| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2004 03:56:34 PM · #26 |
| I did come across a page on Adobe website where someone had suggested to use 16bit for B&W. I don't know the numbers, but the idea was that it would produce a better image. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:35:32 PM · #27 |
I plan to buy psp9 this week. Thanks!
Originally posted by eckoe:
PSP 9 has one as well. |
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:45:52 PM · #28 |
Don't forget to check out Bibble if you're looking to get into RAW... It's competitively priced, and lightning fast. I've been particularly enjoying its channel mixer built into the RAW converter. I can desaturate the image to b/w, then tweak the RGB levels before making the JPG.
And did I mention how fast it is?? :)
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:46:42 PM · #29 |
The new version of Elements...version 3 has a new RAW reader...if I recall correctly, Adobe have called it .DNF. It will read all new RAW and also earlier versions of RAW.
They are hoping this will become the standard for RAW conversions! |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:54:21 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
The new version of Elements...version 3 has a new RAW reader...if I recall correctly, Adobe have called it .DNF. It will read all new RAW and also earlier versions of RAW.
They are hoping this will become the standard for RAW conversions! |
I've read some challenges to this new standard. The argument is that with DNG you can never go back to the original RAW file, so technically it's not considered archival. If you converted to DNG, but then the manufacturer came out with a better (proprietary) RAW interpreter after you went to DNG, then you wouldn't be able to take advantage of it.
I'm not sure yet what to make of DNG... Until I see cameras which directly support it, I'll be hesitant...
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 06:12:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
[quote=Formerlee] I'm not sure yet what to make of DNG... Until I see cameras which directly support it, I'll be hesitant... |
I am still on the fence about this one also at this time. I thought about starting to convert and then decided, what's the difference at this point anyway? Until the camera starts to support it, I see no reason to change....expecially if it is not archival like my .NEF's. I need to convert one and see what happens when I open it in PS. DOes it still allow using the RAW adjustments? Guess I will find out. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 06:32:04 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by cghubbell:
[quote=Formerlee] I'm not sure yet what to make of DNG... Until I see cameras which directly support it, I'll be hesitant... |
I am still on the fence about this one also at this time. I thought about starting to convert and then decided, what's the difference at this point anyway? Until the camera starts to support it, I see no reason to change....expecially if it is not archival like my .NEF's. I need to convert one and see what happens when I open it in PS. DOes it still allow using the RAW adjustments? Guess I will find out. |
DNG is arguably more 'archival' mainly as this term is perpetually being abused in a digital context.
Yes the DNG file would be a second generation copy of the data that your camera actually captured, so in a strict, historical sense, this isn't an archival original, straight from the camera. However, if we assume Adobe has done their job properly (and that is an 'if' right now) the data in the DNG format is a direct, lossless representation of the data in the original RAW format. The only advantage is you aren't stuck in the specific, propritary RAW format du jour of your camera manufacturer.
DNG makes you dependant on Adobe and licensees, rather than Canon/ Nikon/ Sony et al and licensees. The potential pool of users for DNG (all users of RAW format on any camera) vs the potential pool of users for your current RAW format ( less, by definition) means that DNG has potentially more longevity as a format so potentially more archival usage in practical sense (if we assume the film sense is actually incorrect for a digital world)
In the same way, the idea that silver prints are more archival than DVD backups is equally questionable. It is possible to make perfect reproductions of the data on a DVD, not so with a film print or negative. You do have to maintain your digital negatives, migrating to available storage technology, maintaining backups, maintaining software support, but it is potentially infinitely archival, with perfect reproduction, unlike film.
Right now I back up a copy of a canon RAW converter in source code with every archive of CRW's I make. DNG might give some hope to avoid worrying about that if it becomes a standard.
