 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Pentax K10D and DNG/RAW issues
The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was unreadable in Paint Shop Pro X, the only image editor I have which "claims" to accept DNG. K10D RAW files could not be processed by the old Pixmantec Raw Shooter premium 2006, ver. 1.03 build 77. FYI I had already "fixed" that program to recognize RAW from my Pentax K110 (which I had bought as a stopgap only because my *ist-DS had expired just after the warranty did likewise. Patching Raw Shooter to recognize the K10D did not work. I simply don't like the Pentax software... what are you other guys/gals using to process the K10D RAW/DNG output successfully? Hope you found something inexpensive... I'm not an Adobe fan.  SignatureAnti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA > The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only > be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was unreadable > in Paint Shop Pro X, the only image editor I have which "claims" to > accept DNG. If true that kind of defeats the purpose of providing DNG files. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >> The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could >> only be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was >> unreadable in Paint Shop Pro X, the only image editor I have which >> "claims" to accept DNG. > > If true that kind of defeats the purpose of providing DNG files. LOL! Please tell me it isn't so? What a kick in the a.s this would be. It's best to use CS2 with native RAW and not screw with DNG since there is no real world benefits. Rita >>> The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could >>> only be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >LOL! Please tell me it isn't so? It isn't so. SignatureJohn Bean >>>> The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could >>>> only be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It isn't so. Real world benefit is that PS supports DNG but does not use the new RAWs yet. >>>> The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could >>>> only be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It isn't so. It is partially so. Althought the theory was that DNG would be universal, the reality is that quite a few software programs are making it their policy to only support DNG's from cameras whose RAW files they understand, because there is still too much proprietary and/or camera-specific stuff even in DNG to get good results if you don't understand how the file was created. -------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>>> The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could >>>>> only be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >It is partially so. No it's not. The claim was that the DNG could be read only with the supplied Pentax software. That simply isn't true. >Althought the theory was that DNG would be >universal, the reality is that quite a few software programs are making >it their policy to only support DNG's from cameras whose RAW files they >understand, because there is still too much proprietary and/or >camera-specific stuff even in DNG to get good results if you don't >understand how the file was created. That doesn't make the claim true, since there are also quite a few software programs (ACR, Silkypix, DCRaw for example) that correctly read the DNGs from completely "unknown" cameras like the K10D. It isn't DNG that's the problem but sloppy implementations that claim to support it but support only a very limited subset instead. SignatureJohn Bean >>>>>> The DNG was >>>>>> unreadable in Paint Shop Pro X, the only image editor I have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No it's not. The claim was that the DNG could be read only > with the supplied Pentax software. That simply isn't true. I agree, that much isn't true. But assumed "it" above referred to more than just that - also to the claim that Paint Shop Pro X could not read it, and the general comments and implications about the limitations in universal of DNG files. It *is* true that it is not as univeral as we have been lead to believe, and it *is* true that this fact kind of defeats the purpose of DNG. > That doesn't make the claim true, since there are also quite > a few software programs (ACR, Silkypix, DCRaw for example) > that correctly read the DNGs from completely "unknown" > cameras like the K10D. It isn't DNG that's the problem but > sloppy implementations that claim to support it but support > only a very limited subset instead. I'm not sure I agree with this, either. I don't think it is only "sloppiness" that results in decisions not to support unknown DNG's. It is a veyr real fact of life that vendors can put all sorts of stuff into their RAW data that a program that is not familiar with that particular format would not have any way of knowing how to interpret. Sure, you can successfully construct some sort of an image in all cases, but how "correct" that image is might be another matter. I am glad there exist programs that will indeed at least give you some sort of image, but it concerns me that a program may not be interpreting the image as well as it could be if it understood the native format of the given camera. This suggests that simply throwing away one's RAW files after conversion to DNG - or using DNG straight from the camera if supported - in the hopes that this means all programs will forever be able to completely understand everything about your image is perhaps a bit misguided. