[Anvh]

Please keep in mind that the DNG format defines just the structure of a DNG file. It cannot do it better, as the sensors of cameras even of the same brand are very different, and the data, no matter whether stored as DNG or PEF or whatsoever, don't mean the same from different bodies/firmware. The interpreting software MUST know details about how the camera handles its RAW data (as a first step the sensor values must be normalized). In this sense, not only the Pentax DNG is unique, but also the DNGs of every other brand's cameras.
As the K30 is new, not all software companies will have updated their software yet. And some may do it only for their next version, to force customers to spend some money on upgrades (instead updates for free). I heard this was a problem in the past also with other brands than Pentax.

That is not true what you say about DNG.

DNG is not unique to brand or camera that is one of his features!

DNG is based on TIFF but it has some extensions to make it function like the RAW file.
So basicly you've:
- RAW sensor data saved as TIFF
- camera exif (basic camera information)
- extra information needed to build the TIFF into an image (think about the colours of bayer filter for example)

So all the information the software need is inside the DNG file, no extra support is need for the camera or brand!
All DNG are therefore in essence the same, sure they might contain different information but they are all read and process the same.

The DNG Pentax make are the same as DNG from leica, Ricoh, Adobe, ect.


The problem with P1 is simplly that they didnt implement DNG in such a way that it is universal, paintshop does the same thing... Adobe for example have no such problems or limitaion. I can open my K5 files in Photoshop CS (1) from 2003 without any problems and that version havent received an upgrade since 2005 so go figure...

---

Last edited by Anvh; 08-02-2012 at 04:14 PM.

[Anvh]

I do not understand how DNG can become a universal standard if it is so proprietary . That defeats the whole purpose and our great grand-kids are not going to bother looking at our photos in some weird format.

Actually almost all the things in DNG are actually standard already, it's even so close to TIFF that the international standard is now looking into making it into an extension off TIFF.

Proprietary isnt a bad thing, all the things are well documented, there is a free SDK, its free to use and because of one company controlling it there are little to no changes.
So i miss what you mean with defeat the whole purpose?

You know TIFF is also owned and managed by Adobe, can you name an even more universal image standard than that?



This would help
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml

[Anvh]

With digital DNGs this looks from perspective of today like a disaster. The poor kids have to look for appropriate tools, for profiles, for ICC, for converters, ...

Actually they dont have to with DNG, they do with other RAWs though and that's the difference, DNG contains everything the software needs to make an image while with other RAWs the software need to know specific things about the camera before it can do anything with the RAW.

Camera details embedded in DNG

He has more info on DNG if you're intersted

[Plentax]

Thank you Anvh,

With digital DNGs this looks from perspective of today like a disaster. The poor kids have to look for appropriate tools, for profiles, for ICC, for converters, ...

You are right, my statement was exaggerating. The kids and grand-kids just have to use the right tools. And this is today apparently not CaptureOne. It is similar to analog negatives, if kids would use a wrong optical system (e.g. with colored lenses or wrong focus, the negatives would result in bad pictures as well. The only difference would be, that a wrong optical system could not reproduce any negatives well. With a specific DNG software the kids just don't know without further investigation. See next quote and comment.

Actually they dont have to with DNG, they do with other RAWs though and that's the difference, DNG contains everything the software needs to make an image while with other RAWs the software need to know specific things about the camera before it can do anything with the RAW. Camera details embedded in DNG He has more info on DNG if you're intersted

yes I am interested and thank you for the good reference. I think the last sentence in chapter 3 on this page says it all about specific RAW/DNG software:

• A product's evolution of DNG support:
  "... it is unfortunately typically difficult to identify which of these stages are supported by any given raw converter..."

That is why DNGs can look slightly different with raw converters and wrong with a few?
And for K-30 DNGs currently only wrong with one? (1=C1 )

---

Last edited by Plentax; 08-04-2012 at 01:51 PM.

[Anvh]

The comments here seem to suggest they do offer support though so hopefully its only a matter off time.

[Plentax]

The comments here seem to suggest they do offer support though so hopefully its only a matter off time.

Yes, I am still full of hope for short term update of CaptureOne for full support for K-30 DNG.

I have general comments and questions about DNG support with editors and viewers. Of course with K-30 DNGs and C1 it will be very obvious, when the color deviation with upgrade disappears. But what with other applications? Apparently a couple of applications display the K-30 DNGs already quite good, but more or less darker than the original K-30 JPGs. How can the end user know, that a certain application will show the same DNG in future in the same color and brightness? With a calibrated screen you normally adjust everything until the DNG2JPG conversion gives the expected result. Is it possible, that future updates of any applications can change the visual DNG display and perhaps also JPG exports of DNG? With this the user of a updated software would never know what happens when opening and converting historical DNGs, isn't it?