Right now I'm not using it or planning to though.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 09:34:50 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
I'm a jpeg shooter. When I grow up, I wanna shoot RAW. |
Me too, but most of what I shoot digital has to be jpg. Any additional step or use of card space wouldnt be good. I am working on it though. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 09:54:00 PM · #34 |
| I'm quite new at digital photography so that I am not that familiar with the terms. What exactly is the meaning of "RAW"? |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 10:19:53 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...if we assume Adobe has done their job properly (and that is an 'if' right now) the data in the DNG format is a direct, lossless representation of the data in the original RAW format. The only advantage is you aren't stuck in the specific, propritary RAW format du jour of your camera manufacturer.
|
Here's the gotcha... Nikon, for example, implements part of their sharpening algorithm in the actual conversion process. I'm not talking about USM, I'm talking about actually getting what you expect out of the camera. I'm too tired to reference the article on Nikon's Japan (?) site, bit talks about the details.
I'm not convinced that Adobe can (or has) figured out everything... Only that they've come up with a least common denominator. At any point in time, Nikon could come up with an enhanced algorithm for their NEF conversion that would not work on DNG. If I can't get back my NEF, then I'm stuck with whatever Adobe's got. There have been times where software updates have created noticably better raw conversion.
Originally posted by Gordon:
DNG makes you dependant on Adobe and licensees, rather than Canon/ Nikon/ Sony et al and licensees. The potential pool of users for DNG (all users of RAW format on any camera) vs the potential pool of users for your current RAW format ( less, by definition) means that DNG has potentially more longevity as a format so potentially more archival usage in practical sense (if we assume the film sense is actually incorrect for a digital world)
|
I hear what you're saying, but I disagree with the idea that longetivity is inherently a function of population size in this case. There is a very large and invested community of professional photographers who have NEF / CRW archives. Far too many to be abandoned.
If Adobe makes this standard OPEN, and publishes the interface so it can be used on all platforms, not only by Photoshop, and is picked up as a native RAW format by the big manufacturers, then I will trust it. In the mean time, it would take far too long to convert my images to a bleeding edge format that hasn't been validated by the industry.
I want it to work... Proprietary RAW formats drive me crazy - they've caused me immeasurable headaches being a Linux/GIMP user. I just don't want to take a step backwards.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 10:52:53 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
I hear what you're saying, but I disagree with the idea that longetivity is inherently a function of population size in this case. There is a very large and invested community of professional photographers who have NEF / CRW archives. Far too many to be abandoned. |
History tends to disagree with this.
There are or were large and invested communities in
8 track
Vinyl
8 inch tape
DAT
VHS
ZIP disk
Old wordperfect formats
Corel Draw
and many many other physical and logical formats that fade over time.
For digital images, people consider 100 or 200 years archival. We don't have converters for some formats that are 15 years old and were 'industry standard' then.
About the only thing you can really depend upon is that you will not be using the same storage media or software in 100 years. And you also
have to be vigilent to ensure you have access to the data. The wider the audience for the format, the more hope of support you have. You can pay a whole lot of money to get any one of the above formats converted but it is a lot of money and effort. Nothing says Nikon can't permute their format 'just a little' next time and break any hope of backward compatibility (MS word does this all the time, photoshop just did this, on and on - support for the old formats then becomes a legacy thing that dies out in a few years)
You cut the part out of my original post where I said I wouldn't use DNG right now either.
Message edited by author 2004-11-10 22:55:32. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 12:02:03 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
At any point in time, Nikon could come up with an enhanced algorithm for their NEF conversion that would not work on DNG. If I can't get back my NEF, then I'm stuck with whatever Adobe's got. |
If you use PS CS with ACR, then there's no harm in using DNG for everything and archiving both formats. DNG just doesn't seem to be the smart thing until other mfgrs get on board. I would love to see Bibble support it ASAP.
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Originally posted by Gordon:
DNG makes you dependant on Adobe and licensees, rather than Canon/ Nikon/ Sony et al and licensees. |
If Adobe makes this standard OPEN, and publishes the interface so it can be used on all platforms, not only by Photoshop, and is picked up as a native RAW format by the big manufacturers, then I will trust it. |
I think the dependency on Adobe/licencees is slightly less cumbersome since the DNG spec is publically available (how "open" you think that is I don't know). Keep your DNGs and keep a copy of the spec to match. I don't think any other mfgr has published their raw format specs. Note that DNG is just a TIFF (tiff-ep? 6.0?) extension, so there's not really a lot of voodoo going on underneath the hood. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 01:13:21 AM · #38 |
For 16-bit b/w work, why not use an alternate method of b/w conversion if the channel mixer is limiting you to 256 shades?
