Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Anyone Archive Their RAW Images as DNG's

Reply
Thread Tools

Anyone Archive Their RAW Images as DNG's

 
 
Russell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2005
Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?

If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB smaller?
Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the conversion?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2005
Russell wrote:
> Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?
>
> If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB smaller?
> Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the conversion?
>
>

Depends entirely on what the camera raw file was. A DNG will
be larger than the Foveon X3F file it was converted from,
whereas if you start with a Pentax PEF file the DNG will be
much less than the original. The data in a DNG is compressed
using lossless JPEG compression.

--
Regards

John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
james
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Russell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?
>
>If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB smaller?
>Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the conversion?


Have you tried using SHN or FLAC on them?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2005
Russell wrote:

> Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?


I just began exerimenting.

>
> If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB smaller?
> Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the conversion?



That seems a good reason to go through the conversion. There is an
involved discussion in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems under the title
something like "ACR DNG 3.x available for download".

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2005
"Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?


I just today started thinking about doing so.

> If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB
> smaller? Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the
> conversion?


Mine are *drastically* smaller -- my 12.6MB raw files seem to become
about 5MB DNGs. This makes me very happy. (I have a Fuji S2 with RAW
files that are, I suspect, a bit unusual; at least their size is
somewhat unusual).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Pearson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-10-2005
Russell wrote:
> Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?


I only archive the DNGs. Once I have DNGs in 2 places, I delete the
original Raw. This is NOT recommended practice, and contradicts Adobe's
advice.

> If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB

smaller?
> Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the conversion?


Yes, there is optional compression. Compression is lossless. It can be
reversed simply by re-converting with the option switched off. (DNG is
one of the Raw formats that the DNG Converter accepts as input).

There is also an option to embed the original Raw file inside the DNG.
Some people use that for archive purposes, because, while it has the
convenience of being one file, it offers the ability of regaining the
original Raw file as a separate file. Obviously, the result is larger,
but for the Pentax it is not as large as the sum of the 2 separate
files. I guess that is because the converter compresses the embedded
original file. (I don't use this option - I just tested it).

Another potentially useful feature is that, if you use xmp sidecar
files, the DNG Converter will embed the contents of the sidecars into
the resultant DNG, so you can archive the ACR settings as well in just
the one DNG file. (ACR 3.1 also offers this as an option).

It is absolutely clear that Adobe see DNG, not just as a common Raw
format, but also as a strategic storage (and presumably transmission)
format for future Raw workflows. It is becoming as comprehensive at the
Raw-processing stage as PSD is at the photo-editing stage.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?
>
>If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB smaller?
>Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the conversion?


Perhaps they are separated into bitplanes or nibbleplanes before
run-length comression. The higher order bits don't change very
frequently.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
John Bean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Depends entirely on what the camera raw file was. A DNG will
>be larger than the Foveon X3F file it was converted from,


Speaking of xf3 files, I must say that after looking at the RAW data in
some of them very closely, it seems that as three separate greyscale
channels, or one (combined), noise is extremely low, and readout
artifacts are almost non-existent. It's just a shame that the data is
very hard to get accurate hue info from. I'm sure that the SD10 makes
an excellent camera to make 3.4MP greyscale images from, albeit with a
little aliasing.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone archive their RAW images as DNG's?
>>
>>If so, have you noticed that the DNG file sizes are approx. 1-2MB smaller?
>>Why is this, are they compressed slightly during the conversion?

>
>
> Perhaps they are separated into bitplanes or nibbleplanes before
> run-length comression. The higher order bits don't change very
> frequently.


DNG uses lossless JPEG compression, it's fully documented by
Adobe so no need for guesswork.

--
Regards

John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prophets are honored by everyone, except the people of their hometownand their own family. Eljee Digital Photography 8 09-21-2006 05:35 AM
How pros archive their photos? Hitchkas Digital Photography 22 08-30-2006 03:03 PM
Since MSN CHAT went pay per use. Is their any other free ones out their Hugh Computer Support 8 05-19-2004 05:52 PM
What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras. Dan Sullivan Digital Photography 21 01-04-2004 04:40 PM
Stop Spammers by Hitting Their Servers - Not Their Email. Magic347 Computer Support 27 07-03-2003 04:36 PM



Advertisments