Vuescan Raw files: DNG or TIFF

[Rider]

No it's not Adobe's problem and never will be. The data in the Vuescan DNG file has already been rendered.

IR Data has NOT been rendered; it's in a separate channel ready to be combined with RGB data. 64 bit RGBI file! I'm no expert but I did read the Vuescan Bible and had conversations with both the author and Hamrick.

Just because these RAW files are different than DSLR RAW files doesn't mean anything; DNG supports both types. And it's a lot more convenient to edit files in LR than in VS.

As as I said, I am aware of only two problems:

(1) The lazy bums at Adobe (just kidding!) do not have an algorithm for removing dust, ala Digital Ice (btw, this also extends to DSLR RAW files; the only way to remove dust automatically is to use the manufacturer's program. Adobe products lack that functionality across the board.)

(2) VS supports IT8 calibration, but as far as I know Adobe does not.

Adobe just doesn't care about scanners anymore; they're too busy writing iPhone apps (Hey you can't blame them. Hamrick is also writing an iPad app.)

If it weren't for the above two things, you could output RAW files from VS and not have to reprocess them again in VS.

The solution to (1) as it stands, is to output a RAW file that already has the dust removal applied, but that is not as elegant as outputting a 64-bit RGBI file. I usually do this in two steps: Output a 64-bit RGBI file and then use that to create a 48-bit RGB file; the second one doesn't have to be RAW.

I don't know whether it's possible to get Adobe LR to do IT8 calibration; maybe it is.

Again, I am not an expert but I have read The Vuescan Bible and had email conversations with Sascha Steinhoff and Ed hamrick.

[Rider]

Strictly speaking DNG files were invented to address issues related to the digital camera RAW file tower of Babel.

That is (i) humorous and (ii) what Adobe wants you to believe.

DNG actually added to the Tower of Babel because it's yet another format that has no advantages over the RAW that comes off a DSLR and is much less compatible. Every third-party RAW converter supports my Nikon NEF files, but most would not support my NEF files if I was foolish enough to convert them to DNG.

VS DNG are actually the first good use I've ever seen for the DNG format, and that's only because LR is too limited to be able to interpret linear TIFF files.

[D. Bryant]

That is (i) humorous and (ii) what Adobe wants you to believe.

DNG actually added to the Tower of Babel because it's yet another format that has no advantages over the RAW that comes off a DSLR and is much less compatible. Every third-party RAW converter supports my Nikon NEF files, but most would not support my NEF files if I was foolish enough to convert them to DNG.

VS DNG are actually the first good use I've ever seen for the DNG format, and that's only because LR is too limited to be able to interpret linear TIFF files.

I guess that's why Pentax and Leica utilize the DNG format instead of a proprietary format like others. New copies of the Leica M9 ship with LR. I personally don't convert to DNG in any case and as a long time user of Vuescan I never will. I do create DNG camera profile using Xrite ColorChecker for digital cameras but I don't expect film scans to ever be supported by any mainstream RAW processor.

Nikon RAW isn't a loss less format and they actually sharpen RAW data. So the field is wide open. All Adobe was trying to do is ti allow users to convert their RAW camera files to DNG so that they can use older versions of ACR & LR avoiding an upgrade.

Anyway I'm not a defender of Adobe, my primary point is that Hamrick DNG is not supported by Adobe, and never will be for various good reasons so why bother in the first place. What other RAW file converters support it?

My biggest point is that Hamrick DNG files do not contain RAW data and it confuses the issue to suggest that it does. Unfortunately a lot of people think that Vuescan RAW is equivalent to digital RAW files. And who uses spot removal software if you want maximum sharpness.

And quoting Sascha Steinhoff (since you quote him as an authority) from one of his articles listed on his webpage on Vuescan DNG:

"... but be aware that you cannot use this feature with adobe lightroom. lightroom is designed for digital camera raw file and lacks a lot of functionality regarding raw-scans. just for viewing it's ok, though.

all in all scanning with dng gives you a wide flexibility, while scanning in tiff (not in raw-tiff!) is much more easier to handle."

You should take the time to read what Andrew Rodney has to say about the topic:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Z2Sy

Anyway I've made my points take them as you wish.

Don Bryant

[Rider]

D-I am not trying to force you to scan in RAW. For me it works great. I got there thanks to the advice of the other participants in this forum (see the posts above) and Sascha Steinhoff's book and emails.

Anyone reading this in the future should know that your last post is riddled with inaccuracies and your quote from Sascha Steinhoff's website is outdated, out of context, and actually supports the point that Vuescan RAW DNG is better than Vuescan RAW TIFF because it lets you open and manage the files in LR more easily, which was the start of this discussion earlier today!

ps: I have no problem with DNG files coming off the hardware--as with Leica or Vuescan--but recommending that customers should convert "proprietary" Nikon or Canon files to DNG is practically criminal.

[domaz]

Anyway I'm not a defender of Adobe, my primary point is that Hamrick DNG is not supported by Adobe, and never will be for various good reasons so why bother in the first place. What other RAW file converters support it?

My biggest point is that Hamrick DNG files do not contain RAW data and it confuses the issue to suggest that it does. Unfortunately a lot of people think that Vuescan RAW is equivalent to digital RAW files. And who uses spot removal software if you want maximum sharpness.

And quoting Sascha Steinhoff (since you quote him as an authority) from one of his articles listed on his webpage on Vuescan DNG:

"... but be aware that you cannot use this feature with adobe lightroom. lightroom is designed for digital camera raw file and lacks a lot of functionality regarding raw-scans. just for viewing it's ok, though.

all in all scanning with dng gives you a wide flexibility, while scanning in tiff (not in raw-tiff!) is much more easier to handle."

