31 Replies Latest reply on Jun 18, 2009 12:58 AM by Ramón G Castañeda

    CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?

      Hi.
      So, the same questions arise with me but I can't get a definitive answer...

      1. Adobe Bridge CS3 (and I presume CS4 as well) will "Convert to DNG" upon importing from your card reader. It's a simple checkbox option. Will this function convert 5DMK2 CR2 files to DNG properly or do I need to use the standalone Adobe DNG Converter because only Bridge CS4 will do it right?

      2. If I process a CR2 file in ACR and make adjustments, then convert the CR2 to DNG, what happens to my edits saved in the XMP sidecar? Does it come along for the ride or is the XMP file now ignored forever?

      3. Are there any features/benefits/downfalls in converting to DNG first then processing it in ACR? Anything that a CR2 file offers that a DNG file does not? Is there an ACR function that is now grayed out or something?

      4. Is the quality of a DNG identical to the CR2 file? Same file size too?

      5. Will presets I've created in ACR to run against CR2 files also run against DNG files?

      6. If I convert a CR2 file to DNG and open it in, say DPP, then make changes such as sharpening and noise reduction, then open that DNG in ACR, are those changes seen or ignored?

      7. People have said "Convert to DNG. Who knows how long you will be able to read CR2 files." I'm not sure how this statement holds water -- the DNG format was only released in late 2004. It's not a long-standing standard. I could make the argument that both CR2 and DNG files have an equal chance of becoming obsolete or changing drastically. Thoughts about this?

      I've worked with raw files and a 40D for a long time now and my workflow is great for me: Import into Bridge --> Edit in ACR. If I get the new 5DMK2 I would hate to lose this functionality and I'm willing to upgrade to CS4, but why bother if CS3 Bridge's "Convert to DNG" function will convert it upon import, or if the new DNG Converter will do a whole directory in a few minutes... but I need to be sure that I don't lose any quality or functionality by doing this... and, if I decide to convert a whole year's worth of CR2/XMP files to DNG for long-term compatibility reasons, I need to be sure that all my XMP edits come along for the ride. If not, that's hundreds of hours of work gone... I might as well export to hi-quality JPG.

      Thanks,
      -Dave
        • 1. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
          Jao vdL Adobe Community Professional & MVP
          1) should be identical. No need for DNG converter with that workflow.
          2) I believe the xmp will get embedded in the dng file.
          3) No. For ACR the two files are identical. The only difference is that by default the xmp will now be stored inside the file instead of along it in xmp.
          4) They are completely identical in ACR except for the embedded jpeg which in the case of CR2 is generated by your camera. DNGs are generally a little smaller if you use the lossless compression.
          5) Yes
          6) You cannot open files in DPP anymore after converting to dng. DPP does NOT support dng, even when they come from Canon cameras. This is the one really big disadvantage of dng. You lose the ability to edit in almost every other program not made by Adobe (or Apple). Also, even if you use CR2, those changes are completely ignored by ACR anyway. ACR cannot read the changes DPP stores in metadata in the file.
          7)They are wrong. There is no more chance of losing the ability to read CR2s than DNGs. Software that currently exists will not magically stop working. In fact, except when you exchange some files between people and want to not have to ship the xmp file along, but be done with a single file, there is not much point to converting to dng and potentially quite a few drawbacks. Unfortunate but true. If you convert to dng, make sure to back up your original CR2s somewhere in the event you ever have to go back to them.
          • 2. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
            Level 1
            >Software that currently exists will not magically stop working.

            You got any PhotoCD files you want opened in Photoshop CS4? You might have a different opinion about the cessation of support if you did...

            There are no guarantees either way but the odds of an undocumented, proprietary file format having long term preservation and conservation equal to a file format that is fully documented and open is not all that great. What will happen in 10-30 years is anybody's guess but we've already seen orphaned file formats whose original manufacturers no longer offer software to access those files. Fortunately for those people who have those cameras, Camera Raw does still support them...
            • 3. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
              JayOly
              There doesn't seem to be many drawbacks to a DNG. More software reads DNG now then in the recent past and some cameras write DNG as well.

              An interesting thing about DNG is that it is essentially a TIFF. Which should come as no surprise because who has the rights to the TIFF standard (3 guesses and the first 2 don't count).

              As a programmer I can look at the DNG standard (heck Adobe even has a library that makes it really simple)and code that into software should I wish. At any point, time or OS now or in the future. Working with a TIFF is well known and DNG is really a TIFF.

