rfunnell Posted March 20, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have often been unsure when importing from my M9 using the import option whether to choose the option COPY as the images are already DNG in the M9 OR COPY AS DNG ? I have been using the COPY as the images are larger ... Any help would be appreciated. Ross Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Hi rfunnell, Take a look here M9 Import - Copy DNG from camera or Copy as DNG. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
zlatkob Posted March 20, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 20, 2011 I presume you are using Lightroom. I suggest using COPY. This way you import the exact file that the camera created. If you choose COPY AS DNG, Lightroom will first convert each image to its own version of DNG. COPY AS DNG may save some space, but I would prefer to have to original file unmodified, even if the modification is lossless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfunnell Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted March 20, 2011 Thanks I thought as much I have always been doing this but just wanted confirmation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 20, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 20, 2011 I copy as DNG ... or actually (as I don't use Lightroom) I use the Adobe DNG Converter to convert the out-of-camera DNG files into losslessly compressed DNG files—which is the same what Lightroom's 'Copy As DNG' does. Then I throw the original files away. Saves me a lot of hard-disk space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per P. Posted March 20, 2011 Share #5 Posted March 20, 2011 I copy as DNG within Lightroom. As O1af says it saves a ton of hard disk space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 20, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 20, 2011 I just checked and you guys are right, Copy as DNG does save a lot of space ... about 50% vs. a compressed M9 DNG file (8.4 mb vs. 17.5 mb). I guess that makes sense if the import is otherwise reliable and lossless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 20, 2011 Share #7 Posted March 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I copy as DNG ... or actually (as I don't use Lightroom) I use the Adobe DNG Converter to convert the out-of-camera DNG files into losslessly compressed DNG files—which is the same what Lightroom's 'Copy As DNG' does. Then I throw the original files away. Saves me a lot of hard-disk space. I have the latest DNG Connverter for an Intel-and PPC-based Macs that are different versions. Does it matter which converter is being used? K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 20, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 20, 2011 I have the latest DNG Connverter for an Intel-and PPC-based Macs that are different versions. Does it matter which converter is being used? As long as it's 5.4 or later, for M8 or M9 files the DNG Converter version doesn't matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 20, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 20, 2011 Ross-- Welcome to the Forum! If you're going to be working only in Adobe products, I don't think there's any disadvantage to using "Copy as DNG" and letting Lightroom compress the M9 file. However, at one time there was a problem when trying to open the Adobe-compressed DNG in Capture One: it wouldn't work This may have changed, but at one time, Capture One wouldn't recognize DNG files saved with the Adobe lossless compression. That was discovered with the M8. I don't know whether it is still the case with either M8 or M9 files. I hope someone could check that, because there's still a group of folks here who feel that Capture One is a better RAW converter in some cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 20, 2011 Share #10 Posted March 20, 2011 However, at one time there was a problem when trying to open the Adobe-compressed DNG in Capture One: it wouldn't work. Must have been back when Phase One wasn't able to follow some simple instructions as to how to implement the DNG format fully and properly. The DNG format specification evolves, and so does the software that reads, writes, and processes DNG files. The current version of the DNG specification is v1.3—it is used by Camera Raw 5.4 and later, DNG Converter 5.4 and later, and Lightroom 2.4 and later. The Leica implementation of the DNG format (used in DMR, M8, and M9; don't know about S2) still is v1.0 which is compatible to all versions of Lightroom, DNG Converter, and Camera Raw back to ACR 2.4 or Lr 1.0. So if you're using old software that understands DNG 1.0 but not DNG 1.2 or 1.3 then you might be in trouble. If you are, just update your software. If really required still, you can always use the current version of the DNG Converter to convert your DNG files back to DNG 1.0 format or to uncompress them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 20, 2011 Share #11 Posted March 20, 2011 Nice history recitation, ONEaf! As you know, Capture one was delivered with the M8 models, and could read Leica DNGs but not Adobe-compressed DNGs. That's a problem that shouldn't have occurred, since both products were built under the same standard. There were changes to the standard after that time, as you say. I take it that you haven't tried Capture One to be sure the problem is corrected? It might be nice to know for sure. I haven't read about it on the forum for some time, so I would guess it is. But just citing a version history doesn't answer the question IMO. ... So if you're using old software that understands DNG 1.0 but not DNG 1.2 or 1.3 then you might be in trouble.... You say the M's DNGs follow DNG 1.0, but old software that also understands DNG 1.0 might put someone in trouble. Isn't that a contradiction? ... you can always use the current version of the DNG Converter to convert your DNG files back to DNG 1.0 format or to uncompress them. Are you sure? I didn't think any DNG converter could restore an Adobe-compressed file to its original M8 or M9 state, which is what we're talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2011 Share #12 Posted March 21, 2011 Still, it raises some doubts about which file is more future-proof. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfunnell Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted March 21, 2011 Thanks for all the input regards this issue. So am I to assume that if you use "Copy as DNG" that even though the file is compressed it still has the same raw data the original M9 DNG file had and that in the future with new ways of opening / using these files they are the same ? It certainly would be good to save space as generally they are 50% smaller from my experience. Cheers and thanks, Ross. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 21, 2011 Share #14 Posted March 21, 2011 I just checked and you guys are right, Copy as DNG does save a lot of space ... about 50% vs. a compressed M9 DNG file (8.4 mb vs. 17.5 mb). I guess that makes sense if the import is otherwise reliable and lossless. Does anyone know what is not copied so that the file is smaller? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 21, 2011 Share #15 Posted March 21, 2011 Funny question! K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgeenen Posted March 21, 2011 Share #16 Posted March 21, 2011 How does Cornerfix behave with re-computed DNGs? Johannes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted March 21, 2011 Share #17 Posted March 21, 2011 How does Cornerfix behave with re-computed DNGs? Fine. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 21, 2011 Share #18 Posted March 21, 2011 Still, it raises some doubts about which file is more future-proof. They are equally future-proof. So am I to assume that if you use "Copy as DNG" that even though the file is compressed it still has the same raw data the original M9 DNG file had and that in the future with new ways of opening/using these files they are the same? Yes, exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 21, 2011 Share #19 Posted March 21, 2011 Lossless data compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 21, 2011 Share #20 Posted March 21, 2011 Does anyone know what is not copied so that the file is smaller? Pico, so far as I'm aware, the M8 and M9 are the only cameras that use a look-up-table to store data. (Remember, that option was in the DNG spec but had never been implemented before the M8. Capture One was the only program that would read the M8's DNGs when it first came out, and Adobe was a couple days behind with a new version of ACR.) At least one aspect of the size reduction would therefore be the elimination of the LUT, and replacing the index values in the main matrix with the actual values they had pointed to. Sandy would know more areas where the system can compress the data. OOPS--I see while I was manfully typing my response, K-H sneaked in with a link. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.