Are things this simple or is it me ?

[Roy]

Ok I have looked into DNG, read the DAM book etc etc but please coment on the following:

You take a shot with a camera set to RAW.  This produces a data file stored in a format specific to that OEM, eg NEF from a Nikon.  This NEF format is not open and is owned & controlled by Nikon, same rules apply to Cannons format & all of the others.  So the OEM's can give or take what they feel like & encrypt parts of the data they see fit, but there are many programs that can read this file & convert it from a RAW to say a Tif, ie RSP, Capture, Bible & lightroom for example.  Now the advantage of the RAW file is that it is pure data from your CCD or whatever sensor that your camera uses and has not be manipulated by the camera's built in software like a JPEG, except in some it becomes a lossless compressed RAW, ie D70.

So if you now convert this RAW NEF file to DNG then you can no longer use  Nikons Capture software for the conversion, but if you are not using it anyway then this is not going to be an issue so no problems here.  Ok so Nikon encrypts white balance data so that only capture can read it, if like me you spot meter or use preset white balance etc then again no problems, but could Nikon encrypt the NEF !!!!!!!!!!  ie force the use of capture even though it would be bad marketing & publicity ?

So is a DNG a generic Adobe RAW file with added features like XMP ?  If so then can you still use RSP, lightroom or bible to convert from the DNG RAW to say TIF ?

If this is the case then all we are doing is moving from a specific manufacturer file type to a generic RAW file type, which the camera should generate in the first place and then Nikons Capture would work on Nikon or Cannon RAW files.  

I feel I am missing something here or is it really just this simple ?  Same data just in a different format that may be more future proof, just that Nikon prefers to sell capture rather than just do what they do best & make cameras !!!!!  

Whats wrong with a std, PDF's are widespread so are DWG.



 

[peterkrogh]

Roy,
You've basically got it. Add one more element.  DNG allows third-party software to embed a rendering of the file in the DNG, so that any piece of software can see the file as the user has adjusted it.  This makes for speedy proofing and predictable rendering.

Some cameras will now even shoot a DNG (Leica M7, Hasselblad, Pentax).

DNG uptake is looking very good: about, I think, what Adobe was expecting/hoping.
Peter

[Roy]

Hi all

So it is really that simple,  I take my shots, delete bad ones, grade the rest & apply keywording etc, convert to DNG's and file into my digital pro catalogue. 

Then if I want certain shots I search for them in DP, find the DNG files I want then convert from DNG to say Tif using Lightroom, Bibble or RSP but not Nikon Capture.

What is all the fuss about ?  So long as I have my RAW data it does not really mater what format it takes so long as the format is usable and retains all the original info of my NEF, plus you get extra features.

As I said, Nikon may be fantastic at designing camera's but I own the copyright to the output file it produces and all of the data contained in this file should be accessable to me, Nikon cannot dictate what software I use to convert my RAW data with and should not place obstacles in my  way in order to bias me towards using their software.

I already have a grieviance with Nikon in that they do not allow me to use uncompressed RAW data with my D70, yet it could easily be done with a firmware update to be like the D200.
   

 

[peterkrogh]

Roy,
One point of clarification.  Bibble does not yet support DNG unless the camera shoots a DNG.  You might let them know you would like that feature, since Eric has said that he has not had enough user requests to support it.  (Funny, industry-leading support for all formats used to be one of Bibble's strongest features.)  I have confidence that Bibble will support it soon, as will Capture 1.

The fuss is about a couple of things.  One is an emerging technology (RAW file capture) and the economic implications.  Nikon, as you point out, wants to keep the whole imaging pipeline in-house.  Unfortunately, they have shown themselves to be pretty bad at software, file format, metadata and asset management issues.

Another is an emotional response to preservation of the "original". Many people bring analog-world thinking to the table, equating the conversion of proprietary RAW to DNG to duping film.  Not the same thing at all.

The other part is that this is pretty poorly understood, even by people who should. A year ago, I think the number of people who really understood the landscape and ramifications was very small - like in the hundreds or low thousands.  Even smart people who understand imaging better than I do (like Eric at Bibble) had *major* misconceptions about DNG.  These days, the number of people who have a good understanding of both the usefulness and the actual risks of using DNG is growing rapidly.

Peter

[Doug Pardee]

but could Nikon encrypt the NEF !!!!!!!!!!  ie force the use of capture even though it would be bad marketing & publicity ?

After the white balance encryption hulabaloo, Nikon agreed to cooperate with Adobe. So presumably if Nikon encrypted its NEF files, they would still tell Adobe how to unencrypt them. Of course, there's no guarantee that this cooperation will continue forever.

Bear in mind that Adobe is also the one who makes the NEF-to-DNG converter, so if Nikon should ever actually decide to thumb its nose at Adobe, you wouldn't be able to produce DNGs from the new NEF files. Unless someone else produced a NEF-to-DNG converter that could handle it.

So is a DNG a generic Adobe RAW file with added features like XMP ?  If so then can you still use RSP, lightroom or bible to convert from the DNG RAW to say TIF ?

Not all software supports DNG the same. As Peter Krogh already noted, Bibble only supports DNG for cameras that produce DNG natively. RSP only supports DNG for cameras that it supports in Raw form. Which means that RSP can't handle a DNG made from a D80 NEF file.

I feel I am missing something here or is it really just this simple ?  Same data just in a different format

A small but important detail is that unlike NEF files, DNG files also contain the camera's color profile. This allows programs to render the Raw data in a DNG even if they never heard of the camera. SilkyPix can do this, but RSP wasn't programmed to use that data (which is why RawShooter can't handle D80 DNGs).

That color profile has to come from somewhere. For now, for cameras that don't natively generate DNG, it comes from Adobe's measurements of some test cameras. It's possible that Canon and Nikon are reluctant to release their official color profiles to the public.

[peterkrogh]

Check Westfall from Canon was at PPPE this past weekend, and again offered many encouraging comments about DNG. I pressed him as to whether Canon would offer its own DNG conversion, but he was non-commital.
Peter