Regardless, I think we should stop saying that Enhance DNGs "embed" the original raw, saving "embed" for the "Embed Original Raw File" option that includes the byte-for-byte copy of the original raw file. Or perhaps there's another reason for keeping the mosaic data in the DNGs. Perhaps most users would rather have Enhance DNGs 25% smaller and lose the ability to run Denoise on Raw Details DNGs. It makes the file 25% larger, but it does allow you to run Denoise on Raw Details DNGs. I don't know why Enhance DNGs contain the original raw's mosaic data. So in this sense, Enhance DNGs do not "embed" the original raw file+. But they don't include byte-for-byte copies of the original raw file.ĭNGs produced by LR's Convert Photo To DNG with the Embed Original Raw File option include not only the mosaic data converted to standard DNG representation, but also an exact copy of the original raw file, stored in the DNG:OriginalRawImage field.
So in that sense, the Enhance DNGs do "embed" the raw data. But there's ambiguity (and confusion) in the term "embed".Įnhance DNGs include both the linear raw data produced by Super Resolution, Raw Details, and Noise Reduction and the original raw mosaic (color filter array) data, converted to standard DNG representation. When users ask why Enhance DNGs are so big, several experienced people in the forums are reporting that the Enhance DNGs "embed" the original raw. I drilled into some LR-produced DNGS using Exiftool, and I no longer think there's a bug in Adobe DNG Converter or in the Metadata panel.
0 kommentar(er)
