First experiences with Adobe's DNG Converter
Gene Palmiter
inside the zip file was an upgraded RAW plug-in and the DNG program. Neither
had to be installed...I just moved the old RAW plug-in to another place and
put the new one in. My Oly E-10 (4mp) takes a 7mp RAW file and the DNG was
compressed to 3.3mp for a big savings on space. It converts a folder at a
time and saves where ever one wishes. It can re-name the file and appears to
be able to add to the current file name which might be nice for cataloging
purposes.
Opening the DNG was the same as opening the ORF....that is the RAW for Oly.
From that point on its just the same as it was.
The hope is that in 20 years when no on remembers how to open an ORF the DNG
will still be supported and access to the RAW information will be retained.
--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
freebridge design group
freebridge magazine
Ryadia
>
> The hope is that in 20 years when no on remembers how to open an ORF the DNG
> will still be supported and access to the RAW information will be retained.
>
You forgot to add... In a perfect world!
Good luck.
So far only Adobe support it!
Ryadia
Gene Palmiter
world. I am saving both sorts of files for the time being....and will until
I see support in a few other places.
"Ryadia" <dont_spa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2s9tb2F...@uni-berlin.de...
Linda_N
companies) knowing what a money pig Adobe is the other companies will think
twice before allowing Adobe to control the foundation of such an important
move. They can all imagine that at some point they would have to pay Adobe
usage license fees for using the DNG, and the users are getting the 'free
for now' DNG Converter is just a way to get the public on side, but Adobe
will get money from us too in the future. Right now each company pays
nothing to use their form of raw.
Linda
"Gene Palmiter" <palmit...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pZS7d.1206$MU6.503@trndny08...
Eric Gill
news:e2U7d.3048$KF.2...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca:
> That's a wise move. I'm thinking with the industry (as in all related
> companies) knowing what a money pig Adobe is the other companies will
> think twice before allowing Adobe to control the foundation of such an
> important move. They can all imagine that at some point they would
> have to pay Adobe usage license fees for using the DNG, and the users
> are getting the 'free for now' DNG Converter is just a way to get the
> public on side, but Adobe will get money from us too in the future.
That's always possible. However, Adobe has owned Tiff for some time, and
hasn't tried anything stupid. I think they learned their lesson with Type 1
format.
> Right now each company pays nothing to use their form of raw.
And already we're seeing obsolescence of RAW formats. Adobe's idea is a
good one.
Scott Peterson
>I downloaded the new DNG converter from Adobe. The download was painless and
>inside the zip file was an upgraded RAW plug-in and the DNG program. Neither
>had to be installed...I just moved the old RAW plug-in to another place and
>put the new one in
On the web site the DNG converter is under Photoshop CS. Does anyone
know if it will work with Photoshop 7?
Scott Peterson
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one
who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Ambrose Bierce
582/594
Jeremy Nixon
> On the web site the DNG converter is under Photoshop CS. Does anyone
> know if it will work with Photoshop 7?
The converter is a stand-alone program. But PS 7 won't be able to open
the resulting DNG files.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Linda_N
news:Xns95776843E2942...@63.223.5.254...
hope that the development of the same is open source (not owned by any
specific company) otherwise us consumers will pay for it. One money hungry
company in control could put very hefty user fees on the use of the raw
after it becomes widely accepted/industry standard). This could result in
those hefty user fee costs to companies getting included in the retail price
tag for consumers to pay. Open source would prevent such greed for the most
part I suspect.
Linda
Brian C. Baird
says...
> The converter is a stand-alone program. But PS 7 won't be able to open
> the resulting DNG files.
Those dastardly Adobe folks! This is all a scheme to get us to upgrade
to Photoshop CS!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Linda_N
news:MPG.1bcb28f39...@news.verizon.net...
> In article <10m28ba...@corp.supernews.com>, jer...@exit109.com
> says...
>> The converter is a stand-alone program. But PS 7 won't be able to open
>> the resulting DNG files.
>
> Those dastardly Adobe folks! This is all a scheme to get us to upgrade
> to Photoshop CS!
>
Linda
Dave
files. Works fine if you do a File>Open.
Mark Roberts
>jer...@exit109.com wrote:
>
>> The converter is a stand-alone program. But PS 7 won't be able to open
>> the resulting DNG files.
>
>Those dastardly Adobe folks! This is all a scheme to get us to upgrade
>to Photoshop CS!
Yep. They aren't providing plug-ins for Photoshop 7, which was
superseded by CS less than a year ago.
If Microsoft (which is still supporting Windows 98 because of the public
outcry when they said they were going to discontinue support) tried this
people would be screaming bloody murder.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Drifter
wrote:
On the other hand (playing devil's advocate) If you are using a RAW
format it's probably because you want to work in 16 bit mode. If you
really want to work in 16 bit mode you really should be working with
CS.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Mark Weaver
"Drifter" <zesp...@askme.com> wrote in message
> >
> >If Microsoft (which is still supporting Windows 98 because of the public
> >outcry when they said they were going to discontinue support) tried this
> >people would be screaming bloody murder.