For example, the dual Hue/Saturation adjustment layers technique... Perhaps I'm not thinking through the math I need to, but it would *seem* as if it should retain your 16-bit depth (65k shades of gray).
For anyone that's unfamiliar with the technique, in Photoshop:
1) create a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer
2) Create a second H/S adjustment layer and set its saturation to -100
3) Set the blending method of the first (lower) adjustment layer to color or luminosity and then adjust the Hue slider in the H/S dialogue for that lower layer. Go from there.
I'll leave it to someone who knows how to figure out if you're retaining the full 16-bit in those gray shades. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:33:23 AM · #39 |
[quote=dwoolridge] If you use PS CS with ACR, then there's no harm in using DNG for everything and archiving both formats. DNG just doesn't seem to be the smart thing until other mfgrs get on board. I would love to see Bibble support it ASAP.
When I convert my NEFs using dcraw, Picture Project, Bibble, and UFRaw, I get different images... But at least I can choose. With DNG, I think the "Adobe only" issue will work itself out as other vendors come on board. I'm just not yet convinced that they are truly capturing, or properly interpeting 100% of the data.
That's the risk with any reverse engineered solution, and I haven't seen anything that says Nikon/Canon endorsed DNG and opened their specs to help Adobe. I'd love to be wrong on this though!
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:44:18 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...and many many other physical and logical formats that fade over time. For digital images, people consider 100 or 200 years archival. We don't have converters for some formats that are 15 years old and were 'industry standard' then.
You cut the part out of my original post where I said I wouldn't use DNG right now either. |
Mea culpa. Unintentional context mangling, I assure you. :)
At this point, even if all my editing tools supported it, I don't think I'd convert until Nikon announced direct in-camera support. DNG doesn't actually give me anything I don't have today. At some point in the future, it might. If I see NEF upport declining, and DNG going strong, I would convert. But I can't honestly see that happening in the visible future.
For me, DNG's "sink or swim" issue is down to getting camera manufacturers to bite on it as a standard and directly supported format.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:09:31 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Mea culpa. Unintentional context mangling, I assure you. :)
|
S'okay, just wanted to be clear :)
Originally posted by cghubbell:
At this point, even if all my editing tools supported it, I don't think I'd convert until Nikon announced direct in-camera support. DNG doesn't actually give me anything I don't have today. At some point in the future, it might. If I see NEF upport declining, and DNG going strong, I would convert. But I can't honestly see that happening in the visible future.
For me, DNG's "sink or swim" issue is down to getting camera manufacturers to bite on it as a standard and directly supported format. |
For me, I doubt that anyone will care about being able to access my 'negatives' in 100 years time. I doubt I'll be that interested in doing it myself in 10 years time. There are JPEGs and prints a plenty of the stuff that I thought was actually worth seeing. I suspect many are in the same situation. The sad fact then is that not many people will switch to a new format and we'll end up with a 'lost generation' of images in unusable formats. It would be great if all the manufacturers would get behind a common format though, make life a whole lot easier for users and tool vendors.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 09:10:35. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:32:38 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
For me, DNG's "sink or swim" issue is down to getting camera manufacturers to bite on it as a standard and directly supported format. |
Did you sign the petition? =]
Here's the thing I don't get about DNG. Let's say it is 2 years down the road and popular programs X, Y and Z all natively support DNG. Camera manufactuer A comes out with a new camera that supports the DNG raw format directly. However, this new camera uses a new-fangled sensor with triangle-shaped photosites, where each tip of the triangle in sensitive to red, green or blue. Does this automatically mean that programs X, Y and Z will automatically be able to open these new raw images? I don't think so. DNG is nothing more than a "wrapper" around whatever "raw data" needs to be stored in it. (That is why there are "DNG converters" available today that can convert a .CRW file to .DNG and back again.) Wide-spread adoption of DNG doesn't mean that Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. are all going to get data from their sensors in some "common" format; it just means that the data they do read from their sensors will be stored in a "tagged" file that happens to have a DNG extension. All programs will still need to have their "DNG plug-in" updated for each new camera released, just like Adobe Camera Raw, Capture One, etc. are eventually updated to "understand" the latest "raw data". That is just the nature of raw data -- which as its name implies, is data that has not had any manipulation done to it... it has had no linearity curves applied to it, has not been demosaiced, etc...
