Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 03 Jun 2009 (Wednesday) 22:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why are these DNG files so much bigger than the original CR2 files?

 
shomat
Senior Member
Avatar
730 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Post edited over 1 year ago by shomat.
     
Jun 03, 2009 22:42 |  #1

...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Panopeeper
Senior Member
774 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Jun 03, 2009 23:36 |  #2

shomat wrote in post #8045969 (external link)
I thought raw files were supposed to usually come out to about 85% of the original file size

There is no such rule, though the DNG converted data is usually smaller than the CR2. However, there are several factors there.

I assume "Convert to linear image" is there so that other software that reads DNG but not the original CR2's mosaic format can work with the file, which is what I thought was the point of DNG.

1. That is none of the anyway scant reasons to convert the native raw in DNG format.

2. The "linear" format (a misnomer, for the native CR2 data IS linear) is half-raw, half-cooked.

3. All software, which accepts DNG will accept the data as raw as it comes from the camera. In fact, "linear" means "demosaiced". Converting the raw data in DNG is nonsensical in most cases, but deosaicing it is worse.

ADDED

I forgot the main point: in "linearized" (demosaiced) format, each pixel carries three color components instead of a single value in raw format.


Gabor

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,997 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Jun 03, 2009 23:44 |  #3

Don't convert it to a linear image.

http://livedocs.adobe.​com …39-9825-CCB6A22C0056.html (external link)

http://www.barrypearso​n.co.uk/articles/dng/l​inear.htm (external link)


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shomat
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
730 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Jun 04, 2009 00:35 |  #4

Thanks for clarifying, guys.

Panopeeper wrote in post #8046268 (external link)
Converting the raw data in DNG is nonsensical in most cases, but deosaicing it is worse.

I like the idea of an open standard file format as well as having the adjustments stored in the dng file instead of in a sidecar file or Lightroom's database.

That was helpful.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shomat
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
730 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Jun 04, 2009 00:36 |  #5

I'm not deleting my .CR2 files in favor of DNG, by the way. I plan on compressing them with bzip (external link) and storing them away for a rainy day.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,997 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Jun 04, 2009 06:07 |  #6

Not much point compressing them, you don't gain much and it's less convenient.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,229 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Jun 04, 2009 06:42 |  #7

tim wrote in post #8047209 (external link)
Not much point compressing them, you don't gain much and it's less convenient.

Agree. I made that big mistake for a while. A total pain in the butt to be forced to unarchive files (stored on a dvd, for example) to a harddrive to review them. Time-consuming and inconvenient.


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dharrisphotog
Goldmember
Avatar
2,331 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Jun 04, 2009 07:57 |  #8

Why bother with converting to DNG anyway. It's a waste of time. I just stick with my .CR2 files. When DNG (if) becomes the world standard for RAW, then I'll consider it. I just one less step in my work flow.


D800 | Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art | Nikkor 85mm 1.8G | Nikkor 70-200 2.8G
Gear | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Google+ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,852 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why are these DNG files so much bigger than the original CR2 files?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is saulcreative
785 guests, 280 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.