNG and the need to move away from proprietary RAW solutions but.... I do not feel qualified to argue one way or the other.

IF camera manufacturers accept the DNG proposal, what will be the affect (perceived or actual) on image quality? RAW images add to the work load but allow better quality images to be created (as a sweeping generalisation). Each camera manufacturer says their own RAW is better than other any one else. Arguably, maybe it is, but this is down to the way in which the internals / software work in-camera.

If the manufacturers) move to DNG, will image quality be compromised (impaired) to make sure they fit to the DNG Standards? I have to say I don't know - can anyone give a simple answer?

I also question the 'nirvanah' of a single standard and the ability to access and process images from years ago if saved in this new format. As with all standards, surely DNG Will develop such that the standard will change possibly to the extent that you still have to rely on old copies of software to read older files?

SO... apart from all the negatives, I am quite excited by the concept of a universal standard and we (Chris that is) need to keep an eye on the developments.

Chris, if this were to go ahead (i.e. DNG support) where would it fit in development priorities and how does it rank with the outstanding list of enhancement requests?

I really do look forward to learning more about DNG .....

Thanks

Rod

[Evo2Me]

Each camera manufacturer says their own RAW is better than other any one else. Arguably, maybe it is, but this is down to the way in which the internals / software work in-camera.

If the manufacturers) move to DNG, will image quality be compromised (impaired) to make sure they fit to the DNG Standards? I have to say I don't know - can anyone give a simple answer?

RAW itself is pre-processed data, so the formats themselves are not "better" or "worse" regarding image quality; it's only what the sensor records. The differences are in the file headers, which describe the file format, have the technical details of the recording circumstances in it and contain EXIF info.

Some info is hidden from most converters (so-called "proprietary manufacturer information"), which can lead to differences in interpreting the RAW data - as any third-party converter's developer knows.

Adobe wants to change all this by setting a standard file format for RAW data. Since they develop a RAW converter themselves they are highly interested in such a standard to free developers for other tasks. Nice marketing ploy, BTW, to make their own ACR the only converter needed ...

The advantages to us photographers are: We don't need more than one RAW converter (presumably Adobe's), regardless of camera manufacturer or model. Currently it looks like DNG employs a slightly better internal structure, at least Adobe claims smaller files than with the original, proprietary formats.

Downsides: As long as DNG is not an in-camera format it just adds another step to our work flow. Adobe even asserts this in their press releases when recommending to store the original files, too. This comes after they tell us how DNG helps to save storage space ...

Many folks make a lot of the "open file format" Adobe has announced DNG to be. Well, fine, if DNG is supported directly by the camera manufacturers. Not so fine if we need to convert, for instance, an NEF to DNG before going on to the conversion into an accepted standard like TIFF or JPEG. In this case we do need Adobe's DNG convrter for the first step.

PDF is also an open standard - took some years until it became a standard (in the common sense meaning, the one easily found in the OED in every single definition). Until recently many of the big advantages of PDF couldn't be used "for free" since it took Adobe till v7 of the Reader to implement notes and commentaries into it.

Hopefully this helped a bit to understand the issue as it presents itself at the moment.

[rod evans]

Thanks for the feedback.

As a bit of a layman in this world it strikes me that the question that Chris needs to get answered using his contacts, knowledge etc. is "Are you, as camera manufacturers, going to start using DNG in your cameras as a direct output option replcing your own RAW formats?" Do Adobe have some information that indicates that the main camera suppliers will adopt DNG? Maybe you can find out for us Chris!!

If the answer is "yes" then DNG sounds good. If not, then I wonder what benefit will accrue to us (photographers) if Adobe adopt this approach. I can see the potential benefit to Adobe....

In a similar tone, what is the benefit of DNG over PSD files other than file size?

Thanks again for explaining some of the pros and cons.

[EdH]

Well, I think DNG is a good step in the right direction. I've seen a lot of proprietary formats come and go over the years (for software and hardware), and I have to say that at least using an open format helps to level the field.
I've started to save a copy of my raw files as DNG, better safe than sorry.

[jpwatters]

The shooting data is a feature that should be preserved.

I would use the option to embed the original raw file in the DNG file so later it could be extracted to workaround a issue that Adobe had yet to address.

My workflow wouild use DLpro to make DNG's with the embedded RAW. Burn the originals to CD/DVD. Then select the originals to process for cropping. After Crops are make print would be made. The DNG would then be posted to the webserver, where a one the fly thumbnail generator would render jpeg on the fly for viewing.

As of last nite our web server software vendor provided a dll ( for our testing) to allow direct web serving of raw files. This eliminates the need to generate or extract jpeg.

Cropping the raw file by generating a crop mask for the thumbnail generator to produce a cropped jpeg on the fly what we are pursuing next on the list of features.

Until BreezeSys becomes the vendor to create the one stop raw to web, raw to print workflow we will continue to collect the software for a all raw (or DNG) workflow.

Looking forward to BBP/DLpro becoming that one format, one stop workflow to produce the Do it in raw workflow.

While it has seemed a Holy Grail persuit, it now is within reach of reality to shoot and print or post to the web without having to work thru a complicated pieces of various software programs.

Without DLpro/BBPro we wouildn't have been able to get to the shoot, download, proof and post workflow.

..jpw

[mike.strock]

I like DNG for the simple fact that with DNG, BBPro supports my camera's RAW format. Since I use a camera that isn't one of the 'BIG 2', that's pretty useful to me.

But like another poster said, I don't think that DNG will catch fire until camera manufacturers pick it up and use it. Frankly, I'm not too sure that will happen.

Take lens mount types. Do you think that all the different camera manufacturers could agree to use just ONE type of lens mount? I realize it's a bit different....but still, strikingly similar.

[Chris Breeze]

Well it was interesting talking to Adobe at PMA. They are confident that the major camera manufacturers will adopt DNG as a standard and it appears the Hasselblad and Leica can already output files as DNG. DXO can also save images as DNG and I'm sure it won't be long before there will be a choice of raw converters that can convert DNG files.
I'm not planning to add DNG raw conversion in BBPro at the moment, but the next update will have improved support for displaying DNG files. Currently you can view the 256 pixel wide thumbnail and the shooting data in BBPro and need to pass the file to Photoshop CS or Photoshop Elements 3 for raw conversion.

[Graham Brazendale]

I suppose the more third party software that supports DNG; the more it will encourage the manufacturers to start inclding the shoot in DNG RAW facility.

Not very grammatical but I am sure you know what I meant.

Best Regards,

Graham.

[Graham Brazendale]

Further to my recent post I see that Adobe has just announced that Leica and Hasselblad are to support DNG. As I said the more who support DNG, the more the likelihood of Canon and Nikon supoorting DNG.

Best Regards,

Graham.