>
> On the other hand (playing devil's advocate) If you are using a RAW
> format it's probably because you want to work in 16 bit mode. If you
> really want to work in 16 bit mode you really should be working with
> CS.
>
Of course, you may be using RAW simply so you can select WB & exposure
compensation when you convert to 8-bit color. A RAW converter for people
who invested $400 in Photoshop 7 doesn't seem like an unreasonable
expectation.
use...@imagenoir.com
Oh please. It's a new feature, not a bugfix/upgrade to an existing
feature.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian C. Baird
use...@imagenoir.com says...
> Oh please. It's a new feature, not a bugfix/upgrade to an existing
> feature.
Obviously some people missed the overly evident sarcasm in my post.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
use...@imagenoir.com
>In article <rrt3m05m9huk9oca8...@4ax.com>,
>use...@imagenoir.com says...
>> Oh please. It's a new feature, not a bugfix/upgrade to an existing
>> feature.
>
>Obviously some people missed the overly evident sarcasm in my post.
Indeed. ;)
Russell Williams
news:e2U7d.3048$KF.2...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> That's a wise move. I'm thinking with the industry (as in all related
> companies) knowing what a money pig Adobe is the other companies will
think
> twice before allowing Adobe to control the foundation of such an important
> move. They can all imagine that at some point they would have to pay Adobe
> usage license fees for using the DNG, and the users are getting the 'free
> for now' DNG Converter is just a way to get the public on side, but Adobe
> will get money from us too in the future. Right now each company pays
> nothing to use their form of raw.
Adobe has made it an open standard. Starting to charge money for it
(actually, we couldn't charge money for the versions we've already
given away free -- it would only even be possible to charge money
for a future revision) in the future would be shooting ourselves in the
foot,
driving people away from it and costing us far more than whatever paltry
amount we could make from license fees. It would be like trying to charge
money for the next revision of TIFF (which we've obviously never done).
As for the free DNG converter, the same arguments apply there, but
our hope is that in the future you won't need it at all. The value for Adobe
(and everybody else) really kicks in if cameras support it directly. Then
you don't need a conversion step (DNG allows camera manufacturers to
continue to include private data; it just requires that the format of image
data and metadata that everybody reverse-engineers anyway be in
a standard format). The conversion step is just a waste of
your time, unfortunately necessary until it's directly supported by
cameras.
It's not a matter of altruism on Adobe's part. The biggest win for Adobe
happens if things proceed as publicly suggested -- free distribution of the
standard, and universal adoption by camera and software vendors.
Sometimes the interests of different groups coincide; it's not always a
matter
of somebody trying to win at your expense.
Russell Williams
not speaking for Adobe Systems
Linda_N
"Russell Williams" <williams...@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:EDbed.3439$Pd2.1...@monger.newsread.com...
good). I realize it would make no sense for Adobe to charge money for the
DNG converter or the use of the DNG format 'right now' which is why I said
'free for now'. The last thing I'd want to see is any file format that Adobe
develops becoming the universal standard (used by all camera companies)
because once that happens it is too late (too costly, and too much R&D to
find an alternative and convince the population to switch again to the new
format) to back out. That is exactly when Adobe is placed in the perfect
position to start charging licensing fees to manufacturers and software
developers, and even to choose to start charging the public for the DNG
converter. My trust in Adobe all of a sudden becoming a company that places
the consumer's best interests first is as close to zero as I can get while
still leaving a smidgen of hope that such an attitude shift may occur. My
opinion is that it has already been discussed and thought out at Adobe that
'for now' the use of DNG will be a free for all "until" it is used by a
large part of the market. At that point the request for fees come out.
I want to see a universal standard developed by interested parties from the
digital camera manufacturing industry, that will be a sort of open source in
that no one body owns it so nobody has the right to usage fees at any time
in the future, no matter how popular it gets.
RAW was the way for the manufacturers to avoid supporting the use of TIFF by
the way.
Linda
Linda_N
Paul J Gans
>Linda
If the format specss are public and their use not restricted,
nothing prevents folks from writing their own programs. Thus
there's no point in trying to charge for what others can produce
for free.
---- Paul J. Gans
John Doe
charging people to use it. Unlike the owners of GIF. Adobe doesn't even
charge for using the PSD format.
John
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:clgqgs$rh2$4...@reader1.panix.com...
Russell Williams
> good).
I think you're confusing me with Russell Brown. He's the creative
services director. I'm in Photoshop engineering.
> RAW was the way for the manufacturers to avoid supporting the use of TIFF
by
> the way.
That's not really true. Manufacturers have dropped support for TIFF because
it's essentially useless for digicams. TIFFs contain the same post-processed
data that the JPEGs do, so it's already lost the advantages of a raw
format. But it's not compressed, so it's huge. The image quality difference
between TIFF and the highest quality JPEGs is essentially negligible.
RAW files are much smaller and contain *more* information than a
TIFF.
