What do I lose by converting RAW to DNG?

Pages: 1

24.03.2016 18:46:00
What do I lose by converting RAW to DNG?
Razver one rabbi now from 25 megabytes for a walk a couple of gigs dialed. Garbage clean, but still the place is lost. Converting Rava using Adobe DNG Converter without compression and reduce the resolution of the file size is reduced from 25 to 17Mb (approximately). Question - what is lost, how critical these losses?
 

24.03.2016 19:27:00

the second link:
Moral funny: DNG, of course, a little archival format. But only if the archive you are going to work means Adobe same. If not - you are waiting for surprises.
assume that further processing is Adobe, the DNG in this case will fit?

And what then compress RAWy without losing quality? Packer does not offer please

24.03.2016 20:00:00

assume that further processing is Adobe, the DNG in this case will fit?
Well, it's up to you. Something is lost, for example, see http:. // Blog. lexa. ru / 2015/08/17 / igolka_v_yayce_yayco_ ... ayac_v_shoke. html

In general, the esteem Tutubalina, he has a lot on DNG: http: // blog. lexa. ru / tags / dng

And what then compress RAWy without losing quality? Packer does not offer please
RAW is already a compressed format without loss of quality (usually TIFF compressed by LZW), so I do not know.

24.03.2016 20:09:00
Well, I'll use one of the two solutions, depending on the significance of the photo:
- save NEF + several (usually three) JPG size and quality, if it is necessary for work;
- save JPG 3000 on the long side in the highest quality for yourself, a loved one.
Everything else or removed immediately, or NEF erased in 2-3 years, when they become known to the archive. There's certainly enough and JPG.

24.03.2016 20:30:00

RAW is already lossless compression format (usually TIFF compressed by LZW), so I do not know.
"NRW" File (NRW.) - 25, 7 MB (27,033,333 bytes)

after backup archive WinRAR (rar.) - 16, 6 MB (17,411,774 bytes)

24.03.2016 22:15:00
quote:
Archivers not offer please

DriveSpace trollface. jpg

NTFS can compress.

24.03.2016 23:10:00

NTFS can compress
DVD only it knows

uncompressed
491 MB (515,134,912 bytes) - Size
491 MB (515,182,592 bytes) - The CD


ntfs compression
491 MB (515 134,912 bytes) - Size
486 MB (510,639,722 bytes) - On

drive good win, nothing to say


24.03.2016 23:28:00
quote:
:

NTFS can compress
DVD only knows about this
do you still merge the file to a CD? I thought I already drive there is almost no one.

not know as of now at prices that did not count, but in general, buy screw archive on the shelf was much better than store wardrobe stinks plastic discs also stopped reading over the years.

curiosity I found: 100 discs verbatim around 2300 rubles tehnopoynte.
say, 4 gigabytes each. a total of 400 gigs in the bank. comparable with the most marketable 3TB screw - should be about 7. 5 cans. Total 2300 * 7. 5 = 17250r.

now looking at 5-6k bekapny screw speed, watch the price - less than 9 thousand three options. that is, the same money you can buy two! screws and ensure a double! Reservations for the same money. Plus, save a lot of space, do not smell the stench of CDs and boxes, not to suffer with a slow burning, abrasion cutter without taking a single day, when you need to find something in these 750 discs (mother), and when they will approach life die, does not spend another six months in their reading and Overburning, swearing that they did not read .

something I do not understand what's the profit .

24.03.2016 23:49:00

do you still
not archive, but CD \\ DVD is sometimes necessary to give a lot of files. Specificity-to


main question was how to compress Rava, but so far no one suggested solution (

25.03.2016 0:05:00
quote:
:
Q chief was like Rava compress, but it is the decision no one advised (
you do not specify what you would like to donate and how to compress Rava is already reaped compression lossless so ntfs and can not.. compressed archives even more

if unpack and pack differently, you can pinch a little better, but it's a penny -. well, 15% of dng or whatever but, depending on the software you there are to sing equal to accent how -.. of the software depends.

well as any lossy compression - then it's already the owner of what and how and to what extent

and DTG can be compressed in different ways, and how you get there, and that set up -. how do we know.

