Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) instead of RAW

[richardday]

Looks great!! And if a firmware upgrade would be able to allow the
istD and istDS to write these files that would be even better.

...but putting the RAW data through a compression algorithm may
also slow down the process of writing the files. Existing JPEG
compression is probably hardwired into the processor, but this
compression would have to be entirely done through the firmware
(=software). Wouldn't that slow down things? And as these
algorithms tend to be relatively complex, is there enough space in
the firmware for this?

Would seem a shame though if it not possible... Why can't Adobe
work with camera manufacturers, then the istDS could have had this
DNG raw format... BTW, anyone get more info on the raw files in the
istDS? Anyone passing at Photokina e.g.?

rgds, Wim

My logic suggests otherwise.

The extra time taken by the *istD with RAW files compared to jpg is in the actual data transfer to the CF card - If the file size is under half in DNG it will be a quicker overall result for both continuous shooting (after the buffer is full) and for reviewing (reading from card).

The process in camera (I am guessing) is probably:

1. Image exposed to sensor
2. RAW data is transferred to internal memory (buffer)
3. Data is converted to PEF, jpeg or TIFF depending on format selected.
4. Data is written to file.

Rough timings taken by me from my *istD are:
1,2 & 3. under 1 sec
4. - JPG = approx 3 sec including 1, 2 & 3

• RAW = approx 9 sec including 1, 2 & 3
• TIFF = approx 18 sec including 1, 2 & 3

My "guestimate" for DNG would be around 4 to 5 secs, that's if Pentax can/will implement it. That would be an BIG improvement!

As it appears that the data is written to buffer in a basic RAW state, the actual number of shots you can take before the buffer is full won't change, neither would the continuous shooting speed.

What would change however, quite dramatically, would be the big reduction in time in writing the 5 shots to the card, plus the extra number of shots per card compared to PEF (over double!). That, IMHO, would be the most useful thing Pentax could do as an update.

My suggestion to Pentax is - Drop the TIFF setting and replace it with DNG, or better still change the RAW format from PEF to DNG with a menu setting to turn compression on/off (for the purists!).

PENTAX - PLEASE ADOPT DNG AS YOUR RAW FORMAT.

There is NO reason NOT TO, except that other imaging software may not be able to read DNG files - Yet! (a situation I suspect will change rapidly). See the following statement from Adobe (from Forbes business news)

START -
"New Specification Built on Existing Standards

The Digital Negative Specification is based on the TIFF EP format, an accepted standard, and already the basis of many proprietary raw formats. The power of .DNG format lies in a set of metadata that must be included in the file to describe key details about the camera and settings. .DNG-compliant software and hardware can adapt on the fly to handle new cameras as they are introduced. The new file format unifies conflicting raw formats, enabling the preservation of a pristine version of the original raw image and the metadata associated with it. .DNG is also flexible enough to allow camera manufacturers to continue to add their own "private" metadata fields.

The Digital Negative Specification is being posted to the Adobe Web site free of any legal restrictions or royalties, enabling integration of the .DNG file format into digital cameras, printers, and software products. By adopting .DNG, camera manufacturers eliminate the need to develop new formats, simplify product testing and ensure new cameras have a raw format immediately compatible with tools such as Adobe Photoshop CS and Adobe Creative Suite. The .DNG format is immediately supported in Adobe Photoshop CS as part of an updated Camera Raw Plug-in, also introduced today (see separate release). Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 also supports .DNG files. "

• END

Rgds
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

 

[RJPhipps]

The guys/gals at Pentax who write firmware are presumably no longer
working on the istD - probably not even the istDS - they'll most
likelky already be working on whatever is the pipeline after that -
unless there is a need to patch the D or DS due to a true defect.
This is a 'feature' issue not a 'defect' issue.

That is not the pattern that the *ist-D followed, 1.10 firmware
made a big step to support m-series lenses, and updated exif
support, and 1.11 added support for remote assistant. These where
feature adds, not fixes.

I'd be very surprised if most of the firmware isn't common to the
*ist-D and DS, and much is carried forward to whatever comes next.
Effectively they're three different builds from the same same code
base. I think the product planning meeting goes like this.

Agenda item (x) Adobe DNG --- do we adopt it one (code name of next
camera) ? Mumblings of 'it's easy' 'no reason why not' etc. Ok do
we back port it the *ist-DS and *ist-D ?

