Is ACR 4.0 available 4 CS2? (now 3.7) (NT)

jfriend00 said:

Before you posted and started an argument, nobody even tried to
assert DNG was the best option, just that it was an option for
staying with CS2/ACR 3.7 and getting new camera support.

Click to expand...

Does this really work?

Isn't the image data as it is saved from the chip exactly the same in the RAW file and in the DNG (if you are not converting to linear) and so the RAW converter still has to know the camera to know what exactly to do with the image data?

tigger said:

jfriend00 said:

Before you posted and started an argument, nobody even tried to
assert DNG was the best option, just that it was an option for
staying with CS2/ACR 3.7 and getting new camera support.

Click to expand...

Does this really work?
Isn't the image data as it is saved from the chip exactly the same
in the RAW file and in the DNG (if you are not converting to
linear) and so the RAW converter still has to know the camera to
know what exactly to do with the image data?

Click to expand...

It is supposed to work.

The idea behind DNG is that it supports a few canonical ways of storing the sensor data that are standard and not camera specific. Things like color profiles that are camera specific can be put into the DNG file in a self describing way by the converter that created the DNG file that does, by definition, have to understand that camera's RAW files.

But once it's expressed in the DNG format, any camera-specific information that is required to understand the format is expressed in the DNG file itself in a standard way so no camera-specific knowledge is needed in order to interpret the data.

I haven't studied the detailed formats to know exactly how they implement this, but that's the general idea.

I personally think DNG is a good idea and I'd like to see Adobe open up the standard more than they have and I'd like to see more cameras support it directly as an output format from the camera. That could really level the playing field for RAW converters and allow for a lot more innovation in RAW processing software because it would free up developers from having to spend so much time on camera-specific RAW support and more time on true RAW processing innovation.
--
John
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

tigger said:

jfriend00 said:

Before you posted and started an argument, nobody even tried to
assert DNG was the best option, just that it was an option for
staying with CS2/ACR 3.7 and getting new camera support.

Click to expand...

Does this really work?

Click to expand...

Yes. And there are several other examples I know of, and probably more than this:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/ps_cs.htm
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/dng_not_native.htm#examples

The most obvious case is ACR 2.4, released in January 2005 as a plug-in to PS CS, which can process DNGs created from any camera currently supported by ACR 4.0. (In other words, it can even be used for people wanting to stay with PS CS; it doesn't just work with PS CS2. And it works for people not wanting to upgrade from PS Elements 3.0).

tigger183234 said:

Isn't the image data as it is saved from the chip exactly the same
in the RAW file and in the DNG (if you are not converting to
linear) and so the RAW converter still has to know the camera to
know what exactly to do with the image data?

Click to expand...

jfriend00 has given you a good summary of how it works. Here are some links to more details of the specific tags, even showing examples of their values for many different cameras:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/profiles.htm
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/dng_not_native.htm
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/innovation.htm#examples
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm

Although this thread is largely about "interchange" - passing raw files from one component to another in a current-day workflow - a long-term benefit is that the same principle applies to archiving - handling raw files in decades to come with the tools and workflows of that time.

A question to ponder is: "how will the developers of those tools of the future obtain the details of today's cameras so that they can process their raw image data?" This is done for today's tools by getting one or more cameras and testing them to identify their characteristics, and these details are then built into the raw converter. (That is the typical reason for the delay in supporting new cameras). Wouldn't it be good if there were publicly available files of camera details available to those tool developers of the future, so that they could just read the details in? There ARE such files - the DNG model is to build the details into every raw file. I built the page below by looking inside DNG files using a tool that Adobe make freely available in their DNG SDK:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/innovation.htm

This isn't the only thing needed for archiving: we need metadata so that we can find the images and know what they are about; and good-sized previews to help evaluate the images and confirm the photographers intentions. (It goes without saying that a true archival format must be published). DNG is designed to cater for those too. Some other formats solve bits of the problem, but I believe only DNG currently attempts to solve all of it. (No doubt it will keep evolving, but it can already work for this purpose).

Thanks for the info, that clarifies a lot.

Adobe purposefully crippled CS2 support in ACR 4, so it won't work. I've seen several stupid reasons (read: "lies") why ACR4 can't work with CS2, but I assure you they're total hogwash.

CS2 only gets ACR 3.7; Adobe want you to upgrade to use ACR4 (or purchase Lightroom).

I have PS elements 5 (as well as CS2), & ACR 4 is severely limited on Elements 5. Many options not present (only "Basic" &" detail" tabs are present) , JPGs can't be processed, etc etc.