Camera manufacturers had no issues with TIFF as a specification. In fact,
some of them have and do use TIFF as the *container* format for their
raw files (Canon, famously, wrote RAW files with TIF extensions that
had the thumbnail in the public data and the raw data in private areas.
Linda_N
>>the
>>digital camera manufacturing industry, that will be a sort of open source
>>in
>>that no one body owns it so nobody has the right to usage fees at any time
>>in the future, no matter how popular it gets.
>
>>RAW was the way for the manufacturers to avoid supporting the use of TIFF
>>by
>>the way.
>
>>Linda
>
> If the format specss are public and their use not restricted,
> nothing prevents folks from writing their own programs. Thus
> there's no point in trying to charge for what others can produce
> for free.
>
That is fine, Paul, and the point really. If the supposed 'universal' raw is
open source nobody gets charged for usage fees, and that won't change now or
in the future because free conversion software developed by whoever will
always be a choice for users, and manufacturers never have to pay a fee to
pass down to us (consumers).
If Adobe creates the supposed 'universal' raw and every manufacture adopts
it, there is nothing stopping Adobe from charging usage fees once their file
format is the only game in town. There is nothing stopping Adobe from
restricting the use of their source code in the future, or not distributing
SDKs for 3rd Party development, or charging an arm and leg for the SDK. Gee
haven't they already done that with another SDK? What about filters? Ring
any bells? Adobe is a money pig in my opinion who gives little care for
customer concern.
Linda
Linda_N
news:UI%ed.830$_3.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Besides Adobe owns the .TIF format and they have never done anything like
> charging people to use it. Unlike the owners of GIF. Adobe doesn't even
> charge for using the PSD format.
>
most Camera manufacturers have not supported TIFF but have instead opted to
create their own formats like RAW and NEF. TIFF is a space hog, RAW is far
better.
I can't remember the history of file formats but wasn't it only the older
Compu-Serve GIF that came with user fees to manufacturers, and was replaced
by a new (free) GIF file as a result?
JPEG almost went the same way when Unisys attempted to charge the general
public for it. Something about if you had a .jpg file on your web site you
would have to pay the user fees. Yeah Okay, whatever.
Linda
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> If Adobe creates the supposed 'universal' raw and every manufacture adopts
> it, there is nothing stopping Adobe from charging usage fees once their file
> format is the only game in town. There is nothing stopping Adobe from
> restricting the use of their source code in the future, or not distributing
> SDKs for 3rd Party development, or charging an arm and leg for the SDK. Gee
> haven't they already done that with another SDK? What about filters? Ring
> any bells? Adobe is a money pig in my opinion who gives little care for
> customer concern.
The same concern has been expressed in Adobe's DNG forum. The response
from Thomas Knoll is that Adobe are drawing up a DNG licence to
resolve these concerns. One of the Adobe documents says "Ultimately,
it may make sense to turn over DNG to an appropriate standards body
for further enhancement, so that its evolution can truly be a
collaborative effort". They have already stated that there are no
legal restrictions with use of DNG. (The specification is free to
download, as a 40 page PDF document).
But I believe these concerns miss the point of what Adobe are trying
to do. Of course they intend to make a lot of money out of this! But
they are trying to expand the marketplace, by making use of RAW more
attractive. They will then, of course, get a big slice of this
expanded marketplace! Their competitors will also benefit. This is a
"pre-competitive" move, to try to cause the digital imaging industry
to become more mature, which will benefit lots of people.
Someone/thing had to do it, and Adobe and Microsoft may have been the
only ones who could. And I prefer Adobe!
At the moment, it is the big camera manufacturers who have a
"lock-in". Especially Canon and Nikon, who could do just what some
people fear Adobe will do. What guarantees are there that you will be
able to process your archived RAW files in a few years time on your
new computer? Without paying for software from these camera
manufacturers?
Adobe will make lots of money from this if they keep it freely
available, because they will have more potential customers. Adobe will
lose credibility for ever if they go back on their statements just for
short-term gains. We have to hope the bean-counters don't get silly.
The key will be in the wording of the legal agreement. I hope it
appears soon. Meanwhile, I have switched over to DNG for some purposes
simply because it gives much smaller file sizes than manufacturers'
RAW formats. I get the same pixels whether I first use the converter,
or feed the Pentax PEF files into Photoshop CS. I guess they use the
same code! (It does currently omit one or two items of metadata, such
as the name of the lens, although it puts in the focal length used).
I don't think an SDK from Adobe is very important. I have read a
number of items in forums in which other people already have
TIFF-decoding software, and have been modifying it to access DNG. I
will be interesting to see how long it is before one of them becomes
open-source, if it hasn't already.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> That's not really true. Manufacturers have dropped support for TIFF because
> it's essentially useless for digicams. TIFFs contain the same post-processed
> data that the JPEGs do, so it's already lost the advantages of a raw
> format. But it's not compressed, so it's huge. The image quality difference
> between TIFF and the highest quality JPEGs is essentially negligible.
> RAW files are much smaller and contain *more* information than a
> TIFF.
