Poll: Should Sony use the DNG raw format?
A SonyAlphaRumors reader sent me an interesting question:
“With all these different RAW formats. Would it not be nice to have a standard. I was wondering if Alpha Rumors could put a vote or start a campaign to get Sony to switch to Adobe’s DNG format. It would be nice to see what others think about making a standard RAW format.“. Hmmm, let us know what you think and if you really care about DNG. Before you vote you should read the following info (Source: Wikipedia):
1) Objectives of the DNG format
* Digital image preservation (sometimes known as “archiving”): to be suitable for the purpose of preserving digital images as an authentic resource for future generations.
* Easy and/or comprehensive exploitation by software developers: to enable software to be developed without the need for reverse engineering; and to avoid the need for frequent software upgrades and re-releases to cater for new cameras.
* In-camera use by camera manufacturers: to be suitable for many camera manufacturers to use as a native or optional raw image format in many cameras.
* Multi-vendor interoperability: to be suitable for workflows where different hardware and software components share raw image files and/or transmit and receive them.
2) Characteristics
* Freely-available specification
* Format based on open specifications and/or standards: DNG is compatible with TIFF/EP, and various open formats and/or standards are used, including Exif metadata, XMP metadata, IPTC metadata, CIE XYZ coordinates, ICC profiles, and JPEG.
* Self-contained file format: a DNG file contains the data (raw image data and metadata) needed to render an image without needing additional knowledge of the characteristics of the camera.
* It has a version scheme built into it that allows the DNG specification, DNG writers, and DNG readers, to evolve at their own paces.
* Freely-available source-code-based software development kit (SDK).
* Documented to have no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements: there is both a “Digital Negative (DNG) Specification Patent License” which says that anyone can exploit DNG, and a statement that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.
Loading ...Related Posts
Share
Recent comments
Comment from xylum: ARW is close to the sensor, there is no ...
Comment from kmfan: DNG? ABSURD!
A standarized format is ...
Comment from Sol Sims: For the record, I did convert my old K-M...
Comment from Zdrobot: >> So, “neither fish nor meat”...
kevin
2 years ago |I’d rather Sony meet the competition on other standards, such as 14 or 16 bit A/D conversion.
Sky_walker
2 years ago |+1
Mike L
2 years ago |Agreed, Kevin, however I voted yes because Adobe stops updating their CameraRAW program when they go to a new version number. Already, I have to convert my raw NEX files to DNG just so I can use Adobe (and since I paid the full amount for Photoshop/CameraRAW, I definitely wish to use it for a long time). Since they released Photoshop CS5, they stopped updating support for new cameras for my CS4. I’d love to eliminate this extra step, especially because of the amount of disc space it takes up.
AVESTA
2 years ago |I think this is more of a adobe problem thoug, rather than a sony problem
adobe chooses to do this so they can make more money.
GH
2 years ago |It seems strange not to include a “No” option in your poll. Here is a nice article that talks why DNG isn’t as archival and great as many think: http://www.libraw.org/articles/2-ways-to-nowhere.html
Sony ARW is fine.
AVESTA
2 years ago |fully agreed!
xylum
2 years ago |Most popular answer would be NO, I do care and I do not want a proprietary protocol owned by Adobe…
Valise
2 years ago |You are using a proprietary protocol from sony, and this is no way better. ARW is much less used so that it has a very low momentum, this format will be forgotten way before DNG, for example.
Walkerton
2 years ago |Agree with GH, there should be a ‘No’ option.
DNG is a highly compressed format, doesn’t support more than 8 bits per colour IIRC when it was first launched
To add, Adobe RAW converters, ACR & LR, gives high error with colour rendering & the image quality is just not as good as the original software from the manufacturers themselves.
I’ll stick to ARW, DPP, CaptureNX2, Viewer2, etc from their respective companies anytime any day
DNG SUCKS BIG TIME!!! This is also the reason why I’m staying away from Leica X1 & M9. Lucky for Pentax, still offers a PEF option
xylum
2 years ago |ARW is close to the sensor, there is no additional translation, it is as close to the sensor topology as possible, one extra translation to DNG costs resources, especially if you are NOT on Adobe bandwagon. Adobe has already broken DNG compatibility once. There is NO guarantee that Adobe will not do it again. None of the major camera manufacturers (Can/Nik/Sony) are on board. If Adobe made a camera and used DNG (as their proprietary format) I would have no problem.
Futile
2 years ago |Regardless of Newgatives, I’m all for an Open System!.. Open Firmware, Open File Formats. FTW!
dyna
2 years ago |I can’t possibly support Adobe any more than I absolutely have to when they refuse to TRULY support manufacturers’ RAW files with TRULY LICENSED RAW CONVERSION instead of the bastardized sidecar files that seem to destroy everyone else’s work for fun.
Adobe expects us to pay exorbitant pricing for their software with each generation but the refuse to pony up for real RAW file conversions.
I can see some nice things in DNG… but nothing that causes me the need to escape ARW. LMAO have Sony pay Nik Multimedia to creat Sony Capture NX lol and this argument dies immediately
I agree where the open system is concerned but nothing Adobe does is ever truly open. Quite the contrary: they are professionals at boxing the user in and never letting go.
Tommy
2 years ago |Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!! I convert to DNG every time I import from a shoot. This adds significant time to my imports. If Sony were to get on this it would add to the already long list of why I prefer their cameras
D Wilson
2 years ago |This poll is meaningless because you didn’t give an option to vote “NO.”
DNG would mean being permanently married to Adobe, and there is no way I would ever want that.
Zstan
2 years ago |That’s why I shoot jpeg.
Thorny dragon
2 years ago |How about (NO) for an answer.
Furthermore, I strongly support Kevin’s point of view.
Mog
2 years ago |DNG is actually not suited for all sensors. RAW is essentially sensor data AFTER the A/D conversion which requires downstream interpolation (debayering). For CCD sensor this means, its not ‘off the sensor’ but rather off the ADC. What it means is that unless the sensor conforms to Adobe’s DNG specifications it won’t be compatible.
As it stands, DNG is primarily designed around RGB and RGBE bayer CFA. Sony in particular have been moving towards different types of sensor design, as their new Q67 sensor has shown. In this case, there is no debayering as the ADC converts the analog signal from different color photosites into a virtual pixel composed of multiple color data.
Beyond that, even on the more traditional bayer CFA sensor there are many nuances to how an image is formed. Making that raw sensor data conform to a DNG standard weakens the core point of RAW files to begin with.
Jesse Lim
2 years ago |Sony likes to develop their in-house proprietary format and it is unlikely they will adopt DNG format on Alphas, unless they make another “proprietary” version of a DNG – ADNG XD
phedders
2 years ago |I’m much more interested in Sony openning up the firmware.
Imagine what the a55 would be doing now if they provided an SDK and source…
RB
2 years ago |Andrea, you should also add the arguments against DNG.
DNG sounds nice in the first moment, but when you learn that this is only a partially open format, that in fact, it is a mixture between proprietary Adobe knowledge and proprietary camera manufacturer knowledge, this changes the situation. So, “neither fish nor meat”, as we say in German. In this situation, I prefer the proprietary format only, as then at least one person (the camera manufacturer) has the complete documented knowledge of the file format, the contents of file, and how to deal with it.
Of course, a proper open standardized format would preferable. But this does not exist for the moment.
Zdrobot
2 years ago |>> So, “neither fish nor meat”, as we say in German.
Russian uses the same metaphor!
Cheers!
__
| |\
|__|/
Adam Maas
2 years ago |DNG lost its real value ( a fixed development target) when Adobe started tweaking it to get proper support for the Panasonic m43 cameras and their in-camera RAW corrections.
As a practical matter, DNG has not proven to be of any real value as only Adobe really supports the spec, virtually all other implementations on the RAW converter side are partial, especially in the case of Aperture and Capture One.
DNG’s a really nice idea, but it offers nothing in the real world. As long as Sony doesn’t pull a Nikon and start encrypting data in the ARW’s, we’re good. Note that ARW and DNG are very similar technically (both are just bayer matrix data in a TIFF container with some extra metadata, like most other RAW formats). And of course even with DNG you still need camera-specific profiles to deal with differing colour response in order to get good conversions (most especially with Sony and their tendency to have differing green responses between the Blue-row greens and the red-row greens)
Sol Sims
2 years ago |If you read the mentioned ‘DNG’ article listed in this comments section, it’s very important that you read through the ‘comments’ to that article. Peter Krough, author of the ‘DAM for Photographers’ books replies in lengthy conversation on the subject. And the article has some issues in their evaluations. It’s a great discussion on the subject, and the problems that currently exist with getting a ‘standard’ set in stone.
The bottom line is that we as Photographers absolutely need a definitive standard for archival purposes. We former K-Minolta users know this better than most. And it really all boils down to the manufacturers stepping up and showing some cooperation for the sake of their customers, and supplying the needed data info for a standard to be developed. Just as Sony, Sandisk, etc. Just pulled together to create a new card format standard, yes, in can be done. It’s just up to them to do it.
Sol Sims
2 years ago |For the record, I did convert my old K-Minolta files to DNG, but I currently stay with ARW files these days. I do like the newly improved rendering I get from Lighteoom 3, so that’s my default RAW processor these days.
Especially compared to Sony’s RAW software.
Probably due to give Bibble another try.
kmfan
2 years ago |DNG? ABSURD!
A standarized format is good, but leaving it at the hands of Adobe as it currently stands, is not good. It’s absurd! This is a company that:
1. Made bloated software for PDF.
2. Ruined a perfectly fine photo editor (to a point that it has to make another, easier to use photo editor, figure that!)
3. And the same company that could not manage to streamline Flash in the last 5 years. FIVE YEARS! And you want to ask for DNG?!!
I don’t want to have the need for a refrigerator to edit my digital photos. Leave it to Adobe, it just might happen. Because now they get to sell you gps enabled refrigerators. With extended warranty. And preferred-customer customer support.
If anything, ask for an open standard. Not because it’s royalty free, rather because it empowers change and improvement. It enables contributions from people that use/care about the project.