I dunno why Barry Pearson & Z(is real) jumped on the passionate but senseless post of Mr. Sills to hijack this thread.

Yes Barry, I'm pointing my finger at you.......& your irrelevant-to-the-OP DNG zeal.

Maybe you're trying to divert attention from Adobe's greedy policy to disable CS2 support in ACR4?

Not saying that private (proprietary) data isn't stored.

However, is it used by any DNG conversion program, or is it simply ignored and a "base" conversion from the DNG format applied, bypassing this data?

Don't care what you store if it is not used.
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
http://www.focusstudios.com

C_M wrote:
[snip]

C_M said:

CS2 only gets ACR 3.7; Adobe want you to upgrade to use ACR4 (or
purchase Lightroom).

Click to expand...

[snip]

Why do you want to use ACR 4?

If it is for its extra features, why do you expect to get those extra features at no cost?

Barry,

Here is my point. I am familiar with DNG after doing a fair amount of testing with it. I am also familiar with some problems it has caused for a client of mine who is a fairly well-known art photographer.

First, let me clearly state that I am restricting my comments to both Canon and Nikon formats. As I said earlier, this also does not apply to using DNG as a "native" format out of the camera (I have no problem with this if a camera manufacturer wants to adopt the format for this - this is not an issue).

However, I have seen first hand, that images which were converted from the native RAW and images converted from the same file in DNG are not the same in quality! This is NOT a problem with the default concepts in the DNG format, but a BUSINESS REALITY!!!

There have been comments here that DNG does save all of the "proprietary" information. Yes, it copies what it doesn't understand into itself. However, this information is then basically ignored by Camera RAW when converting - it uses the Baseline information (as would most all DNG conversion engines) to create the image - it is faster, and more standard to do so. Since the "proprietary" information from a camera manufacturer would change over time, it would be a nightmare for a DNG program to do anything less, and since "Joe Average" wouldn't notice a difference, why bother. Quality trade-off vs. portability is worthwhile 'For Most'.

However, for a vast number of professionals, it is not a worthwhile trade-off, and a conversion engine which does indeed use all of this proprietary, camera specific data is much more appealing to the serious professional for whom DNG is not a native format, wether this is through the camera manufacturer's own engine, or a third-parties who had reverse-engineered it.

Again, now a third-party could also provide that knowledge to untangling the proprietary/camera-specific information in the DNG, but can someone please tell me what the point of this is? Is the point of DNG that, well, in the future, I can at least get something? That seems to be the answer.

At this point, if there are new cameras released with new information, unless I upgrade to CS3, it is clear that I will not be able to properly work to create these DNG files from within Photoshop. Where is the "longevity" of support arguement here?

For users of Canon and Nikon equipment, the vast majority of professional photographers, the number of programs, files, workflows, etc. that support DNG is pitifully small vs. the native formats. If anything is going to survive a this point it is NEF and CR2 - DNG's future is greatly suspect.

So, let me say, one last time, I DO NOT SEE ANY BENEFIT TO DNG FOR THE SERIOUS NIKON OR CANON PHOTOGRAPHER AT THIS TIME - AT THIS TIME I SEE ONLY POTENTIALL COMPROMISED IMAGE QUALITY AND FUTURE PORTABILITY.

Again, I do not care about the "capabilities" of DNG. Capabilities which will never be used or are of no "end-benefit" are not of any use to anyone - nice, but not important at this point.
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
http://www.focusstudios.com

Barry Pearson said:

Barry Pearson said:

CS2 only gets ACR 3.7; Adobe want you to upgrade to use ACR4 (or
purchase Lightroom).

Click to expand...

[snip]

Why do you want to use ACR 4?

If it is for its extra features, why do you expect to get those
extra features at no cost?

Click to expand...

When ACR3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc came out, how much did Adobe charge you for those?
Yep that's it: $0.

Adobe has implicitly (or more probably, explicitly) put a price on ACR4, even though it should be (read: "it IS, but they made sure it won't work") fully compatible with CS2.

Their choice. I call it greed, even though I'm an adobe user myself; I don't feel obliged to defend Adobe's greedy policies no matter what.

More to the point Barry: do stop hijacking threads like this one, & grabbing every opportunity to promote DNG.

Besides being against the forum rules (OT) & uncivil, it makes you look as if you are Adobe's PRO.

Peter Sills said:

Not saying that private (proprietary) data isn't stored.

However, is it used by any DNG conversion program, or is it simply
ignored and a "base" conversion from the DNG format applied,
bypassing this data?

Click to expand...

[snip]

Most of the private data is ignored by many raw converters whether they are in the original raw files or in the DNG conversion.

