This content has been marked as final. Show 33 replies
Would you burn your film negatives once you printed your pictures?
It's entirely up to you.
> is there any reason to keep the uncompressed original DNG around?
YMMV of course, depending on the camera. That is, some users have complained about the DNG conversion not including some undocumented or maverick or proprietary EXIF data. However, no one has yet complained that the missed data is in any way critical to anyone's workflow. (... I delete my Olympus ORFs ...)
If you do believe the DNG conversion is missing important data, then mention it in this thread, but definately post it at the DNG forum.
Of course not. But if the compressed DNG contains everything that the uncompressed DNG has, why keep it around?
What is your starting point? Are you starting with a RAW file from a digital camera? If you do and if you keep the RAW file safe you can delete any processed file because you can always come back and convert the RAW file. Why do you want to keep a DNG file instead of the RAW file?
>If the compressed DNG contains everything that the uncompressed DNG has
Are you willing to bet on that?
See this other post, for instance:
Jerry Beckett, "Adobe DNG file size is smaller than RAW camera files (cr2 and dng)... Any thoughts?" #20, 22 Oct 2007 5:12 am
In order to expel any doubts, justified or not, the DNG converter should go in public domain on source level. That is, if Adobe means the public and unrestricted characteristic of DNG seriously.
As of now, Adobe was not even able to state in clear-text if the published source of DNG may be used free of royalty claims, less to publish the source of the DNG converter.
On the other hand, I have to remark here, that a DNG converter is not in the DNG specification. This means, that anyone can build another DNG converter, and the code may be published.
However, there is a danger, that anyone with some brain would ignore some of the dumb DNG specifications and create a smarter file, which would muddy the anyway muddy landscape even more.
I have a Pentax K10D. It takes pictures in DNG format.
Yes, unless I read something to the contrary. So far I have not. My camera (Pentax K10D) saves in Adobe DNG format. It's actually a larger file than Pentax raw.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:05:18 -0700,
>Once I save in ACR as a lossless compressed DNG, is there any reason to keep the uncompressed original DNG around?
Several. One being holding to the capability of your manufacturer's
RAW converter, which might not support DNG. If you are sure that for
the rest of your life Adobe-centric work-flow is yours, you can delete
the camera original. Not that it makes much sense since you still
would have to back up the DNG at least once, better twice. why not
make one backup the original camera file?
Writing and Imaging
The camera's raw format *is* DNG. So why save the original?
That is categorically NOT what you said in your original post.
You're a moving target. This is what you wrote:
>Once I save in ACR as a lossless compressed DNG,
I'll try to ignore you're posts from now on, if I can remember who you are. It's a waste of time.
What G Sch said about the camera software still stands. Just try opening a lossless compressed DNG file generated by ACR in the Pentax Lab software.
Moving target? Read carefully. As I said, the camera's format is uncompressed DNG. In ACR, I save as a compressed DNG.
Where's the contradiction?
I can believe that. However, it you read the literature out there, it's far more likely that Adobe's DNG will become the raw standard, as opposed to a proprietary format by any of the camera manufacturers.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:26:27 -0700,
>Where's the contradiction?
Looking for help or looking for a quarrel?
Writing and Imaging
Looking for an intelligent discussion of an important issue. It's a legitimate question. Where's the contradiction in what I said?
He's looking for a fight alright.
There may be no contradictions just an incredibly shameless, arrogant lack of an apology for the inexcusably incomplete information in the original post. Then the poster turns snotty at the people who are trying to help him.
Perhaps Passalacqua's true last name is Passatempo. Just having fun at the expense of others. :/
Ignore him. Don't feed the troll.
> ... inexcusably incomplete information in the original post ...
I don't see anything contradictory in the OP ... it's just a simple question of the integrity of the DNG conversion, and previous threads have indicated (at least raised the question) it isn't perfect with respect to some proprietary metadata.
If the question then becomes "is any DNG a DNG, compressed or not?", then let this thread evolve without being snotty ...
(... and there's no question in my mind who's being the real snot here!)
my CA$0.02 :)
You need reading glasses. The OP asks about deleting the original "RAW" without specifying that his original RAW is, in fact, an in-camera generated DNG.
