Yeah, I have learned that DNG image can consist of actual raw sensor data. Back in the day I’ve dismissed the (then new) format as nothing more than glorified high-bit, pixel bitmap and been avoiding it since. This is what threw me off: quote “…The Digital Negative Specification is based on the TIFF EP format, an accepted standard…”.
If not for my phone, I would have nothing to do with DNG to this day.
However, because now I do have to deal with the format, I must learn about it everything that I personally need (not everything there is to know, as it is a rabbit hole).
And I’m learning that RT does apply some OpCodes (as suspected)… Duly noted! Thank you!
As for the ColorChecker thingy, I need no convincing. It’s number 4 or 5 on my list and I’ll get around to it, eventually.
I’m going to be blunt here, but it’s clear you don’t really understand what you’re saying.
The thing with dng files is that are (sort of) 2 variants, and each of those two variants can be (lossy) compressed.
The first is pretty much exactly a raw file, the second is pretty much like a 16bit rgb tiff file.
So,what is a raw file anyway? Short: a file with the measurements from a sensor. In a bit more detail: it contains values from (often) 4 channels. I’m ignoring sigma sensors and xtrans here. So if you got a 16mp raw file, you have a 4mp red channel, a 4mp blue channel and two 4mp green channels.
Maybe they are written as one 16mp monochrome channel, maybe they are written as four 4mp channels… But that all means the same.
What maybe written in the metadata is data to help make sense of those values.
That might be a color profile, that might be some lens correction info. It is not ‘opcodes to do noise reduction’. Since all algorithms are different this would make no sense.
But here is the thing : a raw file can contain the exact same things. There is no difference!
It’s possible that the sensor data that is written is modified. Yes,phones are often guilty of this.They do some very interesting processing and think ‘we do it better then you can so we write the values with some processing already done’.
But here is the thing again: this happens with raw files as well (because a dng is a raw file, sigh). Sony’s infamous ‘star eater’ problem is exactly this.
But… . No ‘opcodes’. Just data written to the file.
The other dng variant is not soo much different in the end. Instead of 4 4mp channels, the values are already combined in 3 16mp channels (r,g,b) but all the color and lens correction still needs to be done.
A dng file is exactly like a raw file. And open it in rawtherapee with the neutral profile and you get the most clean look at it.
A good example is opening a Huawei p30 dng with a RYYB sensor instead of a ‘normal’ RGGB one. Look at those weird colors.
No
No
Lens correction metadata, just as in raw files.
No. Lightroom is known to always apply some sharpening and noise reduction even with the sliders at 0, depending on camera model. Just as with raw files
You are looking at the default rendering of a raw processor. Every one is different. Rawtherapee defaults depend on the profile you start with. ‘film like’ or ‘auto matched’ have a look,neutral doesn’t. Just as with raw files.
No.
Please do some research.
(and if you don’t like an embedded color profile or a default look, use neutral and in the color management turn off using a color profile.)
I agree with most of what you’ve said and am in no position to argue the rest. So, I guess: thanks!
And to sum things up:
2 days ago I was looking at some frustrating times of trying to “fix” a couple hundred DNG photos in Lightroom. Not only that from now on I’ll be able to process all my phone-photos in RT, but it turns out that I’ve been saving the actual sensor data all along! Could things be any better for me? Not in the realm of possibility! So, I’m pretty happy…
PS: Applying that “Neutral” profile really does seem to be the ticket to where I need to be. From what I can tell so far, no “opcodes” or any other unwanted BS are at play. Man, I love RT!
