64-bit codec for Canon & Nikon RAW formats

On 2011-06-07 06:50:16 -0700, Man-wai Chang said:

There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from DSLR.

How do you solve this problem?

Don't worry yourself with a non-issue, that is how you solve that problem.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Man-wai Chang
wrote:

So even professional photography does not always use raw formats?

what does that have to do with a 64 bit codec?

If raw iamge formats were widely used, then 64-bit codec for 64-bit
Window$ should be widely avalable?

raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32 & 64 bit.

"Man-wai Chang" wrote in
...

raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32& 64 bit.

Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
imaging....

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
^ ^ 01:19:01 up 3 days 4:38 0 users load average: 0.00 0.01 0.05
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa


Man-wai, I noticed you are using Ubuntu 9.10.
11.10 is out and it's still free, and great, too.

In article , Man-wai Chang
wrote:

raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32& 64 bit.

Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
imaging....

camera raw is definitely free.

what's not free is photoshop or lightroom, which use camera raw. it can
run standalone to convert to dng and then you can use other software.

photoshop elements is usually $50-60 which is not for 'rich users' or
'professional imaging.'

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:52:32 +0800, Man-wai Chang
wrote:

So even professional photography does not always use raw formats?

what does that have to do with a 64 bit codec?

If raw iamge formats were widely used, then 64-bit codec for 64-bit
Window$ should be widely avalable?

64 bit Windows 7 runs 32 bit programs from a separate program folder
'Program Files [X86]'. There is no problem running 32 bit Codecs on 64
bit systems.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:23:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , Man-wai Chang
wrote:

raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32& 64 bit.

Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
imaging....

camera raw is definitely free.

what's not free is photoshop or lightroom, which use camera raw. it can
run standalone to convert to dng and then you can use other software.

photoshop elements is usually $50-60 which is not for 'rich users' or
'professional imaging.'

UFraw, Raw Studio and Raw Therapee are all free.



--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

"Man-wai Chang" wrote in message
...
raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32& 64 bit.

Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
imaging....

Professionals shouldn't have to worry about paying for software.

On 6/8/2011 12:11 PM, Man-wai Chang wrote:
Professionals shouldn't have to worry about paying for software.

So that's what inspires the price, I did wonder ;-)

As long as the professionals are being well-paid; as long as there is a
demand for professional Adobe tools!

I think what PeterS means is that a professional should use the best
tool for the job as his livelihood depends on it. For my business I have
no patience for tools with a high futz factor. For my hobby I sometimes
don't mind futzing around. That is part of the fun.

BTW that does not mean that all professionals must use PS. For many LR
will work fine. there are also many other fine products out there,
Corel, Paint Shop Pro and PhotoPaint, included.I will not get into a
holy war over which product is best. there is good and bad in each. The
reader is free to go to the forums and figure it out.



--
Peter

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:01:05 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

On Jun 7, 9:49*am, Man-wai Chang wrote:
How do you solve this problem?
Don't worry yourself with a non-issue, that is how you solve that problem.

So even professional photography does not always use raw formats?

I've gone to great efforts to stop Windows from wasting my time
and my disk space making thumbnails of its own for my photo
files. Thus it is if anything beneficial that Windows can't
directly read my raw image files.

Windows XP could read my Nikon NEF raw files but Windows 7 could not.
However Windows 7 has been completely rebuilt and will allow plug-ins
for the file viewer. Wanting to know more about my images than their
filename I bought FastPictureViewer CODEC pack. See
http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/

(Professionals use a wide range of tools and formats, of course.
There are reasons in some kinds of photography why jpeg is
a lot better (card capacity, wifi bandwidth, card write speed
all come to mind, sometimes they're important).
When shooting for the highest quality and the most post-
processing options, then RAW is the clear winner.)

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/8/2011 12:11 PM, Man-wai Chang wrote:
Professionals shouldn't have to worry about paying for software.

So that's what inspires the price, I did wonder ;-)

As long as the professionals are being well-paid; as long as there is a
demand for professional Adobe tools!

I think what PeterS means is that a professional should use the best tool for
the job as his livelihood depends on it. For my business I have no patience
for tools with a high futz factor. For my hobby I sometimes don't mind futzing
around. That is part of the fun.

BTW that does not mean that all professionals must use PS. For many LR will
work fine. there are also many other fine products out there, Corel, Paint
Shop Pro and PhotoPaint, included.I will not get into a holy war over which
product is best. there is good and bad in each. The reader is free to go to
the forums and figure it out.



--
Peter

You've "read" me correctly