RX100 .ARW to DNG--crazy big file sizes

<p>All, <br>

I just purchased an RX100 (first version). I have an old version of Photoshop (CS3), so I'm using .dng converter to convert the proprietary Sony files to .dng. Upgrading Photoshop is not an option; nor is getting the newest LR as I have an old Vista 32 bit system. <br>

Anyway, here's the question: when I convert the .ARW to .DNG the file sizes jump from about 20mb (ARW) to anywhere from 45-85mb (DNG). I've never seen anything like that from my Canon RAW files. I couldn't find much online, but I did find something that suggested Sony used codecs that were not compatible with DNG? <br>

Anybody else have any experience with this? I'm using the same settings as when I convert my Canon 6D files and they're very close in size to the Canon Raw. Are these large files just something to live with or am I missing something?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>in the DNG converter, there is an option to 'embed' the original raw image. That will immediately double+ the size of the .dng. Check to see if you have that turned on.</p>

<p>Yes. I just tried it with LR5 and got a .DNG slightly smaller than the .ARW file at about 20Mb.</p>

<p>I do not have it set to embed the original raw image. So, that is not it. <br>

Does LR5 use a different converter? Will, is this with an RX100 (first version)?</p>

<p>Aaron, I'm using an RX100-2 but I just tried LR5 on a RX100-1 .ARW file from someone else. The difference was larger but still not drastically so.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Update: Because I'm using CS3, the last version of Camera Raw I can use is 4.6. When I got the huge .DNG files after conversion, I had DNG Converter set to be compatible with CR 4.1. I tried doing the conversion with compatibility set to 7.1. That produced an reasonable file size--just about the same size as the .ARW. But, of course, I can't open it because my version of Camera Raw is too old. <br>

So, I guess that's the problem. Anybody know why that would be the case? What changed in recent versions of Camera Raw that would make it possible to have a .DNG file one half to one third the size of a .DNG file for an older version of Camera Raw? Anybody got any idea of a workaround?<br>

I suppose it's not a huge deal. I can still edit the files. And storage is pretty cheap, all things considered. </p>

<p>It really sounds like in the original conversion, you had the converter set to embed the original raw, hence the larger size. Maybe when you switched to a different DNG version, that was undone. You can test this yourself of course by toggling the settings for version and making sure no other settings differ and examining the size. I don't recall the older vesions having a big impact on size by YMMV. Double check by running the test again OR see if the bigger image you have allows the DNG converter to extract the original proprietary raw (if it's in there, it will). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anybody got any idea of a workaround? I suppose it's not a huge deal. I can still edit the files. And storage is pretty cheap, all things considered.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Instead of using CS3, how about paying $10/mnth for the newest PS and LR versions and benefiting from the modern/improved raw conversion engine? At the same time, the bonus is not having to worry about the extra and useless steps of dng conversion.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Upgrading Photoshop is not an option; nor is getting the newest LR as I have an old Vista 32 bit system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Opps, I should have read your post, Aaron! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Opps, I should have read your post, Aaron!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A common fault of yours. But for once, we agree, upgrading to the subscription for the better raw processing is an excellent idea in general! </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. <br>

Just to confirm, I did NOT have it set to embed the original raw files. </p>

 

<p>Be useful if you could upload one camera raw so we could test different options with newer versions of the DNG converter. Could be a bug in your older product I suppose.</p>

<p>Aaron, I have that wonderful camera as well. I use the latest Adobe software and you're correct, the dng is much larger.</p>

<p><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-DQhgqqvTQN4/U7rACPbO2II/AAAAAAAAhNM/u7_KyHw_efI/w700-h396-no/DNG-ARW-for-PN.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="396" /></p>

<p>Eric, Aaron isn't talking about a 3 Mb jump in size, he's upset by "the file sizes jump from about 20mb (ARW) to anywhere from 45-85mb (DNG)". Your size increases are about what I'm getting and no big deal.</p>

<p>Thanks Will, well aware of the discrepancy after coffee and reading properly the second time, cheers. I've been using DNG since it came out and never noticed it make a <strong>larger</strong> file...</p>

<p>I just delivered 2,410 dng files from a mixture of D800, D3s, and D700 cameras and the folder was 72.1 GB. The folder with the nefs was 72.6 GB...that's 0.5gb savings for 2400 files...so much for the "reduced storage with dng" theory.</p>

<p>I'm in a similar situation, using DNG to let me process raw files from a Canon SL1 with Photoshop CS5. DNG files from the converter average 18% smaller than the original CR2 files, which helps with archiving the files to DVD with the finished images (I archive the original CR2 files separately). The conversion step is reasonably quick and painless. The converter even includes an option to read the subdirectories of an SD card and output all the DNG files to a single directory, which I otherwise would have to do manually.</p>

<p>For me, using DNG is a cost-effective choice, at least for now. I see no compelling reason to upgrade CS5, and I particularly don't see the supposed benefits of renting software over a "traditional" perpetual license. (Actually, I understand how the new model benefits professionals whose livelihood depends on having the latest versions of multiple Adobe tools, and also how it benefits Adobe's shareholders. I just don't see how it benefits me.) I may go to Lightroom in the future, but I'm not yet willing to spend the money for it, or to change to the database-centric workflow it demands. I'm not entirely convinced that DNG is the future, or that it it is any more "archival" than the native formats of popular cameras, so I can't say that I'm an enthusiastic evangelist for DNG. But it's the best option I have at the moment, and it seems to be working well for me.</p>