25.03.2016 0:11:00

Rava is already reaped lossless compression. ntfs and therefore can not compress the file even more.
However rar compresses. . . And without loss

and DTG can be compressed in different ways, and how you get there, and that set up - how do we know.
How different?
I set
settings without compression and reduced resolution
What I still lost - issue.
Another minus conversion - is not stored the original file creation time

25.03.2016 0:25:00
quote:
:
However rar compresses. . . And without loss
compare what different things? compare the speed of decompression papa and reading a file with ntfs. compare the size of compressed data blocks, dictionary and more.

besides, pap there, too, especially not naszhimaet.

quote:
:
What I still lost - issue.
Another minus conversion - is not stored the original creation time

lost the original file and equal independence from adobe, what else. you also have given the link. Well, that's an older article:
http: // www. libraw. su / articles / 2-ways-to-nowhere. html

25.03.2016 0:26:00
I dng and when converting native srw obtained different sizes shown by pictures, RT cuts a little more pixels at the edges. Perhaps other "developers" will result in the opposite direction. The size dng approximately 2 times squeezed by native - 194,533 kb shrunk to 113,973 KB. If you press the archiver (FreeArc method precomp + nanozip 009) - is compressed by 25 percent (142,651 kb) at a comparable rate. Precomp shakes jpg-prevyuhu, nanozip everything else. Is there any possible Paq8 percent more 5-10 uzhmёt stronger, but the time spent in this unacceptable

25.03.2016 0:26:00
quote:
:
Q chief was like Rava compress, but it is the decision no one advised (
Not surprising Just the problem is not the most relevant for today (a lot) terabyte drives as rightly observed, are sold at a very.. humane price. you say that with one walk recruited a couple of gigs. it turns out that dvuhterabaytnom HDD costing less than $ 100 calmly placed RAWy 1000 trips. this means that more than nine years, can safely click two times a week for two gig. you do not think that the potential gains from compression - it's nit-picking

The question of whether to shoot on every outing for many years by 100 staff leave aside?.

25.03.2016 0:32:00
quote:
:
[off] The question of whether to take on each outing you need for many years at 100 frames leave aside.

have more fish is that it is necessary to give the pictures to the client.


25.03.2016 0:35:00
2
Perhaps I misunderstood, but like the theme author takes for himself. If you talk about shooting a commercial for the customer, then the meaning of RAW in storage for a long time (years), I do not see.

25.03.2016 0:58:00

besides, pap there, too, especially not naszhimaet.
If compression is more than half Lossless not really for you. . . Well then themselves?



when I convert dng and native srw
In your opinion, whether the loss of quality in critical convert to DNG files?


Perhaps I misunderstood, but like the theme author takes for himself.
Exactly. We and photographic plates stored


25.03.2016 8:22:00

With one and the same profile developer of DNG image was a little lighter than The SRW, and a few pixels off the edges. Loss of "quality" as such did not notice, but trimming the edges for me is critical.

25.03.2016 10:06:00

File "NRW" (NRW.) - 25, 7 MB (27,033,333 bytes)
after backup
archive WinRAR (rar.) - 16, 6 MB (17,411,774 bytes)

So your camera gives nezipovanny raw . For example, for a total of 12 megapixels Nikon P7700 NRW already obtained a 26-megabyte, and the same 12 megapixels nikon D700 NEF obtained 13-17 megabytes (depending on the bit depth).

From what you describe - just walk and 80 pictures at a time, for example if it is a walk of 80 minutes for the one pictures per minute - easily convert into the DNG, nothing significant will not lose, but win much in size.