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > This suggests that simply throwing away one's RAW files after > conversion > to DNG - or using DNG straight from the camera if supported - in the > hopes that this means all programs will forever be able to completely > understand everything about your image is perhaps a bit misguided. Marc, I'm the guy who started this thread. For the moment, I'm eschewing PEF and DNG in favor of plain old JPG, banking on the K10D's 10Mp to give me a bit more quality and fudge factor... since I was already fairly happy with the JPEGs from my two previous 6Mp Pentaxes, though PEF with Raw Shooter delivered a quite noticeable increase in clarity. I don't bother printing anymore, being satisfied with slideshow viewing on my 42" HDTV, or for some WWW uses. With the K10D it's nice to have a real pentaprism again, more buttons to fiddle with, and hopefully more robust build quality. Only hope all these little electronic buttons and wheels last longer than on my late DS. Pentax repair wanted $200, half the price of a K110D body. Perhaps an extended warranty is not a bad idea for these fragile electronics. Thanks for your inputs on this thread. SignatureAnti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA > It is partially so. Althought the theory was that DNG would be > universal, the reality is that quite a few software programs are > making it their policy to only support DNG's from cameras whose RAW > files they understand, because there is still too much proprietary > and/or camera-specific stuff even in DNG to get good results if you > don't understand how the file was created. This does make a lot of sense and was the consensus of the group discussion we had a while back on DNG and converting files to DNG for long-term storage. What you say is exactly true. This is why it's best to shoot native RAW and use the manufacturer's RAW converter or CS2. It's beyond foolishness to convert native RAW to DNG for any reason. There isn't a professional photographer alive that does it. Of course, some hobbyist or novice will tell you that DNG is the best thing next to doing it doggy style. Rita > It's beyond > foolishness to convert native RAW to DNG for any reason. There isn't > a > professional photographer alive that does it. On the contrary, there are quite a few that do this, and indeed, Peter Krogh, who is considered (in some circles, at least) to the *the* guru of digital asset management, does and recommends precisely this. Of course, he does have some connection to Adobe, so he has some bias in the matter. But he *is* taken quite seriously by thousands. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>>> The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could >>>>> only be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >it their policy to only support DNG's from cameras whose RAW files they >understand, I agree with you up to this point ... > because there is still too much proprietary and/or >camera-specific stuff even in DNG to get good results if you don't >understand how the file was created. I disagree, though, as to this being the major reason for the lack of support for DNGs. It's been my impression that the majority of the applications that only offer the restricted DNG format support don't process much, if any, of the camera-specific information; they have built-in camera data for known models, and have simply added a way to read the raw sensor data from a DNG container rather than from the manufacturers private data format. That's the only data they extract from any RAW file - no metadata at all. >> because there is still too much proprietary and/or >>camera-specific stuff even in DNG to get good results if you don't >>understand how the file was created. > > I disagree, though, as to this being the major reason for the lack > of support for DNGs. I would also say I overstated the case in claiming there is too much proprietary stuff to get "good" results. Of course you can still get "good" results. Optimal is another matter. > It's been my impression that the majority of > the applications that only offer the restricted DNG format support [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rather than from the manufacturers private data format. That's > the only data they extract from any RAW file - no metadata at all. I guess I'm not sure how this differs significantly from what I wrote; perhaps there is some subtlety I am missing, though. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> because there is still too much proprietary and/or >>>camera-specific stuff even in DNG to get good results if you don't [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I guess I'm not sure how this differs significantly from what I wrote; >perhaps there is some subtlety I am missing, though. I was emphasising the fact that most of the RAW converters with the limited DNG support don't use any of the proprietary data even when they are processing manufacturer-specific files. As such, they may produce "good" results, but won't manage optimal from any input. In fact, if they were prepared to read the additional metadata in the DNG file, they might be able to approach optimal, even if they don't know how that metadata is encoded in a private file format. >> The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only >> be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was unreadable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Greg Unfortunately it very much depends on the application writer. Some applications (such as Raw Shooter, IIRC) only offer very rudimentary DNG support; they are prepared to accept files in the DNG format, but only for camera models for which they have already provided native RAW support (PEFs, in the Pentax case). Other applications are actually prepared to go to the trouble of reading the metadata from the DNG, and using those fields to decide how to unravel the sensor data. These applications are quite capable of reading DNG files from cameras that were not released at the time the software was written (provided, of course, that the data layout was similar to known models). > The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only > be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was unreadable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > using to process the K10D RAW/DNG output successfully? Hope you found > something inexpensive... I'm not an Adobe fan. You might try dcraw. <http://www.insflug.org/raw/software/download/windows.php3> >The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only >be read by the Pentax software that came with it. It's wrong. >I simply don't like the Pentax software... what are you other guys/gals >using to process the K10D RAW/DNG output successfully? Hope you found >something inexpensive... I'm not an Adobe fan. Well all versions of ACR since 2.4 read it, but since you're not an Adobe fan try Silkypix - which also reads it just fine. There's a free version too. SignatureJohn Bean The Silkypix web site only mentions support for the K110. Not the 100 or the 10. R >>The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only >>be read by the Pentax software that came with it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not an Adobe fan try Silkypix - which also reads it just > fine. There's a free version too. >The Silkypix web site only mentions support for the K110. Not the 100 or the >10. It doesn't matter - it supports DNG from the K10D which is what was being discussed. Try it. SignatureJohn Bean "John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote >Well all versions of ACR since 2.4 read it, but since you're >not an Adobe fan try Silkypix - which also reads it just >fine. There's a free version too. Thanks John. SilkyPix Free did handle the K10D DNG easily, and did the same for the K10D PEF after initially protesting that camera was not fully supported. Free version seems to work fine, though I have to retrain myself to a new GUI and away from Raw Shooter. FYI, the latest Pentax software for the K10D claims to be based on SilkyPix, but the implementation is far from as good. I've never known your advice to fail :^) SignatureAnti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA >"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Pentax software for the K10D claims to be based on SilkyPix, but the >implementation is far from as good. Pentax are the cause of much confusion - it only uses the same conversion "engine" that Silkypix uses, it's not in any way based on it. It's a bit like all the products that use DCRaw as a conversion engine - but they're *not* DCraw... I'm surprised it handled the PEF at all! I know it will attempt to "guess" the format for unknown cameras (unlike ACR) but I'm surprised it succeeded - the format is very different from other flavours of PEF. >I've never known your advice to fail :^) :-)) SignatureJohn Bean Lightroom and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) will open the K10Ds DNG files. However, it doesn't get something's right and there are reports of increased noise and noise banding. Basically for now you either accept the noise/banding issue and remove it with a noise reduction program or your use the software that came with the camera. Adobe will release an update probably sometime Q1 next year maybe sooner. They pushed out an update for the new Canon Rebel, Sony Alpha, etc. much sooner than they normally would have. Maybe they will do the same for the Pentax. R > The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only > be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was unreadable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > using to process the K10D RAW/DNG output successfully? Hope you found > something inexpensive... I'm not an Adobe fan. > Lightroom and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) will open the K10Ds DNG files. > However, it doesn't get something's right and there are reports of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > R I would be amazed if they did, everyone is always extra slow to support Pentax. Well it really doesn't make a difference if you can read a DNG file from an unsupported camera or not. The fact that so many people are confused and that there is so much yes you can, no you can't. Only goes to show that once again Adobe has done a fine job making something of there crystal clear. R > The documentation that came with my K10D said its DNG output could only > be read by the Pentax software that came with it. The DNG was unreadable > in Paint Shop Pro X, the only image editor I have which "claims" to > accept DNG. I would expect that PS-CS2 and Elements 3 and higher read it as well, at least with the latest RAW plugin installed (whether you're a fan or not). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.