Reference to the DxO statement “Support for RAW generated by smartphones” keeps popping up in this thread. Bottom line, DxO has chosen not to support current smartphones. OK, that’s their decision to make and they made it, but I’d like to comment on their apologia.
“First of all, it should be remembered that in general, the term RAW when used for smartphone photography does not have the same exact meaning as RAW as it is understood with cameras.”
Nope, despite the weasel-wording, it has the same exact meaning. An Android update in late 2014 and the launch of iOS 10 in 2017 enabled third-party apps to generate single-frame true (traditional) DNG raw files in many smartphones. Hundreds of articles and videos covered this development. DxO also jumped on the single-frame DNG raw bandwagon. I bought my first iPhone, the 7, in part because DxO PL offered such support. Now you would never know it from its statement, but DxO PL still supports processing of single-frame DNG RAW files from the iPhone 6S through iPhone X, and even from the Nokia Lumia (Windows Phone 8)! This single-frame DNG raw capability exists in most top smartphones even today. In fact, many smartphone photographers still prefer to edit single-frame DNGs over multi-frame DNGs.
Apple announced the iPhone XR, iPhone XS, and XS Max in September 2018, but they were not supported by DxO PL, this the beginning of the end. However, it was not until December 2020 that Apple launched multi-frame DNGs (hybrid, demosaiced ProRaw), with Samsung, etc., a bit later. Thus, there was a rather long gap between DxO’s abrupt dropping of smartphone support vs the arrival of multi-frame, non-raw DNGs.
DNG is a raw file format created by Adobe in 2004 with the intent of making it a universal standard across the industry. DNG is a three letter acronym for "Digital NeGative . Meanwhile 20 years later the DNG format is still not the universal standard Adobe had envisioned.
For those not using Adobe products the DNG format’s relevance depends on the camera and/or the preferred post processing software in use.
So did I. “DNG raw” is not a separate term. DNG is a raw format developed by Adobe as a replacement for proprietary raw file formats like Canon’s CR2, and Nikon’s NEF, etc., with the intent of creating a universal standard raw format.
On the other hand, linear DNG files are different. They are partially developed raw files, and as such are no longer true raw files. I think this double use of the DNG format creates some confusion. As for sources just Google DNG format. You’ll find hundreds of references.
Then why did you answer my question? Which was directed at @eriepa
Please provide me with an actual URL of a site to back this up. Specifically that DNG is a raw format.
And to avoid misunderstandings @mwsilvers my question was what is “DNG raw”? My question for you now @mwsilvers is do you think DNG and raw are the same? This is in addition to the request that you provide me with at least one officially valid URL that shows what I should find.
That’s incorrect. Its not a RAW format, its a container format that can contain among other things raw data from camera. The term “raw” is reserved for data coming out of sensor of camera otherwise jpeg is also raw. As it happens DNG container can contain both the original raw out of camera, it can contain raw data converted to something like linear DNG or it can has embedded jpeg etc. Ultimately its more versatile than typical proprietary raw format. And while it can contain raw data it is not a raw format by default. Some cameras allow writing of raw data into DNG format, but ultimately that is barely any different than what DXO does or DNG converter from Adobe does.
Adobe’s attempt to popularize DNG as Digital Negative and as open source archival format with better compression has some merit. But behind the apparent altruism lies fight for the market share. Just as many, especially main camera brands keep their propitiatory raw format so does Adobe wants a peace of that action.
Ultimately it could be all standardized, but no one wants to give up control. And nowhere is this more competitive and devious than in smartphones, hence DNG and smartphones should not be seen as raw format coming out of sensor. Because there is always some manipulation going on and attempt to monopolize the new methods of image processing. Hence DNG and Raw are potentially very different and very similar things. But they are not the same.
Unsatisfactory perhaps, but the full range and complexity of current knowledge, skills, and attitudes on the topic can be appreciated here:
One is left with the adage that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. When in doubt, I suppose we could ask Iliah Borg to investigate.
Things were simpler with dumb cameras and dumb phones. Smartphone marketing is often portrayed as the villain in this piece, with ProRaw (neither pro nor raw) a poster child. But increased computational power is making its way into “real” cameras too – lossy compressed RAW? Hmmm.
