Are you converting your RAW images to DNG?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JC Dill, Oct 8, 2006.

  1. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    So why then are you blithering about the Adobe SDK being freely
    available with no hoops, when that appears to not be true?
    There are none. NEF and CR2 suck. DNG as far as I can tell does not
    solve that problem. If I have a camera that makes NEF files, there is
    no documented way to convert them to images in standard formats. I
    have to rely on either a reverse-engineered workaround (dcraw) or a
    proprietary, closed source converter whose workings are undocumented.
    I don't understand what difference that is supposed to make.
    The judgement criteria are up to the person doing the judging. As I
    see it, the criterion is whether it solves the problem of cameras
    making RAW files in undocumented formats. It has been partially
    successful: Leica and Hasselblad are using it. But, that success is
    limited. Nikon and Canon are still using CR2 and NEF. DNG will be a
    lot more interesting if and when Nikon and Canon switch away from
    their proprietary formats and use DNG instead.
    No it is not. You haven't told me who else besides Adobe is
    distributing that SDK. Also, does the SDK convert NEF and CR2 files?
    That is the really crucial issue. The lack of documentation for NEF
    and CR2 are what got DNG its early publicity in the first place. Most
    the other advantages I've seen claimed for DNG (e.g. put metadata into
    the same file as the image data) could also be done by making a zip
    file containing the NEF file and the metadata file.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Respectfully, bullshit.


    John McWilliams

    "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like
    Norman Einstein." - Football commentator and former player Joe
    Theismann 1996
    John McWilliams, Oct 14, 2006
  4. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Respectfully, it's not up to you.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
  5. That isn't a definition of "freely-available". It is a definition of
    "free software", and I have never claimed that the DNG SDK was free

    You KNOW that you can get hold of a copy of the DNG SDK! Anyone on the
    planet can, if web-enabled. You also know you don't even need to DNG
    SDK to develop software that exploits DNG.

    So what is your point? Is that the only way you can hope to discredit
    DNG? DNG is a file format specification - why the hostility?
    Barry Pearson, Oct 14, 2006
  6. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Why would I want to develop software that exploits DNG? The RAW files
    that I care about are the ones that actually come out of cameras that
    I can afford (i.e. not Leica or Hasselblad). None of those cameras
    make DNG files.

    The DNG SDK is interesting if it can convert NEF and CR2 files to DNG
    without resorting to reverse engineering like dcraw had to do. Can it?
    I'm not trying to discredit DNG, I think it's of some interest, I just
    see your salesmanship for it as being excessive and sometimes
    misleading. I think you should apply that salesmanship to camera
    manufacturers who currently are shipping other formats, instead of to
    us poor schlubs in a newsgroup.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
  7. You recognise where the blame lies - with Canon & Nikon rather than
    Adobe & DNG.

    I use Pentax. Pentax supplies a DNG Converter for all of their dSLRs.
    The K10D, likely to be my next camera, supports DNG in-camera. Why
    should I care about Canon & Nikon? (And I don't use Bibble, which is
    one of the decreasing number of 3rd party products that don't support

    But - I don't use Pentax's DNG Converter. I may not even use DNG
    in-camera if my Epson P2000 supports the K10D PEF but not the DNG
    (we'll see). I simply don't consider DNG in-camera to be currently the
    most important aspect of DNG. I believe that the most important aspects
    at the moment are support and exploitation of DNG by users of
    photographs, and by archivists and librarians. Especially in
    conjunction with exploitation of XMP metadata within the DNGs, for
    rights management and asset management. That is the "high ground".


    Get those from Canon & Nikon if you can. They are the ones who
    understand their formats well enough to provide SDKs for them. If you
    want raw image data for Canon and Nikon cameras in documented form, use
    the DNG Converter to turn the NEFs and/or CR2s into DNGs.
    Barry Pearson, Oct 14, 2006
  8. [snip]

    I provide information so that people can make informed decisions. If
    you know of errors in my pages, please let me know, with suitable
    supporting material, and I'll correct them. If you publish an
    alternative position in some consolidated form, such as a web page
    (rather than responses in forums), please let me know and I'll link to

    I accept that accurate information about DNG can appear to be a
    Barry Pearson, Oct 14, 2006
  9. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Of course I recognize that. So they're the people you should be
    trying to persuade of DNG's virtues. Releasing DNG by itself doesn't
    solve that problem.
    Do they have a version for ARM-based Linux?
    Now THAT is interesting. DNG files come right out of the camera?
    Hmmm. If I were shopping for a DSLR system right now, that would be a
    significant selling point. Unfortunately it looks like they exchanged
    one proprietary feature (the PEF format) for another (the K10D uses a
    lithium ion battery, instead of the AA NiMH cells that the *ist DS
    uses). Still, that's no worse than the situation with recent Nikon