Rule of thumb, in the case of the Pentax *ISD digital SLR (6
megapixel):
Pentax PEF: 13MB;
TIFF (8-bit colour): 18MB;
DNG default (lossless-compressed & un-interpolated): 6MB or sometimes
less;
DNG uncompressed & un-interpolated: 13MB;
DNG uncompressed & interpolated: 36MB;
DNG compressed & interpolated: 24MB
I hope Pentax starts using DNG with compression, with a firmware
upgrade! More than twice as many RAW images on a card. Hm!
I have also looked at sizes for RAW from some other cameras: sizes
reductions after conversion vary from just a little smaller to about
half the size.
Linda_N
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cb810946.04102...@posting.google.com...
> The same concern has been expressed in Adobe's DNG forum. The response
> from Thomas Knoll is that Adobe are drawing up a DNG licence to
> resolve these concerns. One of the Adobe documents says "Ultimately,
> it may make sense to turn over DNG to an appropriate standards body
> for further enhancement, so that its evolution can truly be a
> collaborative effort". They have already stated that there are no
> legal restrictions with use of DNG. (The specification is free to
> download, as a 40 page PDF document).
>
Unless Adobe were to write an agreement that was legally binding which
stated:
1. The license agreement could not change for the next 25 years;
2. and in the next 25 years Adobe would not charge any usage fees for the
use of DNG (current and new versions) or the DNG Converter (or any new
versions of DNG Converters to come in the next 25 years)
3. Allow 'free' access and usage of the source code to individual and
corporate interests who want to develop 'freeware' converters (it would be
against the agreement for anyone to use the source code to develop 'for
profit' conversion software because that would be unethical to use Adobe's
work to make money)
4. Adobe waives all rights to restrict access to the use of the DNG and DNG
Converter (including all future versions) to any company following the
'non-commercial' policy set by Adobe. This is to cover companies Adobe might
discriminate against (ie those that do not bundle Adobe software, or
otherwise advertise for Adobe with their cameras or other products) in favor
of companies that support Adobe in other business ventures.
5. It is not necessary for users of DNG or the DNG Converter to own any
Adobe software. (This products individuals using other software from being
discriminated against or forced into buying Adobe software they don't want
or need.)
Something like the above in [legally binding format] would be the only way I
would trust that Adobe isn't just making DNG free 'for now' until it becomes
'the' universal format, at which point we pay through the nose either by
companies getting charged and passing the cost down to consumers, or by
direct charge to the consumer.
On top of that comes the question if DNG is better than Canon RAW or Nikon
NEF for instance. I'm not convinced it is, but I've done very little reading
in this area yet. Why not consider Canon's RAW or Nikon's NEF as the
universal raw format since it is already out there. Why force people
(including programmers of various companies) to learn the nuances of a new
file format?
> But I believe these concerns miss the point of what Adobe are trying
> to do. Of course they intend to make a lot of money out of this!
I think everyone knows and agrees that a universal RAW file format is
necessary, but to let a money pig like Adobe who in my opinion has shown
very little interest in the consumers best interest in the past, be the
leader for the pack to follow is in my opinion a big mistake. Sure Adobe
does stuff like put out a free PDF Reader, but they charge way too much what
is in my opinion a convoluted PDF Creation program, and force people to
purchase it by putting restrictions on the source code so 3rd parties can't
create better PDF software. I stopped upgrading Acrobat because it was
riddled with bugs and what should have been the 'free' partially bug fixed
patch was instead released as a new version *choke-rip-off-choke* so it was
going to cost me another upgrade to fix what I already bought that never
worked. That type of money pig behavior is exactly what I expect to see
should Adobe be successful in making its DNG format the 'universal RAW'
format.
> At the moment, it is the big camera manufacturers who have a
> "lock-in". Especially Canon and Nikon, who could do just what some
> people fear Adobe will do. What guarantees are there that you will be
> able to process your archived RAW files in a few years time on your
> new computer? Without paying for software from these camera
> manufacturers?
>
Exactly, and that is why my earlier post said that the universal file format
should be an 'open source', 'joint venture', developed by 'many' interested
parties. Nobody should control this venture completely, and definitely not a
private sector business who has a history of putting money 'wayyyyyyy' in
front of consumer interests.
> Adobe will make lots of money from this if they keep it freely
> available, because they will have more potential customers. Adobe will
> lose credibility for ever if they go back on their statements just for
> short-term gains. We have to hope the bean-counters don't get silly.
>
Unless Adobe changes its pricing schemes to be more accommodating to the
general public (the masses) I doubt Adobe will see any increase in sales of
their software. If PS CS is needed to utilize DNG fully the only thing I see
happening is that millions of people who currently frown on pirates and
warez will all of a sudden start seeing pirates as the Robin Hoods of the
world, stealing from the scammers to give to the public.
>
> The key will be in the wording of the legal agreement. I hope it
> appears soon. Meanwhile, I have switched over to DNG for some purposes
> simply because it gives much smaller file sizes than manufacturers'
> RAW formats. I get the same pixels whether I first use the converter,
> or feed the Pentax PEF files into Photoshop CS. I guess they use the
> same code! (It does currently omit one or two items of metadata, such
> as the name of the lens, although it puts in the focal length used).
