Camera Raw/DNG 9.5.1: "There was an error parsing the file" when attempting to convert SRW images from some Samsung models

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • In Progress
  • (Edited)
DNG converter says "There was an error parsing the file" when attempting to convert SRW images from some Samsung models after metadata has been edited with ExifTool.  Here are 3 sample images with this problem:

http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungNX2000.srw
http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungNX300.srw
http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungNX30.srw

Also, the following image is not recognized by the converter after a similar edit with ExifTool:

http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungEK-GN120.srw
Photo of Phil Harvey

Phil Harvey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2586 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes

These particular raw files also don't work in Lightroom or the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop.

That ExifTool can be told to do things to a raw file that make it unrecognizable to Adobe products isn't necessarily a bug in either set of programs.

For diagnostic purposes, it would be useful to have a pre-ExifTool version of the same raw files, as well as the ExifTool command line that was used to edit the raw files' metadata, so the situation can be replicated by others.

Photo of Phil Harvey

Phil Harvey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for your response.  Here are the original files:

http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungNX2000_orig.srw
http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungNX300_orig.srw
http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungNX30_orig.srw
http://130.15.24.88/~phil/tmp/SamsungEK-GN120_orig.srw

And the ExifTool command was:

exiftool -artist=Phil FILE

where FILE is any of the original files.

- Phil
Photo of Phil Harvey

Phil Harvey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Also, it is worth noting that this problem does not occur for SRW images from the following models: EX1, EX2F, NX1, NX10, NX100, NX11, NX20, NX200, NX3000, NX500, NXmini and WB2000

- Phil
Photo of Chris Castleberry

Chris Castleberry, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 344 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Hi Phil and Steve, 

I can reproduce this. We will investigate and follow up.

Thanks,

- Chris
Photo of Phil Harvey

Phil Harvey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sorry for the delay.  Yes.  ExifTool rewrites the MakerNote tag.  It uses a standard TIFF format so the information may move around when rewritten, but all of the same information is there.
Photo of Chris Castleberry

Chris Castleberry, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 344 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Hi Phil,

Following is a note from my colleague who has been investigating this issue.

"...the original sample file shows MakerNote tag length is 268182  bytes.  When I run exiftool on the sample file, the result has MakerNote tag length 268100, which is 82 bytes shorter.  Furthermore, when I diff the contents of the MakerNote tags (before/after), I see very different values."

- Chris
Photo of Phil Harvey

Phil Harvey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Chris,

Thanks for replying.

Yes, your colleague is correct, but the maker notes are stored in a TIFF IFD format.  The information is all still there if the IFD is parsed properly.  You can't just look at the maker notes as a black box of binary data if you expect to extract information consistently.  If you do this, then your code will easily break with camera firmware updates (among other things).
Photo of Chris Castleberry

Chris Castleberry, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 344 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Hi Phil,

Another bit of information from my colleague.

"That's not what we were told by Samsung.
The private MakerNote really is a binary blob and they gave us specific offsets to use to extract their data.
We've never had any problems with Samsung firmware updates.
External tools should never rearrange private MakerNote data for this reason."
Photo of Phil Harvey

Phil Harvey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Wow.  That's just wrong.  I suggest you ignore what Samsung is telling you and decode the maker notes properly.