.NEF to .DNG conversion - why the weight loss?

What info is tossed when converting from .Nef > .DNG?
For example, I just converted a file and the Info says:
.NEF (15.6MB) > .DNG (10.9)
Is that one third drop in MB just Nikon encoding? Or is the image affected?

Try posting in the DNG forum. There are separate forums for DNG and for ACR.
http://forums.adobe.com/community/dng#
http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw
(The answer is probably DNG compression; but let the pros there tell you.)

Similar Messages

Did my NEF to DNG conversion work properly?

I had read that when I convert to DNG in Lightroom (v4), the file sizes will drop by about 20% (I checked the check box for compression). I'm converting from a batch of 16-bit NEFs I created when scanning slides using the Nikon LS-5000 scanner. Those scans and files were created with Nikon Scan 4.0. After doing the conversion in Lightroom, the DNG file sizes are around 3MB-17MB. The original NEF files were about 135MB. Where in the world did all my data go? I'm concerned that the conversion to DNG threw away a ton of the original data. How is that much of a reduction possible? I'm hoping that there wasn't some catastrophic problem during the conversion, as I also checked the check box to delete the originals after the conversion is finished.
The image quality seems to be okay when looking at the DNG files in Lightroom.
Thanks,
Jay

I scanned at the full resolution (4000dpi, I think) of the LS-5000. The DNGs all appear to have their full original resolution, 5782x3946. This was one of the first things I thought about, too, but the resolution doesn't appear to have been changed any.
Jeff, upon re-opening the Convert Photo to DNG dialog box, I see that I did check "Use Lossy Compression." I spaced. I belived I was telling it to use lossless compression (I was assuming that no compression would have been used otherwise). So the conversion makes them into a high-quality JPEG, basically (but still 16-bit)? If I don't check that, will the DNG conversion use lossless compression, or no compression at all?
These slides are from a few decades to several decades old, all shot by my dad. I'm wondering if I would even see any degradation from using the lossy compression option. 135MB per image seems WAY beyond what is necessary to maintain the quality of these slides, so I would like SOME compression, but don't want to see any clearly visible signs of quality loss. Any words of wisdom welcome.

14-bit NEF to DNG conversion

Hi all,
since I can't seem to find any definitive information on this... how's Lighroom 4 dealing with 14-bit raw NEF files (coming from a D7000 in this case) when it is converting to DNG? Is the entire 14-bit colour information being kept or is there some sort of loss or conversion going on?
Cheers
Michael

it sort of depends.
NC: Thanks so much, I think at this point the one biggest question I want to put to rest is this: When comparing the pure, raw, unmodified mosaic data in the original raw capture, is there any difference at all between that data and the image data contained in the DNG? A while back someone was trying to convince me they don’t like DNG because the raw data is being modified from the native capture. I’ve never believed this to be the case. Can you describe to me the nature of the image data in the DNG as it compares to the data in the original native file?
EC: This is a tough question to answer. It is a bit of a gray area. The shortest and most honest answer is: it depends!
now the important part for you:
NC: Great, got it. Just one final question, if you don’t mind: if I convert a raw file from a _typical_ DSLR (eg my Canon 5D Mark II) is the scene-referred data contained in that DNG any different than the original scene-referred data in the native raw file?
EC: No, they should be identical in the typical case (e.g., Nikon SLR, Canon SLR). An exception in the case of Canon SLR is the S-RAW and M-RAW modes. Those are not really mosaic files; they are stored in a quasi-JPEG like YCbCr space (luminance and color components), which DNG does not natively support. As a result, if you convert a S-RAW or M-RAW Canon file to DNG, it will get mapped to a RGB color space before getting stored into the DNG container (and hence will not be the same as the original).
read more here:
http://www.natcoalson.com/blog/2011/11/29/my-adobe-dng-chat-with-eric-chan/

D40x .NEF to DNG conversion fail

I recently got interested in taking HDR photos with my D40x and have taken a few RAW formatted photos that I was going to use. Excited as I was when I tried opening them in PS CS2 I was equally disappointed when I realized I couldn't get them to open. I've never updated my PS CS2 program since the day I got it so I've tried everything and I'm still at a loss, I did the following please let me know if I missed something...
Downloaded PS CS2 version 9.0.2
Downloaded DNG Converter and Camera Raw 3.7
When I open the converter I select the folder that my .NEF files are in and select CONVERT and it spits out this message, "There was an error parsing the file," for every image status. I eventually gave up trying to convert them to DNG and just tried opening them directly into PS CS2 by going to File/Automate/Merge to HDR. Doing this gave me an error message as well but said, "Could not complete the merge to HDR command because a command was not available." So I tried to open it by simply going to File/Open and I received a message that said, "Could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document."
Anyone else have some ideas of what I could possibly do to get these RAW .NEF photos into my CS2? Any help is appreciated!
Thanks in advance,
Corey