25.03.2016 14:49:00

In your opinion, whether the loss of quality in critical convert to DNG files?
I tested raw and DNG popihelno in ACR and no difference for a single bit in the pixels is not found. This is not surprising, given that in both cases it Adob.
question of possible losses in my opinion:
- if Adob ​​something do not know, this can not be, because it can not be that never, all specifications raw they receive from firms - manufacturers, so in at least two cases have nothing to worry what: converter from Adobe and converter from the company.
Others converters and so promised nothing, neither in the case of raw, or in the case of DNG. . . And there will be more in any case lies - the big question. . .
By the way, I have at least three of the converter, which do not understand the raw native of my camera, but understand DNG. . .
And one of them, Silkipiks in version 4 is a native converter for the camera, and in version 5, 6, 7. . Program forgotten how to understand the raw native for her camera! ! ! A DNG - without problems. . .
For the second ACR and Lightroom Camera and converters are native to them as if there should be no problems. . . As for the blog
Tutubalin:
Chamber raw losses translated wrong? And who said that in the DNG worse or something to lose? Maybe just the opposite, raw naked without firm poprpavok, and took into account their DNG. . . That is the question, in part or in full - interesting. . .
In short, you need to look specifically, the processing will be adobovskih programs - can be in the DNG, in your own converter - also the DNG, in the party that kosyachat - because in any case they nakosyachat. . . and a matter of taste, what schools you prefer. . .

25.03.2016 21:34:00

I do not understand how it is - is not saved?
Total DNG file goes with the time of creation of it, and not from the time of Rabbi sozzhaniya. Of course. understandable, but would like to date not lose

25.03.2016 22:19:00

but would like to date not lose

The DNG retained and the date and shooting parameters.
 

25.03.2016 22:39:00

The DNG retained and the date and shooting parameters.
it just inside the exif. I would like to explorer windows and saw time creating DNG is the same as the original RAW

25.03.2016 22:39:00

main question was how to compress Rava

Stronger than in the DNG, not shrinks and does nothing. They built a specialized archive, sharpened images ((lossless JPEG).

25.03.2016 22:40:00

So your camera gives nezipovanny raw. For example, for a total of 12 megapixels Nikon P7700 NRW already obtained a 26 megabyte
Yes. How do you compress this Rava?

25.03.2016 22:41:00

I would like to explorer windows and saw the creation of the EPR time the same

This date creates a file system (or the camera when the primary recording media). Logically, it is she sees. Consequently, the original date you can see only the tools who read exif.

25.03.2016 22:41:00

As I understand it, in addition to DNG choose not anything else, alas.


This date creates a file system (or the camera when the primary recording media). Logically, it is she sees. Consequently, the original date you can see only the tools who read exif.
This is understandable, but would like to see, and file system creation date DNG as a primary recording time.
may have a program that is ruled according to exif date of creation?


25.03.2016 22:45:00

As I understand it, in addition to DNG choose not anything else, alas.

Apparently so. RAW files themselves are non-standard, "kamerozavisimye", so there is hardly a universal tool to work with them, okromya DNG.


may have a program that is ruled according to exif date of creation?

Exiftool is able, according to the description of one of the functions: Sets the file modification date (and creation date in Windows) from EXIF ​​information


26.03.2016 0:27:00

This is understandable, but would like to see, and file system creation date DNG as a primary recording time.
may have a program that is ruled according to exif date of creation?

Adobovsky Bridge shows the date of shooting of each image, if it is specified in the settings independently from the system and on what and how many times the original format converted.

26.03.2016 14:57:00

Yes. How do you compress this Rava?
I personally did not compress - buy more capacious hard drives

26.03.2016 15:40:00

may have a program that is ruled according to exif date of creation?
ACDSee

26.03.2016 18:43:00

I obtained rabbis about the size of 12 bits per pixel, that is, practically does not narrow though packed (roughly speaking, the two pixels are packed into three bytes) - the camera gives a 12-bit color. you get 16 bits per pixel, or a little more than what actually quite strange, even assuming that the camera provides 14-bit color. ie just format nrw noptimalen much in terms of occupied space, or the camera is not enough computing resources to packaging ravov or manufacturer considered that better let Rava will be great, but it is easier to work with them - and the camera and the computer.


