Sep 21 2007, 09:58 PM
QUOTE(sinister @ Sep 21 2007, 10:58 AM)
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..
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.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..
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 pm
QUOTE(R a D ! c 4 L @ Sep 20 2007, 10:57 PM)
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).
Never 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. 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).
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
Quote
0.0153sec
0.48
6 queries
GZIP Disabled