«

Barry Pearson wrote:
> John Faughnan wrote:
> > For my purposes I'll stay with RAW for this next two years, then plan
> > to convert all my RAW to DNG @ 2007-2008. I figure by then metadata and
> > RAW conversion issues will be sorted out,
> I think many photographers are delaying like that for a year or two to
> see what happens. But I put various personal and descriptive metadata
> in the DNGs, so that in years to come I will be able to find my images.
> It will be too late to wait until then! ...

At this time I'm taking the (significant!) risks of entering that
metadata using iPhoto (yeah, I'm no pro) and, probably, Aperture. So
it's in the database program that holds the image. I'm making a bet
that Aperture will support exporting to images with embedded metadata
if desired.

I think a ".zip" container strategy would be interesting (similar to
what's done for OpenDoc, use a different extentsion but the .zip
format). Use the .zip format not for compression, but as a
cross-platform container. So we'd get used to moving images around as
".zip" files. The zip would have two ingredients: the DNG image
(EXIF-type metadata embedded) and the user-entered metadata in a second
ascii XML file. Application support would make this transparent.

Well, I can dream!

john

meta: DNG, metadata management, jfaughnan, jgfaughan

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Barry Pearson <> wrote:
> > Paul Rubin wrote:
> >> What is needed is for camera vendors to 1) support open formats (such
> >> as DNG) as native raw formats; ...
> > Precisely.
>
> If it takes time to convert RAW to DNG in-camera, and RAW is already
> too slow (usually slower than JPEG, probably due to I/O requirements),
> how is this going to help photographers?

DNG is a raw format. If a camera supported DNG, it would take about the
same amount of time to wrap the sensor data into a DNG file as into any
other format of raw file. A camera shouldn't convert some other faw
format to DNG - they should straight for DNG.

Furthermore, the standard (lossless) compression scheme specified for
DNG appears to be equal to the best available for raw files. If a
camera uses it, the DNG will tend to be a little less than half the
size of an uncompressed raw file.

(I believe that Canon use the same lossless compression scheme as DNG.
Paradoxically, it is "lossless JPEG compression", which has no
resemblence to the familiar JPEG compressions. I believe that is why
converting CR2s to DNGs typically doesn't reduce their size much,
compared with other cameras).

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

John Faughnan wrote:
[snip]
> At this time I'm taking the (significant!) risks of entering that
> metadata using iPhoto (yeah, I'm no pro) and, probably, Aperture. So
> it's in the database program that holds the image. I'm making a bet
> that Aperture will support exporting to images with embedded metadata
> if desired.
>
> I think a ".zip" container strategy would be interesting (similar to
> what's done for OpenDoc, use a different extentsion but the .zip
> format). Use the .zip format not for compression, but as a
> cross-platform container. So we'd get used to moving images around as
> ".zip" files. The zip would have two ingredients: the DNG image
> (EXIF-type metadata embedded) and the user-entered metadata in a second
> ascii XML file. Application support would make this transparent.
[snip]

That sounds like a non-target method. I believe the target is to hold
metadata within DNG files in XMP format.

This appears to require 2 acts of faith - to accept DNG as the future
raw format, and to accept XMP as the future metadata format. But I
believe both of these acts of faith are justified:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/
http://www.iptc.org/IPTC4XMP/
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/xmp_dng.htm

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:

>> What are the main things holding it back from even greater
>> acceptance?

> I'd say Adobe. PDF was nice until they "upgraded" the search window
> to take half the screen so you can no longer read your document!

Two things:

1) That feature, as I recall, was introduced in v6 of the free PDF
reader. It is no longer the default in v7. I personally prefered that
large search result pane, because it helped me focus directly in on the
specific instance I was looking for.

2) Fascinating though this is, how does it support your claim that
Adobe is holding back the DNG format, since it has nothing to do with
DNG?

Eric Schreiber <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
>
> 2) Fascinating though this is, how does it support your claim that Adobe
> is holding back the DNG format, since it has nothing to do with DNG?

Nikon and Canon might feel more comfortable with it if DNG had resulted from
an IETF or ISO standard. If ISO, admittedly DNG might stink.

Although PDF is wonderful, it's basically a standard that Adobe controls
and everybody else has to support. I can't imagine executives at any
digicam vendor are ecstatic about this.

Moreover, I still don't understand the advantage of DNG over Canon RAW.
If I owned a Canon, I'd archive RAW files only.

Bill Tuthill wrote:

>> Fascinating though this is, how does it support your claim that
>> Adobe is holding back the DNG format

> Nikon and Canon might feel
> Although PDF is wonderful
> Moreover, I still don't

So, the answer is actually "not at all".

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> writes:
> >> Fascinating though this is, how does it support your claim that
> >> Adobe is holding back the DNG format
>
> > Nikon and Canon might feel
> > Although PDF is wonderful
> > Moreover, I still don't
>
> So, the answer is actually "not at all".

Adobe seems quite happy with the current situation in which Nikon,
Canon, etc. keep their native raw formats proprietary and Adobe does
expensive reverse engineering to make its DNG converters. Adobe can
afford that reverse engineering effort easily enough, but it creates a
barrier of entry to potential competitors who aren't as rich. DNG
gets interesting when more camera makers adopt it as a native format.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
[snip]
> Nikon and Canon might feel more comfortable with it if DNG had resulted from
> an IETF or ISO standard. If ISO, admittedly DNG might stink.

History tells us that! What happened is:

- A long time ago, there came the well-known TIFF. (Real name TIFF
6.0). Part-developed by Aldus, and owned by Adobe for the last decade.
(Camera makers DO use this Adobe-owned specification!)

- Then came ISO's TIFF/EP. This is a raw format - there actually is an
ISO standard raw format! It built on TIFF, with Adobe's permission.
Various manufacturers used it as the basis for their own raw formats,
including Nikon and Canon. TIFF/EP has too much unnecessary variation,
lacks key things needed for archiving, and is out of date. It was
drafted in 1998, ratified in 2001, and the last plan showed it being
reviewed in 2006. This cycle time to too long.

- DNG is built on TIFF and TIFF/EP. In effect, it it TIFF/EP brought up
to date and made fit for purpose. If ISO DO review TIFF/EP, I would
expect them to use DNG as their basis.

> Moreover, I still don't understand the advantage of DNG over Canon RAW.
> If I owned a Canon, I'd archive RAW files only.

It depends on your workflow and the tools you use. For example, if you
want to put metadata into the raws for asset management or rights
management purposes, you probably need to use DNG. (That is one of the
advantages I get from it). It is the only raw format that real
archivivists are likely to think is credible, because it is
self-contained and published.

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

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "John Faughnan" <> writes:
> > I'd long hoped we'd see JPEG2000 in cameras. It looks, however, like
> > the cost of storage vs. the cost of portable power drains means
> > JPEG2000 isn't a real contender:
>
> JPEG2000 is undesirable because of patent claims limiting the number
> of implementations available. Regular JPEG is a more open format.
[snip]

I know of a patent claim on JPEG. (By Forgent). Is JPEG2000 any worse
than JPEG?

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

"Barry Pearson" <> writes:
> I know of a patent claim on JPEG. (By Forgent). Is JPEG2000 any worse
> than JPEG?

Yes, the Forgent claim appears to be bogus (per a JPEG member who used
to post here) and nobody seems to be worrying about it.