              I can't do much with CR2, ORF or whatever except have a look at what Dave Coffin has done with DCRAW. The bottom line is that there are things in Olympus', Canon's and particularly Nikon's raw that nobody really knows what they are for other than the manufacturer.

              Enron, NorTel or the Royal Bank of Scotland (or Digital Equipment) seemed like rocks in the corporate world. Some of these camera companies have a lot less resources and can make any number of mistakes. And go out of business. And that would leave your CR2/ORF/etc photo archive where exactly?

              My advice - back up your keepers in the native raw if you want but convert the rest to DNG for archive and workflow.
              • 4. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                Panoholic Level 2
                Some arguments are really strange.

                > Working with a TIFF is well known and DNG is really a TIFF

                Working with a TIFF is well known, and CR2, ORW, etc. are really TIFF. There are a few exceptions, like CRW, the raw file of the Canon 10D and 300D are not TIFFs; all other Canons following those cameras create CR2.

                > The bottom line is that there are things in Olympus', Canon's and particularly Nikon's raw that nobody really knows what they are for other than the manufacturer

                Now let's make something clear: if "nobody really knows" them, then they are not taken into consideration when converting in DNG. Consequently

                a. they are not relevant,

                or

                b. the resulting DNG is inferior to the native raw file.

                Which one is your pick?

                > And go out of business. And that would leave your CR2/ORF/etc photo archive where exactly?

                Well, where exactly? Would Bibble, Apple, DxO, C1, etc. all go out of business with let's say Canon? And what about the DNG converter? Would that stop working?
                • 5. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                  Level 1
                  The argument here does not hold water. Converting a Canon proprietary file to an Adobe proprietary file doesn't make sense. Call it open all you want, it's still only in Adobe software. At best, the file will work exactly the same. At worst, information is lost. Either way, you run the same risk of obsolescence. Everything can become obsolete, only popularity saves it. In fact, both Canon and Adobe can, and probably will, adopt an entirely new "standard" at some point in the future.

                  -Dave
                  • 6. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                    Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                    The DNG format is not an "Adobe proprietary file" . It's fully documented, offered as open source, and offered to any organization, such as ISO.

                    >it's still only in Adobe software.

                    Not true. Some cameras even write DNGs to the card.

                    If you google it, you'll find a list of software that supports DNGs posted by contributors to this forum. I'm too lazy to look it up for you, as I have no stake in this.
                    • 7. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                      Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                      This is an excerpt from a message posted some seven months ago:

                      Barry Clive Pearson, "Percentage of people using DNG?" #6, 27 Sep 2008 9:51 am

                      Happy birthday DNG! 4 years old today.

                      To date, I have listed over 240 products that support DNG in some way.

                      http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm

                      At one time, products sometimes only supported DNG files from cameras that they already supported via their native raw files. That is now rarely the case. The majority of products that support DNG files do so even if they don't support the camera concerned directly.

                      I have often found products that support certain cameras only via DNG, not directly.
                      http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/dng_not_native.htm#examples
                      • 8. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                        Level 1
                        So then this begs the obvious question: why would the two largest and most popular camera makers, Canon and Nikon, still stick to their own proprietary formats, changing them along the way with newer models instead of sticking with one standard, DNG, and simply forget about ever having to create a new one? Sounds easier to stick with DNG but they don't. Manufacturers would probably want to go with the cheapest, fastest solution, yet they didn't. Why? The only explanation I can think of is that DNG is missing something.

                        Can DPP read a DNG file? Can Canon's ZoomBrowser read a DNG file? What about Nikon's Capture and Picture software? If you convert your files to DNG, you are now limited to using the Adobe software on your machine. Yes, there are probably a couple hundred software packages available out there, but realistically speaking the only thing likely to be installed on your computer is something like Photoshop. So you're stuck with it now. You can't go back and use DPP and adjust the in-camera settings, you can't go back and check the focus points, you're done. You can use ACR but hopefully nothing has been lost in the conversion process.

                        -Dave
                        • 9. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                          Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                          >the obvious question: why would the two largest and most popular camera makers, Canon and Nikon, still stick to their own proprietary formats

                          What is obvious is the answer: they have delusions of adequacy as far as software programming and they CHARGE you for their software.

                          The rest of your post doesn't deserve or require an answer.
                          • 10. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                            Level 1
                            Ramon - your belligerence is laughable, maybe you should take some medication.
                            You're also wrong about Canon's software, it is free.

