ADobe DNG Workflow Puzzle

[Fred Briggs]

I was pleased to see the announcement of Adobe's DNG, as I have long believed that a neutral non-camera specific RAW file format is the most logical way forward for handling RAW files. I hope this format gets wide support from both camera and imaging software vendors.

However, I've just downloaded the new Adobe DNG format convertor and the latest version of Camera RAW which supports it, and had a brief play. As a result I'm now a bit puzzled about what Adobe intends by way of a workflow using this new format.

I expected the RAW convertor to offer to open the file into DNG format and do the RAW processing from there, maybe offering to save it in DNG format before leaving the ACR window. However, unless I am missing something, it seems that we have to use the standalone converter program to get the files into DNG format first. This seems to give no real incentive to use the DNG format.

I don't know if ACR has previously used separate convertor routines for each RAW type, or more likely a fairly generic conversion engine with different configurations for each RAW type. However, I would have thought that the logical thing to be doing now would be to replace all previous conversion routines with a standard DNG based ACR convertor engine used in conjunction with a pre-processor which converts each file to DNG according to the appropriate parameters dictated by its native RAW type.

If this is what is actually happening, then the data will be in DNG format prior to RAW conversion, so could automatically be saved in this neutral format on leaving the ACR window - maybe optionally according to a user set preference.

I would much prefer this as it would make the workflow a lot simpler and quicker, assuming that I want to use DNG, which I do.

Anyone got any more information on this?

Fred

 

[DeanSiracusa]

If I'm not mistaken, the reason for the creation of the format was mainly for archiving. This new format is public (open source) while all of the RAW formats from the camera companies are private and proprietary. The idea is that if you archive DNG files instead of the RAW files from some camera manufacturer you'll be more likely to be able to convert them later. The reason is that a camera manufacturer's proprietary format may be "end of lifed" or the manufacturer may go out of business. If that happened you'd be SOL for using a manufacturers RAW conversion software for converting an image using whatever current operating system you may be using at the time.

I think that Adobe is realizing that even they will have to abandon some RAW formats in the future. Look how many different formats ACR covers now. And we've only been using digital cameras that shoot in RAW for not that many years now. In 10-20 years the number of RAW formats that they'd have to support will increase exponentially.

So by converting all of your RAW files before archiving you should have a better chance of being able to convert them well into the future.

And, who knows, maybe some camera manufacturers will start using this format in their cameras.

--Dean

I was pleased to see the announcement of Adobe's DNG, as I have
long believed that a neutral non-camera specific RAW file format is
the most logical way forward for handling RAW files. I hope this
format gets wide support from both camera and imaging software
vendors.

However, I've just downloaded the new Adobe DNG format convertor
and the latest version of Camera RAW which supports it, and had a
brief play. As a result I'm now a bit puzzled about what Adobe
intends by way of a workflow using this new format.

I expected the RAW convertor to offer to open the file into DNG
format and do the RAW processing from there, maybe offering to save
it in DNG format before leaving the ACR window. However, unless I
am missing something, it seems that we have to use the standalone
converter program to get the files into DNG format first. This
seems to give no real incentive to use the DNG format.

I don't know if ACR has previously used separate convertor routines
for each RAW type, or more likely a fairly generic conversion
engine with different configurations for each RAW type. However, I
would have thought that the logical thing to be doing now would be
to replace all previous conversion routines with a standard DNG
based ACR convertor engine used in conjunction with a pre-processor
which converts each file to DNG according to the appropriate
parameters dictated by its native RAW type.

If this is what is actually happening, then the data will be in DNG
format prior to RAW conversion, so could automatically be saved in
this neutral format on leaving the ACR window - maybe optionally
according to a user set preference.

I would much prefer this as it would make the workflow a lot
simpler and quicker, assuming that I want to use DNG, which I do.

Anyone got any more information on this?

Fred

 

[Rygel]

I went to: http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

When I tried to d/l the software it takes me to the main d/l page and I didn't see the DNG converter.

Also, none of the PDF files contain any info!

 

[Steve Balcombe]

That's the right place, scroll down to Photoshop and choose Mac or Win as needed.

