Adobe tries to entice people to DNG

redhed17

redhed17

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,316
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just having a look at PhotoshopUserTV, as I hadn't looked at an episode for several months, and found one about the difference between RAW and DNG formats. As part of the show hey mentioned an article on CNET which went into a bit more detail.

I was very surprised at reading the article to see something that I had not seen mentioned anywhere before. :eek: (Forgive me if it has been mentioned, I couldn't find it with a search) It says Adobe are trying to quietly (very quietly ;)) entice people into converting RAW files to their DNG format by offering performance advantages with LightRoom 4. Advantages just for the DNG format. :eek:

There will be a miniature RAW preview image embedded in the file that makes it faster to switch between images in LightRoom's develop module, up to eight times faster.

Also, "Tiled" DNG files divided into parts so multicore processors can read and write them faster.

They have also put in an option in the DNG format for a 'Lossy' compression. Seeing as one of the reasons people use RAW is because it is not compressed, and all the data is retained, it is not clear who this option is aimed at to me. :shrug:

No doubt the version of Camera Raw which will be released with CS6 will have the same features.

The article also goes on to say that the new DNG file 'standards' they may release may not be able to be read by older software. :bonk: One of the reasons they advocate using the DNG format is because it is a standard that will be read by more software, whereas a manufacturers propriety RAW format 'may not' stand the test of time. Maybe if they didn't keep changing the DNG 'standard' format they 'may' have a point. :lol:

Of course any speed advantages in using the Program with DNG files could be cancelled out with the time taken to convert to DNG in the first place. ;) :lol:
 
Conversion to DNG is not part of ACR. Outside of Lightroom you would need the DNG Converter.
The new Fastload option is designed to improve performance when using DNG files, although from my experience, it is not 8x faster, but there is an improvement.
The lossy compression option is for images that you want to keep but are unlikely to print or only print to small sizes. It's not for everyone, nor is it for every image. It's really only an option for saving space on your HD.
Older DNG conversions can still be read in Lightroom and Photoshop so you don't have to convert to the newer version if you are concerned about backward compatibility. The newer version can be read in current versions of LR and PS.
As for the time taken to convert, most people convert as part of the ingestion process and leave the PC to do its thing and pop off for a quick cup of coffee or a bevy down the local, depending on how many images are being processed and how near the nearest pub is. :D
The big plus for me is that when converting to DNG the integrity of the file is validated so there are no nasty surprises when it comes to using the file at a later date. There is a useful article on this by Peter Krogh here.
 
Is there any substantial advantage in using .dng rather than CS4 to open files, Trevor?
 
The "Lossey" option for DNG compression is for those photographers who shot a load of images, but don't want to discard the "rejects".It's the " I know I'll never use it, but..." sort of approach. This lossey compression allows them to store all these images in a smaller file but still maintain the DNG format. It saves on disk space I suppose .However the advantage of RAW is lost. Sort of a DNG version of JPEG.

Jullianne Kost explains this in one of her LR4 veos
 
jon ryan said:
Is there any substantial advantage in using .dng rather than CS4 to open files, Trevor?
Click to expand...

Hi Jon, there's no advantage in terms of processing within CS4. The benefits for me at least, are as stated above, the validation and space saving. :)
 
Chappers said:
However the advantage of RAW is lost. Sort of a DNG version of JPEG.
Click to expand...
Not quite... Some of the advantages of RAW are lost. It has a format that is suited to storing as much dynamic range as possible whilst squeezing into 8 bits. You can still process (to recover highlights for example) it quite nicely.
 
Personally I won't use DNG unless I have to for a customer, the problems are DNG isn't a standard format, theres several different versions (same as raw) apart from lightroom and photoshop theres very little support for it.
Capture one sort of supports the earlier version, as do a few others with mixed results. DNG also doesn't store some of the lens correction data from some makes of camera and looses some of the edge detail (there was a recover edges file for it)
Apart from the space saving I see no advantage over my cameras raw, and lets face it hard drives are cheap enough.
 
happy haggis said:
The big plus for me is that when converting to DNG the integrity of the file is validated so there are no nasty surprises when it comes to using the file at a later date. There is a useful article on this by Peter Krogh here.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I have never had a Original Raw file go corrupted and become unreadable, but I have had Adobe DNG's that have become unreadable.

Not sure that means anything, just a observation, plus DNG's are really only a good idea if you think ACR is the best there is out there, I don't and like to leave my options open.:)
 
redhed17 said:
I was just having a look at PhotoshopUserTV, as I hadn't looked at an episode for several months, and found one about the difference between RAW and DNG formats. As part of the show hey mentioned an article on CNET which went into a bit more detail.

I was very surprised at reading the article to see something that I had not seen mentioned anywhere before. :eek: (Forgive me if it has been mentioned, I couldn't find it with a search) It says Adobe are trying to quietly (very quietly ;)) entice people into converting RAW files to their DNG format by offering performance advantages with LightRoom 4. Advantages just for the DNG format. :eek:

There will be a miniature RAW preview image embedded in the file that makes it faster to switch between images in LightRoom's develop module, up to eight times faster.

Also, "Tiled" DNG files divided into parts so multicore processors can read and write them faster.

They have also put in an option in the DNG format for a 'Lossy' compression. Seeing as one of the reasons people use RAW is because it is not compressed, and all the data is retained, it is not clear who this option is aimed at to me. :shrug:

No doubt the version of Camera Raw which will be released with CS6 will have the same features.

The article also goes on to say that the new DNG file 'standards' they may release may not be able to be read by older software. :bonk: One of the reasons they advocate using the DNG format is because it is a standard that will be read by more software, whereas a manufacturers propriety RAW format 'may not' stand the test of time. Maybe if they didn't keep changing the DNG 'standard' format they 'may' have a point. :lol:

Of course any speed advantages in using the Program with DNG files could be cancelled out with the time taken to convert to DNG in the first place. ;) :lol:
Click to expand...


Interesting, i'll have a look at this later. Pentax (not sure if other manufacturers do this too) offer either .Pef or .DNG Raw shooting in-body. I capture my shots in DNG and never had any issues as of yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top