DXO Optics and DNG format

<blockquote>

<p>This would suggest that, in theory, the manufacturer’s software would be best able to convert and process their own RAW file</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In theory, but definitely not in practice - for example, even though DPP can no doubt delve into every dirty little secret contained in the encrypted Maker notes Exif, there's simply no question whatsoever that (to use one familiar example - there are many) Lightroom's demosaicing, noise reduction and highlight recovery algorithms are demonstrably just plain <em>better</em> than the ones in DPP.<br>

<br /> That's not to say that someone might not still <em>prefer</em> DPP's conversions, but objectively, Lr's demosaicing renders better detail with less noise and fewer artefacts; its noise reduction is <em>starkly </em>better in terms of the balance between noise suppression and detail retention; and Lr's ability to recover detail from hot-to-blown highlights is far superior to DPP's.</p>

<p>The TRUTH is, they don't wanna, and you can't make them. The WHY is so much BS. Lots of good software out there.</p>

<p>Great thread. I just installed the trial version of DxO Oprics Pro 9, hoping to compare the new PRIME denoise software to other current software. I'm an experienced software person, so I expected this to be a quick experiment. After an hour or so of digging, I've done it.. BUT my entire photo library is in DNG format.... and DxO prefers not to support this format. hmm.. Why would a software company trying to establish itself as best-of-breed image processing ban a market segment dedicated to hiugh quality imaging (ie those who have chosen DNG as an image format)? Seems like an odd business decision, but oh well. Adobe, Topaz, and NIK all make great denoise software, so bye bye DxO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would a software company trying to establish itself as best-of-breed image processing ban a market segment dedicated to hiugh quality imaging (ie those who have chosen DNG as an image format)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ask them. Send them this URL. Tell them you understand this is small engineering to implement and except for some political agenda, why will they not support this? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>so bye bye DxO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Conversely, most of us have said bye bye to DNG. More options, and all that.</p>

<p>I use DxO Optics Pro 9.0.1 and have been using earlier versions since 2009. I used to save my files in Raw, JPEG, DNG and sometimes TIF. I stopped the DNG a while back, thinking it was overkill, but I understand the compulsion.</p>

<p>When I look at "Export to Disk" one of the choices is still DNG. Is not all DNG supposed to be the same format? I thought that was the whole point of DNG, that it is a generic format that should survive proprietary format wars. Am I missing something in the discussion? <br /><br />Since I don't use DNG anymore, I figured that it might be hard to find, so I started by looking a "Help" and there it was for anyone to see.</p>

<p>It's not that DNG format changes, it's the Adobe DNG converter that changes it, but I'm not clear why Adobe needs to upgrade the converter and whether newer versions makes all DNG files backwards compatible with older Raw converters that use DNGs made with older Adobe converters.</p>

<p>That's how you ask concerning a non-proprietary open source format and whether it will be compatible with all Raw converters past and future. Ask why the Adobe DNG converter needs to be updated/upgraded.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not clear why Adobe needs to upgrade the converter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For one, to update new cameras thanks to their proprietary nature. The converter updates to provide more functionality, much like we've seen in TIFF over the years (Layers etc). The user can control the version of DNG to deal with backwards functionality if necessary. IF a software product supports DNG, we'd expect the publisher to update it's DNG support which isn't large engineering by any degree. </p>

<p>I could see where a DNG reading program might need an upgrade to take advantage of new OS or hardware issues. The old software might still open the file, but optimized new software might open it faster.</p>

<p>Can DXO DNG files be opened in Adobe? I haven't tried in a couple of years. If no one knows, I'll create one myself and try, but I assume that someone knows.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can DXO DNG files be opened in Adobe?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If written to spec, absolutely but please give it a try. </p>

<p>All their excuses look pretty weak now that DxO Optics Pro 10 is out and it accepts DNG files from Adobe.</p>

<p>Grant S. writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All their excuses look pretty weak now that DxO Optics Pro 10 is out and it accepts DNG files from Adobe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no inside info about why DxO declined to support DNG in the past. But I can confirm Grant's observation: DxO Optics Pro 10, released in late summer 2015, supports Adobe-converted DNGs and provides the same lens corrections it gives to original raw files. I just tested this with some PDF files from 2009. </p>

<p>Even more interesting: the new DxO ONE camera (brilliant review of which can be found <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/2995052/cameras/dxo-one-review-a-better-camera-for-your-iphone.html">here</a>*) uses DNG as its native raw format, and its proprietary 'SuperRAW' format is basically just 4 DNG files inside a wrapper. So it appears DxO is now supporting Adobe DNG pretty well.</p>

