Over on the RawShooter forum I started a discussion about support for the DNG format. I am one of those people who some will consider foolish because I purchased a Fuji S9000 camera. And RawShooter does not support my camera or any Fuji camera. RawShooter supports DNG files, but only from cameras that they support the native raw format. Basically, I commented that if they would support the DNG format the way it has been published then their software would support a wider range of cameras. And the response was that they would then have to be supporting an Adobe quality DNG rather than a RawShooter quality DNG. What in the world does that mean? Wouldn't the format and the quality be the same in either case?

The DNG version of the file contains EXACTLY the same image data (bit for bit) as the original RAF file.

Could Pixamantec be reluctant to map some of the manufacturer specific
tags in the maker notes section for RAW formats they don't support?

Perhaps they base some (alot?) of their conversion on these proprietary
clues, in which case, Pixamantec would have to make maps for each
manufacturer.

DxO operates in a similar fashion - not all fancy functions work well if
the exif data isn't where the software expects.

It was my impression that one of the primary reasons for developing the DNG format was to provide some common ground so that it would not be necessary to have to worry about specific RAW formats. But Michael Tapes replied to one of my questions as follows:

"The issue, as I tried to explain above, is that Pixmantec would have to write a new RAW converter (not a DNG converter) that was compatible with the info inside of the DNG file. And the end result would be an Adobe quality conversion, not a RawShooter quality conversion, and not with the Color Engine or any of the proprietary RawShooter controls. So all you are asking is for Pixmantec to write a new converter (in essence)."

So my question is, what is the point of supporting DNG if the developer is worried about the quality of the conversion, and is inserting proprietary information into the file. It seems to me that even the software developers are fighting any sort of standardization. They too seem to be concerned about having the **best** conversion. So I don't see how there will ever be any kind of standardizing of the raw format.

Michael Tapes' claim (as you quoted) is bogus, Other
converters (Silkypix for example) allow the user to choose
to use the Silkypix colour engine or to use the embedded
profiles in a DNG. Silkypix supports DNG from any camera
they support, plus any other 3-colour (RGB or RGGB) camera
which doesn't use offset pixels. So Fuji is out I'm afraid.

It simply isn't true that DNG "forces" the converter to use
it's embedded metadata - as Thomas Knoll says in this thread
the data is often *identical* to the original raw file, just
packaged differently. Once extracted from the file wrapper
the raw data from a DNG can be processed in *exactly* the
same way as the same raw data extracted from the camera
manufacturer's raw format.

--
John Bean

John,

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But the problem is that some of these other developers don't understand that, and they often say that Adobe is the company that is misinformed, that doesn't understand the complexities of the DNG format. I guess I'm just a little frustrated with some of the perceptions that are out there. The nice thing is that Adobe Camera Raw really has a nice feature set and does the superb job for me.

And the response was that they would then have to be supporting an Adobe
quality DNG rather than a RawShooter quality DNG.




Jim, I've raised a similar question in this thread <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc04910/11> that's along the lines of what is a baseline DNG processor and what isn't? it would seem the only fully certified and compliant DNG processor is the ACR engine. IMO, for DNG to be truly useful it needs to be portable across many fully compliant processors. Perhaps Thomas can shed some additional light on what the baseline is for a DNG processor and why many fall short?

John Bean: "Silkypix supports DNG from any camera they support, plus any
other 3-colour (RGB or RGGB) camera which doesn't use offset pixels. So
Fuji is out I'm afraid"




Just for interest, I decided to have a look at Silkypix, after seeing what you have said about it. I tested its DNG support for a few cameras that it doesn't support via their native raws. (I tested the latter - I didn't just go by their documentation). The tests involved developing a TIFF file and opening it in Photoshop. Here are some results - note Fuji:

Silkypix version 2.0.18.1 (Windows).

The native raw of the following cameras cannot be processed.
The default DNG and the "linear" DNG can.
Casio EX-Z55
Leaf Aptus 22
Phase One P25 - (default DNG discoloured)
Sigma SD10
Sony V3

The native raw and the default DNG of the following cameras cannot be processed.
The "linear" DNG can.
Fuji S2 Pro
Fuji S9500
SMaL 1288x864
SMaL 2032x1520

The (hacked) Casio EX-Z55 raw was first converted with RAW2DNG.
The (hacked) SMaL raws were first converted with SMaL2DNG.

Thanks Barry. I was talking only of true raw DNGs, I know
Silkypix can handle many mure in linear form - in fact I've
processed linear DNG from a Fuji E900 as part of my own
tests.

As far as I'm concerned using linear DNG just to make
Silkypix work with an "alien" camera type is pointless; not
only is the file huge (eg 32MB for a E900), but since
Silkypix isn't using its own demosaicing or colour
algorithms there's not a lot of point in using Silkypix to
do the job.

--
John Bean