This is understandable, but would like to see, and file system creation date DNG as a primary recording time.
Well, it depends on the display means (Explorer for example) and the file system itself, I like "Explorer" (finder) shows four dates pertaining to any file: creation date, add, change, and recent discoveries
What concerns gallery , IMHO, the correct date should be ekzife rather than in the file system metadata


26.03.2016 23:08:00

30.03.2016 9:35:00

I tested raw and DNG popihelno in ACR and no difference for a single bit in the pixels is not found. This is not surprising, given that in both cases it Adob.
question of possible losses in my opinion:
- if Adob ​​something do not know, this can not be, because it can not be that never, all specifications raw they receive from firms - manufacturers,


As regards " pixel-difference "t. e. the actual RAW-data, in most cases, there is no difference (there are exceptions, that's like Canon sRAW, which ofigachivaet AnalogBalance, but forget about them).

DNG main problem today - is MakerNotes storage units (camera metadata-specific). Adobe DNG Convertor loves to spoil their (not copy / damage when copying) and, respectively, in the DNG them "believe that there is."

These blocks contain, among other things, useful things : triggered point autofocus; recorded with the camera balance presets table white (and in them, implicitly, camera calibration at the time of shooting), color profiles, use the optics of the information, etc., and so forth.

Of these, seriously important camera calibration (otherwise difficult to drag presets BB with a picture on picture), many still want to see the position of the triggered AF point.

For me, t. E. 4 cents per 20megabaytny RAW, in the sense repacking no special storage at a price of ~ 2 rubles per gigabyte (~ 6tys for 3Tb disk). Well poekonomit you even two pennies on the frame, pressing it twice, but lost in convenience.


you get 16 bits per pixel, or a little more than what actually quite strange, even assuming that the camera provides 14-bit color. ie just format nrw noptimalen much in terms of occupied space,

14-bit RAW Nejat most manufacturers (using this format) is stored as two bytes (16 bits) per pixel.
And, in general, it is clear why, if 12-bit data is stored as a "three byte two pixels" repackage in operation (in memory) the representation (16 bits / pixel) can be sufficiently handy and compact, the 14-bit can of course stored in the form of "7 bytes per pixel 4", but this bit of arithmetic to engage. . . exactly this.
A loss of two extra zero bits - 1/8, 12. 5%.

As the author of the code that works with all of this, I fully welcome these losses. These 14 (16) -bit data can be "just reading" from the file, not processing, there is a URA!

That is exactly these considerations:

it is better to let the rabbis will be great, but it is easier to work with them - and the camera and the computer.


30.03.2016 9:57:00
person
Conscience
Virginity

30.03.2016 10:27:00

may have a program that is ruled according to exif date of creation?
Such programs about half a million. Try FastStone Viewer and XnViewer, they will work with DTG.

30.03.2016 10:30:00

And, in general, it is clear why, if 12-bit data is stored as a "three byte two pixels" repackage in operation (in memory) the representation (16 bits / pixel) can be sufficiently handy and compact, the 14-bit can be of course keep in the form of "7 bytes per pixel 4", but this bit of arithmetic to engage. . . exactly this.
Oh, logically, yes. Although, if I correctly guessed and of Default nikon p7700, he has 12-bit color, and the camera does not pack even three bytes to two pixels, yielding a net surplus NRW format in the third, and adobe when converting to DNG their packs "two to three" and / or zipuet because in the first post that read "Converting Rava using the Adobe DNG Converter without compression and reduce the resolution of the file size is reduced from 25 to 17Mb (approximately)."

30.03.2016 12:27:00
In P7700, despite the 12-bit technology (unique values ​​less than 4k on the examples that I have at hand), in NRW written data range 0.. 64k tonnes. E. Uses all 16 bits.

do not know why Nikon did that, well, that's done.