Well, it could also be possible that because of the apparent outcry over crippled m-series support they were persuaded to address that one as fix/upgrade. However, the Remote Browser siupport was evidently planned all along, as V1.00 of the browser had a (disabled) button for it, and I suspect this was a feature that slipped its development schedule and had to be delivered late.

I guess if the 'outcry' (I wasn't following the forums then, but I gather a number of people were dissapointed by this) over m-series support persuaded them to do a u-turn, then there may be (very slim) hope for DNG (instead of TIFF?).

However, the cost to Pentax to do this may not be negligible. I don't really want to get into a debate about software engineering, but the DS has a lot of different/new functions, so the codebase has clearly moved on since the D was released, and retrofitting a function to an old branch is not necessarily trivial. Even if the two cameras share the majority of code, in software development the cost of a small change is often mostly in the testing, packaging, and deployment overheads and not in the actual code writing. Even if the cost of the actual work is small, if you have limited resources there can be a much bigger 'opportunity cost' as you have to divert work away from the future products, which is where the most revenue potential is.

I'd love to see DNG support on the istD, but I don't see the Pentax benefit/cost ratio being big enough to persuade them to divert their limited resources from new product development to giving existing customers a freebee upgrade. I think this applies to the DNG issue, and even more so to the wishlist of new free firmware features developed in a recent thread.

 

[Fred Meehan]

PENTAX - PLEASE ADOPT DNG AS YOUR RAW FORMAT.

There is NO reason NOT TO, except that other imaging software may
not be able to read DNG files

Hi all

That IMHO is the only reason Pentax will not adopt the DNG format.They would have to update their own software and camera's firmware to be able to use DNG. I hope they do as the new DNG is superior than PEF

Fred

 

[richardday]

The guys/gals at Pentax who write firmware are presumably no longer
working on the istD - probably not even the istDS - they'll most
likelky already be working on whatever is the pipeline after that -
unless there is a need to patch the D or DS due to a true defect.
This is a 'feature' issue not a 'defect' issue.

That is not the pattern that the *ist-D followed, 1.10 firmware
made a big step to support m-series lenses, and updated exif
support, and 1.11 added support for remote assistant. These where
feature adds, not fixes.

I'd be very surprised if most of the firmware isn't common to the
*ist-D and DS, and much is carried forward to whatever comes next.
Effectively they're three different builds from the same same code
base. I think the product planning meeting goes like this.

Agenda item (x) Adobe DNG --- do we adopt it one (code name of next
camera) ? Mumblings of 'it's easy' 'no reason why not' etc. Ok do
we back port it the *ist-DS and *ist-D ?

Well, it could also be possible that because of the apparent outcry
over crippled m-series support they were persuaded to address that
one as fix/upgrade. However, the Remote Browser siupport was
evidently planned all along, as V1.00 of the browser had a
(disabled) button for it, and I suspect this was a feature that
slipped its development schedule and had to be delivered late.

I guess if the 'outcry' (I wasn't following the forums then, but I
gather a number of people were dissapointed by this) over m-series
support persuaded them to do a u-turn, then there may be (very
slim) hope for DNG (instead of TIFF?).

However, the cost to Pentax to do this may not be negligible. I
don't really want to get into a debate about software engineering,
but the DS has a lot of different/new functions, so the codebase
has clearly moved on since the D was released, and retrofitting a
function to an old branch is not necessarily trivial. Even if the
two cameras share the majority of code, in software development
the cost of a small change is often mostly in the testing,
packaging, and deployment overheads and not in the actual code
writing. Even if the cost of the actual work is small, if you have
limited resources there can be a much bigger 'opportunity cost' as
you have to divert work away from the future products, which is
where the most revenue potential is.

I'd love to see DNG support on the istD, but I don't see the Pentax
benefit/cost ratio being big enough to persuade them to divert
their limited resources from new product development to giving
existing customers a freebee upgrade. I think this applies to the
DNG issue, and even more so to the wishlist of new free firmware
features developed in a recent thread.

Make the Browser software "open source" - I'm sure someone(s) will sort it out for Pentax! There appears to be sufficient bods with the skills out there, or even in the forum!

Just a silly suggestion, I understand Pentax probably wouldn't because of proprietary issues.

I do believe that Pentax will be forced to look very closely at DNG, as will all the other manufacturers. Once one goes fo it, all the others will fall into place. It is a very powerful movement that Adobe have started!

Pentax also seem to have a culture of backwards support and compatability, so lets hope there will be firmware and software upgrades for the *istD without us being forced (a la Canon & Nikon culture) to upgrade our *istD bodies with a future replacement piece of hardware.