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 09:36:23. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:34:22 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by animes2k:
For 16-bit b/w work, why not use an alternate method of b/w conversion if the channel mixer is limiting you to 256 shades?
|
I haven't found a B&W or toned B&W workflow that doesn't go through 256 greyscale levels at some point. Maybe they exist, but I haven't found it yet. The fredmiranda workflow may well do it.
Channel mixer in 16 and 8 bit mode results in a 256ish level result.
Dual hue/sat layers (1 colour and 1 normal) results in a 256ish level result.
Image->Greyscale goes the same way.
At least this is based on a couple of quick tests to see what is left. While photoshop CS has better 16 bit support, it doesn't yet appear to apply to B&W image generation. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:36:15 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by cghubbell:
For me, DNG's "sink or swim" issue is down to getting camera manufacturers to bite on it as a standard and directly supported format. |
Did you sign the petition? =]
Here's the thing I don't get about DNG. Let's say it is 2 years down the road and popular programs X, Y and Z all natively support DNG. Camera manufactuer A comes out with a new camera that supports the DNG raw format directly. However, this new camera uses a new-fangled sensor with triangle-shaped photosites, where each tip of the triangle in sensitive to red, green or blue. Does this automatically mean that programs X, Y and Z will automatically be able to open these new raw images? I don't think so. DNG is nothing more than a "wrapper" around whatever "raw data" needs to be stored in it. (That is why there are "DNG converters" available today that can convert a .CRW file to .DNG and back again.) Wide-spread adoption of DNG doesn't mean that Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. are all going to get data from their sensors in some "common" format; it just means that the data they do read from their sensors will be stored in a "tagged" file that happens to have a DNG extension. All programs will still need to have their "DNG plug-in" updated for each new camera released, just like Adobe Camera Raw, Capture One, etc. are eventually updated to "understand" the latest "raw data". That is just the nature of raw data -- which as its name implies, is datat that has not had any manipulation done to it... it has had no linearity curves applied to it, has not been demosaiced, etc... |
Yup, you've just described TIFF and many other similar standard photo formats. However, it is a step further towards at least an open standard for the storage of that data. Right now your info is potentially locked in to a format you don't even know how to read - the next step is as you've mentioned working out what to do with it when you can read it.
What it does provide though is standard place-holders for the information if the camera vendor wants to provide it. EXIF is comparable in many ways - the fields are there, it is up to you if you want to use them or not.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 09:37:02. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:39:42 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yup, you've just described TIFF and many other similar standard photo formats. However, it is a step further towards at least an open standard for the storage of that data. Right now your info is potentially locked in to a format you don't even know how to read - the next step is as you've mentioned working out what to do with it when you can read it.
What it does provide though is standard place-holders for the information if the camera vendor wants to provide it. EXIF is comparable in many ways - the fields are there, it is up to you if you want to use them or not. |
OK, well at least I'm not missing something.
The "problem" with DNG from what I understand is that it still supports/encourages"vendor-specific tags", which will not be documented, just like the "MakerNote" field of the current EXIF standard. So even though the format may be "generic" and "parseable" by a variety of tools, some of the data inside is still likely to be "proprietary". |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:31:02 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
OK, well at least I'm not missing something.