>
I'll have to take your word for that as I am not going to purchase PS CS to
find out if DNG is indeed any better than Canon gives its RAW conversion
software for free with no need to purchase other software. You don't have to
own a Canon to get the Canon RAW Conversion software for free in case
someone sends you a Canon RAW file. If someone sends me a DNG I need PS CS,
big bucks for a program most will never be able to learn without spending a
whole lot more on books and school. The dang thing is way to "patch worked"
and "mazed" for the masses, plus there is a lot of cheaper software like
Corel Paint Shop Pro that does as good, and in some cases a better job more
easily. I've heard mention that the free GIMP (which I've never used) is
even better than PS CS and PSP 9, although I've heard many laugh hard too at
such statements.
> I don't think an SDK from Adobe is very important. I have read a
> number of items in forums in which other people already have
> TIFF-decoding software, and have been modifying it to access DNG. I
> will be interesting to see how long it is before one of them becomes
> open-source, if it hasn't already.
>
Or how long it is before Adobe sues someone's butt for ruining the plan.
If open source DNG Converters are going to be allowed by 3rd Parties, and it
is in writing in a formal, legally binding agreement stemming over at least
a 25 year period I'd feel much better about Adobe (or any 1 private sector
company) have exclusive development control over a file format slated to be
adapted universally. That's all I'm saying.
Linda
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cb810946.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > The same concern has been expressed in Adobe's DNG forum. The response
> > from Thomas Knoll is that Adobe are drawing up a DNG licence to
> > resolve these concerns. One of the Adobe documents says "Ultimately,
> > it may make sense to turn over DNG to an appropriate standards body
> > for further enhancement, so that its evolution can truly be a
> > collaborative effort". They have already stated that there are no
> > legal restrictions with use of DNG. (The specification is free to
> > download, as a 40 page PDF document).
> >
> ...and Adobe has never changed a license agreement from its original?
>
> Unless Adobe were to write an agreement that was legally binding which
> stated:
> Something like the above in [legally binding format] would be the only way I
> would trust that Adobe isn't just making DNG free 'for now' until it becomes
> 'the' universal format, at which point we pay through the nose either by
> companies getting charged and passing the cost down to consumers, or by
> direct charge to the consumer.
I think we'll have to see what the licence agreement says. But I would
like an understanding of the legal situation here. DNG is published,
so doesn't that preclude any patents on it? Patents would surely be
the trickiest obstacle. (I think the GIF problem was to do with
patents, wasn't it?)
I can see how Adobe could restrict the use of the name or the logo -
the latter appears to be a trade-mark. But without a patent, what is
to stop anyone working to an identical specification? (As you can
tell, I am not a lawyer!)
> On top of that comes the question if DNG is better than Canon RAW or Nikon
> NEF for instance. I'm not convinced it is, but I've done very little reading
> in this area yet. Why not consider Canon's RAW or Nikon's NEF as the
> universal raw format since it is already out there. Why force people
> (including programmers of various companies) to learn the nuances of a new
> file format?
Chuckle! Would Nikon accept Canon's format? Or vice versa? It isn't a
matter of being "better", it is a matter of being a common
specification. As far as I can tell, the format is just as good, but
some people say that Photoshop is not as good as the RAW-processing
software of those manufacturers. And they may be correct. But if DNG
is in fact just as good a carrier of the RAW information as the
current Nikon & Canon formats, Nikon & Canon could simply accept DNG
as input to their own software, and compete on merit rather than
trying to lock-in to their own formats.
> > But I believe these concerns miss the point of what Adobe are trying
> > to do. Of course they intend to make a lot of money out of this!
>
> I think everyone knows and agrees that a universal RAW file format is
> necessary, but to let a money pig like Adobe who in my opinion has shown
> very little interest in the consumers best interest in the past, be the
> leader for the pack to follow is in my opinion a big mistake. Sure Adobe
> does stuff like put out a free PDF Reader, but they charge way too much what
> is in my opinion a convoluted PDF Creation program, and force people to
> purchase it by putting restrictions on the source code so 3rd parties can't
> create better PDF software. I stopped upgrading Acrobat because it was
> riddled with bugs and what should have been the 'free' partially bug fixed
> patch was instead released as a new version *choke-rip-off-choke* so it was
> going to cost me another upgrade to fix what I already bought that never
> worked. That type of money pig behavior is exactly what I expect to see
> should Adobe be successful in making its DNG format the 'universal RAW'
> format.
You appear to have a different experience of Adobe from me. I use
Adobe's free PDF reader, but write my own PDF using some free software
(CutePDF) that emulates a printer. It is good enough for me, but I
only write simple PDF documents, really as an alternative to uploading
Word format.
Among professional and serious hobbiest photographers, I think Adobe &
Photoshop have a lot of credibility & respect. They have faults like
other large organisations & packages, and the full Photoshop is very
expensive, but for me it is worth it. Some of the best endorsements of
DNG has come from such photographers & users of photographs. Not
because they have yet had time to evaluate it fully, but because they
see the vital need to bring rationality to RAW handling, which camera
manufacturers have turned into a bad siuation and show no signs of
wanting to get into order.