<p>I'm giving serious thought to going all-in on DNG. Major advantage for me would be having all that metadata written into the DNG file so I could get rid of XMP sidecars. I wish that my other cameras gave me the DNG capture option. It was one of the things I liked about my old Pentax cameras: I had choice of PEF or DNG. I'm mainly shooting Olympus and Panasonic micro four-thirds now and none of my cameras let me choose DNG raw capture. I expect Canon and Nikon to hold out as long as possible, but I do wish the micro four-thirds system cameras would adopt DNG. Seems more consistent with the micro four-thirds 'let's all get all along, okay?' philosophy.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>*"Brilliant review"? Well, my wife liked it. :-)</p>

<p>I so agree with this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Major advantage for me would be having all that metadata written into the DNG file so I could get rid of XMP sidecars.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMHO they are a recipe for disaster. Nice plea for the adoption DNG can be read <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/a-plea-for-dng-again/">here</a></p>

<p> </p>

It's baffling to me how anyone could be afraid of a file

type.

 

After my raw nefs are backed up and archived, all I have

to be concerned about after that is the tiny xmp files.

When my syncback software scans my drives for files

that have changed since its last scan, it has a small task

to back up just the xmp files instead of the entire massive dng.

It's also wonderful to view a folder by 'file type' and just

drag the xmp files over to external hard drives for

updating your back ups. This is so much quicker on your desk time in front of the monitor

<p>Not sure who you are referring to as being 'afraid' of a file type but it seems to me that there are both pros and cons to converting RAW into DNG. I've read quite a few discussions on the web about this -- <a href="http://laurashoe.com/2012/02/16/to-dng-or-not-to-dng/">here</a> for example -- and on balance it seems to me that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. However I can see both sides of the argument and don't find either of them baffling.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's baffling to me how anyone could be afraid of a file type.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, DNG is a file format, nothing to fear. As Lawrence states clearly and correctly, there are pro's and con's of each, be it TIFF vs. PSD, PSD vs. JPEG, proprietary raw vs. DNG. Use which ever works for your workflow. Nothing at all baffling unless you wish to make it baffling or are uneducated about the facts.<br>

FWIW, there's <strong>far</strong> more one can embed into the DNG container than XMP, data that is useful to many of us. </p>

"IMHO they are a recipe for disaster."

 

I was referring to this. I've never once heard about xmp

files causing a problem or how they possibly could

 

"...but it seems to me that there are both pros and cons

to converting RAW into DNG."

 

Judging by how little it is practiced today, it's safe to

conclude that there's more cons than pros.

 

I went all in

when dng was introduced and just recently stopped it a

few years ago. My "work for hire" material though, still

has to be delivered in dng. It's a waste of time for me.

<blockquote>

<p>"IMHO they are a recipe for disaster."<br>

I was referring to this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed it's FUD. And you're correct, there's nothing to fear with respect to DNG and other file formats. It provides enormous workflow advantages for some, zero for others. The same is true for JPEG or PSD. There are a few, tiny capabilities PSD's provide that TIFF doesn't but none for me so I never use PSD. For those that do, AOK. It's baffling to me too how anyone could be afraid of a file type.</p>

<p>Why be afraid of a file type? The issue is the possibility that the software of tomorrow won't be able to read the files we create today in anything but the most important filetypes. </p>

<p>As a prime example, try to open a PhotoCD. Photoshop dropped this capability around CS4. There are probably still a couple of ways, but it's getting slimmer and slimmer. (Other examples: 8-track music, floppy disks, SCSI scanner, etc.)</p>

<p>I'm keeping my .NEF files. I use Lightroom, but I export the sidecar files, because I'm not counting on my Lightroom catalog being usable forever, more likely something will open the .NEF with the sidecar. I make good jpegs of every image and for special images a TIFF as greater insurance of future usability. </p>

<p>I'm betting someone will keep producing software that opens .NEF files. Will future software be able to open DNGs? PSDs? Lightroom catalog? The iPhoto catalog? I'm not counting on any of these. </p>

Great post, Sebastian. I feel the same. At some point you

have to trust some file types and I'm more comfortable

going into the future with nef/xmp files than having them trapped inside an obscure dng that the industry is already quickly forgetting about.

 

 

"I'm betting someone will keep producing software that

opens .NEF files. Will future software be able to open

DNGs? PSDs? Lightroom catalog? The iPhoto catalog?

I'm not counting on any of these."

 

 

Nor me. Yet strangely there is people like you here that also can't open their earliest digital images yet still continue to close their options by converting to dng and throwing out their native raws. Foolish, imo.

