Thanks for the info, a lot of which I didn't know.
Still, as most of my work is "print it and forget it", conversion seems like an 
extra and unnecessary
step.
Something to think about for stuff that needs archiving.

On 02/03/2014 07:06 AM, Moritz Moeller wrote:
> On 3/2/14 3:13 pm, Bruce Albert wrote:
>> Ditto. Absolute zero interest in dng and adobe.
> 
> Your choice, ofc.
> But it sounds a tad like animosity based on ignorance. ;)
> 
> In essence it seem So you rather support your camera manufacturer's
> obscure/proprietary RAW format that is likely not even open?
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Drawbacks
> 
>> I could use dcraw to convert to tiff (as I do with Fuji RAF) if it comes to 
>> it.
>> But it does appear that it is fixed in git.
> 
> Who developed TIFF? Aldous. Which is now Adobe. Ooops. :D
> 
> DNG uses TIFF/EP. Or rather: it is an extension of TIFF that offers the
> ability to store sensor data.
> 
> Using plain TIFF will not preserve the original sensor data.
> I.e. you'll loose you the ability to de-Bayer with improved technology
> at a later stage because TIFF has no official support for a subformat
> that stores raw Bayer data.
> 
> That's precisely one of the reasons Adobe did extend TIFF and gave it a
> new fancy name: DNG.
> 
> On that note: not only TIFF itself, but also most interesting TIFF
> extensions have been developed by commercial entities or by people who
> had backing from a commercial entity (see
> http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/TIFF).
> 
> Furthermore, there is, unfortunately, no open, non-commercially
> developed image file format to store photographic data with acceptable
> accuracy & metadata support, for the target audience of DT, that ever
> succeeded. *Open* format options are:
> 
> - DNG (Adobe)
> - TIFF (Aldous/Adobe)
> - OpenEXR (Industrial Light & Magic)
> - Cineon (Kodak)
> - FITS (NASA, more or less)
> 
> Of all these, only DNG and FITS support for storing undemosaiced data.
> But the target application for FITSs are astrophotography. I.e. unlike
> DNG, it is quite specialized.
> 
> So I totally don't get why people are so negative towards DNG.
> 
> Just because the entity who developed this TIFF extension happens to be
> Adobe. DNG is still completely open, Adobe has even offered to put the
> further development and governing of this standard under an independent
> committee at any time.
> 
> Anyone can implement a DNG reader or writer w/o having to pay a penny to
> them.
> 
> .mm
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
darktable-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel

Reply via email to