[Anvh]

DNG is meant as a negative so a file to work from, it's not a file meant for viewing.

So if you want to have a "fix" result you need to develop it into TIFF, JPEG, PNG or any other image file that isnt raw.

About matching result of the camera with RAW that is in the difference of development, the camera develop the file in a different way then the software on your computer, also there are certain presets as well with the camera and the software.
Besides the camera wants to create a finished image while the RAW developer wants to make a good base for you to work from, two very different goals.

[kevcol]

The DNG dilema has caused me an initial loss of my navigation and appreciation of the photo quality of the K30 as I cannot dellght in my habitual Capture One strategies.
JPGs do not do it for me as they seemed flat compared with my normal Capture One output where I usually apply highlights, intricate sharpening, and stuff so skin tones have a more natural gradient.
The JPG colours seemed a bit off as well so I will have to find a K30 style to my liking.
I suppose it is all part of setting up the camera and lenses before you can set off into the outside world with confidence.
We could all share a few personally preferred settings. Not only about picture style but the whole gamut. e.g. I loved the way I could set up the K30 dials to apply ISO with the front dial and aperture with the rear although it is not readily apparent in the manual which I admit I don't read like a novel and find the index(es) unfriendly.
I even tried Picasa because it is so easy, and it digests the raws without the horrible purples but it seemed very limiting. even though I have the software altered to centre the sliders. Basic controls are just plain lacking and I wonder why Google have not progressed it further.
I guess I will have to open the SilkyPix packet and do a bit of research. Capture One may see the back of me??

[rawr]

Capture One may see the back of me??

I'd suggest just waiting a little for them to catch up with the new camera. If you are an existing C1 customer, raising a proper Support request with Phase One, rather than raising the issue on the Phase One forum, would help speed things along, I'm sure.

Even DxO Optics Pro and Lightroom haven't released fully optimised support for the camera yet. (Having said that, Lightroom 4.1 actually does an OK job on K-30 DNG's out of the box even though it hasn't got explicit support for the K-30. And even C1 itself does a semi-passable job - at least on colour rendering - if you select the ICC profile 'DNG Neutral' when opening K-30 DNG's in C1... )

In a while all the major RAW processors will have full K-30 DNG support, just like they did with the K-01.

[Anvh]

I wonder if they will released optimized support since it is DNG.
Did they release optimized support for the Q?
(adobe camera raw that is)

[rawr]

Did they release optimized support for the Q?

Lightroom has since about v 3.5. I think that also means ACR has been tweaked for Q too.

[Anvh]

Interesting =]

[Plentax]

And even C1 itself does a semi-passable job - at least on colour rendering - if you select the ICC profile 'DNG Neutral' when opening K-30 DNG's in C1...

With C1 (CaptureOne) I tried "Adobe DNG File DNG Workspace" and "Adobe DNG File Neutral" as Base Characteristics ICC Profile. But there is no big difference and the colors look terrible (Blue turns purple and yellow turns green). I have no idea how to modify the colors to get something realistic from DNG. I agree and somewho I think also that it does not make sense to search for quite special color modifications in C1 or other RAW processor as long as the K-30 DNGs are not supported.

I'd suggest just waiting a little for them to catch up with the new camera... ...in a while all the major RAW processors will have full K-30 DNG support, just like they did with the K-01.

These are my concerns: What if you make modification with C1 or other RAW processors to K-30 DNGs today and the software is updated soon? Do you have to start from the scratch to develop these DNGs? And will all following updates after initial K-30 support always ensure the same development result? Will support for a specific camera DNG last then forever or can this disappear from the RAW software or can RAW development result change over time?

[rawr]

Will support for a specific camera DNG last then forever

It's a good point. The answer is probably no.

It will depend on software and camera vendors retaining support for the DNG format and the optmisations they introduce for specific cameras into their DNG conversion engines.

I shoot RAW+ and have for years, and also do TIFF exporting of important final edits of my DNG RAW's. If worst comes to worst, in archival terms I will always have my JPEG's and TIFFs.

But in the meantime I am happy to have software vendors continuously improve their RAW processors and the way they render even older DNG RAW's. The improvements in DNG RAW processing from LR 3 to LR 4, and DxO from v6 to v7, were valuable, for example. 'Freezing' the software status of RAW processors would not be a good idea, at least in the short term, because software still has considerable scope to improve the results of RAW processing, particularly now that consumers have access to such powerful computers. It's been very good, for example, to be able to go back to some older DNG's and use the latest LR or DCU4 on them to bring out more detail and clean up noise much better than I could originally.

[Anvh]

You can make your own colour profile for DNG, but no idea if C1 support that...