Steve B.

I went to: http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

When I tried to d/l the software it takes me to the main d/l page
and I didn't see the DNG converter.

Also, none of the PDF files contain any info!

 

[DeanSiracusa]

Mac users:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Macintosh

Windows users:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows

You'll need to be registered on the Adobe site to actually download the files.

I went to: http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

When I tried to d/l the software it takes me to the main d/l page
and I didn't see the DNG converter.

Also, none of the PDF files contain any info!

 

[Fred Briggs]

I went to: http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

When I tried to d/l the software it takes me to the main d/l page
and I didn't see the DNG converter.

Also, none of the PDF files contain any info!

On Adobe web site: Support - dowloads - Photoshop (Windows) then select Adobe DNG converter and Camera Raw 2.3 Update

URL: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2605

I did the download this morning UK time (at least 5 hours ahead of US), but have seen some other reports of the site not working. I followed this URL to the download button successfully a few minutes ago, but having just tried again it seems to have stalled - maybe just excessive demand.

The first time I went on the site I just saw and downloaded the 2.3 update - the second time I located the download combined with the DNG converter but got asked to login somewhere along the way.

Hope that helps,

Fred

 

[Rygel]

They had it under New Downloads

 

[Danny Brenner180445]

It's impossible to access the adobe site and download the file. Can anyone here be so kind and email me the file. Thanks for your help.
My email: [email protected]

 

[Bali_Mirage]

Could you email it to me? Email address is in my profile.

Thanks!

Corey

 

[gheil]

Dalibor of MRWFormat fame, has had a chance to look at the DNG format and give some interesting comments regarding its completeness (Adobe has always been fairly lax about preserving EXIF information and entirely neglecting the important Makernote section) and its lossless compression, which appears quite good:
http://www.dalibor.cz/support/viewtopic.php?t=173

The forum is Konica Minolta specific. Dalibor has been a wealth of information in reverse engineering the Minolta formats for making them publicly available. Eg he has had a chance to see the MRW for the yet to be released KM D7D DSLR with its entirely revised Makernote section:
http://www.dalibor.cz/support/viewtopic.php?t=164
greg

 

[Mark77]

Uncompressed, it is a 6MB file for the Mac version. The site may be a bit overwhelmed today but try a couple of times (I did) and you may get through. Otherwise try later.

I'd be happy to send the Mac version upon request if all else fails.

Could you email it to me? Email address is in my profile.

Thanks!

Corey

--
http://www.pbase.com/mreib
Canon Gee2 and Sfour_ten

 

[Danny Brenner180445]

I've been trying for more than two hours but it's totally impossible to access the Adobe support web site. Please help and send me the Windows version. Thanks, [email protected]

 

[Bali_Mirage]

Thanks but I finally got in the site and got it downloaded. And it's GREAT!

Corey

 

[xbytor]

Read though all of the PDF files associated with DNG at Adobe's site.
They address some of the workflow issues there.

BTW, in the Manufacture's Primer the refer to the ability to
optionally compress images with 'lossless jpeg compression'.
Anybody have a clue what they mean here? Is this JPEG200,
or is there something else going on that I don't understand?

There's a DNG forum at adobe.com. Maybe they've got more info.

ciao,
-xbytor

I was pleased to see the announcement of Adobe's DNG, as I have
long believed that a neutral non-camera specific RAW file format is
the most logical way forward for handling RAW files. I hope this
format gets wide support from both camera and imaging software
vendors.

However, I've just downloaded the new Adobe DNG format convertor
and the latest version of Camera RAW which supports it, and had a
brief play. As a result I'm now a bit puzzled about what Adobe
intends by way of a workflow using this new format.

I expected the RAW convertor to offer to open the file into DNG
format and do the RAW processing from there, maybe offering to save
it in DNG format before leaving the ACR window. However, unless I
am missing something, it seems that we have to use the standalone
converter program to get the files into DNG format first. This
seems to give no real incentive to use the DNG format.