Of course you can use the free DNG converter, but if you want the convenience of opening your NEF files directly, there's no time like the present to upgrade to Photoshop CS5. I don't think you'll get upgrade pricing any longer once Photoshop CS6 releases.
-Noel

NEF to DNG

When converting to DNG does ALL the EXIF data come across?
I ask this because if I open a NEF file with Capture NX2 I can see details
about my off-camera flash groups that I have used.
Lightroom 2 or ACR does not seem to show this which is OK, I'm more
concerned that If I
convert to DNG then this information will be brought across in the hope that
a future version of Lightroom or ACR will display it.

>Do two lossless compressions heaped on top of one another not cause problems?
I guess you are thinking of what happens, when you ZIP a compressed file, like JPEG, MPEG - or a compressed raw. That too does not cause any difference in the data, but the effectivity of the second compression is strongly reduced, even eliminated.
In the NEF->DNG conversion case the compressions are not "heaped on top of each other". The native raw data is decompressed, and then it gets compressed again, using an only slightly different method.
>For bright scenes the file size is slightly smaller, but when I photographed stars, the file became tiny
The size difference is not caused by the (really small) difference in the compression methods. The camera's computing power is much less than that of a modern desktop or laptop, and the camera has to finish fast: at 3-5-8 frames per second there is not much room for optimization. In contrast, when the DNG conversion occurs, there is enough computing power and time to fine tune the compression.
>and didn't look so hot
Have you compared the ACR result of a NEF and of the DNG? If you did not cause any difference in the conversion by different options or adjustments, then this is the product of your imagination.
However, comparing the result of the NX conversion with that of ACR is not of limited value in this respect.

Is DNG conversion during Tethered Shooting Possible?

Previously, using a Canon 5D MkII and lightroom 2 I could shoot to a hot folder which Lightroom would watch, convert the images to DNG and add them to my catalog.
I love that Tethered Shooting is now part of Lightroom but unfortunately I can't seem to find anywhere to set up a recipe or parameters for the import and can only convert the files to DNG in post.... bit of a waste of time isn't it?
Am I missing something.... I sure hope there will be more options in tethered shooting in the final release. I have had to use Capture One to do Tethered shooting on Jobs but hate that I can't import the corrections into Lightroom. I was really hoping to circumvent C1 and save a bunch of time.
If it's not there, please add DNG conversion on the fly and keep my files in LR rather than C1

Right now, when tethered, Aperture is preventing files from being written to the CF card in the camera (which I definitely don't want)
You have no control over that behavior. It's the way Aperture works when you are shooting tethered.
If I understand your question, it sounds like you are trying to use Aperture as a replacement/supplement for the LCD on the back of your camera. If so, is there a HDMI output on your 5DMKIII? Maybe you could attach that output to a monitor as a solution.
Message was edited to add question about HDMI.

Bad DNG conversion

I have converted some files from my Nikon D300 NEF to DNG format with the latest version of DNG conert but the appearance is horrible colors too saturated and warm and very fuzzy.
Anyone can help me?
thanks

Without your giving us any details of how you are viewing the files, in what application, the exact versions of that application and your OS, details about your machine, graphics card, and how you calibrate your monitor, what exact camera model is generating the raw files you are converting to DNGs, etc., no one can even begin to venture a guess.
Please read this post by a forum host for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375816?tstart=0
Thanks!

NEF --- DNG Conversion: Is it lossy or lossless?

