August 22, 2014, 08:23:12 AM

Author Topic: RAW vs DNG  (Read 6688 times)

pdirestajr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 741
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: RAW vs DNG
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2012, 08:29:53 PM »
One difference I notice is that the DNG file doesn't preserve a few of the Canon specific details- like showing where focus points were used. Besides that, I don't notice much of a difference.
7D | 5DII | EOS-3 | Nikon F3 | Mamiya 645 Pro-TL

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RAW vs DNG
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2012, 08:29:53 PM »

TexPhoto

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 890
    • View Profile
Re: RAW vs DNG
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2012, 10:40:14 PM »
Who wants to wear t-shirts that say "I shoot DNG"?, or" DNG to the Core"?  Seriously, it does not have the sex appeal of RAW.

Bruce Photography

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
  • Landscapes, 5DX,7D,60D,EOSM,D800/E,D810,D7100
    • View Profile
Re: RAW vs DNG
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2012, 11:52:21 PM »
One difference I notice is that the DNG file doesn't preserve a few of the Canon specific details- like showing where focus points were used. Besides that, I don't notice much of a difference.

Good note.  For now that is the reason I stay with CR2 until DNG has all the meta info that is inside a CR2.  Even though focus point isn't really that great to know, at least it helps to know which point you started with.

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: RAW vs DNG
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2012, 09:51:46 AM »
Who wants to wear t-shirts that say "I shoot DNG"?, or" DNG to the Core"?  Seriously, it does not have the sex appeal of RAW.

We all "shoot" RAW  ;)
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8415
    • View Profile
Re: RAW vs DNG
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2012, 01:28:17 PM »
One difference I notice is that the DNG file doesn't preserve a few of the Canon specific details- like showing where focus points were used. Besides that, I don't notice much of a difference.

There are now THREE flavors of DNG. 

One which embeds the entire RAW file in it with all the raw information in addition to the edit info.

One which embeds only the edited image(This is the one most are discussing here)

One which embeds the edited image with lossy compression, but not as much as jpeg.  It might be better than saving jpegs?  Its new and can be tested in Lightroom 4.

You can take your choice.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RAW vs DNG
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2012, 01:28:17 PM »