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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
I have nothing against DNG, I have the converter, but for the time being I do not see any need or advantage to using it at all. Well, then there's no reason for you to use it. But, DNG is the only way I can get my camera's raw files into Photoshop CS, so I, for one, am a few hundred dollars thankful that it exists. Sure, I'll upgrade. But DNG makes it so I don't need to immediately. It also cuts the size of my raw files in half, with lossless compression, so that's pretty nice too. And once I do upgrade, CS will save the Camera Raw settings right in the DNG file itself, which is a nice thing as well. -- Jeremy | |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote: G.T. wrote: Standardized formats end up being supported on far more hardware/OS/software combos than propietary formats. I have much more confidence that I will easily be able to find an app that will read DNG files in 20 years than one that the reads the RAW files of my Rebel XT. I sincerely hope that camera manufacturers adopt a standard format whether it be DNG or not. I don't agree with the notion that my MRW's (RAW) won't be readable in 20 or 40 or 100 years. This is one of the reasons for Dave Coffey's "dcraw" program's existence. While even Windows machines may not be in use by then, at least something capable of running a C compiler should still be around, and the algorithms are documented in the C code. (The minor fact that it gives unix boxen the ability to convert RAW files is a nice benefit to people like me.) However, I just did a test of 22 files in a directory. The DNG's are 26% to 41% (33% avg) smaller than the K-M RAW files. So, I'll be giving this a re-think respecting backup/archive logistics. Hmm ... something to consider, indeed. Perhaps I should see what happens to the .NEF files from the D70. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
DoN. Nichols wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: G.T. wrote: Standardized formats end up being supported on far more hardware/OS/software combos than propietary formats. I have much more confidence that I will easily be able to find an app that will read DNG files in 20 years than one that the reads the RAW files of my Rebel XT. I sincerely hope that camera manufacturers adopt a standard format whether it be DNG or not. I don't agree with the notion that my MRW's (RAW) won't be readable in 20 or 40 or 100 years. This is one of the reasons for Dave Coffey's "dcraw" program's existence. While even Windows machines may not be in use by then, at least something capable of running a C compiler should still be around, and the algorithms are documented in the C code. (The minor fact that it gives unix boxen the ability to convert RAW files is a nice benefit to people like me.) I'm pretty sure that the state of the art for Bayer reconstruction, etc., will have progressed way beyond what we have today by that time. That means that using a program with an embedded raw converter, such as dcraw, will be less attractive. What we need isn't an open source raw converter - it's an open source converter from proprietary raw file formats to a publicly documented raw format. At present DNG looks pretty good for the format, although the only available converter at present isn't open source, and only runs on Windows and Mac platforms. I suppose I should set up a sourceforge project - there's plenty of pretty good documentation of most of the proprietary raw formats available if you look hard enough. [A few minutes later] OK - I've done that. More details later. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
McLeod wrote:
[snip] I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Adobe Camera Raw fully supports NEF. What do I have to do to convince you of this? It's you who seems to be baffled. [snip] Except that ACR 3.1 doesn't decrypt the "as shot" white balance of the D2X, of course! For reasons stated here at length. It is worth reading the whole original thread (URL below), to put what Nikon are doing into perspective. Most camera manufacturers are less than satisfactory, but Nikon crossed an important line. (I believe Canon do not encrypt important stuff, while Sony gave Adobe permission to decrypt. Nikon didn't). It was an attempt to coerce Nikon users to buy software that they may not want. http://tinyurl.com/az7pc -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
McLeod wrote:
On 22 May 2005 07:02:00 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote: [snip] Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? (I have already posted that URL in reply to one of your posts). I am disagreeing with you. I was pointing out that Canon also encrypts and compresses their raw files and to read the XT files with camera raw you also have to either convert to DNG or buy the upgrade...exactly the same thing you have to do to use the new NEF. "Compresses" is irrelevant. It has no DMCA implications. Thomas Knoll said in that thread that Canon were not encrypting important stuff in the same way as Nikon. But, even if they were, then BOTH Canon and Nikon would be at fault. Nikon are no less at fault if another manufacturer is also at fault. The need to use DNG or to upgrade is nothing whatsoever to do with the encryption issue. It would even apply if the camera manufacturers didn't encrypt, and openly published their formats. It is to do with the fact that processing the cameras' Raw files requires camera-specific information that ACR 2.x doesn't have for certain cameras. DNG is "self contained", and that information is held within each file. That is why it promises to be a better archival format. ACR 3.1 knows that information. The 3.1 DNG Converter also knows it, and puts it into the DNG. ACR 2.x then gets it from the DNG, without needing separate knowledge of it. Apparently, despite Thomas Knoll's rant, it only took Adobe about two weeks to decode the "encryption" since they were provided with the software developer kit from Nikon. The SDK is irrelevant. It doesn't give access to all the sensor data, so doesn't enable ACR to be a proper Raw processor. Using SDKs is anyway the wrong way to go. Here is an article about the problems of SDKs and other things, from the point of view of someone writing a package (IMatch) that handles Raw files from lots of cameras: http://www.openraw.org/comments/?id=1 That article suggests that the camera manufacturers actually can't comprehend the problems they are causing. Perhaps they are so narrowly focused on supporting their next camera for a few years per photographer, that they haven't considered the long term, or photographers who use more than one make and want a consistent workflow, or packages that hold photographs from many photographers and many cameras. My understanding is that, while Adobe knows how to decrypt the Nikon WB, they don't do so, because Nikon haven't assured Adobe that they won't sue under DMCA. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Furman wrote:
McLeod wrote: On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:34:28 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: No, they merely need to let the spec (that they've already written) out and not encrypt the data. Then Adobe will hapilly add the plugin to the PS software. They did. That was the software developer kit. And Adobe has. You are repeating an urban legend over and over and can't seem to shake it. Oh, so CS2 uses Nikon's free 'plugin' and still retains the ACR interface? I had not heard that. I can't see the smiley there, even though I'm sure it is there! Adobe don't use either the Nikon SDK or the Nikon plug-in, of course. The SDK would prevent ACR's own Raw processing, while the plug-in would restrict the processing interface. If we focus on what we, as photographers want, instead of acting as apologists for camera manufacturers: - in the short term we want publication of Raw formats so that the Raw processors of our choice can do what we want, and so that asset management packages can hold our photographs; - and in the medium term we want cameras to output DNG, (or another openly published, free to use, common Raw format), either as an option or as their normal Raw format. (But developing an alternative to DNG at this stage would need a better reason than "not invented here"! And I doubt if that reason exists). -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: [snip] However, I just did a test of 22 files in a directory. The DNG's are 26% to 41% (33% avg) smaller than the K-M RAW files. So, I'll be giving this a re-think respecting backup/archive logistics. Watch out for lost EXIF data though. : - ( Yes, that is a problem. My experience is that the DNG Converter handles all the EXIF stuff in the same way that ACR does. For example, for my camera, I believe both ACR and the DNG Converter don't copy across the lens model. (Just the focal length). This appears to mean that anyone who is happy with ACR should also be happy with DNG. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote: snip I do NOT want Adobe putting development effort into releases that I will never use because I have upgraded from them! (Because of the considerable enhancements in ACR 3.x compared with ACR 2.x, including the plug-in interface, it would take extra effort to back-fit support for the new cameras). Fine for you, but a not-upgraded CS owner would of course not agree. And if Adobe did upgrade it (hardly rocket science) it wouldn't hurt you in the least. [snip] I worked for many years on a large complex software product, and maintaining and supporting changes to old versions DID hurt those on the latest versions. Development and support effort is always limited. And it can be galling to fix problems in old versions that have already been fixed in the latest version! I understand the frustration of those who want to stay on older versions. We used to withdraw support except for the last 2 versions. That appears to be 1 more than Adobe - but people paid a lot more for our product (a mainframe operating system) than they do for Photoshop! And, as has been said many times here, there is a way out! It is pushing things to say "I want new cameras supported in my old vesion, but don't tell me the answer is DNG". -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
McLeod wrote:
No, only pointing out that most of the camera manufacturers do it. According to the article and interview by dpreview of Dave Coffin of dcraw Canon also encrypts and compresses their raw files and it seems to change with every new camera they release as well. For some reason Nikon has become the focal point of hostility, the only reason being that Thomas Knoll singled them out on the internet and found enough gullible people to buy into it. If you read the article again you'll find that most do not encrypt. What has spooked people is that Nikon have begun encrypting something they never encrypted before. So, please tell me what the logic is in that? They allow qualified developers to have access to the algo, so they're not hiding any IP. It is simply a stick in the photographers wheels. The image belongs to you, not Nikon. 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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
McLeod wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:25:28 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: DCRaw is free. But they "broke the code" which is something Adobe seem reluctant to do as it might open them up for a lawsuit. Adobe Camera Raw fully supports the new NEF including the "encrypted" white balance as I pointed out at the start of the discussion. You bought into an internet myth and can't seem to let it go. No, I simply cannot accept that Nikon (or others) would feel the need to encrypt anything in the data output. It is unnecessary, so why do they do it? Please answer that question alone. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photoshop and RAW Files | nk | Digital Photography | 3 | October 29th 04 01:55 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
Thumbnail Software? | Dave | Digital Photography | 40 | September 23rd 04 06:28 AM |
Scanning Film Images into Digital Files | Michael | Digital Photography | 21 | September 18th 04 09:47 PM |