Why don't more manufacturers use .dng files?

[forest dream]

Nope. Just joke.

IMO similar to lens mount, beginning some manufacturer wish special RAW format will lock user in system.

Although fail lock user, manufacturer started invest own format, the mistake already happen. However, their didn't want spend another R&D fund convert existing firmware to support DNG.

IMO existing camera firmware (although new camera model) buggy and contain lot legacy unused code. Every new model, camera maker just fix and change some feature on top of current firmware.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Nope. Just joke.

IMO similar to lens mount, beginning some manufacturer wish special RAW format will lock user in system.

Or that some manufacturers simply believed their way was better than the competition.

Like in lens mounts: Nikon believed a bayonet was best, Canon believed a breech lock was best, Pentax believed a screw mount was best. Nikon won that one: Pentax eventually switched from screw mount to bayonet, Canon hid a breech lock under the fragile and unreliable FD mount, and later switched to a bayonet.

Then came autofocus and Nikon, SKuM (Sony, Konica,und Minolta), and Pentax believed camera-body motors were best, Canon believed in-lens motors were best. Canon won.

Then came mirrorless, and Sony believed optimizing for size at the expense of performance (with a mount I have always considered to be to small) was best, whike Nikon believed optimizing for performance at the expense of size with a huge lens throat was best.

It's 2022 and we can't get an industry to agree which direction we should turn a lens to unlock the mount, which direction to focus, etc.

Raw (not RAW, BTW. "Raw" is a word that means "not cooked": it's not an acronym for anything) is exactly the same. Every manufacturer believes their way of doing color is best, their particular image-processing chain is the best, their compression is best.

Although fail lock user, manufacturer started invest own format, the mistake already happen. However, their didn't want spend another R&D fund convert existing firmware to support DNG.

Or, conversely, they didn't want to persuade Adobe to add all their manufacturer-specific data to raw, and all their algorithms to raw converters.

IMO existing camera firmware (although new camera model) buggy and contain lot legacy unused code. Every new model, camera maker just fix and change some feature on top of current firmware.

Not sure what you're trying to say, there.

--
The term "mirrorless" is totally obsolete. It's time we call out EVIL for what it is. (Or, if you can't handle "Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens" then Frenchify it and call it "LIVE" for "Lens Interchangeable, Viewfinder Electronic" or "Viseur électronique").
-----
Stanley Joseph Wisniewski 1932-2019.
Dad, so much of you is in me.
-----
Christine Fleischer 1947-2014.
My soulmate. There are no other words.
-----
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
----
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Marty4650]

I posted a question, and got lots of really good replies. And I learned a lot.

And it just showed me that something I thought was simple, was a lot more complicated than I thought it was. As usual, the folks using these forums are pretty smart, and always willing to share their knowledge.

My suggestion won't work because there are multiple good reasons for proprietary raw file formats. And while a single universal format might benefit someone like me, it might not benefit others, and it certainly wouldn't benefit manufacturers.

I had assumed that since the jpeg standard has worked so well for 30 years, despite being updated and tweaked, that something similar could be done for raw files. But it probably will never happen for all the reasons you folks stated in your replies.

So I will continue to use my solution of converting new file formats to dng files, so I won't have to keep getting new editing software or pay Adobe a subscription fee. It adds a step, but it works pretty well for me.

Thanks again.

 

[MarkInSF]

IMO existing camera firmware (although new camera model) buggy and contain lot legacy unused code. Every new model, camera maker just fix and change some feature on top of current firmware.

Unless you have some special insight into their software development processes, I don't think you could know that. Personally, I rather doubt it, because camera companies have always put a limited amount of processing power and memory in cameras, just what was needed. This sometimes led to very clumsy, slow user interfaces and small, slow buffers. Badly written, unnecessary firmware would slow things down even more.

 

[newmikey]

So I will continue to use my solution of converting new file formats to dng files, so I won't have to keep getting new editing software or pay Adobe a subscription fee. It adds a step, but it works pretty well for me.

