Es erschließt sich mir nicht warum man sehr gut jpeg Bilder mit DXO bearbeiten kann, aber S und M Raw von der Bearbeitung ausschließt. Ist hier in Zukunft eine Änderung zu erwarten?
I don’t understand why you can edit jpeg images very well with DXO, but exclude S and M Raw from editing. Is a change to be expected here in the future?
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi on peut très bien traiter des images jpeg avec DXO, mais exclure S et M Raw du traitement. Peut-on s’attendre à un changement dans ce domaine à l’avenir ?
(translated by DEEPL.COM)
Canon Raw wird in PhotoLab unterstützt, aber Canon mraw und sraw werden nicht unterstützt. Ich glaube nicht, dass DxO derzeit Pläne zur Unterstützung von mraw und sraw hat.
If I spend big bucks on a camera and lenses - in order to get top quality raw files - and with storage space not an issue in regards to costs - why would I take pictures in mraw or sraw?
I agree, but those choices are available and some people use them.
I am using DXO since 2015 and was happy so far. If a high end Camera offers a feature like s or m raw, I do not understand by DXO is not supporting this feature. I do not need each foto with 40 MB.
To argue if some body spend a lot of money for the a camera and lenses, he should have the money for the corresponding memory space is really absurd. If I buy a Porsche, that does not mean I will drive all the time 200km/h.
So far I have not heard from DXO why s and m-raw will be not supported.
I am fully aware that Cannon offers S/W free of charge to handle the mentioned files. But why should I use differend S/W ?
DxO’s goal is to get the very best results from a camera’s raw files. I suspect the reason they do not support, nor will ever support, mraw and sraw demosaicing is because it would compromise that goal and result is lower quality results. The only advantage of mraw and sraw is the amount of storage space they require, while there are known disadvantages. If you are unaware of them I suggest you research the subject.,
Das Ziel von DxO ist es, die bestmöglichen Ergebnisse aus den Rohdaten einer Kamera zu erzielen. Ich vermute, dass der Grund dafür, dass mraw und sraw demosaicing nicht unterstützt wird, darin liegt, dass es dieses Ziel gefährdet und zu qualitativ schlechteren Ergebnissen führen würde. Der einzige Vorteil von mraw und sraw ist die Menge an Speicherplatz, die sie benötigen, während die Nachteile bekannt sind. Wenn Ihnen diese nicht bekannt sind, schlage ich vor, dass Sie sich mit dem Thema befassen,
As far as I’ve understand m-raw and s-raw Canon are not really raw anymore, so demoisacing is not available.
There are also reduced M and S raw from Nikon which are real raw, and are then supported by DPL.
So it is not a question of quality but of raw format.
I’m using myself M-raw Nikon with high quality images of 28 Mpix.
What you say about Canon’s mraw and sraw may be true. I never spent much time researching them since I only used than briefly years ago. I do know however that their output quality is not as good as raw, and was especially noticeable when I cropped.
There have been many articles written on the limitations of those two Canon file types. I have no familiarity at all with Nikon’s similarly named raw files.
I guess this is true as Nikon also had on some cameras this kind of simili-raw, and they were not supported by DPL.
For the quality of these Canon files I can’t say, I just wanted to advise that the quality was not why they are not supported.
I don’t know about Nikon’s version of mRAW/sRAW, but Canon’s versions are not really RAW. They are more like linear DNGs. Already demosaiced but no WB set.
Thank you for confirming what Patrick mentioned earlier. If that is the case, then the original question has been answered.
I don’t have a Canon camera which writes the newer craw file type. Is that file type similar to mraw and sraw in that respect?
I must admit that I’m not familiar with cRAW, but as a guess I would say probably not. cRAW is some kind of compressed(lossy) RAW format.
An “official” response from DxO: