Adobe CinemaDNG initiative at DVinfo.net

Peter Ferling · April 15th, 2008, 07:17 PM

Looks like Adobe, whom developed the open standard for raw digital stills (Digital Negative - DNG), is now undertaking a cinematic equivalent, called "CinemaDNG". Guess what? Cineform is working with them!

Read it here:

http://www.3dworldmag.com/page/3dwor...ive_to_develop

and here:

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...CinemaDNG.html

Geoff Murillo · April 15th, 2008, 07:35 PM

Great to hear that Cineform will be a part of the CinemaDNG initiative.

Geoff Murillo

Peter Ferling · April 15th, 2008, 08:32 PM

This is huge. I can't speak for the impact on digital cinema, but I can speak for what DNG has done for still photographers:

You capture raw sensor data, manipulate that data in an adobe application (crop, color, etc.), which is done non-destructively as the manipulations are instructional data that is embedded within the raw file. Keywords and IPTC data are also embedded. Other adobe and third party applications whom use the open standard will then recognize and work with that data. Your manipulations and metadata intact in the DNG file.

I hand off my DNGs to other photographers, whom open the DNGs with my edits intact. They in turn can manipulate the data further, or even reject the data and go back to the original raw sensor data and start over. It's non-destructive.

Emagine something similiar to digital video and film. Neat.

Josh Chesarek · April 15th, 2008, 09:24 PM

Hard drives around the world can be heard crying... This is awesome news though :)

Jack Zhang · April 16th, 2008, 04:08 PM

I guess RAIDs around the world must be cheering then.

Chris Hocking · April 18th, 2008, 01:18 AM

How does this kind of "open standard" affect companies such as Red? Does it have any impact?

Steve Nunez · April 18th, 2008, 04:52 AM

If this means a new universal way of changing video, into a codec of choice for NLE- this should be huge!

Chris Hocking · April 18th, 2008, 05:24 AM

When the Digital Negative standard was established, did they also put forward a preferred compression method for RAW images (i.e. a lossless system)? I know very little about high-end stills photography, so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the topic...

I'm just curious... If camera manufacturers start producing cameras in the not-too-distant future that have the ability to record RAW data (like the Red and others now do), will there be a "universal" compression method? Or will there just be a RAW standard, and each manufacturer will develop their own compression scheme?

Or is this more planning for the future when new hardware exists that can store the huge amounts of data RAW frames would require?

Peter Ferling · April 21st, 2008, 07:11 PM

Chris, I cannot answer to the what exactly the open standard will be for digital video. However, taking RAW imaging for photography into account, it's a good bet it's for the same reasons. (I can only speak to my workflow, so someone please chime-in if correction is needed).

All camera's record in RAW format. However, the consumer cameras have their converters already built in to create either jpegs (for stills) and DV or mpegs (for video). With such camera's you get the flexibility of small files sizes and form factors, but you're stuck with their compression scemes.

Shooting and aquiring RAW allows you to determine and control how the data will be converted in the convenience of your own taste, at the penalty of large file sizes.

You can still edit and use your manufaturers software, so RED shouldn't change, and why would they? Their software will still do the job. However, with an open standard, you would have a choice.

DNG (for stills) was created to deal with the possibility of losing an archive due to the loss of supporting format and hardware, etc.

It provides us photographers an alternative to being locked into a vendors system. This in addition to non-destructive datasets and editing. This also provides an open door to outside vendors to create applications that may enhance or provide even better support than OEMs.

Obviously adoption is the key here.

Jeffrey Brown · May 19th, 2008, 05:03 PM

does anyone even use DNG? i'm a very active member on a couple photography forums, and have never even heard of anyone using it as a standard workflow format --only for noodling around.

Bill Koehler · May 19th, 2008, 07:21 PM

As a matter of fact, yes.
In fact, there are even still cameras that will shoot natively in DNG as their RAW format.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...file_format%29

I personally use it whenever I shoot RAW.
I have found that the DNG files routinely occupy ~1/2 the space of the RAW original. My DSLR is a Pentax *ist DL, so your results may/will differ.
And it takes very little time to do the conversion.

The real justification for DNG is you have no problem reading your cameras RAW files now, but will that still be true in say, 20 years?
There are RAW file formats out there that are no longer supported by their manufacturers. So you have to ask, will yours be different, and if so, why?