<p>"IMHO they are a recipe for disaster."<br>

Oops! So sorry for the confusion! I omitted two little words from this: '...for me'. Knowing the way I work, at some point I'll almost certainly delete the XMPs or overlook them when moving my NEFs somewhere else. I already have enough files floating round the place without doubling the number - a single original file per image is enough for me!<br>

One thing that I am curious about is Eric~'s assertion that DNG is an 'obscure format that the industry is already forgetting about'. Leaving aside the fact that some manufacturers -- Leica, for example -- are using the format in camera, there is quite a bit on the web about the advantages that DNG offers. For example, the Library of Congress seems to be indirectly funding the promotion of DNG (click <a href="http://www.dpbestflow.org/DNG">here</a> for details) as well as other proponents of the format such as <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/a-plea-for-dng-again">Michael Reichmann</a>. So I'd be interested in hearing the evidence for the format being dropped.</p>

<p>ob·scure. adjective. not well-known : not known to most people : difficult to understand : likely to be understood by only a few people : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : not readily understood or clearly expressed</p>

<p>"One thing that I am curious about is Eric~'s assertion that DNG is an 'obscure format that the industry is already forgetting about'. Leaving aside the fact that some manufacturers -- Leica, for example -- are using the format in camera, there is quite a bit on the web about the advantages that DNG offers."</p>

<p>Yet the dng advantages aren't enough for industry adoption. Leica and Pentax are small (obscure) companies and it makes sense for them to use dng. The better question is why everyone else (Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Canon) isn't using dng? Why don't they trust the Adobe format?</p>

<p>The photographers out there making 3Tb's of raw data a year don't (usually) bother with the time consuming step of converting to dng. Why? Because when we do the dng thing, now we have two files, nef and dng. What's the next step? Do you delete your original nef and put your trust in dng forever? Not very many are comfortable with that conundrum. So, do you keep both nef and dng and back-up those up two file types as you carry on producing 3Tb's of raw files a year? That's what I chose. And when I'm staring at a computer with seven hard drives in it that's networked to synology nas with five more hard drives and that is then duplicated off-site while it takes 14 months for Crashplan to do cloud back-up...I'll tell you from experience that keeping both nef and dng begins to be ridiculous. Do my photos look better with dng? Are they more future proof? Does it save me time? Save hard drive space? Opens up software options? No, not in the least.</p>

<p><br />"So I'd be interested in hearing the evidence for the format being dropped."</p>

<p>I didn't say dropped. The new people to digital photography, have hardly heard about dng. They've come home with their $800 Costco kit and now paying $10/mnth for CC Lr like millilions of others and dng is now reduced to an obscure check-box on the Lr import window...one that many rarely investigate.</p>

<p>Adobe has reduced their marketing for dng compared to the past and it's not even including anymore when you manually download the raw camera updates. And have you noticed it's even harder than it needs to be in order to find the dng converter on Adobe's site? If you're not convinced that dng is being forgotten about, take your own poll amongst your ten closest photographer friends and then take the additional steps and make polls on Flickr and the Fb photographer groups where you can sample from real numbers. You'll quickly find out that few actually bother converting their files to dng.</p>

<p>I have a theory that the proprietary Raw file formats of the major makers is part of their overall strategic direction. For instance, when you compare dynamic range at low ISO between Nikon and Canon, you see that Nikon has higher DR. I always thought that was due to sensor design, but after I bought a 50+mp Canon 5DsR, I began to think that the Raw file format is playing a role. Soon after I bought my 5DsR, one of my Nikon buddies asked me about the Raw file size. I said that my files were averaging around 70MB and he said that the files from his 34mp Nikon 810 were that big.</p>

<p>I wonder if Canon is purposely giving up a little bit of DR in order to increase processing speed. This weekend, I'll convert some files to DNG to see if they're larger or smaller than the Canon CR2 files. Of course, if the CR2 file format is limiting the collection of some DR data, then it's lost and will not show in a DNG file; however, in Raw conversion, I typically raise Shadows and reduce Highlights, so that data manipulation may create a larger file. Still, my base belief is that the Raw file contains all the data that you'll ever have. You can only recover highlights if there's data there to recover, but I'll see what happens.</p>

<p>I'm old enough to have seen several file formats disappear in data storage and audio. I'd like to see DNG become a native format for Canon and Nikon, but I'll bet that there are strategic product placement choices that are at least partly delivered through proprietary Raw files. </p>

<p><em>b·scure. adjective. not well-known : not known to most people : difficult to understand : likely to be understood by only a few people : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : not readily understood or clearly expressed.</em><br>

Sounds like a number of file formats including those that have nothing to do with image data. <br>

DNG like it's cousin TIFF is an openly documented file format, making both far easier for others to support and provide access than proprietary data. Like the PhotoCD example. Not only a proprietary file format (PhotoYCC) but the need to render that pre-raw with few existing tools to do so (FWIW, GraphicConverter for $39 can open PDC image packs and a slew of other files). So Proprietary data: Historically cases where files are difficult or nearly impossible to access. Open formats: Historically less so. </p>

<p>David, just bracket a range of exposures, 3 stops '<em>under</em>' and <em>over</em>, examine the raws with this:<br>

http://www.rawdigger.com<br>

The raw is the raw, view the raw histogram of each. </p>