I was recently reading on a Nikon Forum where a writer stated that some data is lost when converting to DNG in Lightroom. His comments follow.
I'd appreciate if some of the seasoned experts here would offer an opinion, and hopefully, a rebuttal. Thanks for any information you can share on this subject
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Every compression algorith is flawed if a single bit is lost and the original can not be recreated. Since the DNG converter must know about your camera model and it actually converts the NEF into an image before compressing the image, AND you can not, after converting to DNG convert back to original NEF, it is to me obvious that it is indeed a lossy compression, not just 'simple' data compression like zip, tar or whatever other type of data compression you want to compare with, which is truly lossless.
The Nikon lossless compression works entirely on data compression principle, preserving every bit and recreating every bit of data when you edit the raw image, and that can not be done once the image is converted to DNG. That is why many people, who use DNG, also preserve the original NEF, which in my opinion, is a totally pointless work flow. The only reason I can see to use DNG is the ability to share the image with somebody else who is not able to edit NEF, but I might as well use TIFF in that case.
The DNG converter must have knowledge of the camera model concerned, and be able to process the source raw image file, including key metadata to be able to convert and compress. A real lossless compression algorithm NEVER looks at the contents of the data because it is totally irrelevant for the converter to know what type of data you convert and try to compress, since it is based on mathematical patterns and statistics only.
I look at DNG like I look at PDF. A Word document, especially with photographs in it, can be converted to PDF and it may look like you have not lost anything, but yes, you have lost a lot actually and you can never ever recreate the original Word document with the same quality like you have had in your original.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

727737757 wrote:
The only reason why I convert NEF to DNG is that I like *not* having sidecar files.
A perfectly valid reason to convert to DNG, in my opinion.
And if you are using in Adobe software, you will notice no ill side-effects (e.g. no data loss) whatsoever, so I think you can have full confidence..
But to offer a little more explanation:
The DNG converter needs to know the camera model because it's doing a lot more than "zipping" up the raw data. e.g. it's also creating a camera profile, and interpreting white balance..
Obviously, lossy compression is, well, lossy - I was talking about the lossless compression of raw data, which is 100% perfectly lossless (not a single bit is dropped..).
But if you open a NEF in Aperture, you can see the focus point. If you open the converted DNG, you can't. Not because the focus point information is not in the DNG file, but because it's not in a prescribed place where Aperture can find it - so you could say it's "lost" for practical purposes, although that's not how I think of it.
Cheers,
Rob

If I convert NEF into DNG the photo looks different

If I convert a NEF into a DNG, the DNG looks underexposed in comparison with the NEF. Why is this happening? I understood that it would be better to convert my photos into DNG because it is a universal RAW format but, it doesn't look anymore as I saw it on my camera.

Corina_PC wrote:
Why is this happening?
Because the preview (jpeg, embedded) in the DNG is a re-rendering based on Adobe defaults. It's not the same embedded preview that came in your NEF (which was created, initially anyway, in the camera).
To better understand, it helps to know how the story unfolds from the beginning:
When you press the shutter release, the camera takes the raw image data from the sensor, folds in the camera settings, crunches it through the Nikon image processing "engine", and compresses the result into a jpeg, which it subsequently stores (along with the raw data) in the raw NEF file, and shows you on the back of the camera, etc.
When you convert to DNG, Lightroom does something similar: it takes the raw image data from the raw file, ignores most of the camera settings (except, for example, white balance), crunches it through the Adobe image processing "engine", and compresses the result into a jpeg, which it subsequently stores in the raw DNG file, and shows you via OS codecs or in ACR, or Lr...
So, bottom line, you are just seeing the difference between current renderings of Nikon vs. Adobe. If you edit the NEF in NX2, the preview will be updated when you save the NEF. If you edit the DNG in ACR or Lr, you can also update the preview to reflect the current edits.
etc...
Hope this helps,
Rob.

LR and DNG conversions from NEF

Just received a batch of Nefs and corresponding dng conversions from a client. I immediately noticed that there was a serious white balance difference between these pairs--LR shows the Nefs at 5600 and the dngs at 7100. Is this typical. I have worked with dngs a few times, but this is the first set of images that I have seen with side by side conversions. Is this typical? Neither the dngs or nefs have been previously edited. I don't normally work with dngs--only when a customer insists.
Very curious about this WB difference. Any explanations from the color gurus here? TIA

I was aware that the numbers were relative and would likely be different, but in this case the images are visibly very different--I just gave the numbers to indicate what LR saw them as. When the difference is between 5600 (NEF) and 7100 (dng) one sees a big difference between the cool NEF and the warm dng on the screen. This difference is seen systematically in a batch of about 75 images. LR shows no metadata differences except the WB reading. Could this have resulted from a dng conversion in an older dng converter?

DNG conversion fail and Photoshop will not open my NEF files (Newbie question)

Two part question. First, I just recently installed photoshop CS4 to my (windows vista) computer and I go to upload NEF photos to bridge and I check the box that says "Convert to DNG" and when it finishs uploading it says "Files successfully copied, However, DNG conversion failed." It says it everytime and I don't know what to do about that.
Second part: I try to open my NEF files in photoshop it says "Could not complete your request because it is not the right type of document." I am using a Nikon D90 and I don't know if that has anything to do with this. I apologize if this question is in the wrong forum, I am new to this and I thought maybe camera raw had something to do with this at least.
Thanks for any help

You need to update your Camera Raw plug-in to either version 5.2 or 5.3RC, as well as the new DNG converter. They are available on the Adobe download page, and there are complete instructions for installation available there.