The answers he has received were and remain valid in any event.
Doubts have been expressed not just as to the metadata content, proprietary or not. Read the link provided in post #5.
Jerry Beckett - 5:12am Oct 22, 07 PST (#20 of 20)
I have also found a slight discrepancy on CR2 files shot on a 5D.
As with Barry Pearson's issue, the discrepancy was small - the Blue channel read 1 higher on the file converted into Photoshop CS3 (using the latest ACR version) via DNG.
This may not seem significant, but is enough to make us hold off from using the DNG format. If this is wrong, despite assurances that the image is identical, what other issues may be present?
>I don't see anything contradictory in the OP ... it's just a simple question of the integrity of the DNG conversion, and previous threads have indicated (at least raised the question) it isn't perfect with respect to some proprietary metadata.
>If the question then becomes "is any DNG a DNG, compressed or not?", then let this thread evolve without being snotty ...
Only Ramon would find the OP misleading and snotty. It may not have been clear that the output of the Pentax was already DNG, but this is hardly a malicious omission of information.
A recognized limitation of DNG is that is may not include private and undocumented data in the original raw file, but the utility of this data is questionable, since the DNG does include the important data necessary to render a high quality image.
According to the Adobe DNG Documenation, if the original file is a DNG, then the resulting DNG can include all the metadata in the original file. The important word here is can. I take this to mean that if the original DNG conforms to the DNG spec, then all of the data would be preserved.
Pentax wasn't even mentioned in the OP, Monkey Man.
The two-week forum fiasco had one bright side, the Ignore List. It hid all your posts from me. I hope they bring it back in the next forum incarnation.
And, no, I did not find the OP snotty. It was the original poster's later messages that were first disingenuous and then snotty.
Of course, I wouldn't expect a simian brain to understand that, so shame on me for wasting my time here.
Ramón writes ...
> Of course, I wouldn't expect a simian brain to understand that, so shame on me for wasting my time here.
As usual ... find fault in the messenger, not the message ...
In case of #25, it's a pleasure to ignore both the message and the messenger. :|
It is clear from reading the post that the OP's camera is producing uncompressed DNG , and that the OP can compress those using ACR, then wonders if the original file is still worth keeping.
Bruce, the only reason to keep the uncompressed ones would be if you want to process the images with Pentax software, if the latter does not support compressed DNGs (or any software that would not)
That said, IIRC, there was a bug with the original firmware of some pentax cameras and the DNG implementation.
If one intends to save twice the raws, and at the current price of storage, I'd also keep the original raw files, but your question is about native DNG... why not?
I'm more and more sorry to notice that, when the tone and civility of the discussion degrades on these fora, there is a common denominator.
You need to take a "Chill Pill!" I'm new at this stuff and I'm sure I will have some redundant, Stupid, Contradictory questions!
Why don't you go ahead and put me on Ignore and save yourself a lot of Grief and Pain!
Bunion ignored too. Stupid kipper.
Anymore of your childish nonsense and I'll save you the bother of ignoring other posters (i.e. you'll be set to No Access).
>It is clear from reading the post that the OP's camera is producing uncompressed DNG , and that the OP can compress those using ACR, then wonders if the original file is still worth keeping.
>Bruce, the only reason to keep the uncompressed ones would be if you want to process the images with Pentax software, if the latter does not support compressed DNGs (or any software that would not)
Just a bit of experimenting with the DNG converter. I took a 9,535 KB compressed NEF file and converted it to DNG compressed with the original raw file embedded; the resulting DNG is 17,568 KB. I extracted the embedded NEF and compared it to the original with a hex editor, and it was identical.
I then used the DNG converter again on the DNG and saved as an uncompressed DNG and the file size increased to 30,190 KB. It appears as if you can use the converter to go back and forth between compressed and uncompressed DNG.
If the original raw file were already in DNG format, it wouldn't make sense to me to embed it in the DNG file. The OP or others using a camera that writes DNGs should try similar tests.
>I'm more and more sorry to notice that, when the tone and civility of the discussion degrades on these fora, there is a common denominator.
Yes, indeed. Fortunately, Ian Lyons has issued a warning to the common denominator.
There you go again, Ian.