Subject: Re: OpenRAW article: "DNG is not the answer"!
Barry, I'm glad you took the time to put together that last
reply, it has helped me tie together some loose thoughts I
had about why some software "partially" supports DNG has the
restrictions it does, and why these restrictions might
I was thinking mainly of the converter I prefer to use
(Silkypix) which accepts only DNGs from Bayer-type cameras
that it already supports natively, but will happily read
DNGs from non-Bayer cameras that it doesn't otherwise
support - Foveon X3F for example - presumably because there
are no issues with layout and translation to RGB requires
only the colour profiles embedded in the DNG. Incidentally
Silkypix allows the user to choose it's native profiles or
to use those embedded in the DNG, very elegant. I'm very
happy with ISL's implementation of DNG support in Silkypix,
it adds function and value to their converter and has no
disadvantages other than the initial effort required to
Using this as a real-world example of this kind of
compromise I'm inclined to agree with your analysis. The
only real restriction on the adoption of DNG by developers
is their willingness to do so.
View All Messages in adobe.digital.negative
OpenRAW article: "DNG is not the answer"! =>Re: OpenRAW article: "DNG is not the answer"! =>
Copyright © 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.