On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:26:59AM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote: > Apparently, DNG files are as not universal as commonly perceived. I have a > Fujifilm digicam that makes .RAF raw files, and the packaged raw converter > will only make 8 bit tiffs with no editing capability, IOW fairly pointless. > > No worries, I thought. I will convert the RAFs to DNGs, which are a > universal format supported by RawShooter, a freeware raw converter. But > RawShooter would have nothing to do with my DNGs, because the source camera > was not supported. I would have thought that my DNGs would be just the same > as any other DNGs regardless of the source camera. IMO, Adobe still has a > way to go before they have a "universal" digital negative, but 98% (or > whatever) users will never know that DNG is just window-dressing.
You're blaming the wrong company here. The fact that RawShooter can only handle DNGs from cameras it already knows all about is a problem that can be laid fair and square at the feet of Pixmantec, not of Adobe. There are other third-party RAW converters that can handle DNG files from 'unknown' cameras. My guess is that Pixmantec don't really use any of the metadata from the DNGs; they are merely prepared to accept DNG files as an alternative pseudo-RAW format, and simply grab the pointer to the sensor data and pass it on to their pre-existing camera-specific RAW decoder. I'd suggest you try another RAW converter before giving up on DNG.
