More Topics

Back to Topic OverviewPost New Reply

Tiff to Dng

(5 posts)

  • Sam Dring
    Moderator

    Has anyone done this in earnest please? There are significant file size advantages and, I suppose, the embedded jpeg comes into play or does it? Pro2 still seems to have some issues with tiffs and I am considering converting all my 'pre raw-shooting' tiffs plus scanned negatives. Any comment welcome

    Posted On January 9, 2008 - 11:59 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    Color me ignorant. I had no idea this was possible. I'm assuming it is a "linear" (?) DNG, meaning, it is not really reconstructing a RAW image, just using the DNG format to store the existing TIFF data? Have you tried it? Does ACDSee even recognize these?

    Posted On January 10, 2008 - 03:01 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Sam Dring
    Moderator

    Yes it works fine and 'just' stores as does jpeg to dng - quite a groundswell that jpeg is the best of all formats to contain metadata and, therefore, best archived as dng. However, I digress. Pro2 works fine with them and the reduction of scanned tiffs (about 20-30MB for me on average) by about 30% is significant but Pro2's handling even more so.
    Must experiment with embedded jpeg in dng tiff (wow!)

    Posted On January 10, 2008 - 04:45 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Sam Dring
    Moderator

    I notice we have been flooded with interest on this </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> However, just thought I would post my findings to date.
    A. Pro2 handles dng much better than tiff in 2 ways
    1. Embedded preview means instant loading in viewer
    2. No longer need to wait for Pro2 to scan the tiff folder (even though catalogue is up to date)
    B. Recent folder of 1.5 GB tiff converted to dng gives folder of 0.9 GB.
    C. Biggest tiff so far at about 150 MB reduced to well under 50%
    D. Conversion of tiffs is much, much faster than raw conversion (understandable)

    Colour me pleased.

    Posted On January 18, 2008 - 08:34 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • bernhard66
    Member

    samdring said:

    I notice we have been flooded with interest on this </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> However, just thought I would post my findings to date.
    A. Pro2 handles dng much better than tiff in 2 ways
    1. Embedded preview means instant loading in viewer
    2. No longer need to wait for Pro2 to scan the tiff folder (even though catalogue is up to date)
    B. Recent folder of 1.5 GB tiff converted to dng gives folder of 0.9 GB.
    C. Biggest tiff so far at about 150 MB reduced to well under 50%
    D. Conversion of tiffs is much, much faster than raw conversion (understandable)

    Colour me pleased.

    Hi
    that´s really great. I just find this article and tested it.
    E.g. Canon CR2 8,2MB, TiFF 46MB, DNG 7,2MB, JPG 99% 5,1%.

    Posted On March 2, 2008 - 05:02 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

Reply

You must log in to post.