[digiKam-users] DNG conversion in Digikam

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

Hi,

 

As I notice some missing metadata after the conversion on import to DNG I wondered which tool or library is used for this conversion

 

There used to be a DNGConvert but the last reference there is from 2011 so I assume it's a library integrated in Digikam?

 

Thanks,

Gerhard

 

--

https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Hi,

The official Adobe DNG SDK is used in background to process conversion...

Bes

Gilles Caulier

Le mar. 27 avr. 2021 à 08:42, Gerhard Hoogterp <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi,

 

As I notice some missing metadata after the conversion on import to DNG I wondered which tool or library is used for this conversion

 

There used to be a DNGConvert but the last reference there is from 2011 so I assume it's a library integrated in Digikam?

 

Thanks,

Gerhard

 

--

https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/

[backgroundemailaddress]

Hi,

I hadn't noticed the missing metadata. What metadata do you mean specifically?

Thanks!

--
 Verzonden met Tutanota, de veilige en advertentievrije postbus:
 https://tutanota.com


27 apr. 2021 15:08 van [hidden email]:

> Hi,
>
> The official Adobe DNG SDK is used in background to process conversion...
>
> Bes
>
> Gilles Caulier
>
> Le mar. 27 avr. 2021 à 08:42, Gerhard Hoogterp <> [hidden email]> > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> As I notice some missing metadata after the conversion on import to DNG I wondered which tool or library is used for this conversion
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> There used to be a DNGConvert but the last reference there is from 2011 so I assume it's a library integrated in Digikam?
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Gerhard
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/
>>
>>

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

On dinsdag 27 april 2021 17:40:10 CEST Gerhard wrote:

 

> I hadn't noticed the missing metadata. What metadata do you mean

> specifically?

 

It's not as much missing data, but I noticed that sites and programs don't see my lens when I upload images.

 

I use an A7III and a FE1.8/85 lens which are quite modern, but the lens didn't seem to be recognised in the exif info after uploading to f.e. 500px.com.

I convert the RAW to DNG on import.

 

So I grabbed an earlier image in the AWR format and there lens info was available. After converting it to DNG using Digikam I compared the two files:

 

exiv2 -g Lens 20200426T192530_01.ARW
Exif.Sony2.LensID                            Long        1  Manual lens
Exif.Photo.LensSpecification                 Rational    4  850/10 850/10 18/10 18/10
Exif.Photo.LensModel                         Ascii      13  FE 85mm F1.8

exiv2 -g Lens 20200426T192530_01.DNG
20200426T192530_01.DNG: Failed to open the file
jondor@Bull:~/DNG$ exiv2 -g Lens 20200426T192530_01.dng
Error: Directory Sony2 with 25665 entries considered invalid; not read.
Exif.Sony2.LensID                            Long        1  Manual lens
Xmp.aux.Lens                                 XmpText    11  Manual lens
Xmp.aux.LensID                               XmpText     5  65535

Besides the error about the Sony2 block error it also doesn't have the same info as the original file. Hence my question on which library did the conversion. Regretfully I don't think Adobe cares about open source or linux, so I guess I will have to live with it or maybe write a script using exiftools to fix things. Other suggestions are also welcome off course...

 

Gerhard

 

 

--

https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/

[Maik Qualmann]

Which digiKam version are you using exactly? Reading lens models from Sony
files has been corrected in digiKam-7.2.0. A short test conversion from ARW to
DNG shows no abnormalities, the lens information is available.

Maik

Am Dienstag, 27. April 2021, 20:43:34 CEST schrieb Gerhard Hoogterp:

> On dinsdag 27 april 2021 17:40:10 CEST Gerhard wrote:
> > I hadn't noticed the missing metadata. What metadata do you mean
> > specifically?
>
> It's not as much missing data, but I noticed that sites and programs don't
> see my lens when I upload images.
>
> I use an A7III and a FE1.8/85 lens which are quite modern, but the lens
> didn't seem to be recognised in the exif info after uploading to f.e.
> 500px.com.
> I convert the RAW to DNG on import.
>
> So I grabbed an earlier image in the AWR format and there lens info was
> available.  After converting it to DNG using Digikam I compared the two
> files:
>
> exiv2 -g Lens 20200426T192530_01.ARW
>
> exiv2 -g Lens 20200426T192530_01.DNG 20200426T192530_01.DNG: Failed to open
> the file jondor@Bull:~/DNG$ exiv2 -g Lens 20200426T192530_01.dng Error:
> Directory Sony2 with 25665 entries considered invalid; not read.
> Exif.Sony2.LensID                            Long 1  Manual lens
> Xmp.aux.Lens                                 XmpText    11  Manual lens
> Xmp.aux.LensID                               XmpText     5  65535
>
>
> Besides the error about the Sony2 block error it also doesn't have the same
> info as the original file. Hence my question on which library did the
> conversion. Regretfully I don't think Adobe cares about open source or
> linux, so I guess I will have to live with it or maybe write a script using
> exiftools to fix things. Other suggestions are also welcome off course...
>
> Gerhard

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

On dinsdag 27 april 2021 21:28:53 CEST Maik Qualmann wrote:

> Which digiKam version are you using exactly? Reading lens models from Sony

> files has been corrected in digiKam-7.2.0. A short test conversion from ARW

> to DNG shows no abnormalities, the lens information is available.