> > At the moment, it is the big camera manufacturers who have a
> > "lock-in". Especially Canon and Nikon, who could do just what some
> > people fear Adobe will do. What guarantees are there that you will be
> > able to process your archived RAW files in a few years time on your
> > new computer? Without paying for software from these camera
> > manufacturers?
>
> Exactly, and that is why my earlier post said that the universal file format
> should be an 'open source', 'joint venture', developed by 'many' interested
> parties. Nobody should control this venture completely, and definitely not a
> private sector business who has a history of putting money 'wayyyyyyy' in
> front of consumer interests.
They don't "control it completely". It will be interesting to see what
the licence agreement says, but at the moment a number of other
companies are starting to get in on the act. Adobe have started it
running, and it is hard to see how they could stop it running without
losing credibility for ever.
A number of open source products don't work to open source
specifications. Mozilla works to web standards, mainly from W3C, which
in turn tended to be based originally on a lot of private initiatives.
In fact, there is a lot of similarity between DNG and some W3C
standards. They both try to rationalise a situation that had got out
of control.
Perhaps I3A (the International Imaging Industry Association) should
have come up with DNG. Last time I checked, they didn't mention it on
their web site.
> > Adobe will make lots of money from this if they keep it freely
> > available, because they will have more potential customers. Adobe will
> > lose credibility for ever if they go back on their statements just for
> > short-term gains. We have to hope the bean-counters don't get silly.
> >
> Unless Adobe changes its pricing schemes to be more accommodating to the
> general public (the masses) I doubt Adobe will see any increase in sales of
> their software. If PS CS is needed to utilize DNG fully the only thing I see
> happening is that millions of people who currently frown on pirates and
> warez will all of a sudden start seeing pirates as the Robin Hoods of the
> world, stealing from the scammers to give to the public.
Photoshop Elements 3.0 supports DNG. (As far as I can tell, Adobe use
the same code in CS, Elements, and the free converter. They all appear
to do something similar, and support the same formats, including DNG).
I think this is not a short term strategy. I started on Photoshop LE
("free" with a scanner) then upgraded to Photoshop 6. Some percentage
of other people will do the same. Adobe surely expect most sales by
number, rather than by value, to be of Elements, etc?
> > The key will be in the wording of the legal agreement. I hope it
> > appears soon. Meanwhile, I have switched over to DNG for some purposes
> > simply because it gives much smaller file sizes than manufacturers'
> > RAW formats. I get the same pixels whether I first use the converter,
> > or feed the Pentax PEF files into Photoshop CS. I guess they use the
> > same code! (It does currently omit one or two items of metadata, such
> > as the name of the lens, although it puts in the focal length used).
>
> I'll have to take your word for that as I am not going to purchase PS CS to
> find out if DNG is indeed any better than Canon gives its RAW conversion
> software for free with no need to purchase other software. You don't have to
> own a Canon to get the Canon RAW Conversion software for free in case
> someone sends you a Canon RAW file. If someone sends me a DNG I need PS CS,
> big bucks for a program most will never be able to learn without spending a
> whole lot more on books and school. The dang thing is way to "patch worked"
> and "mazed" for the masses, plus there is a lot of cheaper software like
> Corel Paint Shop Pro that does as good, and in some cases a better job more
> easily. I've heard mention that the free GIMP (which I've never used) is
> even better than PS CS and PSP 9, although I've heard many laugh hard too at
> such statements.
It isn't a matter of whether CS is better than the camera
manufacturers' software. Some say it isn't (although I believe it is
better for me than the Pentax software). It is a matter of whether DNG
is as good as the manufacturers' own formats, and I believe it can be,
and perhaps already is. It actually isn't so different from many of
them! A number of them add their own bits to TIFF EP, and that is what
DNG does.
I asked a question on the PSP newsgroup about whether users were
interested in DNG, or indeed any form of direct RAW support in PSP. I
received no response, perhaps because people were distracted by the
Corel take-over, or perhaps because, to them, nothing good can come
out of Adobe!
I see that a few other software developers have started to make
announcements about DNG. Some are in (roughly) the "photo-editing"
business, and some are in the "asset management" or "image management"
business:
http://www.photools.com/relnotes.php
http://www.proshooters.com/digitalpro/dp3/pages/download.htm
http://www.phototeknik.com/imageduster/
http://www.breezesys.com/BreezeBrowser/support.htm#20D
I think I've seen a statement that VueScan is likely to support it -
it appears a logical format to use out of scanners too. I wonder what
the plans at GIMP are?
> > I don't think an SDK from Adobe is very important. I have read a
> > number of items in forums in which other people already have
> > TIFF-decoding software, and have been modifying it to access DNG. I
> > will be interesting to see how long it is before one of them becomes
> > open-source, if it hasn't already.
>
> Or how long it is before Adobe sues someone's butt for ruining the plan.