    See, THAT is a more concrete DNG success story than yet more
    Windows-based converters.
    There's only one other particpant on this newsgroup who has found
    those issues enough to make it worth messing with DNG converters. And
    I'm still not sure how putting the metadata together with the camera
    raw file into a Zip file fails to accomplish the same thing.
    OK, then the Adobe DNG SDK either 1) is not much good for anything
    that the other programs (e.g. dcraw) you mentioned don't do just as
    well, in which case I don't understand why you plug the SDK; or 2)
    still does something that those other programs don't, in which
    case its non-freeness is still an obstacle.
    Another proprietary closed-source program that doesn't run on my
    ARM-based Linux computer; sorry, not interested.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
  10. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    If you spent half as much time selling DNG to camera makers instead of
    to newsgroup readers, that would likely do the DNG format (and users)
    a lot more good.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
  11. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    Not so, check again.
    John Bean, Oct 14, 2006
  12. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    You were the one I was thinking of, did I miss someone? Well, there
    aren't very many.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
  13. Others who care more about what Canon and Nikon do can try to persuade
    them. I have tried to persuade OpenRAW to do that for all

    Releasing DNG was the start of a transformation programme. It might
    take 5 years from the start, and we are 2 years into it.

    Several cameras & digital backs use DNG in-camera. Obviously, because
    we are talking about raw-capable cameras, we are not talking about the
    cheapest digital cameras. I guess the cheapest using DNG is the Ricoh
    GR Digital.

    I thought Apple's Aperture and Iridient Digital's Raw Developer were
    MAC-based? And then there is GIMP + UFRaw plugin or dcraw-gimp2.0.

    Not true, see:


    The DNG SDK is useful (but not essential) for people and companies
    wanting to develop products that support DNG in some way. It provides
    source code to read, write, render, and validate DNG files. (It also
    contains libraries for handling XMP within DNG). Any of those people
    and companies can obtain it for any of those purposes. (I use it as a
    way of examining DNG files for various reasons). I am not aware of any
    obstacles that matter to those people.
    Barry Pearson, Oct 14, 2006
  14. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    No not many, but there aren't all that many who have
    declared to be against either. It's not a particularly good
    statistical sample population so it means absolutely zilch -
    either way.

    FYI the other lurker who declared himself as a user in a
    follow-up to my de-lurk was Chuck, here:

    MID: <C1513FA3.67C8F%[email protected]>
    John Bean, Oct 14, 2006
  15. I judge that the most useful thing for me to do is provide independent
    information about DNG to enable people to make informed decisions. What
    is the most useful thing YOU can do?
    Barry Pearson, Oct 14, 2006
  16. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Your advocacy of DNG is so persistent and so one-sided that there is
    profound skepticism that your information is actually independent.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 14, 2006
  17. Wha???

    Could you kindly give a more reasoned response as to why you consider
    hitting an "Agree" button is tantamount to "jumping through hoops"?
    John McWilliams, Oct 15, 2006
  18. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I already explained. I want to be able to get the SDK as part of a
    large software collection instead of having to download it separately
    (even having to download it separately is already jumping through
    hoops). For example, a Linux distro on a DVD contains thousands of
    programs including numerous SDK-like packages, and I can install the
    entire collection with one click. It's totally unacceptable to have
    hit "agree" for each of those thousands of programs. And I don't see
    any reason for any of them to be entitled to extraordinary treatment.
    in terms of hitting buttons. Therefore, NONE of them can require
    hitting an agree button.

    Also, as the term "agree" implies, hitting the agree button means
    entering an actual binding legal agreement concocted by Adobe lawyers,
    which means the agreement has to be read very carefully, or maybe even
    referred to the downloader's own lawyer if the downloader has a lot at
    stake and wants to be extra careful. That too is jumping through
    hoops. If you're telling me it's no big deal, you're talking to the
    wrong guy. Tell that to Adobe's lawyers instead, that it's no big
    deal, so they should get rid of it. If you're unable to convince
    them, that means that Adobe, like me, thinks it's a big deal. Who are
    you to claim that you're right and Adobe and I are both wrong?
    Paul Rubin, Oct 15, 2006
  19. That said, chances are very good that many of those programs included in the
    Linux distribution are still protected by the GNU General Public License
    (GPL). And if that's the case--using any of those GPL-protected software
    components at the user level doesn't specifically require agreeing to the
    GPL (at least, as I understand it), but using any of those GPL-protected
    software components as a part of another development project *does* require
    compliance with the terms and conditions of the GPL if and when such a
    development project is released to the public.

    I've noticed, though, that even GPL-protected software components usually
    have an installer, which also requires clicking the Agree button to accept
    the GPL in order to install the software component. (QT Open Source is one
    such component, although it's definitely not the only component that does
    that. It's certainly not jumping through hoops as far as downloading the
    latest version of QT Open Source from Trolltech, but installing QT open
    source uses an installer that presents the GPL and requires clicking the
    Agree button.)

    In my own opinion, it's not clicking the Agree button that's the issue, it's
    what's actually in a specific license agreement that is being agreed to that
    is much more important.

    Daniel W. Rouse Jr., Oct 15, 2006
  20. 'Twasn't my claim. Adobe's putting in an agreement is one thing; your
    reaction to it is another.

    We have different concepts of what "jumping through hoops" is.
    John McWilliams, Oct 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.