                            -Dave
                            • 11. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                              Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                              Your cluelessness is amusing, David. Maybe you should take some of your mother's medication.

                              Nikon charges for their software, I don't know or care about Canon.
                              • 12. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                Panoholic Level 2
                                > The DNG format is not an "Adobe proprietary file". It's fully documented, offered as open source, and offered to any organization, such as ISO

                                The DNG format is
                                i proprietory
                                and remains so until the ISO accepts it (hopefully after modifications).

                                i Proprietory
                                does not mean
                                i secret, nor
                                i licenced.

                                Important is, that it be

                                1. fully documented (it is),

                                2. in public domain; I don't know if it is so, last time when I saw it coming up, Adobe's position was muddy ("yes, but the lawyers..."),

                                3. maintained by ISO or by some consortium, but anyway not by an entity, which subordinate the issues to their other interests (when and what updates are made). This is the expressed goal of Adobe, I don't know how far this is with ISO.

                                > Call it open all you want, it's still only in Adobe software

                                DNG is not a software but a format.

                                > Can DPP read a DNG file? Can Canon's ZoomBrowser read a DNG file? What about Nikon's Capture and Picture software?

                                These questions are irrelevant. The manufacturers do not have any interest to support the
                                i cameras
                                of their competitors; thus why would they support other file formats? This is particularly true re DPP and Zoom Browser, which are free.

                                What counts is, that all independent raw processors do support DNG.

                                > this begs the obvious question: why would the two largest and most popular camera makers, Canon and Nikon, still stick to their own proprietary formats

                                IMO there is one acceptable reason to do so: DNG does not cover manufacturer and model specific features.

                                Examples:

                                - ADL
                                - HTP
                                - dust removal

                                As the matter of fact, DNG does not even cover contrast, sharpness, saturation declared in-camera, which is essential for many photographers.

                                There has been several lengthy discussions about this issue. See RAW to DNG just some simple advice please, particularly post #42.
                                • 13. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                  Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                                  >The DNG format is proprietory

                                  There's no such word in the English language, Gabor. It's proprietary, with an a. :)

                                  And I disagree with your characterization, but that's immaterial. :D
                                  • 14. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                    > So then this begs the obvious question: why would the two largest and most popular camera makers, Canon and Nikon, still stick to their own proprietary formats, changing them along the way with newer models instead of sticking with one standard, DNG, and simply forget about ever having to create a new one? Sounds easier to stick with DNG but they don't. Manufacturers would probably want to go with the cheapest, fastest solution, yet they didn't. Why? The only explanation I can think of is that DNG is missing something.

                                    I can think of several other explanations: a) inertia; b) laziness; c) a disinclination to give other software writers any "in" on specialised features; and d) a strong desire to keep users using camera-proprietary software (that, in Nikon's case, they charge for). "Manufacturers would probably want to go with the cheapest, fastest solution" -- often enough (but not always) true, but cheapest and fastest for whom? In my experience with Nikon, certainly not always the working photographer (who's typically wedded to Photoshop and Adobe). Think back to the original D2X white balance debacle (which affected me in annoying ways)....

                                    DNG isn't really missing anything in terms of advanced feature handling -- Adobe could implement pretty much any current Nikon or Canon software feature in its DNG-handling software, given the resources and sufficient documentation from the manufacturers. It's that last bit -- sufficient documentation -- that's the stumbling block, I suspect;
                                    • 15. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                      Panoholic Level 2
                                      > There's no such word in the English language, Gabor. It's proprietary

                                      Thanks; I am slow but eager to learn English.

                                      > I disagree with your characterization

                                      Certainly there are different interpretations of the term. If you make a search, you find definitions with and w/o the component of "secrecy".

                                      However, think about if that component is relevant: if the format is secret and someone reverse engineers it, does it cease to be proprietary? IMO it does not.

                                      From Merriam-Webster:

                                      i something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker ; specifically : a drug (as a patent medicine) that is protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture

                                      The latest DNG specification, 1.2.0.0 from 2008, starts out with

                                      i All information contained herein is the property of Adobe Systems Incorporated.

