Are you converting your RAW images to DNG?

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

  1. As I said elsewhere: "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 it".

    There are 100s of external links on my web pages. You and anyone here
    can verify the information there for yourself. You will find that, if
    indeed the information appears to be one-sided, it is because there is
    little or no down-side to basing the raw shooting industry on DNG.

    I suggest that people here who display antipathy or even hostility
    towards DNG should remember that it is a file format specification! And
    should ask themselves "what is their true problem with it?" Because a
    more logical response to "this doesn't benefit me" is "therefore I
    won't use it", rather than attempt to identify ever more obscure
    objections. I've explained myself, but what is driving those people?
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. [snip]

    The simple answer to your issue here is: "then support DNG without
    using the DNG SDK"! More than 100 companies developed products that
    supported DNG before the DNG SDK was released. I only know of one
    product that made (minor) use of it.

    Obviously Adobe need a license agreement - it has the following
    essential sections. Expecting a company to supply software without such
    an agreement is naive!
    3. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY
    4. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
    5. INDEMNIFICATION
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Whether the information has errors is unrelated to whether it's
    independent. And it can be technically correct while still being
    preposterously slanted. Watch any political TV ad, for example.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 15, 2006
  4. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I did not enter any agreement in order to download GIMP. I didn't
    even enter any agrement in order to get a copy of Windows XP. It came
    with my laptop and I had to take it whether I wanted it or not, in
    order to buy the laptop.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 15, 2006
  5. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    The GPL describes some circumstances under which you're allowed to
    redistribute the GPL'd code to other people. You do not have to agree
    to anything in order to get a copy of the GPL'd code yourself.
    If the program is GPL'd then clearly that button has no effect other
    than to inform you of the fact, to make sure you know about it. The
    GPL does not create any restrictions on your own use of the program.
    Also, since you're supposed to have access to the source code and the
    right to modify it, you can remove the part that puts up that dialog.
    You can even republish (following the GPL's terms) the version with
    the dialog removed.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 15, 2006
  6. [snip]

    For interest, this is a classic example of "Why Don't You . . . Yes,
    but . . ."., as documented in "Games People Play" by psychiatrist Dr.
    Eric Berne:

    http://frogsandprinces.dawntreader.net/appendixa.html#wdyb

    I am now confident that you have no intention of being helped. Just
    accept - this is YOUR problem, no one else's.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 15, 2006
  7. JC Dill

    Alan LeHun Guest

    If my camera produces DNG, I will use it. It doesn't, so I wont. eos.
     
    Alan LeHun, Oct 15, 2006
  8. That's what I have found.

    It is noticeably better at high compression ratios and could eventually
    catch on.
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 22, 2006
  9. JC Dill

    Alfred Molon Guest

    This is actually OT, but the Firefox browser is way superior to the MS
    browser (that is IE). You should give Firefox a try.
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 23, 2006
  10. JC Dill

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The problem with JPEG2000 is that while it is better than JPEG at
    heavily compressing images, it is not better than JPEG at the low
    compression ratios which are typical for high quality photography. This
    is why nobody is using it.
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 23, 2006
  11. Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    ... and Firefox reportedly has more recent security breaches than MS IE,
    including on the Linux and Mac OSes......

    [PCPlus Magazine December 2006 page 11, Symantec report]

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 23, 2006
  12. JC Dill

    Vinay Guest

    I was going through the threads looking for some information on DNG and
    I found this one. Its pretty interesting (more funny then interesting)
    to read you guys fighting on technology choices you have hardly any
    control or influence on.
    As it has been said so may time in the thread, storage space is so
    cheap - so why are we not storing files in both the formats?!!? You
    guys store processed jpegs, then why not DNG?? All it takes is to run a
    program and let it do the batch process. My experience is that sticking
    to 'a' technology is usually a recipe for data loss. Moreover I
    feel DNG having an open standard makes it less susceptible to non
    backward compatible changes to the format (think 10 years form now).
    BTW CS2 is from Adobe and Adobe is known for creating very good
    standards and sticking to it such as Adobe RGB. I think this group is
    about sharing knowledge and NOT bloated egos. I appreciate Barry's
    effort to explore and catalog new knowledge. Without people like him
    exploring possibilities most of you guys would have still stuck around
    with pinholes.
     
    Vinay, Nov 10, 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.