Just get software which is continuously updated for free, is always being improved (for free) and reads just about any proprietary format known to mankind and then some?

DNG has always meant "Do Not Go" for me as it meant buying into the shady intentions of a monopolistic software manufacturer. It doesn't take much to understand Adobe did not create this format out of some idealistic idea to serve mankind (of photographer-kind).

Some of the other reasons to avoid DNG like the plague are:

• the fact that raw to DNG conversion is a one-way-street (once you have converted your ORF, NEF, ARW etc. to DNG you'll never, ever be able to convert it back).
• the fact there is open-source software available which supports every raw format back to the beginning days of digital photography, and then some
• the fact DNG is a container file which could contain raw camera data bu could very well contain demosaiced lossy or lossless image data
• a DNG file which does not come from a DNG-enabled camera is no proof of copyright or image ownership
• There is a whole world of software (paid as well as free) out there which is perfectly capable of delivering better quality results than Adobe cookie-cutter results
• the fact Adobe and its DNG format lure you into the lie that raw conversion and image editing are connected at the hip
• most software either has fair update policies or even updates entirely for free to keep access to newer raw formats

--
Albums: https://eu-web.online/photographics
Blog: https://eu-web.online/Mike-Bing/?lang=en

 

[jiberlin]

I posted a question, and got lots of really good replies. And I learned a lot.

And it just showed me that something I thought was simple, was a lot more complicated than I thought it was. As usual, the folks using these forums are pretty smart, and always willing to share their knowledge.

I think the biggest that you made is to think that every DNG is the same across different manufactures and camera models. As other already have written, in the DNG format their is room for manufacturer dependent options. And with this, only the very basic features of DNG are manufacturer or camera-model independent. With this background, using DNG is the same as every other raw format: You need updated software to support newer models.

My suggestion won't work because there are multiple good reasons for proprietary raw file formats. And while a single universal format might benefit someone like me, it might not benefit others, and it certainly wouldn't benefit manufacturers.

I had assumed that since the jpeg standard has worked so well for 30 years, despite being updated and tweaked, that something similar could be done for raw files. But it probably will never happen for all the reasons you folks stated in your replies.

So I will continue to use my solution of converting new file formats to dng files, so I won't have to keep getting new editing software or pay Adobe a subscription fee. It adds a step, but it works pretty well for me.

With the conversion from proprietary raw files to DNG you loose information like in lossy compression. If it is ok for you, it is fine. An option to avoid regular pay for updates is to use open-source software like Darktable. With this option you have to learn a new software, but you get the benefit of great features and free updates. Another option is to use the free manufacturer raw converter to create a TIFF with basic conversion including all the advanced features of the manufacturer format like distortion, vignetting and aberration correction. And then use other software for fine adjusting the picture.

Thanks again.

 

[forest dream]

IMO existing camera firmware (although new camera model) buggy and contain lot legacy unused code. Every new model, camera maker just fix and change some feature on top of current firmware.

Unless you have some special insight into their software development processes, I don't think you could know that. Personally, I rather doubt it, because camera companies have always put a limited amount of processing power and memory in cameras, just what was needed. This sometimes led to very clumsy, slow user interfaces and small, slow buffers. Badly written, unnecessary firmware would slow things down even more.

Other camera buffer (RAM) size is unknown.

The Leica M11 features an internal image buffer of 3GB, which is enough to hold 15 pictures. The buffer simply is there so the camera can continue to photograph while pictures are written to the memory card. With the maximum speed of the Leica M11 of 4.5 frames per second, you can keep shooting continuous for three seconds before the speed slows down.

The Leica M10 (2017) has a buffer of 2GB, the Leica M9 (2009) has no buffer.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

To the best of my knowledge, only Pentax and Leica use .dng as their raw file formal. Everyone else creates a new raw format, seemingly with every new camera they release, so you will be forced to update your software or subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud.

Now, I do get it. They want to tweak their raw format for their new camera. So every new camera comes with a a completely incompatible raw format. Except for Leica and Pentax.