DNG-converter values ​​remains fully accordingly space-saving - due to compression, rather than through repackaging.

30.03.2016 15:12:00

DNG main problem today - is MakerNotes storage units (camera metadata-specific). Adobe DNG Convertor loves to spoil their (not copy / damage when copying) and, respectively, in the DNG them "believe that there is."
And how affairs in DNG, if the camera has a "firm" converter Lightroom and ACR? And there is the case where the DNG Converter is available by - camera manufacturer, is how?
I would not bother with the DNG, with him even Bridge and ACR work at times slow, but. . . Fate decreed: that the raw my two cameras is not supported by any Aperture or Photo or Makos system or Silkipiksom latest version (which is more than strange, considering that Silkipiks 4 - a native converter for NX 20 camera!). A DNG support. . . Strange, is not it?

30.03.2016 19:35:00

And how affairs in DNG, if the camera has a "firm" converter Lightroom and ACR

That which camera? Like any Lr, no Photoshop now, no one in the box does not put.

And there is the case where the DNG Converter is available by - camera manufacturer, is how?
What is this case? Well, that is the one I know, it's Samsung: at least on opensource. samsung. com (or as he correctly called) they put sawn DNGConverter comes with Digikam. Well Digikam-ovsky converter does not steamed with Makernotes, he simply ignores them and do not put off DNG.

Fate decreed: that the raw my two cameras is not supported by any Aperture or Photo or Makos system or Silkipiksom latest versions
And so it happens. And in this case DNG - the only sane way out in most cases (except, perhaps, C1, in which there are such fun that native-format camera is supported, and the DNG from the chamber - not).

And then to go nowhere. But in this case, I would not recommend throwing the originals. Well, in extreme cases - poembeddit them to DNG, the format allows. Will support
then someone will want the same presets WB use - and they are.

30.03.2016 22:51:00

That which camera? Like any Lr, no Photoshop now, no one in the box does not put.

Lightroom puts Samsung NX in 30, 300 and 1, seems to be 500, but I do not know. And, NX 1 has its own converter from native raw to DNG, Lightroom and Silkipiks.

Will support then someone will want the same presets WB use - and they are.

I prefer to calibrate their camera presets. Here are buried there be something else that can affect the outcome - an interesting question. . . In particular, the ACR and Lightroom machine ruled geometry lenses, and, at Samsung only three lenses have the ability to disable the edit in the raw, the rest neotklyuchaemy in principle. That is, in the DNG this correction is also there too neotklyuchaema.
And, as always, there bong: ACR writes that applied embedded profile related to HA. . . manual lens! Which is not an electrical connection with the camera! He is there really something naispravlyal or he was joking? ? But ACR for this unit converter is the mother, and he should have been read correctly, that the camera writes to him. . . This lens is just a distortion profile changes in ACR, and it can be applied. . .

03.04.2016 4:25:00
Hats in the DNG once and never bother with the differences between RAW and DNG. So great is the difference whether you need to pay attention to it?
 

03.04.2016 10:23:00

Hats directly to DNG and never bother with the differences between RAW and DNG. So great is the difference whether you need to pay attention to it?
do not know whether at the raw conversion camera bungle in the DNG (I even imagine such can not, as it is able to do, if there are no stocks in the firmware), but the only difference in compression lossless DNG in the chamber - apparently, speed the camera and the speed on your computer and then unpack. Here are some compression in the DNG goes in the chamber, with the losses or without - the question to the camera that you have for me the camera does not know, in the DNG my camera is not written, and I convert it solely to converters who can not see my raw camera could be used.
PS slowdown in work, compared with DNG raw I see with the naked eye. In addition, produced in edit ACR DNG writes directly into the DNG file, and when raw-e settings changes are written to a separate file, and it's much faster. If there is a correction immediately hundreds - other files have time to count to ten and double boil.
Pages: 1

What do I lose by converting RAW to DNG?

info@www.about-digital-photo.com