The "problem" with DNG from what I understand is that it still supports/encourages"vendor-specific tags", which will not be documented, just like the "MakerNote" field of the current EXIF standard. So even though the format may be "generic" and "parseable" by a variety of tools, some of the data inside is still likely to be "proprietary". |
Yup, it isn't intended to address those issues at all. It is a meta-format, not a format and as such provides means to store the information in an understandable form. It doesn't try to address the meaning of that information other than in fairly generic terms. In fact, DNG has a MakerNote field as well.
Consider this analogy. The Dewey decimal classification system is used in most libraries these days. With an understanding of the system, I can walk in to any library and find the photography section relatively quickly. I know the index number, I can go to the books. The classification system says nothing about the contents of the books, or if I can even read the language they are in. But I can find the area I'm looking for.
DNG is just like that in many ways. It is a standard bag to put RAW format camera data in. It goes slightly further in that it provides commonly used fields for general translations, but it isn't a camera format, it is a meta-format. In fact, it is just an extension to TIFF - which also doesn't define anything about its contents, other than in general terms - you can store a whole slew of incompatible formats within a TIFF file and still meet the TIFF spec. A generic converter would however be able to use the data in the standard fields to open pretty much any DNG compatible image. It would not be able to take advantage of any camera-specific optimisations (e.g., custom calibration for a specific camera that is stored at time of manufacture).
This is still a significant improvement over the current state, where even camera manufacturers are permuting their own RAW formats from camera to camera. A standard set of fields and containers allows commonality to emerge and give some increased longevity to the formats.
Maybe people are misunderstanding what DNG is designed to be.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 10:35:13.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:35:18 AM · #47 |
Good analogy, Gordon.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Maybe people are misunderstanding what DNG is designed to be. |
That is what I'm afraid of. There are some people that probably think, "oh, DNG is going to be the JPEG of raw format" such that if a program "supports DNG", it will be able to open any DNG raw file (similar to how any program that supports JPEG can open a JPEG from any digital camera), but that clearly is not the case... each program will need to coded to "understand" the specific data stored in the DNG file, which means updates will be necessary as new cameras are released, etc.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 10:37:49. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:38:46 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Good analogy, Gordon.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Maybe people are misunderstanding what DNG is designed to be. |
That is what I'm afraid of. There are some people that probably think, "oh, DNG is going to be the JPEG of raw format" such that if a program "supports DNG", it will be able to open any DNG file, and that clearly is not the case... the program will need to coded to understand the specific data stored in the DNG file, which means updates will be necessary as new cameras are released, etc. |
Yeah, it is the TIFF of raw format. But again, I think many people don't get the difference. Though I think your comment is more extreme than the reality. Any program that understands DNG should be able to open any current and future DNG file if it is created properly. However, it may not be able to make best use of all the information in the file. You will still be able to open, parse and convert the raw bayer data. With knowledge of the vendor-specific fields, the converter may do a better or more appropriate job.
Right now we have a situation with vendor specific file formats and file contents. DNG at least removes one of those barriers to archival reuse.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 12:01:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by jazper:
I'm quite new at digital photography so that I am not that familiar with the terms. What exactly is the meaning of "RAW"? |
It is litteraly the unprocessed raw data dump from the sensor and a header with settings information combined into one file.
You need a program that can combine the data and the settings to digitally develop the photo. The advantage is that you can change all settings in the raw converter without changing the data from the sensor. As long as you keep the file as a raw file the sensor data will never be changed, the only changes are made to the settings information header. When I open a changed raw file from my D70 with the Nikon Capture raw converter the first thing I see is that the program starts to apply all the information to the photo and develops it. That happens each time again when I open the photo.
Many people compare it to a negative. You can change a lot of things anytime you make prints with it or copy it to another negative, but the negative itself doesn't change.
Jpeg can be compared to a printed photo. If you don't have the negative you need to scan the photo again, change it and print it again. In that process you loose a lot of data.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:51:55 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
At least this is based on a couple of quick tests to see what is left. While photoshop CS has better 16 bit support, it doesn't yet appear to apply to B&W image generation. |
Have you tried Picture Window Pro from Digital Light & Color? My trial died long ago and I haven't been compelled to try again. It might do the trick. Anyone else using PWP? |
|