Their stated plan is for people to use it! How would courts treat a
retraction of such public statements? Their press release said
"without legal restrictions & royalties". They keep standing up at
events and saying this. Are there precedents for courts to support a
company that starts by making such statements, then goes back on it
years later?
> If open source DNG Converters are going to be allowed by 3rd Parties, and it
> is in writing in a formal, legally binding agreement stemming over at least
> a 25 year period I'd feel much better about Adobe (or any 1 private sector
> company) have exclusive development control over a file format slated to be
> adapted universally. That's all I'm saying.
Indeed. But I don't see how things can be worse than the current
shambles! I sense that Adobe did this partly out of despair at the
mess that the camera manufacturers have generated. As a Pentax &
Photoshop user, guess whether I would prefer Canor or Nikon or Adobe
to take control? And standards-bodies need technology as input - if
they try to be developers of "academic" standards they tend to take
too long and generate "standards" that include every private feature
wanted by individual suppliers.
J...@no.komm
ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk (Barry Pearson) wrote:
>Among professional and serious hobbiest photographers, I think Adobe &
>Photoshop have a lot of credibility & respect. They have faults like
>other large organisations & packages,
The browser in CS is one such gnarly knot. Photoshop is unresponsive on
my *DUAL* CPU while the browser is open. I have to wait a half minute
for the resizing icon to appear in the lower-right-hand corner of an
image window if the browser is open; the "info tool misses some mouse
positions, etc. The browser works in the same thread as the main
program! This is horrible programming; no need to make excuses.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Barry Pearson
> In message <cb810946.04102...@posting.google.com>,
> ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk (Barry Pearson) wrote:
>
>>Among professional and serious hobbiest photographers, I think Adobe &
>>Photoshop have a lot of credibility & respect. They have faults like
>>other large organisations & packages,
>
> The browser in CS is one such gnarly knot. Photoshop is unresponsive
> on my *DUAL* CPU while the browser is open. I have to wait a half
> minute for the resizing icon to appear in the lower-right-hand corner
> of an image window if the browser is open; the "info tool misses some
> mouse positions, etc. The browser works in the same thread as the
> main program! This is horrible programming; no need to make excuses.
Yes, I think the browser is very clunky. I wish I could still use Windows
Explorer as the browser, but Photoshop CS doesn't support the thumbnails like
Photoshop 6 used to. However, I upgraded to CS because of its RAW support. And
Windows Explorer doesn't provide that. (I only use RAW in my camera). There
may be shells or whatever that do so, but I haven't got one.
I'll do some timings to see whether the CS browser can handle a folder of DNG
files faster than it can a folder of PEF (Pentax RAW) files. But this is a bit
academic. I've pretty well decided to switch to DNG instead of PEF. I'll try
pointing the converter directly at the camera or the card, and I expect it
will convert them without having to store PEFs on my PC. I can't identify a
downside to switching to DNG, for a Photoshop user with a camera whose
manufacturer isn't a good software developer.
My position on DNG is the same as the ones here:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/news2/2004/adobe_dgn/page1.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
Barry Pearson
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:10:38 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Barry Pearson"
> <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'll do some timings to see whether the CS browser can handle a
>>folder of DNG files faster than it can a folder of PEF (Pentax RAW)
>>files. But this is a bit academic. I've pretty well decided to switch
>>to DNG instead of PEF. I'll try pointing the converter directly at
>>the camera or the card, and I expect it will convert them without
>>having to store PEFs on my PC. I can't identify a downside to
>>switching to DNG, for a Photoshop user with a camera whose
>>manufacturer isn't a good software developer.
>
> conversions. I question whether that is wise at this point in time.
> How are you guaranteed the conversion is done properly? If it isn't
> then you have lost your only true source material, no?
I recognise that what I am proposing is against Adobe's own advice! They are
currently saying that if you convert to DNG, you should still backup both
versions, until the whole scheme has developed further. (Their own reasoning
is that the converter currently omits certain metadata that future software
from the manufacturer may be able to exploit. The only one that I have noticed
is the name of the lens, but of course there may be extra stuff that could be
used to extract more value from the raw data from the sensor).
Before DNG appeared, I was already processing my PEF files in Photoshop CS
rather than via the software supplied by Pentax. While I like my camera, I
don't think Pentax are about to set the world alight by software development!
And their software doesn't fit my workflow. (They supply both stand-alone
utilities and an "import" plug-in, but don't have an easy integration between
a browser and Photoshop-processing).
I have compared what CS does with PEF files versus the DNG versions. They are
pixel-identical. (I chose pixels at random, then checked the R G B values in
both cases). This is not surprising - I'm confident that the raw-processing
software in the converter is actually a copy of the software I was already
using in CS. (They would be stupid not to re-use it this way).
I already archive the full-resolution PSD (Photoshop) versions of all the
photographs that I have taken seriously enough to work on, whether to print or
put on the web. So I will anyway be archiving all the DNGs plus a set of PSDs
of what appear to be the best photographs.