I don't know if ACR has previously used separate convertor routines
for each RAW type, or more likely a fairly generic conversion
engine with different configurations for each RAW type. However, I
would have thought that the logical thing to be doing now would be
to replace all previous conversion routines with a standard DNG
based ACR convertor engine used in conjunction with a pre-processor
which converts each file to DNG according to the appropriate
parameters dictated by its native RAW type.

If this is what is actually happening, then the data will be in DNG
format prior to RAW conversion, so could automatically be saved in
this neutral format on leaving the ACR window - maybe optionally
according to a user set preference.

I would much prefer this as it would make the workflow a lot
simpler and quicker, assuming that I want to use DNG, which I do.

Anyone got any more information on this?

Fred

--

 

[Kent C]

Dalibor of MRWFormat fame, has had a chance to look at the DNG
format and give some interesting comments regarding its
completeness (Adobe has always been fairly lax about preserving
EXIF information and entirely neglecting the important Makernote
section) and its lossless compression, which appears quite good:
http://www.dalibor.cz/support/viewtopic.php?t=173
The forum is Konica Minolta specific. Dalibor has been a wealth of
information in reverse engineering the Minolta formats for making
them publicly available. Eg he has had a chance to see the MRW for
the yet to be released KM D7D DSLR with its entirely revised
Makernote section:
http://www.dalibor.cz/support/viewtopic.php?t=164

I think you have the wrong take on this regarding adobe. It's one thing for a consumer to reverse engineer a product from another company than adobe attempting it - esp. when the manufacture doesn't give any information to adobe in attempting to maintain a proprietary product to sell their own browsers/converters. Has been discussed much on the adobe forums by the adobe engineers, you might want to do a search on 'makernotes' especially.

--
Kent
http://www.pbase.com/kentc

 

[DeanSiracusa]

It's lossless compression but it doesn't say anything about it being any form of JPEG compression. Could be somewhat like the type of compression that can be used with TIFF files.

BTW, in the Manufacture's Primer the refer to the ability to
optionally compress images with 'lossless jpeg compression'.
Anybody have a clue what they mean here? Is this JPEG200,
or is there something else going on that I don't understand?

There's a DNG forum at adobe.com. Maybe they've got more info.

ciao,
-xbytor

I was pleased to see the announcement of Adobe's DNG, as I have
long believed that a neutral non-camera specific RAW file format is
the most logical way forward for handling RAW files. I hope this
format gets wide support from both camera and imaging software
vendors.

However, I've just downloaded the new Adobe DNG format convertor
and the latest version of Camera RAW which supports it, and had a
brief play. As a result I'm now a bit puzzled about what Adobe
intends by way of a workflow using this new format.

I expected the RAW convertor to offer to open the file into DNG
format and do the RAW processing from there, maybe offering to save
it in DNG format before leaving the ACR window. However, unless I
am missing something, it seems that we have to use the standalone
converter program to get the files into DNG format first. This
seems to give no real incentive to use the DNG format.

I don't know if ACR has previously used separate convertor routines
for each RAW type, or more likely a fairly generic conversion
engine with different configurations for each RAW type. However, I
would have thought that the logical thing to be doing now would be
to replace all previous conversion routines with a standard DNG
based ACR convertor engine used in conjunction with a pre-processor
which converts each file to DNG according to the appropriate
parameters dictated by its native RAW type.

If this is what is actually happening, then the data will be in DNG
format prior to RAW conversion, so could automatically be saved in
this neutral format on leaving the ACR window - maybe optionally
according to a user set preference.

I would much prefer this as it would make the workflow a lot
simpler and quicker, assuming that I want to use DNG, which I do.

Anyone got any more information on this?

Fred

--

 

[Steve Balcombe]

BTW, in the Manufacture's Primer the refer to the ability to
optionally compress images with 'lossless jpeg compression'.
Anybody have a clue what they mean here? Is this JPEG200,
or is there something else going on that I don't understand?

As I understand it, yes - "lossless Huffman JPEG" to be exact. Not really my subject, but I do know that this is not the compression system used in traditional "compressed TIFF" files.

Steve B.

