A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Raw" file issues?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 26th 05, 10:37 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:


48V twisted pair POTS is a "standard" invented at the dawn of the
telephone era. There are many engineers who wish we could rip the
entire mess out of the ground, off the poles and start over again.
Offer praises to Allah or whoever that cell phones, VOIP and the rest
of it are doing the job indirectly.


Backward compatibilty is not compromised by forward progress where data
formats are concerned.



Then you must agree that OpenRAW is without a legitimate function.
What's good for the goose, etc.


I don't follow that one. What makes sense is that what gets recorded
onto the memory card is the property of the photographer or employer,
not the camera OEM.


Or, if you prefer, open RAW does not mean 'cast in concrete'. Each OEM
can do as he likes as long as the format is readable by all, and special
data sections are clearly documented.



As I said, this will in many instances necessarily reveal trade secrets
or other facets of the technology that the manufacturers would likely
be unwilling to disclose. And if part of the OpenRAW is the signing of
an NDA, then can we honestly call it "open"?


Since these trade secrets have a half life in the wild of about 3 days,
they are no more useful to the OEM's than encryption has been for the
DVD producers. NDA's don't protect anything of this nature.

"Trade Secret"? Why hasn't the dcraw author been sued into
homelessness? If he can do it, the folks at competing OEM's can do it
just as quick.




Regarding the olde telephone analog standard it has served extremely
well for a very long time. Real engineers are too practical to "wish"
for solutions that don't make economic sense.



If some djinn were to remove the need to work against the crazy POTS
nonsense, many communications engineers would be profoundly thankful.


But that's not engineering. The same could be said about many
infrastructures from roadways to airways. If we were to design "World
2.0" do you think we would have LA, Mexico and Cairo (to name very few).

Indeed, they must be: look at where all the innovation is occuring
today telephony. I can cite similar software and hardware
examples. _NO ONE_ likes to deal with legacy systems.


If it is economically sensible to do so, it is done. That is
engineering in large part. "Like" has little to with it.



This backward compatibilty 'tax' is far cheaper than "ripping the
entire mess out of the ground..."



You are forgetting or ignoring the cost of innovations that are simply
unimplementable within the legacy framework. It is for this and other
reasons that the sensible person does not want camera manufacturers
constrained by some Adobe or OpenRAW or otherwise committee drafted
multi-volume 2356 page standard written in dense legalese.


See above, World 2.0.

If that's so, why are they all committe members, participants and
signatories to various other standards?

Feel free to have the last word ... this is it for me.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource:
http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #22  
Old May 26th 05, 10:42 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

Ok, then, "OpenRAW has no point if the file formats can be cracked
easily".

You admit the file formats can be cracked easily, therefore ...


Since it is all but impossible to encrypt the data in the first place,
there is no need to do so.


Again, that is something for the manufacturers to decide. (Personally,
I agree with you and likely the guy who wrote the firmware for the D70,
D2x, etc is also in violent agreement. It's the dingbats in marketing,
etc, who are ignorant.)

Or I suppose the OEM's could begin keying
the encryption on a case by case basis. Yeah, uh huh.


As you know, it wouldn't matter. www.google.com: softice debugger (and
so forth).

Nikon can also change their lens mount. What are you going to do, sue
them? After OpenRAW has passed their legislation mandating The File
Format, is the next step to mandate interoperable optics?


A good point that misses the point. Nikon have made big marketing hooey
over backward comaptible lens mounts. So in revenge they're making part
of their files unreadable? Yeah, okay. People will buy that. Sure.


Nikon is free to make fools of themselves in the market. Who are we to
complain?

You consented to it by pressing the shutter button.


Nobody considers this when they maintain Nikon lens collections or
purcahse a Nikon camera. Or other OEM's for that matter.


We all make mistakes. Sometimes big ones.

End of thread for me.


Hasta luego!

  #23  
Old May 26th 05, 10:47 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:


infrastructures from roadways to airways. If we were to design "World
2.0" do you think we would have LA, Mexico and Cairo (to name very few).


oops. Meant "Mexico City".


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #24  
Old May 26th 05, 10:55 PM
Owamanga
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:33:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Owamanga wrote:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml

Chicken liken twaddle.


Open RAW is best for everyone in the long term. There's no excuse for
any data in the image created by the camera you own to be obfuscated or
encrypted.


With that I agree, my complaint is with stupidity such as this:

"What happens when your new Quatum Cube based computer no longer can
read CDs, or DVDs, or its operating system can't deal with something
as old and arcane as Windows XP or Mac OSX?

Far fetched you say? We'll, how many of you have a stack of 3.5"
floppies somewhere in your desk drawer, and when was the last time you
had a floppy disk drive attached to your computer? Still do you say?
OK. How about 5.25" floppies? Bet you don't have one of these sitting
around anymore, except maybe moldering away in the basement
somewhere."

Now tell me Alan, how does Open RAW suddenly enable a 3.5" floppy disk
to fit into a DVD drive?

The article overall, is garbage.

"What happens if you've lost your software disk? What happens if you
change computers and can't find the CD any longer? What happens if the
Megaflex Company (the makers of your camera) goes out of business, and
no longer has a copy of the software on their web site for you to
download?"

"What happens if we run out of electricity? What happens if your dog
goes crazy and sucks out your eyeballs one night? What happens if the
CEO of Fox Television decides to kill all our children? What happens
if Michael Jackson turns out to be a girl?"

(Competition: which piece did I make up?)

Honestly, they have gone way over the top.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
  #25  
Old May 26th 05, 11:08 PM
Ben Rosengart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have had to help computer users who changed computers and suddenly
couldn't open their old files any more. It isn't pretty. Those
who pooh-pooh these kinds of problems have probably never had to
deal with them. Or maybe the whole concept of planning for the
long term is alien to some people.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
  #26  
Old May 26th 05, 11:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

Backward compatibilty is not compromised by forward progress where data
formats are concerned.


Then you must agree that OpenRAW is without a legitimate function.
What's good for the goose, etc.


I don't follow that one.


Hey, you made the claim. If your statement is true, then the camera
makers are free to invent whatever new file formats they like ("forward
progress") since "backward compatibility is not compromised". And with
such freedom, what is OpenRAW's purpose?

What makes sense is that what gets recorded
onto the memory card is the property of the photographer or employer,
not the camera OEM.


Sounds like you need an IP attorney, not an OpenRAW standard.

As I said, this will in many instances necessarily reveal trade secrets
or other facets of the technology that the manufacturers would likely
be unwilling to disclose. And if part of the OpenRAW is the signing of
an NDA, then can we honestly call it "open"?


Since these trade secrets have a half life in the wild of about 3 days,
they are no more useful to the OEM's than encryption has been for the
DVD producers. NDA's don't protect anything of this nature.


Yes, yes, the manufacturers can make idiots of themselves. Why are you
so concerned about this?

"Trade Secret"? Why hasn't the dcraw author been sued into
homelessness?


He hasn't published anything particularly sensitive yet? But even if
he did, trade secrets, in the absence of a contract, have basically no
legal protections at all.

If he can do it, the folks at competing OEM's can do it
just as quick.


Reverse engineering is an honoured tradition. What better compliment
can you offer the manufacturer?

If some djinn were to remove the need to work against the crazy POTS
nonsense, many communications engineers would be profoundly thankful.


But that's not engineering.


Of course it is. There are many situations, particularly in software,
where one invents brand new stuff all the time. No legacy constraints.
It is a most refreshing experience.

The same could be said about many
infrastructures from roadways to airways.


Your point?

If we were to design "World
2.0" do you think we would have LA, Mexico and Cairo (to name very few).


I honestly couldn't say. And really, is this relevant?

Indeed, they must be: look at where all the innovation is occuring
today telephony. I can cite similar software and hardware
examples. _NO ONE_ likes to deal with legacy systems.


If it is economically sensible to do so, it is done. That is
engineering in large part. "Like" has little to with it.


"Like" has everything to do with it, since if nobody likes it, it won't
get done. More importantly, though, if physical reality says "no", it
doesn't matter what you think.

This backward compatibilty 'tax' is far cheaper than "ripping the
entire mess out of the ground..."



You are forgetting or ignoring the cost of innovations that are simply
unimplementable within the legacy framework. It is for this and other
reasons that the sensible person does not want camera manufacturers
constrained by some Adobe or OpenRAW or otherwise committee drafted
multi-volume 2356 page standard written in dense legalese.


See above, World 2.0.


Ok, then, send Canon a check to cover their costs of abiding by the
Official OpenRAW Standard, or to make up for lost revenue to products
or services which they would like to produce, but which can not fit
into this standard.

If that's so, why are they all committe members, participants and
signatories to various other standards?


Oh, I could rant about this at some length. But why should I entertain
your distractions?

Feel free to have the last word ... this is it for me.


Thanks!

  #27  
Old May 26th 05, 11:47 PM
Barry Pearson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ryadia@Home wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml


I'll offer a more realistic, less dramatic scenario.

You shoot RAW as most do. Then you convert that RAW data - because
that's all it is at that time - to an image format. In the case of a
Canon the best choice is TIFF but there are others.

[snip]

But you still need to keep the Raw files, in case you want to process
it differently in the years to come. (Which may be a matter of your own
skills, or a matter of better Raw-processing software, or both). Then
the problems identified in "The Raw Flaw" arise. Will you still be able
to process it again later?

