adobe RAW 3.2 problem

wind30 · 20th October 2005

hi people,

I am using a E1 and I find that upon conversion to DNG format, I see red maze artifects. This has been reported in the dpreview forums too. Is anyone seeing this too? Now I am reverting back o adobe raw 3.1.

Just to tell you guys not to waste time downloading the 3.2.

nightpiper · 20th October 2005

Originally Posted by wind30

hi people,

I am using a E1 and I find that upon conversion to DNG format, I see red maze artifects. This has been reported in the dpreview forums too. Is anyone seeing this too? Now I am reverting back o adobe raw 3.1.

Just to tell you guys not to waste time downloading the 3.2.

why wud u want to convert ORF to DNG? u really think DNG is better? i wudn't place a single bet on DNG at all. no problem if u juz convert from ORF to TIFF/jpg.

wind30 · 21st October 2005

I have totally no idea if DNG is better.

If they are the same, then I will rather work in DNG as the file size is smaller. Is there any comparison on the web for the E1 raw vs DNG?

nightpiper · 21st October 2005

there's compression in this Adobe DNG format. how can the 2 format be the same? dun expect any 3rd party vendor to know another company image format as well as the company itself. Adobe is trying to establish itself with this DNG format but not widely adopted at all. its like using one yard stick to measure everybody, how can that be a good thing?

for what i understand, ACR is no where near the qualities produced by native proprietry s/w from the big 6 (Canon, Fuji, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax & Oly) & from personal experience, the closest to Oly's Studio s/w quality i get is using the C1 s/w. i dun mind the slower speed (Studio) in exchange for higher quality output.

20th October 2005	#1
wind30 Deregistered Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 2,929	adobe RAW 3.2 problem hi people, I am using a E1 and I find that upon conversion to DNG format, I see red maze artifects. This has been reported in the dpreview forums too. Is anyone seeing this too? Now I am reverting back o adobe raw 3.1. Just to tell you guys not to waste time downloading the 3.2.

21st October 2005	#3
wind30 Deregistered Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 2,929	Re: adobe RAW 3.2 problem I have totally no idea if DNG is better. If they are the same, then I will rather work in DNG as the file size is smaller. Is there any comparison on the web for the E1 raw vs DNG?

21st October 2005	#4
nightpiper Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,801	there's compression in this Adobe DNG format. how can the 2 format be the same? dun expect any 3rd party vendor to know another company image format as well as the company itself. Adobe is trying to establish itself with this DNG format but not widely adopted at all. its like using one yard stick to measure everybody, how can that be a good thing? for what i understand, ACR is no where near the qualities produced by native proprietry s/w from the big 6 (Canon, Fuji, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax & Oly) & from personal experience, the closest to Oly's Studio s/w quality i get is using the C1 s/w. i dun mind the slower speed (Studio) in exchange for higher quality output.