![]() No one can guarantee what future software will require. If you convert to DNG you cannot go back to the camera native format. You made my point right here - thank you. When working with Fuji RAWs it seems every DNG I created with both Adobe DNG converter and Iridient X-Transformer always output a linear DNG. If it was truly lossless 'one container to the other' you should have no problem moving the data between the containers. But once you decide to go to DNG there is no going back. ![]() You can even embed the entire raw file in the DNG container. You are right that the pixel data can be transferred into the DNG container without loss of image data. Since you can never go back to the ARW format after you convert to DNG that would be considered a lossy conversion. ![]() This is not a flaw in DNG, it is a flaw in DxO policy. Note that DxO software users should avoid DNG conversions, because DxO have made a deliberate anti-customer decision to not support DNG raw files, unless they are in-camera DNG files. If that is your aim, then don’t use DNG (also don’t use PS LR C1 etc). And none of the generic raw processors like PS LR C1 can do that it is usually only the camera brand’s own proprietary raw processor. They are not much use in raw files unless you want to use your raw files to exactly replicate your in-camera JPEG images. If comments say that certain things are lost, they are referring to some brand-specific camera settings meta data that are used in-camera to make the JPEG files, like curves and levels. If you select options to modify the image data, then it will do it. Just to clarify for the OP: DNG doesn’t lose or modify any image data. Why? Every reason you just gave was wrong. If you want to keep the images for a long time I recommend keeping the raw. The demosaic process used on the raw varies between raw converters/editers.Īnd the DNG file can still use whatever demosaic process the various raw processors use. If you only have the DNG you are forever stuck with the technology used to create the DNG vs being able to process the raw using whatever newer process/technology that becomes available. You cannot convert back to raw to process again with different software. It is only lossy if you select the ‘lossy compression’ option. If Sony had a lossless compressed raw option then I wouldn’t even think about DNG, but they don’t, so it’s tempting to halve the storage requirement. Saying “ keep the original raw for all important shots” gives entirely the wrong impression. The DNG has the same raw data (unless you choose optional settings Linear or Lossy), so you can do with it as you can with the original raw file. None of the raw data is lost on the default DNG conversion settings. loses some of the raw file capture information” refers only to the metadata that hardly any generic raw software uses. you can go RAW -> DNG but you can't go DNG -> RAW if you change your mind. RAW is the manufacturers own format, so I'll definitely be keeping mine for all important shots.Īnother way to look at this. Perhaps someone will enlighten us if that's no longer the case. ![]() Particularly items that are specific to your camera. It's my understanding that a DNG loses some of the raw file capture information (see link). Is there any reason to keep the uncompressed ARW files? Is there anything that they can do that DNG files cannot? DNG is a lossless compression, right? I plan to convert ARW files to DNG files for use in Aurora HDR (which still doesn't support the A7Riv raw files).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |