Hi,
I'm having trouble with RAW conversion to DNG, using Adobe's DNG Converter 3.5.
Using 3.5 (which is a unibin), the output DNG files are always tiny, like postage stamp size and resolution. Under 3.1 (powerpc) it was fine.
I've tried 3.6beta, same result.
WEIRDLY, if I choose to run the converter via Rosetta, it all works fine!!
So if anyone else has trouble with DNG Converter, try Rosetta.
Full Version: DNG problem w/ camera raw 3.5+
ok, ive dug into this a little further.
first, some background: my camera's RAW (Pentax *ist DL2) is not directly supported by Mac OS X, but its predecessor (Pentax *ist DL) is, and a simple edit of Raw.plist enables me to use Aperture, Preview etc to work with RAW files from this camera, provided they're wrapped in a DNG.
ok, so far so what? well, i compared the output of the DNG Converter running natively (bad.dng) to that of it running via Rosetta (good.dng). The 'good' file (the one which works correctly) is 4 bytes longer than the other one. i used 'split' to chop the 4 bytes off the end of the 'good' file, then compared the two (now identically-sized) files. they still differ.
why on earth are these files different? why does native execution make a file which renders to be a postage stamp size, even in Aperture?
first, some background: my camera's RAW (Pentax *ist DL2) is not directly supported by Mac OS X, but its predecessor (Pentax *ist DL) is, and a simple edit of Raw.plist enables me to use Aperture, Preview etc to work with RAW files from this camera, provided they're wrapped in a DNG.
ok, so far so what? well, i compared the output of the DNG Converter running natively (bad.dng) to that of it running via Rosetta (good.dng). The 'good' file (the one which works correctly) is 4 bytes longer than the other one. i used 'split' to chop the 4 bytes off the end of the 'good' file, then compared the two (now identically-sized) files. they still differ.
why on earth are these files different? why does native execution make a file which renders to be a postage stamp size, even in Aperture?
This reminds of a situation when I opened Nikon RAW files with PS, which were misnamed as tif-files (xxx.tif instead of xxx.nef). All I got to see were tiny stamp-sized images, I concluded that these mini-images must have been in fact jpg-pics embedded in the RAW data. Your troubles sound vaguely reminiscent to this. Renaming from tif to nef (thatīs how Nikon names RAW-files) solved my problem. Any good?
QUOTE(munky @ Oct 9 2006, 12:09 PM) 
ok, ive dug into this a little further.
first, some background: my camera's RAW (Pentax *ist DL2) is not directly supported by Mac OS X, but its predecessor (Pentax *ist DL) is, and a simple edit of Raw.plist enables me to use Aperture, Preview etc to work with RAW files from this camera, provided they're wrapped in a DNG.
ok, so far so what? well, i compared the output of the DNG Converter running natively (bad.dng) to that of it running via Rosetta (good.dng). The 'good' file (the one which works correctly) is 4 bytes longer than the other one. i used 'split' to chop the 4 bytes off the end of the 'good' file, then compared the two (now identically-sized) files. they still differ.
why on earth are these files different? why does native execution make a file which renders to be a postage stamp size, even in Aperture?
first, some background: my camera's RAW (Pentax *ist DL2) is not directly supported by Mac OS X, but its predecessor (Pentax *ist DL) is, and a simple edit of Raw.plist enables me to use Aperture, Preview etc to work with RAW files from this camera, provided they're wrapped in a DNG.
ok, so far so what? well, i compared the output of the DNG Converter running natively (bad.dng) to that of it running via Rosetta (good.dng). The 'good' file (the one which works correctly) is 4 bytes longer than the other one. i used 'split' to chop the 4 bytes off the end of the 'good' file, then compared the two (now identically-sized) files. they still differ.
why on earth are these files different? why does native execution make a file which renders to be a postage stamp size, even in Aperture?
interesting.. i'll check it out, thanks
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.