                                      followed by the implication:

                                      i This publication and the information herein is furnished AS IS, is subject to change without notice, and should not be construed as a commitment by Adobe Systems Incorporated

                                      and
                                      i these
                                      are the issues making it proprietary, coupled with the fact that Adobe did not ask anyone's opinion, it was never submitted to a peer review or alike. I do understand, that the camera makers were not interested on the subject, but other software makers could have elevated the usefulness and relevance of the format.
                                      • 16. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                        Panoholic Level 2
                                        > Adobe could implement pretty much any current Nikon or Canon software feature in its DNG-handling software, given the resources and sufficient documentation from the manufacturers

                                        Funny, how firmly this is anchored in many people's mind. I read this nonsense here and on other forums regularly.
                                        • 17. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                          Level 1
                                          > Funny, how firmly this is anchored in many people's mind. I read this nonsense here and on other forums regularly.

                                          Could you be more specific about what part of it is nonsense, and why it's nonsense?
                                          • 18. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                            Level 1
                                            I'm almost sorry I started this thread, it's bordering on the ridiculous.

                                            Here's what I've learned and decided to do:
                                            1. CR2 is owned by Canon and they can do whatever they want.
                                            2. DNG is owned by Adobe and they can do whatever they want.
                                            3. It is an absolute certainty that CR2 will change in the future as it has with the 40D, 5DM2, etc.
                                            4. It is an absolute certainty that DNG will change in the future.
                                            5. DNG still has not been approved or scrutinized by ISO or the public and therefore cannot be called open source or standard by any means. It's owned by Adobe, period.
                                            6. Converting CR2 to DNG looses information specific to the camera such as focus point, HTP, and more.
                                            7. DNG cannot be edited in Canon or Nikon software.
                                            8. DNG is simply a TIFF extension language created to enhance cross-compatibility issued between software packages. It offers no real raw editing ability. In fact, it does not natively offer exposure editing. These controls are simply offered by Adobe as part of ACR just like PS offers these edits on a JPG.
                                            9. I see no convincing evidence that either format, in their existing revision, will outlast the other.
                                            10. I see no reason to spend effort converting CR2 to DNG for the sole purpose of future compatibility protection, and especially not for reasons of raw data editing.

                                            As for the remainder of this thread dealing with childish responses, I'm staying out of it.

                                            -Dave
                                            • 19. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                              Panoholic Level 2
                                              > It offers no real raw editing ability. In fact, it does not natively offer exposure editing

                                              > As for the remainder of this thread dealing with childish responses, I'm staying out of it

                                              This is your best bet as long as you don't grasp the difference between the
                                              i functionality of a program
                                              and a
                                              i data format.
                                              • 20. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                Panoholic Level 2
                                                > Could you be more specific about what part of it is nonsense, and why it's nonsense?

                                                Well, you wrote

                                                > Adobe could implement pretty much any current Nikon or Canon software feature in its DNG-handling software, given the resources and sufficient documentation from the manufacturers

                                                1. the topic is not the functionality of ACR but the
                                                i scope of features/options
                                                which can be expressed in DNG terms,

                                                2. the limiting factor is not Adobe's knowledge of the respective raw metadata format but the DNG specification.

                                                For example it took me about five minutes to locate the flag in the CR2 metadata indicating the Highlight Tone Priority option. I am sure it did not take longer for the Adobe employees either. In fact, ACR and the DNG converter
                                                b do recognize
                                                the option. However, only half of the intended consequences can be expressed in DNG terms: the intensity will be compensated by an implicite "Exposure" adjustment, but the applied curve will not be changed, for there is no such element in DNG.

                                                Adobe have recognized these problems and are acting on them: more and more metadata will be embedded in the raw file in XMP form. In fact, some of the DNG elements could and should be eliminated, i.e. moved over in XMP, leaving in DNG only the pure raw data format description and placing everything processing related in XMP.

                                                However, with XMP we have now TWO Adobe proprietory "standards" involved. Note, that the issue is not the XMP format (it is in the same position as TIFF) but "crs", the raw data specific content.
                                                • 21. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                  Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                                                  Dave,

                                                  Would it surprise you to learn that I don't see any reason to convert any of my raw files to DNG either? Well, I don't.

                                                  Nothing I wrote was meant to suggest that anybody should either.

                                                  As far as I'm concerned, the value of DNG comes from cameras that write DNG files directly to the card.

                                                  All of that however, has nothing to do with my attempting to correct misinformation being spread indiscriminately. There are plenty of reasons to choos whatever workflow you choose without having to resort to falsehoods and inaccuracies.

                                                  Trying to dismiss criticism by labeling it "childish" is extremely childish in itself. You don't convince anybody by bashing those who tell the truth.

                                                  Before you go around trying to break balls, you should learn about the subject you're discussing.

                                                  Did you ever see Adobe trying to exercise dominion over their TIFF format? What makes you think they will all of a sudden do that with the DNG format?

                                                  Excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on TIFF:

                                                  > Tagged Image File Format (abbreviated TIFF) is a file format for storing images, including photographs and line art. It is now under the control of Adobe Systems. Adobe Systems, which acquired Aldus, now holds the copyright to the TIFF specification.

                                                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF
                                                  • 22. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                    PECourtejoie Adobe Community Professional
                                                    >1. CR2 is owned by Canon and they can do whatever they want.

                                                    Agree.
                                                    >2. DNG is owned by Adobe and they can do whatever they want.

                                                    As far as I know, camera manufacturers and other raw converter writers do communicate with Thomas Knoll and his team. It has been stated that it will be submitted to ISO, like Tiff-EP that is the base for CR2, NEF...
                                                    >3. It is an absolute certainty that CR2 will change in the future as it has with the 40D, 5DM2, etc.

                                                    Yes. Maybe they'll switch to DNG to offer immediate support of the camera at release time, like other manufacturers did.
                                                    >4. It is an absolute certainty that DNG will change in the future.

                                                    Yes, but those changes will be documented.
                                                    >5. DNG still has not been approved or scrutinized by ISO or the public and therefore cannot be called open source or standard by any means. It's owned by Adobe, period.

                                                    It has already been scrutinized by the public. Whoever wants to take a look can see the SDK.
                                                    It has been submitted to the ISO, and therefore is being review now.
                                                    >6. Converting CR2 to DNG looses information specific to the camera such as focus point, HTP, and more.

                                                    No, everything is in makernotes.
                                                    >7. DNG cannot be edited in Canon or Nikon software.

                                                    True, this is the current situation, but they have everything they need to do it!
                                                    >8. DNG is simply a TIFF extension language created to enhance cross-compatibility issued between software packages. It offers no real raw editing ability. In fact, it does not natively offer exposure editing. These controls are simply offered by Adobe as part of ACR just like PS offers these edits on a JPG.

                                                    It is an attempt to solve the tower of babel issue of multiple formats, different even with the same extension.
                                                    >9. I see no convincing evidence that either format, in their existing revision, will outlast the other.

                                                    Yes, but one would need to be reverse-engineered, while the other is openly documented.
                                                    >10. I see no reason to spend effort converting CR2 to DNG for the sole purpose of future compatibility protection, and especially not for reasons of raw data editing.

                                                    This is your choice. If you prefer to have separate XMP.
                                                    • 23. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                      Level 1
                                                      Ah yes, separate XMP sidecar files. Herein lies another great debate. Most argue that carrying around a sidecar files stinks and clutters your directories. I, on the other hand, love these files. And I'll tell you why:
                                                      Backups.
                                                      Simple as that. When I backup an entire directory full of CR2 files to another drive, I never have to do that again. The only thing that ever gets backed up in the future is the XMP sidecar files, which are tiny and backup extremely fast.

                                                      -Dave
                                                      • 24. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                        Panoholic Level 2
                                                        > When I backup an entire directory full of CR2 files to another drive, I never have to do that again. The only thing that ever gets backed up in the future is the XMP sidecar files, which are tiny and backup extremely fast.

                                                        Exactly. Not only backup, but archivation too is an issue. I am archiving the adjustment parameters as well, but I don't want to re-archive the entire raw file.

                                                        Many photographers don't understand the very basic of archivation:
                                                        b always archive the original,
                                                        which is the native raw file.

                                                        However, this is not an argument against DNG: if the DNG file is read-only, then an XMP sidecar file will be created, just like with the native raw file.
                                                        • 25. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                          Level 1
                                                          Interesting. I did not know that an XMP sidecar file is created if a DNG file is marked as Read Only. That's good to know. It's a shame that an edited CR2 file contains the edit information embedded in the file instead of within an XMP. Many times I'd like to use, say, DPP to apply NR and Sharpening, but I'd like to use ACR for the rest.

                                                          -Dave
                                                          • 26. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                            Panoholic Level 2
                                                            > It's a shame that an edited CR2 file contains the edit information embedded in the file instead of within an XMP<br /><br />DPP can store the adjustment in a parameter file, but other raw processors would not recognize that.<br /><br />> Many times I'd like to use, say, DPP to apply NR and Sharpening, but I'd like to use ACR for the rest<br /><br />You seriously misunderstand how this works. We are talking about <br />i parameters for the raw processor.<br />Here is a crop from the XMP parameters:<br /><br /><PRE><br />    xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/"><br />   <crs:RawFileName>40D01784.CR2</crs:RawFileName><br />   <crs:Version>4.5</crs:Version><br />   <crs:WhiteBalance>Auto</crs:WhiteBalance><br />   <crs:Temperature>2850</crs:Temperature><br />   <crs:Tint>+21</crs:Tint><br />   <crs:Exposure>-1.20</crs:Exposure><br />   <crs:Shadows>1</crs:Shadows><br />   <crs:Brightness>+10</crs:Brightness><br />   <crs:Contrast>+50</crs:Contrast><br />   <crs:Saturation>+15</crs:Saturation><br />   <crs:Sharpness>50</crs:Sharpness><br />   <crs:LuminanceSmoothing>0</crs:LuminanceSmoothing><br />   <crs:ColorNoiseReduction>0</crs:ColorNoiseReduction><br />   <crs:ChromaticAberrationR>0</crs:ChromaticAberrationR><br />   <crs:ChromaticAberrationB>0</crs:ChromaticAberrationB><br />   <crs:VignetteAmount>+20</crs:VignetteAmount><br />   <crs:VignetteMidpoint>50</crs:VignetteMidpoint><br />   <crs:ShadowTint>0</crs:ShadowTint><br />   <crs:RedHue>0</crs:RedHue><br />   <crs:RedSaturation>0</crs:RedSaturation><br />   <crs:GreenHue>0</crs:GreenHue><br />   <crs:GreenSaturation>0</crs:GreenSaturation><br />   <crs:BlueHue>0</crs:BlueHue><br />   <crs:BlueSaturation>0</crs:BlueSaturation><br />   <crs:FillLight>0</crs:FillLight><br />   <crs:Vibrance>+15</crs:Vibrance><br />   <crs:HighlightRecovery>28</crs:HighlightRecovery><br />   <crs:Clarity>0</crs:Clarity><br />   <crs:Defringe>0</crs:Defringe><br />   <crs:HueAdjustmentRed>0</crs:HueAdjustmentRed><br /></PRE><br /><br />LuminanceSmoothing and ColorNoiseReduction are the parameters for noise reduction. If DPP would do the parameters in this or some other but metaformat, ACR or other raw processors could interpret <B>the setting</b>. However, <b>the result would be ACR noise reduction</b>.<br /><br />In order to get the DPP noise reduction result, <B>you have to convert the raw file in TIFF or JPEG by DPP</b>.
                                                            • 27. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                              Level 1
                                                              Yes, I am aware of this, and I'm glad ACR 5 can work on TIFF files now. What I really mean to say is that I wish all raw processors could work the same way. A feature lacking in one, but available in another, doesn't help much these days because you basically have to do all your adjustments from the start again in the new processor.

                                                              -Dave
                                                              • 28. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                                pete992000

                                                                One point to consider.

                                                                 

                                                                CR2 files you can not enter any metadata, keywords or anything else that I am aware of, which means converting to DNG can help you with archiving if you use the metadata.

                                                                 

                                                                This is one major issue with me and has me seriously considering converting to DNG.

                                                                 

                                                                Regards Pete

                                                                • 29. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                                  Ramón G Castañeda Level 4

                                                                  pete992000 wrote:

                                                                   

                                                                  CR2 files you can not enter any metadata, keywords or anything else

                                                                   

                                                                  Pete,

                                                                   

                                                                  As phrased, that is absolute nonsense.  Of course you can add metadata to raw files.  It will be kept in a sidecar file.  You are seriously misinformed.

                                                                   

                                                                  The primary purpse of the DNG format is to get more camera manufacturers to generate DNG files in camera.

                                                                  • 30. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                                    pete992000 Level 1

                                                                    If it's kept in a sidecar file then you are not adding metadata to the raw file? As I said earlier this is not possible to do with CR2 but is with DNG.

                                                                     

                                                                    Or am I missing something.

                                                                     

                                                                    Regards Pete

                                                                    • 31. Re: CR2 to DNG. Any loss of quality or funcionality?
                                                                      Ramón G Castañeda Level 4

                                                                      The sidecar travels along with the raw file, so, yes, you can add metadata to it.  That's why I wrote "as phrased, that is nonsense".

                                                                       

                                                                      Like many raw users, I have thousands of raw files with metadata added.