RAW vs. DNG - Hello, I'm a NEWBIE - HELP!! (Newbies assistance, User Guides and thank you notes) - CHDK Forum
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

RAW vs. DNG

  • 11 Replies
  • 5407 Views
*

Offline Frida

  • *
  • 16
    • Pixelbloggen | As I See It
RAW vs. DNG
« on: 05 / February / 2009, 03:44:33 »
Advertisements
Found it so no need to work on an answer  ::)




Hi, I have a s5IS and have been shooting in raw from the first day with the CHDK. In later updates it has now a possibility to choose DNG or Raw directly in the camera. Is there in the forum someone who has compared the two. The pros and cons about saving time, quality and so on.

Regards Frida

http://www.pixelbloggen.se
« Last Edit: 05 / February / 2009, 03:56:50 by Frida »
Logged
*

Offline hotvedt

  • ***
  • 106
  • A540/SX110IS/350D
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #1 on: 05 / February / 2009, 08:14:10 »
If your camera can already shoot in raw-format, you will not gain any quality in a single shot from using chdk-raw or dng.

But you will be able to average a bunch of raw's in camera to reduce/eliminate noise, or create "double exposures".

Logged
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #2 on: 05 / February / 2009, 08:31:40 »
saving time is longer using dng. it depends on cardspeed and camera model - see for yourself. (in debug or misc menu you can check a box "show saving time" that shows you the time that is needed writing raw/dng)
quality is the same - after all it is RAW. but the chdk RAW is more raw than the chdk dng. the dng can be opened by nearly all GFX programs on your computer, no need to convert first. the raw files cannot be opened by a lot of programs.
also, the dng contains a lot of exif data and the whitebalance etc, while the raw file doesnt.
Logged
*

Offline Frida

  • *
  • 16
    • Pixelbloggen | As I See It
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #3 on: 05 / February / 2009, 14:46:02 »
Quote from: PhyrePhoX on 05 / February / 2009, 08:31:40
saving time is longer using dng. it depends on cardspeed and camera model - see for yourself. (in debug or misc menu you can check a box "show saving time" that shows you the time that is needed writing raw/dng)
quality is the same - after all it is RAW. but the chdk RAW is more raw than the chdk dng. the dng can be opened by nearly all GFX programs on your computer, no need to convert first. the raw files cannot be opened by a lot of programs.
also, the dng contains a lot of exif data and the whitebalance etc, while the raw file doesnt.

I have a Canon S5IS and have used the hack since it came for my camera. I have noticed that the savingtime increases when using DNG in the camera. I think my question after reading 24 pages about RAW and DNG in the forum today IS as follows.

If one doesn't consider the time aspect is there something that should be considered the better choice. I already have DNG4PS2 and have used it but I got the impression that it wasn't a priority to develop further since one can do the same thing in the camera. I use Picasa, Rawtherapee and Photoshop.

Sorry if I can't explain properly but I hope my question is understandable.

Take care. :-) 
Logged
*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14126
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #4 on: 05 / February / 2009, 18:56:46 »
It's your choice. If your workflow benefits from DNG on the camera, use it. If it doesn't, keep using CRW.
Logged
Don't forget what the H stands for.
*

Offline oversky

  • *
  • 41
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #5 on: 05 / February / 2009, 23:32:34 »
are are colors from the raw through DNG4PS2 the same as the in-camera dng?
Logged
*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14126
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #6 on: 05 / February / 2009, 23:50:00 »
Quote from: oversky on 05 / February / 2009, 23:32:34
are are colors from the raw through DNG4PS2 the same as the in-camera dng?
Not necessarily.
Logged
Don't forget what the H stands for.
*

Offline wontolla

  • ****
  • 413
  • S3 & G9 & A720
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #7 on: 06 / February / 2009, 06:44:38 »
Quote
If one doesn't consider the time aspect is there something that should be considered the better choice.

I presume not. The raw data is the same; you should get a similar output from them (dynamic range, image quality, detail, etc).

As they say, the colours may vary. But IMO it shouldn't be an issue since the hole idea of raw processing is that you tune the colours yourself (white balance, tint, etc), either batch processing or one photo at the time.
Logged
*

Offline Frida

  • *
  • 16
    • Pixelbloggen | As I See It
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #8 on: 07 / February / 2009, 07:43:54 »
Thanks wontolla that was what I was wondering about. I think I'll do as before because I prefer a more speedy photography. As I don't mind the extra time on the computer and I also like to work with the raw file that's why I'm using the CHDK. BUT I was wondering about the quality of the two different ways to save images in the camera.
Logged
*

Offline whoever

  • ****
  • 280
  • IXUS950
Re: RAW vs. DNG
« Reply #9 on: 07 / February / 2009, 12:04:34 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics


SimplePortal © 2008-2014, SimplePortal