SlimRAW will produce files significantly smaller than DNG Converter and way smaller than anything that uses Blackmagic's setup for Canon linear raw (usually ~15% smaller, sometimes more). ![]() But the spec allows for a lot of wiggle room and choices to make, which accounts for significant differences in compressed pixel data size. If you aren't in a hurry, you may gain some additional space by passing DNG Converter's output through DNGStrip, a free tool that strips some of DNG Converter's useless chaff from the compressed files, which I've written some years ago: Īnything "lossless dng" uses the same spec when compressing the pixel data. But hey, Switch is free and I am sure Danne is doing a great job with the whole Switch pipeline. DNG Converter is no match for slimRAW neither in terms of file size achieved, nor in terms of speed (last time I checked, slimRAW was 32 times faster on a quad-core CPU). If the CPU is the bottleneck, performance may degrade.Īs for the differences between slimRAW and Switch, Danne will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Switch uses Adobe's DNG Converter. If storage is the bottleneck, Resolve performance should improve. Second, performance in Resolve with compressed DNG will depend on what's the bottleneck of your system when streaming the raw footage. A bit late, but here are some answers for posterity.įirst, your lossless DNG question is answered in slimraw's faq:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |