This content has been marked as final. Show 5 replies
Yes, all the "extra EXIF" information in the NEF is moved over to the DNG (the entire MakerNote is copied). Even if we cannot currently understand it, it is still there in the DNG if we learn more in the future.
From what developers have said here in the past that information should be
brought over from the NEF to the DNG. Two things may prevent Adobe products
from showing it.
1. The data is encrypted and not accessible by Adobe and therefore it isn't
displayed, though being encrypted doesn't mean Adobe can't bring it over to
the DNG they just can't do anything else with it.
2. It isn't encrypted and it is brought over to the DNG Adobe just hasn't
added what is needed for it to display.
I have no idea of the Nikon software can read a DNG, if it can try loading a
converted file and see if it shows it. If not then try something like
PhotoMe, it shows tons more metadata than Adobe does and it is a free
If your Mac then you will have to find something like it for the Mac.
Thanks - that's what I wanted to hear :)
I've converted NEF files of stars. When I converted it, I found it was noisier.
I know it has been improved by many updates since I tried this, but I am unsure if it's useful to convert losslessly compressed NEF files to Losslessly compressed DNG. Do two lossless compressions heaped on top of one another not cause problems? I know some Nikon shooter such as Vincent Versace prefers using Nikon Capture NX, but personally I prefer the more intuitive interface in Lightroom and Photoshop, the latter of which I've been using for years.
I like the archival idea and the fact that the code is out there unlike Nikon's closely guarded proprietary format.
So do two lossless's = lossless(still)?????
For bright scenes the file size is slightly smaller, but when I photographed stars, the file became tiny and didn't look so hot. I will try the newer version though to see if it does a better job.
Any input on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
>Do two lossless compressions heaped on top of one another not cause problems?
I guess you are thinking of what happens, when you ZIP a compressed file, like JPEG, MPEG - or a compressed raw. That too does not cause any difference in the data, but the effectivity of the second compression is strongly reduced, even eliminated.
In the NEF->DNG conversion case the compressions are not "heaped on top of each other". The native raw data is decompressed, and then it gets compressed again, using an only slightly different method.
>For bright scenes the file size is slightly smaller, but when I photographed stars, the file became tiny
The size difference is not caused by the (really small) difference in the compression methods. The camera's computing power is much less than that of a modern desktop or laptop, and the camera has to finish fast: at 3-5-8 frames per second there is not much room for optimization. In contrast, when the DNG conversion occurs, there is enough computing power and time to fine tune the compression.
>and didn't look so hot
Have you compared the ACR result of a NEF and of the DNG? If you did not cause any difference in the conversion by different options or adjustments, then this is the product of your imagination.
However, comparing the result of the NX conversion with that of ACR is not of limited value in this respect.