Why RW2 & DNG versions of the same picture look much different?

Dears!
RAW format for my camera is RW2. I used conversion of RW2 files into DNG to process it in Ps.
When previewing pictures in IRFAN VIEW I noticed that RW2 and DNG versions of the same picture (before any processing) are quite different. RW2 one is much sharper and with better collors than DNG.
Does anybody know why it is like that and if its better to use an external soft to work on RW2 files directly instead of converting them into DNG to process in Ps Camera Raw? Thanks for help!
Marek

MarkJan77 wrote:
The forum is about DNG files so I belive my topic fits in the acceptable range of subjects. If not it would probably be removed…
Hehehe… You have an amusing misconception regarding the monitoring and/or moderation of these user to user forums, especially the DNG forum with its minimal traffic.
Posts can go unanswered here for months or forever. Adobe does not monitor the forums.
You had not mentioned you saw the issue in Ps as well, you only referenced IrfanView, and that was what I addressed.

Why RW2 & DNG versions of the same RAW picture look much different?

Dears!
RAW format for my camera is RW2. I used conversion of RW2 files into DNG to process it in Ps.
When previewing pictures in IRFAN VIEW I noticed that RW2 and DNG versions of the same picture (before any processing) are quite different. RW2 one is much sharper and with better collors than DNG.
Does anybody know why it is like that and if its better to use an external soft to work on RW2 files directly instead of converting them into DNG to process in Ps Camera Raw? Thanks for help!
Marek

IrfanView is showing you camera-processed image (embedded in the raw file by the camera), whereas ACR is showing you, well, ACR-processed image. You need to learn how to set up defaults and edit to please...
Edit: IrfanView is also showing you an embedded preview of the DNG, but it's the default rendering of ACR instead of camera.
All experienced ACR users can accomplish superior results than camera-jpeg. However, initial rendering needs some help, and also there is a psychological factor: you're used to the way the camera renders things, and so it seems more right...

Lightroom 5.7 will not convert .nef to dng from my Nikon d750. Stand alone dng converter will not recognize or convert the files.

Lightroom 5.7 will not convert .nef to dng from my Nikon d750. Stand alone dng converter will not recognize or convert the files. Any know whats wrong?

I don't understand why you feel you need to use ViewNX to download your images from the camera. Lightroom has an excellent import process. I don't see that you gain anything by using the Nikon software. It seems to me that it has the capability of just creating more problems.
If you want to convert your D750 files to DNG using the standalone DNG converter thing you need to have DNG converter 8.7 installed. Once you have it installed, just choose the FOLDER in the DNG converter, but don't open it in the DNG converter file browser. If you open that folder then you will get the message that there are no files to convert. The converter works on the folder level, not the individual file level.

The best product of weight loss people CAN this product this.

Anything I noticed after some significant unsuccessful diet though is and so Iam confident you would agree that only means you'll have the aforementioned the fact that you never get nothing for nothing these days is by purchasing a reasonable structure that
could assure you benefits! All I could say is I must say I couldn't be more happy with my Lipogen Rx then I'm right now.
My Reviews On Hcg Diet- Essentially The Cleaver Decision For Lipogen Rx Loss
Are you aware that 8 out of each and every 10 people on 25's age are overLipogen Rx? America has been defined as a " region ". We may ask ourselves why. In that hurry, often we are using a number of terrible food alternatives available on every corner
encouraging quick company to what we're investing in our bodies, that we pay little attention. Many people do not just simply consume. We overeat. For the best fat loss product, we search while in the process of it-all.
That Works Fast weight loss Process
Best Fat loss Product On The Internet
the best product of weight loss people CAN this product this.
You will find numerous healthful dishes outthere that taste great.

Either you have rabies or you need to learn English. I'm not certain which. And spam and change names all you want. You're still an idiot.
Plus for weightloss only lazy idiots except some method that you seem to want them to believe. Ever heard of snake oil? Lazy idiots like that too! Most pharmaceutical companies sell that way if you don't mind anuerisms, heart attacks and the plethora
of other life killing aspects of their products. The FDA is in bed with them in the U.S.. Snake oil fixes everything.
La vida loca

.NEF to .DNG conversion - why the weight loss?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for