<p>I suspect the OP's problem of large file size is related to making the files compatible with CS3. It might need to load camera profiles (or some other data) that the CS3 Camera Raw doesn't provide natively. If that's the case, there might not be any way around the large files.</p>

<p>All, <br>

Thanks for the continued input. I've attached (I think) an .ARW file from my RX100. When I convert this to .DNG I get a file around 79MB. I'm using Adobe Converter 8.3. I have it set to make it compatible with Camera Raw 4.6 (I'm not going to update to a newer version anytime soon). To be clear, I do NOT have it set to embed the original raw file. <br>

If anyone has a hankering to give it a try, here's the file: <a href="https://app.box.com/s/fos5bi87jirtir47k5av">DSC02255.ARW</a> </p>

<p>With LR 5.4 exporting as dng, I converted with 7.1 Camera Raw and it was 24.1MB dng, then converted with 4.1 Camera Raw like you, and it was, wow, 77.3MB dng</p>

<p>Converted <a href="https://app.box.com/s/fos5bi87jirtir47k5av" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">DSC02255.ARW</a> with latest DNG converter. Was 21.4MBb, DNG is 25.2MB. </p>

<p>The exercise is to convert it with 4.6, like Aarron, and report ones findings</p>

<p>It must have something to do with converting so that the .DNG is compatible with Camera Raw 4.6 or earlier. I wonder what the difference could be, though? I convert Canon 6D files with no problem. What would be different about Sony .ARW files from the RX100?</p>

<p>Oh well. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The exercise is to convert it with 4.6, l<strong>ike Aarron,</strong> and report ones findings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it's not. You've failed <strong>again</strong> to properly read or comprehend posts as the test that follows is quite clear (I wrote it):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Be useful if you could upload one camera raw so we could <strong>test different options</strong> with <strong>newer versions of the DNG converter.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Newer versions</strong> of the converter <strong>do not</strong> produce the large increase in size the OP reported so the solution is simple based on a proper test as I've conducted: Upgrade such a newer version of the DNG converter can be utilized or stick with the current workflow, understanding the size issue is due to an older versions routine. Further, using the most current version of the DNG converter, IF one selects the oldest format (<em>2.4 and later</em>), the <strong>same</strong> NEF becomes 81MB on disk! So it's clear what the issue is here and how to <em>'fix it'.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>The exercise is to convert it with 4.6, <strong>like Aarron</strong>, and report ones finding</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Insanity</em><em>: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results</em> . Albert Einstein. Your exercise fits that to a T.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It must have something to do with converting so that the .DNG is compatible with Camera Raw 4.6 or earlier. I wonder what the difference could be, though?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The update to the DNG processing. There are 6 options and for legacy workflows, Adobe updates but continues to support the older processing versions.<br /> You don't have to upgrade Photoshop, you don't have to use LR, you just need either a newer version of the DNG converter or examine the settings and use the latest (7.1). Then .ARW's are a few meg's larger than the original.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, Aaron isn't talking about a 3 Mb jump in size, he's upset by "the file sizes jump from about 20mb (ARW) to anywhere from 45-85mb (DNG)". Your size increases are about what I'm getting and no big deal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. So with a modern version of the converter, the size increase is only 4-5mb, tiny and well worth the benefits. </p>

 

 

<p>Aaron, I'm not sure and it's the first I've heard. It happens with 2.4 as well but stops the huge conversion when using 5.4 and beyond. Too bad there isn't an Adobe expert around to help us out with it.</p>

<p>Andrew, downloading his file and being the forth to use 7.1 and returning here to report you also have a slightly bigger dng just like Aaron, Will and myself have, has nothing to do with solving the mystery of getting a huge dng file from using 4.1 or 4.6. Perhaps re-reading Aaron's third post at 8:11pm and then replicate his procedure of using 4.1 and 4.6 and see what you find</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Because I'm using CS3, the last version of Camera Raw I can use is 4.6. When I got the huge .DNG files after conversion, I had DNG Converter set to be compatible with CR 4.1. <strong>I tried doing the conversion with compatibility set to 7.1. That produced an reasonable file size--just about the same size as the .ARW.</strong> But, of course, I can't open it because my version of Camera Raw is too old. <strong>So, I guess that's the problem. </strong>Anybody know why that would be the case?</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, downloading his file and being the forth to use 7.1 and returning here to report you also have a slightly bigger dng just like Aaron, Will and myself have, has nothing to do with solving the mystery of getting a huge dng file from using 4.1 or 4.6.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>7.1 is the process, 8.4 is the converter version I tested with and the results are clear. The two version value absolutely do not represent the same things! Further, as Will pointed out <strong>TWICE</strong>, the issue is not a few meg's increase it's a huge (2x) size increase and no matter how many times you run the same tests, you'll get the same results hence my request for the raw to test it without the insanity! With a newer version and process, the file is only about 4MB bigger. It's pointless to continue to do anything other than:<br>

1. Upgrade the DNG converter and settings as I've illustrated. <br>

2. Continue with the original workflow and end up with a bigger DNG. <br>

It was I who asked for a sample and it was I who showed that the issue is based on an older encoding and no matter how many times you run the same tests, you'll get the same answers which is insanity as defiend by Dr. E. </p>

<p>What part of the OP's original comment isn't clear: <em>when I convert the .ARW to .DNG the file sizes <strong>jump</strong> <strong>from</strong> about <strong>20mb</strong> (ARW) <strong>to</strong> anywhere from <strong>45-85mb</strong> (DNG).</em><br>

<em><br /></em>That's not a few meg's if you check your math! Using a modern version of the converter and processing, it becomes the case. </p>