I heard about DNG for quite some time and never think about using it. Seeing
the recent discussion I tried to search the web to see why one has to use
DNG, it seems that many people are not suggesting it. There is always a risk
in converting format, IMO nothing is better (in quality at least) than the
original camera RAW.
Not to mention DNG, I found PS2 has poorer color rendering than Olympus RAW
converter, I have stop using it for years. The best alternative to Olympus
RAW converter is Silkpix, it generate image color very close to Olympus RAW
with highlight recovery that Olympus RAW missed.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Mitchell" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:16 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
>
> I too convert from .ORF straight to .DNG as a first step (well, second
> really - I rename with my own filename structure first .... and
> Automator on the Mac is just excellent for that). Like Chris, I choose
> the "embed original file" option for fear that one day the .DNG format
> may not be readable and I'd be left with a disc full of unreadable
> images.
>
> I had never actually considered the quality differences between
> processing the .ORF and .DNG files. Is this really much of an issue ?
> Whichever I use, I would be tweaking the colour balance in processing
> anyway, so does this matter ? Do I lose detail or some other quality by
> converting to .DNG and processing from there ?
>
> Now I'm getting worried. I thought I had that side of the process
> sussed ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
>
> <snip>
> I have converted my .ORFs to .DNG, retaining the RAW file and ensuring
> that I can extract it later.
> </snip>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|