 

[xbytor]

There are 3 different losseless JPEG methods that I am aware of:
1) Lossless JPEG (aka L-JPEG). This was included with the original
ISO JPEG standard. Its good for cartoons, sucks for traditional
photos. There does not appear to be widespread support
for this method.
2) JPEG-LS. This was a follow on ISO standard. It performs
much better than L-JPEG but also suffers from a lack of
widespread support.
3) JPEG2000. PSCS has an optional plugin on the CD in the goodies
directory. Mozilla, Firefox, and IE require plugins for support.
I'm actually not to sure about more recent versions of IE.

It is not clear which of these methods is used by DNG. It is also
not clear why PNG was not selected for this purpose since, as
far as I know, does everything they need and is far more widely
supported. The fact that it is not called 'JPEG', maybe? Using
any of the lossless JPEGs is equivalent to not using defacto
JPEG and if you're not going to use defacto JPEG, why not
use something with far more support in the industry, namely
PNG.

I'm not a PNG advocate, but I am a standards advocate, de jure
when possible, defacto when not. I just get a little nervous
when I see "lossless jpeg" without clarification, especially when,
as I understand it, the development of DNG was not an open
process: when can't find out what the rational was behind some
of these decisions unless Adobe decides to tell us.

Which brings up another point: how involved are people outside
of Adobe going to be in future revs of DNG? Are people
from Kodak, Canon, and the user community (for example)
going to be accepted as equal and active participants in this
effort?

I have no reason to doubt Adobe's intentions here, its just that
Microsoft has made me paranoid.

ciao,
-xbytor

BTW, in the Manufacture's Primer the refer to the ability to
optionally compress images with 'lossless jpeg compression'.
Anybody have a clue what they mean here? Is this JPEG200,
or is there something else going on that I don't understand?

As I understand it, yes - "lossless Huffman JPEG" to be exact. Not
really my subject, but I do know that this is not the compression
system used in traditional "compressed TIFF" files.

Steve B.

--

 

[digidog]

If I'm not mistaken, the reason for the creation of the format was
mainly for archiving. This new format is public (open source) while
all of the RAW formats from the camera companies are private and
proprietary.

Yes, exactly. The big news is this open format (.DNG). The converter is a tool, a safety net and in some ways a proof of concept. If you have a RAW file currently supported by Adobe Camera RAW, you don't have to convert that data. You can but you don't have to.

The idea is that if you archive DNG files instead of
the RAW files from some camera manufacturer you'll be more likely
to be able to convert them later.

Right.

I think that Adobe is realizing that even they will have to abandon
some RAW formats in the future. Look how many different formats ACR
covers now.

Well over 100...

So by converting all of your RAW files before archiving you should
have a better chance of being able to convert them well into the
future.

If you want (and in many cases, the files are a bit smaller).

And, who knows, maybe some camera manufacturers will start using
this format in their cameras.

Well that's ultimately what we consumers want, need and have to DEMAND!
--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[gheil]

I think you have the wrong take on this regarding adobe. It's one thing for a consumer to reverse engineer a product from another company than adobe attempting it - esp. when the manufacture doesn't give any information to adobe in attempting to maintain a proprietary product to sell their own browsers/converters. Has been discussed much on the adobe forums by the adobe engineers, you might want to do a search on 'makernotes' especially.

i could certainly agree Adobe needs to act differently. But personally i don't think it can be a solution to the "bitrot" issue unless they find a way to preserve the full information. Even if they wholesale replicated the variant parts in a special section: That would preserve the information, and open the possibility that someone might actually use this to preserve their digital negatives. Space wise a trivial cost for an immense practical gain. i would dearly love a standard lossless image format, it would open up a lot of possibilities. At some point there may be utility in this new format especially if it becomes possible to edit within the format, but for now i will keep my originals.

As i understand it Adobe is just as much on their own as Dalibor is, and all the cam co's are keeping the formats fairly tight to their breast. We may need to wait for this market to become a commodity market before there is any real hope for standardization. [It would be interesting to speculate when that would happen. i would guess it would happen at about the time that optical viewfinders are obsolete and all remnants of SLR heritage are withered away. i think that is about 4 doublings of EVF resolutions off, maybe 8 - 10 years. Until then there will continue to be battlegrounds on features, making standardization of any kind difficult]
greg