DaveSee
shallow depth of field
Thanks to those(Jorge, et al) who've linked us into the M8 wonderment, I was both surprised and also confirmed of the ongoing debate re: film v. digital... so what's this Adobe DNG format and why not "RAW" like the others?
Not to disagree with others who have posted elsewhere about the "M-ness" of the pending M8 v. Epson R-D1(s), I do ask of you, Dear RFFers, what you think of Leica's apparent adoption of Adobe's DNG over yet another RAW format?
I did some digging(ask.com,google.com) about DNG and came across THIS LINK which addresses the file format issue. While I've a lot of experience with Adobe's "open" formats of the past, this DNG format is presently weighted towards the use of that behemouth Adobe product Photoshop. My concern is that the lovely M8 is a hardware implement to Adobe software, where the Epson is not.
What say you, despite the cat still in the bag? That is, must I also buy (into) Adobe with the purchase of this camera? Agafa, Kodak, Fuji etc. never had such a claim on my M4.
rgds,
Dave
Not to disagree with others who have posted elsewhere about the "M-ness" of the pending M8 v. Epson R-D1(s), I do ask of you, Dear RFFers, what you think of Leica's apparent adoption of Adobe's DNG over yet another RAW format?
I did some digging(ask.com,google.com) about DNG and came across THIS LINK which addresses the file format issue. While I've a lot of experience with Adobe's "open" formats of the past, this DNG format is presently weighted towards the use of that behemouth Adobe product Photoshop. My concern is that the lovely M8 is a hardware implement to Adobe software, where the Epson is not.
What say you, despite the cat still in the bag? That is, must I also buy (into) Adobe with the purchase of this camera? Agafa, Kodak, Fuji etc. never had such a claim on my M4.
rgds,
Dave
Last edited:
AndyPiper
Established
The .DNG format is available to any camera manufacturer and RAW-developer developer (sorry!) who wants to implement it. Therefore no one is forced to go with Adobe.
Unless, of course, the people creating the third (or fourth or whatever)-party RAW software can't get their act together - which is no fault of either Adobe or Leica. If you want to use Aperture or Capture One or whatever - call up those guys and give them hell if they HAVEN'T incorporated .dng support.
Properly implemented, the advantage to .dng is that the format itself contains the parameters of the embedded RAW image. So it should no longer be necessary for RAW software writers to reverse-engineer for each new camera that comes out. E.G. whatever is new and different about the M8's RAW data should - if Leica handled THEIR end right - already be written into the .dng files by the camera as it creates them. And it's there forever - if someone writes a great new RAW developer program 20 years from now - and provides generic .dng support, that new software will handle your old M8 or DMR files without the software writer ever having heard of an M8 or a DMR.
It reduces obsolescence - any RAW converter you buy today that is .dng-savvy should be able to read a .dng file from the next 50 cameras introduced (so long as the camera makers use the .dng format) without having to know how many megapixels, what color the Bayer pattern starts with, what the x and y dimensions are - all that is contained in the overhead of the .dng format iteself.
Personally, I've been converting ALL my Sony R1 ".SR2" files into .dngs as fast as I shoot 'em. Among other things - the adjustments I make and save from the RAW developer (white balance, sharpening etc.) get stored within the .dng file itself, so I don't have sidecar .xmp files scattered all over the place cluttering up my computer.
Someone wants one of my RAW files - I send them ONE self-contained .dng, instead of an .SR2 file PLUS an .xmp file.
Unless, of course, the people creating the third (or fourth or whatever)-party RAW software can't get their act together - which is no fault of either Adobe or Leica. If you want to use Aperture or Capture One or whatever - call up those guys and give them hell if they HAVEN'T incorporated .dng support.
Properly implemented, the advantage to .dng is that the format itself contains the parameters of the embedded RAW image. So it should no longer be necessary for RAW software writers to reverse-engineer for each new camera that comes out. E.G. whatever is new and different about the M8's RAW data should - if Leica handled THEIR end right - already be written into the .dng files by the camera as it creates them. And it's there forever - if someone writes a great new RAW developer program 20 years from now - and provides generic .dng support, that new software will handle your old M8 or DMR files without the software writer ever having heard of an M8 or a DMR.
It reduces obsolescence - any RAW converter you buy today that is .dng-savvy should be able to read a .dng file from the next 50 cameras introduced (so long as the camera makers use the .dng format) without having to know how many megapixels, what color the Bayer pattern starts with, what the x and y dimensions are - all that is contained in the overhead of the .dng format iteself.
Personally, I've been converting ALL my Sony R1 ".SR2" files into .dngs as fast as I shoot 'em. Among other things - the adjustments I make and save from the RAW developer (white balance, sharpening etc.) get stored within the .dng file itself, so I don't have sidecar .xmp files scattered all over the place cluttering up my computer.
Someone wants one of my RAW files - I send them ONE self-contained .dng, instead of an .SR2 file PLUS an .xmp file.
matt fury
Well-known
Andy covered it, but yeah, .dng is a good thing for sure! I'm actually kinda surprised to see Leica make a move like that.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'm not really surprised. Leica gives the user free access to his own files far into the future.Unlike, for instance, Nikon.It fits into the Leica philosophy imho.
Last edited:
V
varjag
Guest
It also fits into limited developer resources issue, probably moreso than avoiding vendor lock-in for prospective users.
newyorkone
Established
Totally agree. All the raw converters worth mentioning: Capture One, etc. and of course ACR all support DNG. Who knows what will happen to all of of my CS2 and NEF files in the years to come.
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
AndyPiper said:
All true, and good points, yet none that wrest the ownership--and direction of future development--from Adobe... and this makes sense, for Adobe
Thanks for your input/thoughts... and I see that VueScan and dcraw both support DNG reading, so I don't have to buy an Apple system, nor run Winders and that's just great!
rgds,
Dave
ostman
Member
Dng.
Dng.
.DNG is designed for Adobe economic gain. Not your well being. If you really want to shout.. shout and have DNG made a global open standard owned and controlled by one of the international committees like ANSI.
I personally don't really care what format is used, provided at some point a world global standard is adopted. But that standard cannot be controlled by Adobe. They are a predatory company with only, repeat, ONLY, their interest in mind.
Adobe is NOT your friend. They simply supply a tool. And in our industry they currently supply the ONLY tool. That was never good for photography in the past, and will not be good for photography in the future.
On the other hand it was a smart move by Leica.
But remember.. Shout for a global - ANSI? ISO? - standard for Digital the negative.
Dng.
.DNG is designed for Adobe economic gain. Not your well being. If you really want to shout.. shout and have DNG made a global open standard owned and controlled by one of the international committees like ANSI.
I personally don't really care what format is used, provided at some point a world global standard is adopted. But that standard cannot be controlled by Adobe. They are a predatory company with only, repeat, ONLY, their interest in mind.
Adobe is NOT your friend. They simply supply a tool. And in our industry they currently supply the ONLY tool. That was never good for photography in the past, and will not be good for photography in the future.
On the other hand it was a smart move by Leica.
But remember.. Shout for a global - ANSI? ISO? - standard for Digital the negative.
MarcoS
R9/DMR . M8 . R-D1
You have to use only jpeg format (ISO standard) hence, because Adobe Systems, along with PSD and DNG, holds the copyright also for the TIFF specification.
I guess we are screwed...
I guess we are screwed...