You should take the time to read what Andrew Rodney has to say about the topic:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Z2Sy

Vuescan produces what is known as a Linear DNG. It is a valid DNG file- complies to all specifications. It can contain non-RGB data like the Infrared channel etc. However, your argument seems to be (like Andrew Rodney's on Photo.net) that since Vuescan doesn't produce a DNG file with mosaiced bayer data that somehow it's not a RAW file. A scanner has a linear CCD so could never produce such a RAW file. Vuescan produces a RAW file with basically RGB data that has no curve applied- it's straight from the scanner. What exactly is wrong with producing such a RAW file? RAW files have been around for year and before the advent of digital cameras they contained RGB data.

[D. Bryant]

D-I am not trying to force you to scan in RAW. For me it works great. I got there thanks to the advice of the other participants in this forum (see the posts above) and Sascha Steinhoff's book and emails.

Anyone reading this in the future should know that your last post is riddled with inaccuracies and your quote from Sascha Steinhoff's website is outdated, out of context, and actually supports the point that Vuescan RAW DNG is better than Vuescan RAW TIFF because it lets you open and manage the files in LR more easily, which was the start of this discussion earlier today!

ps: I have no problem with DNG files coming off the hardware--as with Leica or Vuescan--but recommending that customers should convert "proprietary" Nikon or Canon files to DNG is practically criminal.

Ah but I do scan in RAW I just don't save as a DNG, instead a TIFF file. I don't see that providing a means to convert to DNG is criminal if the customers version of camera RAW files are not supported. It simply allows users to use older versions of ACR/PS and LR if they wish.

If you wish to use Vuescan DNG go ahead but it ain't a true RAW file. It has scene rendered RGB data.

Time for me to move along any further comments may be construed as arguing.


Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Vuescan produces what is known as a Linear DNG. It is a valid DNG file- complies to all specifications. It can contain non-RGB data like the Infrared channel etc. However, your argument seems to be (like Andrew Rodney's on Photo.net) that since Vuescan doesn't produce a DNG file with mosaiced bayer data that somehow it's not a RAW file. A scanner has a linear CCD so could never produce such a RAW file. Vuescan produces a RAW file with basically RGB data that has no curve applied- it's straight from the scanner. What exactly is wrong with producing such a RAW file? RAW files have been around for year and before the advent of digital cameras they contained RGB data.

The data is not straight from the scanner sensor. The file that is created is based on a rendered Preview, that's the point. Files that contain scene referenced data are not RAW.


I moving on.

[Rider]

This is not aimed at D, who is moving on--

In summary:

(1) If you are scanning to Vuescan RAW, then the choice between TIFF and DNG comes down to the program you wish to use to view or process that RAW file. Vuescan can process both files equally well. LR does better with a DNG file, but has limitations with both kinds because of files because (i) LR has no algorithm for removing dust and (ii) LR does not support IT8 targets. These are limitations of LR that VS can do nothing about.

(2) The argument about whether or not VS produces "true RAW" is a red herring, to put it kindly (remind me how many angels dance on the head of a pin?). Even DSLRs apply some processing before outputting a RAW. The VS RAW is about as RAW as it gets. It even includes the Infrared data in a separate channel. (And this applies to both TIFF and DNG, by the way.)

(3) I have no idea where D got the info that the DNG file is based on a rendered Preview. I think it's incorrect.

(4) I highly recommend the Vuescan Bible.

(5) I am grateful to everyone who chimed in on this thread and helped me understand the processing of scanning with Vuescan.

[D. Bryant]

This is not aimed at D, who is moving on--

In summary:

(1) If you are scanning to Vuescan RAW, then the choice between TIFF and DNG comes down to the program you wish to use to view or process that RAW file. Vuescan can process both files equally well. LR does better with a DNG file, but has limitations with both kinds because of files because (i) LR has no algorithm for removing dust and (ii) LR does not support IT8 targets. These are limitations of LR that VS can do nothing about.

(2) The argument about whether or not VS produces "true RAW" is a red herring, to put it kindly (remind me how many angels dance on the head of a pin?). Even DSLRs apply some processing before outputting a RAW. The VS RAW is about as RAW as it gets. It even includes the Infrared data in a separate channel. (And this applies to both TIFF and DNG, by the way.)

(3) I have no idea where D got the info that the DNG file is based on a rendered Preview. I think it's incorrect.

(4) I highly recommend the Vuescan Bible.

(5) I am grateful to everyone who chimed in on this thread and helped me understand the processing of scanning with Vuescan.

I will direct you to this thread on the Luminous Landscape:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...2468#msg432468

Saying that Vuescan DNG data is raw data from the scanner is simply bogus.

Don

[Rider]

So much for moving on D--now you are beginning to look like you're arguing. But what are you arguing exactly? You've already said that you scan RAW, you just don't like the fact that Hamrick gives you two choices of containers? Ok, use the RAW TIFF and be happy. I use the RAW DNG for the reasons already stated, and I am happy. I use LR to look through my DNG files, which it can't do if they were RAW TIFFs. That's not reason enough for you to use DNG--fine, don't use it! It is enough for me, and there is no drawback I'm aware of for using DNG. As a bonus, I occasionally I process the DNG files in LR, which would be virtually impossible with the RAW TIFFs. Oftentimes, I reprocess the DNG files in VS first in order to (i) apply scratch and dust removal and (ii) apply the IT8 profile. That gives me non-RAW TIFFs, which I can open in LR or Photoshop or anything I want. I am struggling to know what your point is, frankly.