 

digiKam-7.2.0-x86-64.appimage

 

Gerhard

 

 

--

https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/

[Maik Qualmann]

Can you send a ARW test file to my email address?

Maik

Am Dienstag, 27. April 2021, 21:31:01 CEST schrieb Gerhard Hoogterp:

> On dinsdag 27 april 2021 21:28:53 CEST Maik Qualmann wrote:
> > Which digiKam version are you using exactly? Reading lens models from
>
> Sony
>
> > files has been corrected in digiKam-7.2.0. A short test conversion from
>
> ARW
>
> > to DNG shows no abnormalities, the lens information is available.
>
> digiKam-7.2.0-x86-64.appimage
>
> Gerhard

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

On dinsdag 27 april 2021 21:38:11 CEST Maik Qualmann wrote:

> Can you send a ARW test file to my email address?

>

 

The file was send, but too big. So a mail with a downloadable url was send instead.

 

Thanks,

Gerhard

 

--

https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/

[Maik Qualmann]

Thanks for the test file, I can reproduce the problem with the file. After
converting to DNG, Exiv2 has a problem with the Exif metadata and gives an
error message. The cause is not yet clear, it could also be a problem with the
Adobe SDK. I think we'll have to try again to use a more recent version of the
Adobe SDK, but we've had problems with it so far.

Maik

Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2021, 10:09:47 CEST schrieb Gerhard Hoogterp:
> The file was send, but too big. So a mail with a downloadable url was send
> instead.

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Maik,

I think the Adobe SDK is not the problem here. The SDk constructs a tiff/EP compatible file with the Raw image data extracted with libraw.

The SDK make a base tiff file with few metadata, no more. The main job to backport information from RAW to DNG is done by Exiv2, and perhaps unsafe tags are backport too much from original file to the target one.

I think ExifTool will be the ultimate solution here...

Gilles

Le mer. 28 avr. 2021 à 18:54, Maik Qualmann <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Thanks for the test file, I can reproduce the problem with the file. After
converting to DNG, Exiv2 has a problem with the Exif metadata and gives an
error message. The cause is not yet clear, it could also be a problem with the
Adobe SDK. I think we'll have to try again to use a more recent version of the
Adobe SDK, but we've had problems with it so far.

Maik

Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2021, 10:09:47 CEST schrieb Gerhard Hoogterp:
> The file was send, but too big. So a mail with a downloadable url was send
> instead.

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

On woensdag 28 april 2021 19:58:52 CEST Gilles Caulier wrote:

> Maik,

>

> I think the Adobe SDK is not the problem here. The SDk constructs a tiff/EP

> compatible file with the Raw image data extracted with libraw.

>

> The SDK make a base tiff file with few metadata, no more. The main job to

> backport information from RAW to DNG is done by Exiv2, and perhaps unsafe

> tags are backport too much from original file to the target one.

>

> I think ExifTool will be the ultimate solution here...

>

 

So if I understand you right, exiv2 is used to ex(tract) the metadata en to insert it into the dng file?

In that case I should take this issue to the exiv2 maintainers.

 

Gerhard

 

 

--

https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/

[Maik Qualmann]

No, at the moment I would not report it to the Exiv2 maintainer. Since it
could not be reproduced with the CLI Exiv2 tool either. If I remove the
writting of the Makernotes block, an error message no longer occurs and the
correct lens can be read. We already know problems with the Makernotes block
from some cameras. At the moment we need more time to find the cause ...

Maik

Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2021, 20:29:17 CEST schrieb Gerhard Hoogterp:

> On woensdag 28 april 2021 19:58:52 CEST Gilles Caulier wrote:
> > Maik,
> >
> > I think the Adobe SDK is not the problem here. The SDk constructs a
> > tiff/EP
> > compatible file with the Raw image data extracted with libraw.
> >
> > The SDK make a base tiff file with few metadata, no more. The main job to
> > backport information from RAW to DNG is done by Exiv2, and perhaps unsafe
> > tags are backport too much from original file to the target one.
> >
> > I think ExifTool will be the ultimate solution here...
>
> So if I understand you right, exiv2 is used to ex(tract) the metadata en to
> insert it into the dng file?
> In that case I should take this issue to the exiv2 maintainers.
>
> Gerhard

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

On woensdag 28 april 2021 20:53:17 CEST Maik Qualmann wrote:

> No, at the moment I would not report it to the Exiv2 maintainer. Since it

> could not be reproduced with the CLI Exiv2 tool either. If I remove the

> writting of the Makernotes block, an error message no longer occurs and the

> correct lens can be read. We already know problems with the Makernotes block

> from some cameras. At the moment we need more time to find the cause ...

 

Ah, ok.. Thank you. In that case I quietly wait and maybe see what I can script with exiftool. .

 

Gerhard

 

--

https://gerhardhoogterp.nl/