Hey all, I didn't want to resurrect an old thread, but I read the whole thing and think I have some insight that might be useful to some folks.
I have always appreciated cDNG because of its open format. Sigma FP, DJI, Achtel 9x7, etc. are all amazing pieces of hardware that were probably more possible because cDNG allowed them to provide comparable quality images without having to pay developers to create a new RAW format, or pay Apple or BM to use their existing codecs. Which makes these amazing pieces of hardware less expensive, and more accessible to the smaller folk.
Also just to clear things up for those who are searching these forums to learn; DNG uses TIFF file spec to "hold" RAW sensor data. Sort of like a container. It is not rastered RGB pixels like a traditional TIFF (or JPG, or PNG). It is, in fact, RAW sensor data. As RAW as it gets.
On the topic of cDNG color rendering: it does in fact, contain many available metadata spaces to detail how it demosaics and displays color. It's just up to the software to support those tags. One example of this: a test I did on my Sigma FP. See topic here
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?t=188556&f=21 Detailed in that topic, Resolve honors embedded Color Matrix tags when demosaicing. Adobe does not, and applies its own matrix. (Sigma FP users: check out that link. It can change the way you decide to shoot on your FP.)
Another benefit of cDNG is its ability to take advantage of new demosiacing algorithms as software progresses. You can even change metadata tags to render color differently if needed. BRAW has this all "baked" in. And in my opinion BRAW is more like a traditional rastered TIFF than cDNG is. So, from that angle, cDNG is far more flexible in the long term. Just my opinion. No one is right or wrong here.
Also cDNG can be losslessly compressed to save storage space. Because of the RED patent, this has to be done in post. Unfortunately it cannot be done in-camera because of the patent. - (Maybe now that Nikon has acquired RED, this might change? Who knows.) - There is a fantastic piece of software for compressing cDNG called SlimRAW here:
https://www.slimraw.com Lossless compression can compress - often times - more than half the original uncompressed file size. And lossless compression is just that; lossless. It's also easier on your hardware, making for better playback. You can also, downscale cDNG to half its original resolution if needed too.
Another up-and-coming DNG software is being developed here:
https://github.com/dnglab/dnglab is useful for lossless compression. Although still in development. Check it out if interested, and contribute however you can.
In my opinion cDNG is most like shooting on film stock. With film stock, each frame is captured individually, uncompressed, and archival.
Also, not shaming BRAW at all. The codec is amazing at providing color consistency, accuracy, and detail. All with RAW-like control, at a fraction of the storage space and processing power. In fact I shoot BRAW everyday on our production cameras. And if BM makes a FF box camera, then I suppose be shooting BRAW LOL. - It's all down to each person's opinion. Each codec is surely capable of providing more than enough quality for intermediate needs. We are lucky in 2024 to have all these tools. Back in 2005, at the rise of digital cinema, that's a whole other story. Props to the pros who traversed those waters, and paved the way for us younger folks.