The following routes give identical results in every case I've tried:
Original raw > ACR > Photoshop
Original raw > DNG Converter > DNG > ACR > Photoshop
My guess is that you could replace ACR with Lightroom and get the same equality.

I suspect you are placing too much significance on that private data. Remember that the camera manufacturers don't publish its format, so it has to be reverse-engineered for it to be understood. I doubt if more than 2 or 3 of perhaps 30 or 40 Makernotes fields are used by a typical 3rd-party raw converter. And those 2 or 3 may be converted by the DNG Converter into published DNG tags. (Eg. WB, lens model). Some products may exploit extra fields such as the Curve or Pictures Styles fields, (Nikon / Canon), but others do not. (Adobe doesn't).

Obviously, when camera manufacturers use DNG themselves, they can use whatever they like from the DNG file in their own software. DNG can normally be used as an full-feature alternative to their own format.

Some of the perceived disadvantages of DNG are actually simply recognition that camera manufacturers don't publish their formats, so whether the data is in the original Makernote, or in the DNGPrivateData, its full meaning is known only to the camera manufacturer.

This is a bit weird - when DNGPrivateData is in a format fully known only to the camera manufacturer, DNG gets criticised. But when a whole NEF or CR2 is in a format fully known only to the camera manufacturer, for some reason that it OK! What we are seeing is people applying different judgements to DNG and to original raw formats. I think people have become so used to the grotty and sometimes fragile reverse-engineering needed with camera manufacturers' formats that this is thought to be "natural", but DNG hasn't had time to become natural for many people, so the lack of documentation of the DNGPrivateData is seen to be something to complain about.

It would be instructive for many people if they applied the evaluation criteria they use to judge DNG to their camera's native raw format. Few would stand up to the same scrutiny.

Barry,

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!!!

Even Z (who knows more about DNG than almost anyone esle on this forum stated)

[snip]

I personally do not suggest converting to DNG from well supported formats, including CR2 and NEF, at this time.
[snip]

So, enough now!!!!!
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
http://www.focusstudios.com

Peter Sills said:

For users of Canon and Nikon equipment, the vast majority of
professional photographers, the number of programs, files,
workflows, etc. that support DNG is pitifully small vs. the native
formats. If anything is going to survive a this point it is NEF
and CR2 - DNG's future is greatly suspect.

So, let me say, one last time, I DO NOT SEE ANY BENEFIT TO DNG FOR
THE SERIOUS NIKON OR CANON PHOTOGRAPHER AT THIS TIME - AT THIS TIME
I SEE ONLY POTENTIALL COMPROMISED IMAGE QUALITY AND FUTURE
PORTABILITY.

Again, I do not care about the "capabilities" of DNG. Capabilities
which will never be used or are of no "end-benefit" are not of any
use to anyone - nice, but not important at this point.

Click to expand...

This will be my last post in this thread. Peter, you obviously like the camera manufacturer's own converters over ACR. And you think that one of the reasons you like them is that they are better able to use camera-specific undocumented information in the RAW file that only the manufacturer knows. That's all perfectly fine.

What you are expressing is a preference for the camera manufacturer's RAW processor over ACR. That has NOTHING to do with DNG. You argument against DNG is just a preference for the camera manufacturer's RAW processors over third party processors and appears to have nothing to do with DNG itself.
--
John
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

Actually, that's not entirely the case.

There is indeed additional information in the RAW file which other RAW converters (other than the manufacturer's) which some conversion programs use in creating the final file, which Adobe does not use (thus Barry's comparison of Camera RAW converting from DNG or native RAW being identical - yup, that's the point).

I just find that other programs can get better results and when I inquire as to why, I find that most have reverse-engineered the data or are using the manufacturer's libs.
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
http://www.focusstudios.com

C_M said:

Barry Pearson said:

C_M said:

CS2 only gets ACR 3.7; Adobe want you to upgrade to use ACR4 (or
purchase Lightroom).

Click to expand...

Why do you want to use ACR 4?

If it is for its extra features, why do you expect to get those
extra features at no cost?

Click to expand...

When ACR3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc came out, how much did Adobe charge you
for those?
Yep that's it: $0.

Click to expand...

Because it didn't add new features. It just supported new cameras. (In Adobe terminology, this was "compatibility").

C_M said:

Adobe has implicitly (or more probably, explicitly) put a price on
ACR4, even though it should be (read: "it IS, but they made sure it
won't work") fully compatible with CS2.

Click to expand...

Of course they have put an implicit price on ACR 4.x! It is a much better raw converter than ACR 3.x. (And that was a much better raw converter than ACR 2.x). Other companies charge for raw converters.