April 15th, 2008, 07:17 PM	#1
Peter Ferling Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wyomissing, PA Posts: 1,141 Images: 57	Adobe CinemaDNG initiative Looks like Adobe, whom developed the open standard for raw digital stills (Digital Negative - DNG), is now undertaking a cinematic equivalent, called "CinemaDNG". Guess what? Cineform is working with them! Read it here: http://www.3dworldmag.com/page/3dwor...ive_to_develop and here: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...CinemaDNG.html __________________ Pete Ferling http://ferling.net It's never a mistake if you learn something new from it. -------------------------------------------

April 15th, 2008, 08:32 PM	#3
Peter Ferling Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wyomissing, PA Posts: 1,141 Images: 57	This is huge. I can't speak for the impact on digital cinema, but I can speak for what DNG has done for still photographers: You capture raw sensor data, manipulate that data in an adobe application (crop, color, etc.), which is done non-destructively as the manipulations are instructional data that is embedded within the raw file. Keywords and IPTC data are also embedded. Other adobe and third party applications whom use the open standard will then recognize and work with that data. Your manipulations and metadata intact in the DNG file. I hand off my DNGs to other photographers, whom open the DNGs with my edits intact. They in turn can manipulate the data further, or even reject the data and go back to the original raw sensor data and start over. It's non-destructive. Emagine something similiar to digital video and film. Neat. __________________ Pete Ferling http://ferling.net It's never a mistake if you learn something new from it. -------------------------------------------

April 15th, 2008, 09:24 PM	#4
Josh Chesarek Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Winter Park, FL Posts: 978	Hard drives around the world can be heard crying... This is awesome news though :) __________________ Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second

April 18th, 2008, 04:52 AM	#7
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	If this means a new universal way of changing video, into a codec of choice for NLE- this should be huge! __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

April 21st, 2008, 07:11 PM	#9
Peter Ferling Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wyomissing, PA Posts: 1,141 Images: 57	Chris, I cannot answer to the what exactly the open standard will be for digital video. However, taking RAW imaging for photography into account, it's a good bet it's for the same reasons. (I can only speak to my workflow, so someone please chime-in if correction is needed). All camera's record in RAW format. However, the consumer cameras have their converters already built in to create either jpegs (for stills) and DV or mpegs (for video). With such camera's you get the flexibility of small files sizes and form factors, but you're stuck with their compression scemes. Shooting and aquiring RAW allows you to determine and control how the data will be converted in the convenience of your own taste, at the penalty of large file sizes. You can still edit and use your manufaturers software, so RED shouldn't change, and why would they? Their software will still do the job. However, with an open standard, you would have a choice. DNG (for stills) was created to deal with the possibility of losing an archive due to the loss of supporting format and hardware, etc. It provides us photographers an alternative to being locked into a vendors system. This in addition to non-destructive datasets and editing. This also provides an open door to outside vendors to create applications that may enhance or provide even better support than OEMs. Obviously adoption is the key here. __________________ Pete Ferling http://ferling.net It's never a mistake if you learn something new from it. -------------------------------------------

April 15th, 2008, 07:35 PM	#2
Geoff Murillo Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Glendale, CA Posts: 92	Great to hear that Cineform will be a part of the CinemaDNG initiative. Geoff Murillo

April 16th, 2008, 04:08 PM	#5
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	I guess RAIDs around the world must be cheering then.

April 18th, 2008, 01:18 AM	#6
Chris Hocking Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 595	How does this kind of "open standard" affect companies such as Red? Does it have any impact?

April 18th, 2008, 05:24 AM	#8
Chris Hocking Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 595	When the Digital Negative standard was established, did they also put forward a preferred compression method for RAW images (i.e. a lossless system)? I know very little about high-end stills photography, so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the topic... I'm just curious... If camera manufacturers start producing cameras in the not-too-distant future that have the ability to record RAW data (like the Red and others now do), will there be a "universal" compression method? Or will there just be a RAW standard, and each manufacturer will develop their own compression scheme? Or is this more planning for the future when new hardware exists that can store the huge amounts of data RAW frames would require?

May 19th, 2008, 05:03 PM	#10
Jeffrey Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 37	does anyone even use DNG? i'm a very active member on a couple photography forums, and have never even heard of anyone using it as a standard workflow format --only for noodling around.

May 19th, 2008, 07:21 PM	#11
Bill Koehler Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Alpharetta, Georgia, USA Posts: 760	As a matter of fact, yes. In fact, there are even still cameras that will shoot natively in DNG as their RAW format. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...file_format%29 I personally use it whenever I shoot RAW. I have found that the DNG files routinely occupy ~1/2 the space of the RAW original. My DSLR is a Pentax *ist DL, so your results may/will differ. And it takes very little time to do the conversion. The real justification for DNG is you have no problem reading your cameras RAW files now, but will that still be true in say, 20 years? There are RAW file formats out there that are no longer supported by their manufacturers. So you have to ask, will yours be different, and if so, why?