Since I refused to pay a monthly fee for the rest of my life to edit my photos, I find myself shooting in raw Olympus and Panasonic files, then converting to them to dng files so I can edit them on older software I own. And this works, but it adds an extra step to the process.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if manufacturers just used dng files, or at least offered you the option of using them rather than their proprietary format in their settings?

Believe me Marty ! NOBODY hate subscriptions more than me ! I fought that with Photoshop for so long. But I'm glad I finally gave in. Because for myself, their is nothing better than the latest version of PS. I'd have SO rather just given them $200 up front, and been done with it, but I get it. They need a continuing cash flow, to continue to provide updates. Now, as for whether or not its worth it, I can't answer for anyone else, but for me it sure is.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I posted a question, and got lots of really good replies. And I learned a lot.

And it just showed me that something I thought was simple, was a lot more complicated than I thought it was. As usual, the folks using these forums are pretty smart, and always willing to share their knowledge.

I think the biggest that you made is to think that every DNG is the same across different manufactures and camera models. As other already have written, in the DNG format their is room for manufacturer dependent options. And with this, only the very basic features of DNG are manufacturer or camera-model independent. With this background, using DNG is the same as every other raw format: You need updated software to support newer models.

My suggestion won't work because there are multiple good reasons for proprietary raw file formats. And while a single universal format might benefit someone like me, it might not benefit others, and it certainly wouldn't benefit manufacturers.

I had assumed that since the jpeg standard has worked so well for 30 years, despite being updated and tweaked, that something similar could be done for raw files. But it probably will never happen for all the reasons you folks stated in your replies.

So I will continue to use my solution of converting new file formats to dng files, so I won't have to keep getting new editing software or pay Adobe a subscription fee. It adds a step, but it works pretty well for me.

With the conversion from proprietary raw files to DNG you loose information like in lossy compression. If it is ok for you, it is fine. An option to avoid regular pay for updates is to use open-source software like Darktable. With this option you have to learn a new software, but you get the benefit of great features and free updates. Another option is to use the free manufacturer raw converter to create a TIFF with basic conversion including all the advanced features of the manufacturer format like distortion, vignetting and aberration correction. And then use other software for fine adjusting the picture.

Thanks again.

Sorry I was late to the party. But for myself, I use DXO Pure Raw to convert my Canon CR2 files to DNG's.... and I swear, it does such an amazing job with noise, and colors, that even if my camera made DNG files, I think I'd still have to let DXO Pure Raw "fix them".

 

[Iliah Borg]

I posted a question, and got lots of really good replies. And I learned a lot.

And it just showed me that something I thought was simple, was a lot more complicated than I thought it was. As usual, the folks using these forums are pretty smart, and always willing to share their knowledge.

I think the biggest that you made is to think that every DNG is the same across different manufactures and camera models. As other already have written, in the DNG format their is room for manufacturer dependent options. And with this, only the very basic features of DNG are manufacturer or camera-model independent. With this background, using DNG is the same as every other raw format: You need updated software to support newer models.

My suggestion won't work because there are multiple good reasons for proprietary raw file formats. And while a single universal format might benefit someone like me, it might not benefit others, and it certainly wouldn't benefit manufacturers.

I had assumed that since the jpeg standard has worked so well for 30 years, despite being updated and tweaked, that something similar could be done for raw files. But it probably will never happen for all the reasons you folks stated in your replies.

So I will continue to use my solution of converting new file formats to dng files, so I won't have to keep getting new editing software or pay Adobe a subscription fee. It adds a step, but it works pretty well for me.

With the conversion from proprietary raw files to DNG you loose information like in lossy compression.

Not like in lossy compression, unless one sets lossy intentionally.

If it is ok for you, it is fine. An option to avoid regular pay for updates is to use open-source software like Darktable. With this option you have to learn a new software, but you get the benefit of great features and free updates. Another option is to use the free manufacturer raw converter to create a TIFF with basic conversion including all the advanced features of the manufacturer format like distortion, vignetting and aberration correction. And then use other software for fine adjusting the picture.

