DNG to NEF converter?

noirdesir said:

bclaff said:

noirdesir said:

those camera manufacturers you use DNG as their raw format are those which don't see any benefits of defining their own raw format.

Click to expand...

They may not see any benefit of defining their own format but this
does not mean that they are writing transparent universally
understood files.
For example, Ricoh has an extensive and not fully understood
Makernote in their DNG file.
Just because it's DNG doesn't mean it's "open".

Click to expand...

No, but it might give niche manufacturers (niche in respect to
raw-producing cameras, like Ricoh) an easy way into applications like
Aperture (Apple might not bother to support Ricoh's own raw format
because they are too small). I don't think DNG is of too much use,
but it fulfills certain niche uses. And Aperture does not seem to be
bothered by that Makernote.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

May be a better solution is to allow parser plugins for Aperture.

Click to expand...

noirdesir said:

noirdesir said:

May be a better solution is to allow parser plugins for Aperture.

Click to expand...

That would fulfill the same purpose (but apart from the fact that
you'd need Apple's cooperation on this one) you'd need a parser for
each application (Aperture, Bibble, etc.). Writing DNG in camera is
like building the parser into the raw file.

Click to expand...

noirdesir said:

All those camera manufacturers who don't offer raw conversion
software of their own and thus don't need any special features in
their raw files, could use it. This would avoid the chore of having
to convert (re-format) them with Adobe's DNG converter for use in
Applications like Aperture and its DNG-baseline 'mode'.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

noirdesir said:

Iliah Borg said:

May be a better solution is to allow parser plugins for Aperture.

Click to expand...

That would fulfill the same purpose (but apart from the fact that
you'd need Apple's cooperation on this one) you'd need a parser for
each application (Aperture, Bibble, etc.). Writing DNG in camera is
like building the parser into the raw file.

Click to expand...

Difference is you may put proprietary notes into DNG and converter
will ignore those; while dedicated parser will process those.

Click to expand...

noirdesir said:

Iliah Borg said:

noirdesir said:

noirdesir said:

May be a better solution is to allow parser plugins for Aperture.

Click to expand...

That would fulfill the same purpose (but apart from the fact that
you'd need Apple's cooperation on this one) you'd need a parser for
each application (Aperture, Bibble, etc.). Writing DNG in camera is
like building the parser into the raw file.

Click to expand...

Difference is you may put proprietary notes into DNG and converter
will ignore those; while dedicated parser will process those.

Click to expand...

Agreed. DNG limits what information you can convey. Your own parser
could offer much more. But in the end it depends on what a raw
converter accepts as input from such a parser.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

Iliah Borg said:

Iliah Borg said:

Difference is you may put proprietary notes into DNG and converter
will ignore those; while dedicated parser will process those.

Click to expand...

Agreed. DNG limits what information you can convey. Your own parser
could offer much more. But in the end it depends on what a raw
converter accepts as input from such a parser.

Click to expand...

For example, I know D3 and S5 are non-standard, and I know what to do
to make them look standard. I can parse and pre0convert, supplying
expected linear normalized data to a converter that understands DNG
but ignores certain camera features. The way around is to make an
additional program that works before the converter preparing DNG, but
it turns workflow into a mess.

Click to expand...