Rgds
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

 

[RJPhipps]

Make the Browser software "open source" - I'm sure someone(s) will
sort it out for Pentax! There appears to be sufficient bods with
the skills out there, or even in the forum!

Here's a thought. If the cost/hassle to Pentax to offer a 'DNG' upgrade to existing istD/DS for free were commercially prohibitive, does anyone think there would be a market for them to SELL an upgrade to help cover their costs?

Palm experimented with this a while a go, though unsuccessfully I think - I seem to recall that way back in the Palm III days they did a paid OS upgrade, with a few useful new features, for something like $25. However since then they seem to have abandoned upgrades altogether - free or paid.

If people are willing to pay for 'physical' accessories such as viewfinder adapters, focussing screens, and so on, why wouldn't they pay for a new feature such as DNG format support? The benefit of doubled raw files per GB of CF must be worth something. How about $50? Sounds like a bargain compared to the cost of buying twice as many GB of CF). Say 5,000 people go for it - thats $250K to help cover Pentax's development, testing, and customer support costs, and everyone's happy.

Anyone interested? I would be?

RJP

 

[Fred Meehan]

Hi All

I just made a comparison of a shot I took today of some sunflowers.The first I converted from PEF to Tiff and the second I coonverted from PEF to DNG. Both were then resized and saved for web in Photoshop.The first one Flowers.jpg seems to me to be more saturated compared to tthe second one img????. I am just wondering what is the difference in processing that is going on.I am delighted with the reduction in file size compared to PEF never mind Tiff

http://www.meehan.co.uk/photos

--
Fred

 

[Fred Meehan]

Hi All

I just made a comparison of a shot I took today of some
sunflowers.The first I converted from PEF to Tiff and the second I
coonverted from PEF to DNG. Both were then resized and saved for
web in Photoshop.The first one Flowers.jpg seems to me to be more
saturated compared to tthe second one img????. I am just wondering
what is the difference in processing that is going on.I am
delighted with the reduction in file size compared to PEF never
mind Tiff

http://www.meehan.co.uk/Photos/html

--
Fred

oops wrong url
Fred

 

[Fred Meehan]

Hi All

I just made a comparison of a shot I took today of some
sunflowers.The first I converted from PEF to Tiff and the second I
coonverted from PEF to DNG. Both were then resized and saved for
web in Photoshop.The first one Flowers.jpg seems to me to be more
saturated compared to tthe second one img????. I am just wondering
what is the difference in processing that is going on.I am
delighted with the reduction in file size compared to PEF never
mind Tiff

http://www.meehan.co.uk.Photos.html

--
Fred

oops wrong url
Fred

oops! oops! oops! sorry

Fred

 

[Fred Meehan]

Hi All

I just made a comparison of a shot I took today of some
sunflowers.The first I converted from PEF to Tiff and the second I
coonverted from PEF to DNG. Both were then resized and saved for
web in Photoshop.The first one Flowers.jpg seems to me to be more
saturated compared to tthe second one img????. I am just wondering
what is the difference in processing that is going on.I am
delighted with the reduction in file size compared to PEF never
mind Tiff

http://www.meehan.co.uk.Photos.html

--
Fred

oops wrong url
Fred

oops! oops! oops! sorry

Fred

Again I am sorry don't know whats going on try

http://www.meehan.co.uk and click on photos link
Fred

 

[James O'Neill]

Here's a thought. If the cost/hassle to Pentax to offer a 'DNG'
upgrade to existing istD/DS for free were commercially prohibitive,
does anyone think there would be a market for them to SELL an
upgrade to help cover their costs?

I think a fair number of us would pay, but the issue is the one you touched on before about code trees - they'd have paid firmware and free firmware. Suppose there was a 1.11b with DNG, when they bring out some fix in the future, you have 1.2 and 1.2b and double the testing etc. Unless you charge for all firmware upgrades.

I think the best route is for Pentax

(a) To give the current cameras the ability to write PEF or DNG (so as not to cut off people with software which is supports PEF but not DNG),
(b) Announce that future cameras will use DNG not PEF.

(c) End development of the browser and Lab software, and do a bundling deal with someone with decent DNG software (ACD would be the obvious choice as the relationship is there. I'd prefer phase one, but PS elements might be the best of the lot).

(d) Write the lens ID to an accessible EXIF field and publish a table of IDs and names.