Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
DNG is not the answer - Stuart Nixon article
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 30, 2020, 02:42:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2903 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  DAM Stuff
| |-+  DNG
| | |-+  DNG is not the answer - Stuart Nixon article
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: DNG is not the answer - Stuart Nixon article  (Read 10181 times)
Joe Reifer
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


View Profile WWW Email
« on: April 03, 2006, 02:01:30 PM »

This anti-DNG article covers a lot of interesting questions and history about DNG. I am on the fence about converting my Canon CRW and CR2 files, so it's interesting to hear different opinions on this topic. The "What Does Everyone Want" section is particularly incisive.

http://www.openraw.org/node/1482
Logged

Canon digital, Mac OS 10.45, iView 3.02
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2006, 03:36:24 PM »

I've liked Stuart's writing before, and he clearly is a knowledgeable guy.  I took a look through the article, and it seems his issues come down to a few things.

1. DNG does not document what is undocumented by camera manufacturers.  While this is true, I don't see how this is really going to change.  I subscribe to the Open RAW movement, but I think it is quite unlikely to succeed.  Camera manufacturers want the ability to have their own secret sauce for image processing, and are not going to open their hand technically anytime soon.

2. He draws a lot of conclusions from the EULA (end user license agreement) for the Adobe RGB profile.  I would suggest that Adobe has been pretty open about both Adobe RGB and the TIFF format, and has done very well by encouraging openness in the field of imaging.  I'll be asking about these restrictions and see what I can find out.

He seems to skip entirely several of the most important points, notably the predictability of rendering across multiple applications.  DNG enables other applications to see RAW file rendering by use of the embedded preview.  It makes me wonder how well he understands the issues if he does not see how important this is.

He also skips over the issue of safely embedding metadata into RAW files. DNG allows this, while his preferred format, Canon, does not.

I think this is a case where the desire for one solution - openly documented RAW files - has clouded his judgment on the value of an alternate solution.  And as much as I hate to say it, I really don't see camera manufacturers changing their tunes on this issue.

Peter
Logged
Joe Reifer
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2006, 05:01:57 PM »

Hi Peter -

Thanks for your thoughts on Stuart's article. When the ideal solution isn't out there, we have to use the best tools we've got. I don't see Nikon and Canon giving up on their proprietary RAW formats anytime soon. I think Canon's strong point is definitely camera design, not software. Grin  If I'm considering who am I going to trust for file format support 5-10-20 years down the road, I'd be more likely to put my proverbial eggs in the Adobe basket. The Achilles heel of the Canon RAW format workflow is that I can't safely write metadata back to the file - which locks you in to whatever cataloging software you're using.

My current plan is to convert to DNG, but embed the original CR2 or CRW files for anything rated 2-3 stars or better. Another thought I had was to just make a subfolder called CR2 or CRW where I keep the higher rated original RAW files separate from the DNGs. Still testing & pondering what's going to be easiest. I really appreciate having these message boards for advice, too. So thanks!
Logged

Canon digital, Mac OS 10.45, iView 3.02
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2006, 07:08:31 PM »

That's a reasonable course of action in my view (either of these).
I really do think Stuart sounds the alarm a bit too stridently for the facts on the ground.  Adobe has done very well by fostering open architecture in file formats (first with typography, then TIFF, then PDF, now DNG). 

I also think he may be a bit harsh on Nikon.  My sources tell me that the whole white balance snafu was really bad engineering rather than an attempt to obscure the data.

In any case, I really don't think DNG is all that vulnerable, given that it is supported on a system level by Apple, and is going to be supported at a system level by Vista. You really don't have to trust Adobe to see that it is pretty safe.

And it is the only format in use or on the horizon that enables the user to embed a rendering of the RAW file in a wrapper that contains the RAW file data itself.  The importance of this cannot be overstated.

A few of his concerns will be addressed by the next version of the DNG spec.  There will some other improvements as well that will make DNG pull way ahead of any other solution.
Peter
Logged
Nick Rains
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2006, 03:06:52 AM »

All valid concerns but there is a way to have you cake and eat it.

Why not simply deep archive a set of original RAW files to DVD and work with the derived DNGs in other parts of the workflow/archive?

I archive everything in original formats to offline storage and keep the DNGs fully catalogued, online and backed up. There seems no real advantage to deep archiving DNGs over RAWs (as long as the file names are synchronised, which is not hard).

All the workflow advantages of DNG are very real, in fact I think crucial, but not having accurate previews of original offline RAWs does not seem a big drawback.

Incidently Peter, your book arrived today - hence my visit to this forum. Very well done, great book, and keep spreading the word! I was gratified to see that the filing/archiving system I have developed for my own work over the past year is actually surprisingly similar to yours, just less detailed. It was gratifying to have my own conclusions confirmed by the acknowledged 'bible' on the DAM subject.

Cheers

Nick Rains
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2006, 06:23:31 AM »

Nick,
Thanks for your input, and thanks for stopping by.
I think your methodology is sound (archiving RAW in addition to DNG, even instead of one of the 2 DNG backups).  Since these can be used to regenerate DNG files automatically, it's still pretty good protection.

I know that there are a number of people who came up with storage solutions similar to mine.

Peter

Logged
Michael_S
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2006, 01:20:50 PM »

Peter,
You naturally piqued my curiosity with your comments about upcoming versions of DNG and how it will "pull way ahead of any other solution".  Actually, you're killing me! Grin

Are there any other comments you are able to add to support or expand that statement?  I suspect I know the answer but my curiosity made me ask.  Kind of like a "the devil made me wear this dress" sort of thing.

As to this topic, I'm coming to a similar conclusion that I'll deep archive (what we call Write Once, Read Never = WORN) the NEFs unless Nikon Capture NX totally knocks my socks off.

Thanks,
Michael
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2006, 01:56:32 PM »

Michael,
Stuff we may see soon in the DNG spec includes multiple embedded previews, better preview compression and color space choices for previews.  Other nuts and bolts and new technoweenie stuff as well.
Of course just because it's in the spec, does not mean that any software will be able to use it yet...
Peter
Logged
Michael_S
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2006, 08:06:32 AM »

That is a great thread to read.  The change of tone is obvious as you read through it.  Unfortunately, it's a bit strident in tone by all parties but then evens out to a more pragmatic solutions-oriented feel by the end.  Stuart Nixon certainly redirected himself into productive commentary.  He should be applauded for being willing to accept clarification and corrections as they were proven.  Too many of us aren't "big enough" people to say how they made misinterpretations or errors.

I found it extremely educational to read.  This is recommended reading for anyone interested in DNG and/or the current and anticipated problems with raw file formats.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!