Quote from: a1ex on November 05, 2013, 09:31:18 AM
I tried on a CR2, but I'm sure you can find workarounds to open a DNG. IIRC, DXO opens the DNGs from cameras that use this format natively, so you probably need to fake the EXIF somehow.
To mangle the data from a CR2, a clumsy hack would be to modify the code from dual ISO preview (since it can burn the preview in the CR2 if you don't call the undo hook). It's nothing more than a proof of concept, not a usable solution. But it proves that it can be done.
I looked into why Aftershot Pro could handle natively generated DNG's but not 'converted' ones. From what I can gather, both ASP and DXO give up because the metadata is not formatted as expected, specifically MakeNotes or DNGPrivateData. However, beyond that there is a suggestion that there may be issues with the raw compression for different DNG sources.
I would love to be able to work the DNG's in DXO, because the noise reduction and perspective correction tools are awesome. Plus it has OpenCL support (as does ASP) which gives a nice boost to your workflow.
Quote from: jamesd256 on November 08, 2013, 11:59:22 PMHowever, beyond that there is a suggestion that there may be issues with the raw compression for different DNG sources.
Where is this suggested? I know ACR compresses raw otherwise (= better) than dcraw and cr2hdr that uses it, but apart from that converting a cr2 to raw dng shouldn't touch the raw data, but simply put it into another container, or am I mistaken? They might do something to the wb settings though, and I remember that some Maker Notes are said to be lost on conversion(?).
Probably setting an older dng version and re-compress the dng could fix part of the problem, and anyhow I very much doubt DxO isn't able to read the open sped'ed dng, much more likely they simply boycott Adobe wherever they can.
actually DxO is not ignoring dng format:
http://forum.dxo.com/index.php/topic,7360.msg42542.html#msg42542
good example here:
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/dxo-optics-pro/supported-equipment
select leica M-9 M-E
Quote from: broch on November 09, 2013, 05:30:57 AM
actually DxO is not ignoring dng format
Argh, thanks for the link - so there seems to be no hope for Canon raw dng support :-( unless someone comes up with a hack to force DxO read them and proves how "substandard" the result really is.
Quote from: Marsu42 on November 09, 2013, 09:51:21 AM
Argh, thanks for the link - so there seems to be no hope for Canon raw dng support :-( unless someone comes up with a hack to force DxO read them and proves how "substandard" the result really is.
Unfortunately, Dxo seems to be using irrational arguments based on this response from Adobe:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00bj5j?start=10
QuoteI don't know what they are talking about. For nearly all raw formats (the main except being medium format camera backs), all the metadata (including the camera maker's private metadata data) is preserved in the DNG file created by Adobe software at default compatiblity settings. This is certainly true for Canon and Nikon raw files. If Adobe warned to commit the engineering resources to it (which we don't at present), we could write a reverse converter. For example (this would work for Canon also): NEF -(nikon raw software)-> TIFF NEF -(adobe dng converter)-> DNG -(adobe reverse converter)-> NEF -(nikon raw software)-> TIFF The two resulting TIFF files would be exactly (bit for bit) the same. The main reason the NEF files would be not exactly the same as we discard the camera generated JPEG previews in the original NEF file. We could generate very similar ones using the Nikon SDK, but I don't think the Nikon SDK is bit-for-bit identical to the firmware in the camera as far as rendering goes. Thomas
the rest of the discussion in the link provided is also interesting, including final conclusion. To put it simply, no DNG input support should be expected from DxO Optics
Quote from: broch on November 09, 2013, 05:13:09 PM
Unfortunately, Dxo seems to be using irrational arguments based on this response from Adobe:the rest of the discussion in the link provided is also interesting, including final conclusion. To put it simply, no DNG input support should be expected from DxO Optics
Thanks for the information. Well, I'll add my voice to the DxO forum but falling back on my previous theory this seemingly irrational behavior is a policy to block Adobe where they can - DxO saying they can only do lens correction & nr on cr2 but on dng for undefined calibration problems seems to be rather strange given it's the same data.
I hope DxO changes their minds when more people come knocking on their door, the DxO lens correction is nice but with most lenses not a pressing reason to use DxO Pro Optics in addition to LR, the new nr algorithm might generate more interest.
Quote from: Marsu42 on November 10, 2013, 01:18:39 PM
Thanks for the information. Well, I'll add my voice to the DxO forum but falling back on my previous theory this seemingly irrational behavior is a policy to block Adobe where they can - DxO saying they can only do lens correction & nr on cr2 but on dng for undefined calibration problems seems to be rather strange given it's the same data.
I hope DxO changes their minds when more people come knocking on their door, the DxO lens correction is nice but with most lenses not a pressing reason to use DxO Pro Optics in addition to LR, the new nr algorithm might generate more interest.
Can someone please explain to me if this is rational. If DXO supported DNG they would have more customers not less! I do not see how they harm Adobe by not supporting DNG. I think they harm themselves as people who want to improve their DNG files they will simply do not bother with DXO!
Quote from: tron on November 10, 2013, 02:00:18 PM
Can someone please explain to me if this is rational. If DXO supported DNG they would have more customers not less! I do not see how they harm Adobe by not supporting DNG. I think they harm themselves as people who want to improve their DNG files they will simply do not bother with DXO!
I guess it's like chess - DxO decides to tactically lose a fight to strategically win the war, they seem to be more concerned about blocking Adobe's grip on standards than gaining a few customers who just use DxO for denoising and will go back to ACR once Adobe follows suit with a better noise reduction.
It's not illogical if you look at it from their perspective: What DxO wants are customers who are attached to their software, follow each update, use it as a complete solution and well, not to put too fine a point on it, buy it rather than use an "extended" trial version or other means just to denoise a few shots.
So our hopes are either:
1. For cr2hdr to get a denoise function that will get close to DXO Prime results.
2. For a DNG to CR2 converter so as to process the DUAL ISO images with DXO Prime.