I'm finding that I am gradually spending a higher proportion of my time
at the Raw processing stage, and less at the photo-editing stage. I
believe I am getting higher quality pictures as a result.

[snip]
Bloody sensationalist bull **** is all that comes out of that site.


Ar first, that site didn't go far enough. They simply wanted
publication of proprietary Raw formats. But, of course, proliferation
of Raw formats is an unacceptable situation to live with, even if they
are published.

Now the site is starting to recognise the importance of a common Raw
format, such as DNG. My view is that the original objective of the
site, publication of proprietary formats, is a stop-gap until we get
proper support for a common Raw format.

I've been using DNG for over 7 months, but I would still like to get
access to the Makernote in the original Raw format. The 3.1 DNG
Converter now preserves the Makernote for my camera in the DNG file,
I'm told, but can't do anything with it. Perhaps, if it were published,
I may be able to make use of it.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

  #28  
Old May 26th 05, 11:49 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Owamanga wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:33:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


Owamanga wrote:


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml

Chicken liken twaddle.


Open RAW is best for everyone in the long term. There's no excuse for
any data in the image created by the camera you own to be obfuscated or
encrypted.



With that I agree, my complaint is with stupidity such as this:

"What happens when your new Quatum Cube based computer no longer can
read CDs, or DVDs, or its operating system can't deal with something
as old and arcane as Windows XP or Mac OSX?

Far fetched you say? We'll, how many of you have a stack of 3.5"
floppies somewhere in your desk drawer, and when was the last time you
had a floppy disk drive attached to your computer? Still do you say?


Yep. Even test it every 6 mo. or so. I have floppies, but the data has
long since been migrated via Zip and CD-ROM. My PGP private keys are
backed up on floppy as well, but I suppose a CD-ROM transition wouldn't
be a bad idea.

OK. How about 5.25" floppies? Bet you don't have one of these sitting
around anymore, except maybe moldering away in the basement
somewhere."


Trashed.


Now tell me Alan, how does Open RAW suddenly enable a 3.5" floppy disk
to fit into a DVD drive?


Irrelevant to the RAW issue.

I have backups from early 80's 5.25" floppies ... on CD-ROM. As the
storage technology has moved forward, so has my backup set as we do tend
to have the recent and newest storage devices in our system at the same
time. Sounds like a pain, but as none of the media to data have proven
able to backup for more than about 5 years, the updating of

Now I'm in the unhurried process of moving backups to DVD. After DVD
there will be something else. In between I've used 3.5" as backup and
Zip. So I will, in time, have DVD backups with 1980's COSMAC 1802,
Motorola 6800 and other micro assembler code, FORTRAN (IV, WATFOR, 77),
PASCAL, Modula, Ada and others on them to entertain me in my old age...

For my Maxxum 7D, I've been backing up the camera RAW, and I have little
doubt that it will be decodable in 100 years under "Microtosh WindOSnix
FarFetched Episode Seven Patch 19, for 8192 bit processors on
n-web-processor-distributed threads, Release 12.98.34", should anyone
choose to do so. Won't be me barring miracles.

Hence my big yawn over DNG ... until I discovered the other day in an
actual experiment with real files that DNG takes 26 to 41% less space
than .MRW. So I'm mulling the transition to DNG solely to reduce the
DVD count by 1 for every 3 or 4 DVD's. I haven't committed to the
decision yet.

But prior to that, my DNG 'objection' was: when the OEM's adopt it, I'll
adopt it.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #29  
Old May 27th 05, 12:14 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message ,
"Ryadia@Home" wrote:

RichA wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml


I'll offer a more realistic, less dramatic scenario.

You shoot RAW as most do. Then you convert that RAW data - because
that's all it is at that time - to an image format. In the case of a
Canon the best choice is TIFF but there are others.

Now you have an editable "image" file with all the detail of the
original image in it and capable of being processed further in just
about any image editor know to man at this time.


No, you don't.

The only way a TIFF can carry all of the original RAW data is if the
TIFF has the RAW values, non-demosaiced, non-white-balanced, and the
black pixels as well, at their original values, or multiplied by an
integer.

Bloody sensationalist bull **** is all that comes out of that site.

Douglas


--


John P Sheehy

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon A510 question about file type & sise Gene Digital Photography 6 March 16th 05 07:39 PM
Digital Photo Image File Renaming Vladimir Veytsel Digital Photography 0 February 6th 05 12:30 AM
Digital Photo Image File Renaming Vladimir Veytsel Digital Photography 0 January 9th 05 08:30 PM
File size saving for web paul Digital Photography 0 January 7th 05 01:12 AM
Question about RAW file and image size Anynomus Digital Photography 9 November 7th 04 11:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.