On Nov 4, 2010, at 3:53 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: Larry Colen >> On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:22 PM, John Sessoms wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Shouldn't LR2 & CS1 be able to handle .DNG files even from newer >>>> cameras? >>>> >>>> I've been giving some thought to switching to .DNG for my raw >>>> format, at least temporarily to experiment with it. Who knows? It >>>> might even prove advantageous. >> My only question is what gets lost when you save as .dng? Does any >> of the metadata get thrown away? >> > > I don't think so. Certainly not from the .DNG raw format Pentax implements in > camera. > > I think the only real difference is in the way the raw sensor data is > organized and the .DNG has to have capability to store information on > multiple sensor Color Filter Array patterns that wouldn't be required in a > proprietary raw file that has to deal only with a single pattern. > > It's TIFF/EP with a TIFF structure for Exif metadata, XMP metadata and IPTC > metadata. > > Basically, if there's a form of metadata Photoshop or Lightroom recognizes, > .DNG would accommodate it.
I haven't compared the exiftool output of two shots, one taken in .pef and one in .dng, but for some reason I thought they didn't save quite as many details in the .dng. It's also possible that I'm misremembering, and that it is stuff that gets lost when you convert to .dng. Or, I could be just completely wrong and that everything gets copied over there as well. I suppose that if I were really paranoid, I'd shoot in .pef, save a copy in .pef, convert to .dng and save a copy in that format on another drive. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
