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
How many are including originals?
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 11, 2020, 05:08:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2904 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  DAM Stuff
| |-+  DNG
| | |-+  How many are including originals?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: How many are including originals?  (Read 12154 times)
jconly
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


View Profile Email
« on: June 19, 2006, 08:03:03 AM »

I am currently about to convert my NEF's into DNG's, and I was wondering how many of you are curently including the original RAW files in your DNG's.  

How confident are you that you will / will not need your original RAWS in the future?  With the upcoming release of Capture NX, I will admit I am somewhat hesitant to discard my originals, but on the same note, doubling my file size isn't all that pleasing of a thought.  



Justin Conly
jconly@nauticom.net
Logged
johnbeardy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1813


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2006, 08:30:04 AM »

I'm not, but I'm also saving my raw files separately. I do think of changing this and embedding, because the file system would certainly be tidier and I'd only be managing one set of files. But it's not as if it's a pressing issue.

With NEFs you don't really double your file size. It depends on the camera, but generally DNGs are about 60% of the size of the uncompressed NEF.

John
Logged
jconly
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2006, 08:35:27 AM »

Thanks for the reply John. 
Good to know.

As far as the doubling...
I just ran a test.  My un-embedded DNG is 5.6MB while the embedded DNG is 14.  This is from a D100 uncompressed RAW. 
I have not tested this with any RAW images from my D2X.
Logged
johnbeardy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1813


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2006, 08:40:34 AM »

That would figure - D100 NEF is roughly 10Mb + 6 for the DNG. It's roughly the same for my D200 and I suspect so for your D2X.

If you were using Capture NX for individual images, embedding would be OK. But if you wanted to do a lot of pictures, I suspect extracting the NEFs would be a painful exercise. But the DNG converter does store makers' secret sauce, so I'd hope (but not expect) that NX will be smart enough to say this came from a Nikon Dxxx and treat it just like a NEF. Some may I'm a dreamer....

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


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2006, 10:00:29 AM »

The DNG compression savings for Canon are almost nil. I am transitioning to a DNG workflow by saving the original CR2 of any image rated 2 stars or higher in a subfolder. While this may add about 25% more MB per shoot, drives are getting cheaper, and I'd rather hedge my bets by having both types of files for at least the good ones. I don't like the idea of embedding, I'd rather keep the CR2s separate.

That way if I decide down the line I don't need them, they are easily purged. Or if I decide I do need them, no extraction is necessary.
Logged

Canon digital, Mac OS 10.45, iView 3.02
AlanDunne
Full Member
***
Posts: 185


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2006, 06:37:46 PM »

Justin,

I used the voting tool to say "yes, I embed the original raw". I cannot quite bring myself to throw away the originals just yet, and embedding the originals seems to simpify the file management compared to having both NEF and DNG copies of the same image.

The main downside is disk space consumption. I compensate by having part of my investment portfolio in disk and media companies. It's a veritcal integration thing ...

Cheers ... Alan
Logged
jconly
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2006, 09:29:35 AM »

Very interesting to know Alan.  Thank you.

As of now, I have chosen to embed all of my RAW originals as well.  The cost of disk space is dropping every day, so I think it makes sense to pay the extra bit of money for an extra bit of security.

Justin
Logged
piratejabez
Newbie
*
Posts: 22


tanuki86
View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2006, 01:56:14 PM »

I currently do not embed originals, but I still have most of my NEFs saved on a hard drive, and plan to keep them archived separately on DVD if I ever need to come back to them.
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2006, 03:35:32 PM »

I think this is a very reasonable strategy (although it's not what I personally do).
Peter
Logged
havezet
Full Member
***
Posts: 180



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2006, 04:50:12 AM »

I personally don't recommend that you embed your original RAW files inside the DNG. Apart from Peter's valid motivations, there is also a technical one.

The RAW file is embedded in the DNG as one (very) big Exif tag and this makes it Exif processing for these files a drag. Imagine that "conventional" Exif information is about 2-10 KB in size. With an embedded RAW file, the Exif would suddenly be up to several MBs. Even though some tools anticipate on this (at least IDimager does and it skips the embedded RAW tag if not needed), I can imagine that there are many tools that don't. If you decide to add embedded RAWs, try first if you DAM software is still able to process your DNG files with good speed.

Unlike Peter, I don't delete the RAW file but instead I shoot in CR2+JPG mode and when I import the files from the card they are automatically converted to DNG. The Downloader mirrors the original CR2 to the mentioned external drive. This leaves me with version stacks in IDimager where the CR2 file is the main version and the DNG and JPG versions are automatically stored in the stack. The JPG is defined as my Album Display version, meaning my DAM software "works" with the JPG. The DNG and the JPG extensions are defined as sidecar files of each other, meaning that file operations (copy/rename/move/delete/...), always take place on both of them, no matter if I start from the DNG or from the JPG. This minimizes all the file hassles.

Hert
Logged

Author of IDimager
http://www.idimager.com
Derekasaurus Rex
Newbie
*
Posts: 19


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2007, 01:57:27 PM »

The RAW file is embedded in the DNG as one (very) big Exif tag and this makes it Exif processing for these files a drag. Imagine that "conventional" Exif information is about 2-10 KB in size. With an embedded RAW file, the Exif would suddenly be up to several MBs. Even though some tools anticipate on this (at least IDimager does and it skips the embedded RAW tag if not needed), I can imagine that there are many tools that don't. If you decide to add embedded RAWs, try first if you DAM software is still able to process your DNG files with good speed.

Tools should not recognize the embedded RAW file as an EXIF tag. DNG is based on the TIFF standard, so all DNG data is stored as tags. The tag that stores the raw file is OriginalRawFileData and it is not an EXIF tag, hence it should not be treated as one. The behavior mandated by the TIFF standard is that tags not understood by the application should be skipped, so only poorly written applications would treat the embedded RAW as EXIF data.
Logged
havezet
Full Member
***
Posts: 180



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2007, 11:22:47 AM »

I used the word Exif tag and not Tif tag because I try to prevent becoming too technical. It is a TIF Tag indeed and is never considered part of Exif data...how would that be possible when Exif is parsed from its seperate IFD in the Exif Tif tag.
I also mentioned that the original raw tag is being skipped if needed.
Logged

Author of IDimager
http://www.idimager.com
Chris Bishop
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 472


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2007, 01:24:38 PM »

I backup my RAW's untouched and do not embed into DNG's. I have not needed to go back to my RAWs (yet)
Chris Bishop
Logged
sdwike
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2007, 09:22:05 PM »

I backup my original (renamed) RAW files to a separate directory structure as part of my import/DNG conversion, using Image Ingester Pro to automate it.  That way, I have DNG's, but also the original, untouched out-of-camera RAW files.

All three directory/folder structures (RAW_Backup, DNG_Archive and Derivatives) are identical, to allow easy location of a file of either type.
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!