Bob
I know you have an unhealthy obsession with C1, <g> but I still think your worries are groundless.
Having looked at a RAW file and a converted version of the RAW file in DNG format opened in ACR using the same processing parameters they are identical.
The compression used is lossless (I assume it is LZW as it is on a TIFF file) - as Thomas Knoll and Russell Williams have stated. I don't believe that they wouldn't make this up!
You can compress RAW files (use the Create Archive contextual menu and it will be slightly smaller - use Stuffit and it is smaller still) so there is some room in the basic file format to compress - there is bound to be more with a specialist LZW image conversion.
Presumably if C1 adopts DNG they will release it when they are happy that it does the same high quality conversion as with a RAW file.
You don't have to convert files to DNG yet - this is an attempt at long term unification of the problem of diverse RAW formats - it will take time to be adopted by all, but it is a first step and somebody had to do it.
cheers
Richard -- www.method-photo.co.uk
On 30 Sep 2004, at 09:26, Bob Croxford wrote:
The only thing that interests me is the 'quality' of the file. If the .DNG is going to mean that C1 fails and we are left with PS ACR then I am looking at a drop in quality. Until I see a proper review of a DNG file processed in C1 to the same standard as before I am not convinced.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