Why do you want to use ACR 4.0? The fact that you appear to want it suggests that it is more valuable to you than ACR 3.x.

If you want it for its extra features, why do you expect to get those extra features at no cost? Those features bring its capability up to the level of the Lightroom Develop module, and Lightroom is a moderately expensive product.

This sort of discussion is a bit puzzling - I wanted the extra features of CS3, including ACR 4.0, so I bought it. Even at UK prices, which are much higher than US prices. I have become used to paying for extra features.

[snip]

C_M said:

More to the point Barry: do stop hijacking threads like this one, &
grabbing every opportunity to promote DNG.

Click to expand...

[snip]

It was Dov Isaacs who introduced DNG to this thread, when he responded to a post of mine which didn't mention DNG. It was Peter Sills who then turned it into an argument. I was the 3rd person to talk about DNG in this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=23129956
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=23130291
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=23134953

I supply information about DNG so that people can make their own informed decisions. It has a similar status to TIFF - a free-to-use file format owned by Adobe. (It isn't a commercial product). Would you complain about someone providing information about TIFF? And if so, why?

Peter Sills said:

Barry,

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!!!

Even Z (who knows more about DNG than almost anyone esle on this
forum stated)

[snip]
I personally do not suggest converting to DNG from well supported
formats, including CR2 and NEF, at this time.
[snip]

So, enough now!!!!!

Click to expand...

I am independent of Adobe. He is entitled to his opinion, I am entitled to mine. I don't follow the Adobe line (if there is such a thing) if I don't agree with it.

I believe there are some specific benefits that can be obtained by converting from "well supported formats, including CR2 and NEF". (Remember that probably most people who use DNG use Canon or Nikon, and probably most DNG images in the world started as NEF or CR2 images). Some well-known writers about Adobe products, including some alpha and beta testers, would probably agree with my views - or rather, I agree with their views. I suspect the topic that all of those people would have a view on would be "archiving".

I believe the characteristics of raw file formats can be evaluated against 3 phases: interchange; working storage; and archiving.

Interchange:

The established way to achieve well-engineered interchange (between tools and between organisations) within a complex multi-supplier computer system is via agreed published specifications. CF, SD, USB, JPEG, TIFF, EXIF, ... er, what about raw?

Working storage:

(This includes backup). This may be specific to the working product, but there may be less work if not. Speed of access and file size may be an issue to some people. Preparation for archiving is important at this phase for some people.

Archiving:

(Different from backup). Published formats, of course. Critical mass and economies of scale should ensure availability of tools in future. Search metadata and ownership metadata (in a standard format). Identification of rendering intent, for example via suitable previews.

DNG is a well-engineered attempt to satisfy the requirements at each of the phases. I am not aware of another raw file format that is. Note how important open documentation is in the 1st and 3rd phases.

Peter Sills wrote:
[snip]

Member said:

I just find that other programs can get better results and when I
inquire as to why, I find that most have reverse-engineered the
data or are using the manufacturer's libs.

Click to expand...

Which true raw converters (rather than viewers or asset managers) use "the manufacturer's libs"? They tend not to.

Yes, they have "reverse-engineered the data". And why is that any sort of argument against DNG? They don't even need to reverse-engineer most of DNG - it is published. And if they have reverse-engineered the Makernote, they have also reverse-enegineered the DNGPrivateData, because the Makernote is put there by the DNG Converter.

You are not identifying an argument against DNG. You are simply talking about where different products are as they make a transition to full support of DNG.

AFAIK ACR in Elements has been limited to the basic options in all versions.
You gets what you pays for

C_M said:

I have PS elements 5 (as well as CS2), & ACR 4 is severely limited
on Elements 5. Many options not present (only "Basic" &" detail"
tabs are present) , JPGs can't be processed, etc etc.

Click to expand...

Would someone please end this.

I am not interested in discussions with Zealots. They net you nothing!
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
http://www.focusstudios.com

Peter Sills said:

Would someone please end this.

I am not interested in discussions with Zealots. They net you
nothing!

Click to expand...

Robert 55 made a simple, accurate, and non-judgemental statement.

What is your problem with his statement?

My apologies Robert if it looked like I was directing my comments to your post. I was not.

My comments are directed at Barry.

I have yet to hear a single comment which shows that there is any benefit to using DNG if you are a current Nikon or Canon Photographer.

Even one of Adobe's own developers admits that you are probably better off using the NEF and CR2 formats if you are a Nikon or Canon shooter - yet you still persist to try to get people to convert to DNG.

What else is there to say?
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
http://www.focusstudios.com