Yes. Yesterday i found out this neat program named Adobe DNG Converter inside my files. Its been there since don know when. So i ought to give it a try. And what do you know, not much difference between the original raw and the converted DNG file. The only difference i see is the difference in file size. DNG uses less disc space than a normal raw. From a 14-16mb file to a mere 7mb.

And when i use it on test it doesn't show any difference in picture quality or others. So what are your thoughts on this? Anyone tried it?


For those who do not know what is the Adobe DNG Converter, its a program that converts your RAW file into another format called .dng, or digital negative. Which uses less disc space and retains the quality of the raw file(which i think it should).

DNG is a format created by Adobe as the de facto general standard for RAW formatted files.

It is created to get rid of proprietary RAW formats by different manufacturers. Imagine the scenario of a camera manufacturer going bust, or suddenly wanted to change their format and don't support the old format anymore, what will you do with all the RAW files that you have captured?

There is no difference in quality with respect to other RAW formats once converted. I think the current best way is to keep both types as digital negatives, one of the camera manufacturer and the other in DNG.

answering.. u

Adobe created another proprietary standard, and wat happen if adobe goes bust?

Until Nikon, Canon, Sony and all those gets together, u will never get a standard format.. sigh..

Which, sadly, is never going to happen.

just wait and see... who know?

While the DNG format is free for anyone to download the spec and implement it in their program or camera, the format is still owned by Adobe. The reason i think why DNG is still not "de facto" for RAW files is that there is the possibility of Adobe suddenly deciding that it is only fair to charge a royalty fee for using DNG format in programs or camera.

This does not only impact the camera and software makers, but also consumers who have/had converted their files into the DNG format: they will be most likely forced to use Adobe programs to read DNG formats only, IF Adobe decides that only their program should be able to that format.

This is nearly what happened when Nikon decided a few years ago to hide the white balance info of their digital camera slr. I am thinking that the huge negative public feedback forced them to think twice about doing anything further.

---

Added on September 21, 2007, 10:09 pmNever tried it before, but at that compression rate of 40-50%, it sound like it uses the similar compression technique as Nikon's compressed RAW file vs regular RAW.

It has been usually said in forums that there are little to no loss in quality, but if you look into the Nikon camera manuals even it says that "there is little loss of picture quality" which can also reads "there is loss of picture quality", the question is only how much. As for me I will be sticking with original uncompressed files, If I would truly want to archive my pictures I would do it in such a manner that I would lose nothing. as with DNG... read my previous post.

This post has been edited by CocoMonGo: Sep 21 2007, 10:13 PM

DNG is royalty-free.

Quoted from Adobe website.

Yes it is free for now no denying that. But what is stopping them from charging users in the future when the format is widely accepted? Remember they still own the rights to DNG, it is not in the public domain.

Few years ago the same thing almost occurred with the JPEG/JPG format. The license owners demanded for royalties for using that format from major companies and even hinted on charging anyone who uses JPEG algorithms.

This is what I mean. JPEG Patent Holder Sues

and this No more JPEG

This maybe stale news but it proves the point.

Adobe's DNG is analogous to PNG with respect to JPG/JPEG. They do own the patent to DNG but if you read the Grant of Rights carefully, it is open to everyone in the world to use (read and write) it royalty-free meaning they won't charge anything. If they ever do charge, it will be a breach of this license statement.

Will ISO shift to using the newer loss-less JPEG standard? JPEG2000 or what-is-it-called? Hopefully that has no royalty attached to it to be able to qualify for use as an ISO standard format.