Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

DNG vs CR2

NN282636UL
OK, so basically, I tried using the DNG convertor for the first time in a couple years. (Yes, I updated it! Using the latest and greatest version.) Part of the reason was that I was considering changing to the 40D, which is not supported by my CS2 and other software.

Anyhow, I opened the CR2's and DNG's in 4.0.1 and as the previews came up, I could see the dng's change. They became darker and more colorful. Upon opening them, I could see real differences in the two files. The DNG contained less information in EXIF (no lens data outside focal length of shot and no camera information). The camera profile used was blank (I imagine because the model is unknown). And color temp was cooler by around 800 degrees. The histogram, too, was different. More compressed.

Yet, the visual effect is that the picture has way more pop to it. In fact, if I copy all settings to the cr2, it never looks that good. That said, I'm not sure I like the idea that C1-4 is doing the PP work for me. I'd prefer to do it myself.

I've noticed on other forums that others have experienced something similar. So is there a trick to "fixing" this issue? Is it an issue at all? Any ideas?
0

Comments

3 comments

Date Votes
  • roberte
    Hi Al (?),

    I reckon you're best to stick with propreitary camera raw formats in Capture One 4. It appears Phase One are using a generic Adobe DNG profile for all cameras. Even manually setting the "correct" camera profile won't yield as good a result as using the camera raw format.

    There is promise of better DNG support in the future. At the moment it is really just proof of concept.

    -- Robert.
    0
  • Peter132
    Just gave it a try. Converted a CR2 to DNG and then compared the images with Breeze Browser. No obvious difference except the file size is about 25% smaller on the DNG.
    0
  • David2121
    [quote="Chroma" wrote:
    Converted a CR2 to DNG and then compared the images with Breeze Browser. No obvious difference except the file size is about 25% smaller on the DNG.

    This would be as expected. Both the CR2 and the DNG file are, as it were, packaged TIFFs, so the original pixels, as seen by BB Pro, ought to be the same.

    I suspect, however, that things get more interesting when you start to convert the two file formats, in either C1 or ACR (which are, AFAIK, the only RAW converters of any significance that support DNG). I haven't tested, but I doubt that the DNG file will contain all, or even much, of the data in the proprietary MakerNote which forms part of the EXIF in the CR2 file (unless, that is, you choose to embed the CR2 file in the DNG, which makes the output file huge). I believe that the EXIF data in a DNG is in the form of an XMP schema, rather than of a 'native' EXIF block.

    As the MakerNote includes important parts of the shooting data, this begs the question as to how C1 deals with the profiling of DNG files. I'd guess that what should happen is that C1 should apply the profile associated with the camera that produced the original image. I don't know whether the DNG file contains the data that allows this to happen.

    In these circumstances, it would be interesting to shoot a RAW+JPEG pair, produce a DNG from the RAW, and then compare all 3 formats in the C1 viewer at default settings. I'd guess that there would be significant differences. But, sadly, I have to wait a couple of days before I try it.
    0

Post is closed for comments.