Thanks again.

 

[forest dream]

O f course... That was the point that I was making, that DNG is a kind of "generic RAW" format.

"Generic" raw format is sensor dump.

 

[Iliah Borg]

O f course... That was the point that I was making, that DNG is a kind of "generic RAW" format.

"Generic" raw format is sensor dump.

DNG ... well support by many software.

Not quite well. That's why we have a lot of parameters for user to set in our DNG converters if he needs to work around individual software incompatibilities.

PDF is a total off-topic here, so I will limit my discussion to a simple "you don't know what you are talking about".

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[forest dream]

O f course... That was the point that I was making, that DNG is a kind of "generic RAW" format.

"Generic" raw format is sensor dump.

DNG ... well support by many software.

Not quite well. That's why we have a lot of parameters for user to set in our DNG converters if he needs to work around individual software incompatibilities.

Poor "DNG converters" different with camera native support DNG.

Main issue of "DNG converters" is are it not 100 % understand original RAW format (especially certain undocumented data). It is not DNG file format issue?

Only when camera native support DNG (e.g. Ricoh GR series, Leica series)....

PDF is a total off-topic here, so I will limit my discussion to a simple "you don't know what you are talking about".

Em..are you sure?

 

[Glen Barrington]

O f course... That was the point that I was making, that DNG is a kind of "generic RAW" format.

"Generic" raw format is sensor dump.

DNG similar to PDF, well support by many software.

Other RAW format similar to Microsoft Office file, support by some software (some software may render differently).

In my experience, most software that supports raw, renders the same ORF file differently than a different raw supporting software. And as a result, some finished photos are easier to get to a satisfactory point than others, regardless of the controls, and ease of use of the software. So with raw, I find that some raw software pleases me and some does not.

E.g. Fuji RAW may render different when opened with Adobe - Fuji worms

 

[sportyaccordy]

To put it simply, they're doo doo heads.

I would love more manufacturers to incorporate HEIF as well. Proprietary RAW formats are a useless relic.

 

[Kameratrollet]

For you who have older versions of Lightroom, does this DNG file work for you?

Loading…

raw.pixls.us

 

[Tom_N]

Adobe's own site indicates that some .DNG files produced by Leica cameras are not compatible with one-time purchase versions of Lightroom. Presumably these DNGs conform to a later version of the DNG specification than the one LR 6.14 supports.

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

 

[JohnSil]

To put it simply, they're doo doo heads.

I would love more manufacturers to incorporate HEIF as well. Proprietary RAW formats are a useless relic.

I take it you own stock in Adobe? LoL

I don't think I want Adobe to be designing my cameras software. They should stick to whatever they do best, like LR and PS and a few other programs that are very good.

But at least the camera playing field would be more level. like a manufacturer could only develope their hardware to the point that DNG would allow, so the competitive edge would now be gone.

No more better mousetraps!!!

John

 

[D Cox]

For you who have older versions of Lightroom, does this DNG file work for you?

https://raw.pixls.us/getfile.php/3204/nice/Leica - Q2 - 14bit uncompressed (3:2).DNG

When I clicked on the file, it opened in IrfanView, which is my default image viewer.

It also opened in CS6 Adobe Camera Raw, no problem.

However, in Affinity Photo it opened with black corners, as though the wrong lens hood had been used. Otherwise OK.

Nice photo. What river is it ?

Don

 

[Kameratrollet]

For you who have older versions of Lightroom, does this DNG file work for you?

https://raw.pixls.us/getfile.php/3204/nice/Leica - Q2 - 14bit uncompressed (3:2).DNG

When I clicked on the file, it opened in IrfanView, which is my default image viewer.

It also opened in CS6 Adobe Camera Raw, no problem.

However, in Affinity Photo it opened with black corners, as though the wrong lens hood had been used. Otherwise OK.

Nice photo. What river is it ?

Don

Not my photo. Free one from raw.pixls.us. Black corner is just no Lensfun profile.