Yes, it is a risk at this early stage. I wouldn't recommend others to do this,
at least until they have examined the consequences and done sufficient tests.
But I am struggling with disc space. I get about 70 to 72 raw files on a 1GB
card, which means about 50 raw (PEF) photographs on a CD. I normally duplicate
the CDs. I can get perhaps 100 DNG files on a CD. I like the idea of reducing
the numbers of CDs I generate!
Achiving the PEFs and not the DNGs is at least as much risk as archiving the
DNGs and not the PEFs. I have little confidence that in 10 years time I will
be able to access the PEFs. I have far more confidence that I will be able to
access the DNGs.
(If I take a masterpiece, I will lock the card in a safe, and archive copies
in every format possible lots of times. If ....)
Barry Pearson
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:38:59 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Barry Pearson"
> <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I have compared what CS does with PEF files versus the DNG versions.
>>They are pixel-identical. (I chose pixels at random, then checked the
>>R G B values in both cases). This is not surprising - I'm confident
>>that the raw-processing software in the converter is actually a copy
>>of the software I was already using in CS. (They would be stupid not
>>to re-use it this way).
>
> You can subtract one image from the other. It will be easy to tell
> then if there is any difference. This is easily done in PSP, I would
> assume the same can be done in PS.
There is a perfectly logical reason why I didn't do that:
I didn't think of it! (Thanks).
I've just done it. (I tried subtracting DNG from PEF and PEF from DNG). Zero
throughout. (I tried trimming according to bottom right pixel, and it would
give an empty document).
I also just did the same with some raw files I downloaded produced by Leica
Digilux 2, Canon 20D, and Nikon D70, and they gave the same results. But all
this shows is that someone like me who uses Photoshop CS (or Elements 3.0,
presumably), will get the same results whether we access the raw directly from
Photoshop, or convert it to DNG first then access that from Photoshop. It
doesn't say that someone who currently processes their raw files some other
way (for example, the manufacturer's own software) isn't getting better
results than they would get from converting to DNG then putting it into
Photoshop. The converter isn't throwing anything away that Photoshop currently
uses, but it may well be throwing things away that some other software uses,
or that Photoshop may use in future. And if this is because DNG itself can't
cater for that information, the specification (and converter) will have to be
upgraded.
We may learn more when other packages such as Capture One support DNG, which
will probably be soon. And I would expect the manufacturers to be outspoken if
DNG doesn't support all that is needed to get the best from their cameras.
>>Yes, it is a risk at this early stage. I wouldn't recommend others to
>>do this, at least until they have examined the consequences and done
>>sufficient tests. But I am struggling with disc space. I get about 70
>>to 72 raw files on a 1GB card, which means about 50 raw (PEF)
>>photographs on a CD. I normally duplicate the CDs. I can get perhaps
>>100 DNG files on a CD. I like the idea of reducing the numbers of CDs
>>I generate!
>
> DVD burners and media are now cheap if that is such a concern.
My PC is a 3.5 year old laptop with limited ports (USB1, etc). Having replaced
my scanner (with a 5400 Elite!), bought a Pentax *ISD, and upgraded
Dreamweaver & Photoshop, all in the last few months, I would have to sell the
house and live in a cardboard box to upgrade my PC too! (I'm already learning
how to live without food). And boxes don't come with an electricity supply.
>>Achiving the PEFs and not the DNGs is at least as much risk as
>>archiving the DNGs and not the PEFs. I have little confidence that in
>>10 years time I will be able to access the PEFs. I have far more
>>confidence that I will be able to access the DNGs.
>
> My main thought was more there might be an error in the conversion
> and you might lose the original info forever given the newness of the
> format and converter.
Indeed. I suspect that it is more likely to be an omission than an algorithmic
error. That is one reason I am spending time examining this - I am not
normally an early adopter, but in this case I have specific reasons for
adopting DNG if I judge it to be safe, and I'm looking for hints of problems.
I think I would advise others without the same needs to wait about 6 months.
By that time there should be enough people and packages using DNG that we will
have a much better view of its effectiveness.
(The other reason that I am examining this is that my photographic society is
running some digital forums, and I have offered to give a talk on DNG, perhaps
in a few months time. The audience will be more interested in "what's in it
for me?" and "what are the risks?" than the technical details, and these
discussions are useful).
J...@no.komm
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>I also just did the same with some raw files I downloaded produced by Leica
>Digilux 2, Canon 20D, and Nikon D70, and they gave the same results. But all
>this shows is that someone like me who uses Photoshop CS (or Elements 3.0,
>presumably), will get the same results whether we access the raw directly from
>Photoshop, or convert it to DNG first then access that from Photoshop. It
>doesn't say that someone who currently processes their raw files some other
>way (for example, the manufacturer's own software) isn't getting better
>results than they would get from converting to DNG then putting it into
>Photoshop. The converter isn't throwing anything away that Photoshop currently
>uses, but it may well be throwing things away that some other software uses,
>or that Photoshop may use in future. And if this is because DNG itself can't
>cater for that information, the specification (and converter) will have to be
>upgraded.