RAW issues - dpreview article

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05...ninterview.asp

--
-- 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.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05...ninterview.asp

--
-- 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.

Good interview. As I've said in a previous post, I feel if you take an
image with a camera you are entitled to do what you want with that image.
It's the difference between making your own music and giving it away vs.
ripping a copyrighted CD and giving it away. You own that image and should
be able to do what you want with it. If Nikon wants control over their RAW
image format, they should offer the format separately and just give us a
tiff format to work with.

"Sheldon" writes:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05...ninterview.asp

--
-- 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.

Good interview. As I've said in a previous post, I feel if you take an
image with a camera you are entitled to do what you want with that image.
It's the difference between making your own music and giving it away vs.
ripping a copyrighted CD and giving it away. You own that image and should
be able to do what you want with it. If Nikon wants control over their RAW
image format, they should offer the format separately and just give us a
tiff format to work with.

The problem is few camera makers offer 16-bit TIFF files (at least until you
get to the pro gear), but instead give you 8-bit TIFF which suffers from all of
the limitations of in-camera processing and mapping the 12-bit sensor into an
8-bit output that JPEG has except for not having compression jaggies.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05...ninterview.asp

Thanks for the heads up. Good article
rgds
Ken

Alan Browne wrote in news:d5352e$kme$1
@inews.gazeta.pl:


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05...ninterview.asp


Interesting thing, I just recieved an email from the Rawshooter mob,
Pixmantic, saying that they have now implemented support for the D2X.

Mick Brown
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown

In article ,
Mick Brown wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in news:d5352e$kme$1
:


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05...ninterview.asp


Interesting thing, I just recieved an email from the Rawshooter mob,
Pixmantic, saying that they have now implemented support for the D2X.


Not all that surprising, really. For one thing, it's apparently
a pretty simple form of encryption. For another thing, you don't
need the white balance to do a raw conversion (and many of the
third party converters out there don't use it - they examine the
raw data and automatically set a white point for the image).

You need the white point from the metadata to produce an image
with an "as shot" white balance. Additionally, on the D2X, the
white balance controls the analog amplification of each channel
independently, so without knowing the value the camera used you
won't be able to come up with an accurate colour temperature.

John Francis wrote:

You need the white point from the metadata to produce an image
with an "as shot" white balance. Additionally, on the D2X, the
white balance controls the analog amplification of each channel
independently, so without knowing the value the camera used you
won't be able to come up with an accurate colour temperature.


Are you saying the file is irretrievably corrected for WB? The RAW
converter should have the same RAW data so should be able to do auto-WB
as well as the camera, probably better, so it really shouldn't matter
except maybe Nikon thinks they have a better auto-WB calculator. If
custom WB is set from a sample shot, that info wouldn't be saved but you
could save the sample shot (grey card) & apply manually.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:02:23 -0700, paul wrote:
John Francis wrote:

You need the white point from the metadata to produce an image
with an "as shot" white balance. Additionally, on the D2X, the
white balance controls the analog amplification of each channel
independently, so without knowing the value the camera used you
won't be able to come up with an accurate colour temperature.

Are you saying the file is irretrievably corrected for WB? The RAW
converter should have the same RAW data so should be able to do auto-WB
as well as the camera, probably better, so it really shouldn't matter
except maybe Nikon thinks they have a better auto-WB calculator.

He's saying that on the D2X, white balancing is done *before digitization*.
The RAW file therefore does not contain pre-WB data.

You can still correct the WB later. If you're working in 16 bits, I
don't think it'll hurt you very much.

--
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

John Francis wrote:


Mick Brown wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in news:d5352e$kme$1

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05...ninterview.asp

Interesting thing, I just recieved an email from the Rawshooter mob,
Pixmantic, saying that they have now implemented support for the D2X.

Not all that surprising, really. For one thing, it's apparently
a pretty simple form of encryption.

I think the thing to watch is how far the OEM's take trying to encrypt
the data. The Nikon announcement contains the following irksome statements:

1) "The Nikon D2X is capable of producing high quality images that can
be saved in a variety of file formats, including the proprietary Nikon
Electronic Format (NEF)"

2) "Nikon’s preservation of its unique technology in the NEF file is
employed as an action that protects the uniqueness of the file. At the
same time, Nikon makes available a software developer kit (SDK) that,
when implemented appropriately, enables a wide range of NEF performance,
including white balance, for Nikon photographers and their productive
use of the NEF file."

No matter how good the Nikon scheme is, encrypting the data does not
make the image better. Nor does it protect any proprietary happenings
in the camera that can't be reverse engineered.

It is solely an attempt at preserving salability of other Nikon s/w
products. They can always increase the complexity of the encryption (in
future products) to the point where a 'rogue' cannot decipher it... and
force the purchase of Nikon s/w products. This is what we all (not just
Nikon customers) need to worry about.

It is silly. As others have pointed out, the commission of a photo
begins at the moment that the photographer depressed the shutter. The
implementation details on the Nikon side are meaningless except to the
extent that they record the image. That image, inside the camera (or
memory), is not Nikon's property. They have no right to prevent the
user from accessing it, esp. if it evolves into a cash grab which is
what it can be construed to be.

It is very appropriate that people are concerned, and I hope Nikon read
the tea leaves. They are camera makers first. They are attempting a
complementary business grab, but people will seek and find ways around
it. There is no point in trying to encrypt the data. Why not be smart
and cater to your photographer customers needs first? (Something Nikon
has been remiss in over the past 20 years to Canons benefit).

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.

Ben Rosengart wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:02:23 -0700, paul wrote:

John Francis wrote:

You need the white point from the metadata to produce an image
with an "as shot" white balance. Additionally, on the D2X, the
white balance controls the analog amplification of each channel
independently, so without knowing the value the camera used you
won't be able to come up with an accurate colour temperature.

Are you saying the file is irretrievably corrected for WB? The RAW
converter should have the same RAW data so should be able to do auto-WB
as well as the camera, probably better, so it really shouldn't matter
except maybe Nikon thinks they have a better auto-WB calculator.


He's saying that on the D2X, white balancing is done *before digitization*.
The RAW file therefore does not contain pre-WB data.

You can still correct the WB later. If you're working in 16 bits, I
don't think it'll hurt you very much.


So can these files even be opened in Photoshop? It sounds like this
would confuse the auto-WB in any software. Does it still come out usable
or wrong and needs to ba manually adjusted to get something correct
looking? This sounds like a bad idea all around, if the WB happened to
be off, it's already locked in & image quality lost even if you use
Nikon's software. Of course you can adjust the color of any image but
that's not the same as doing it properly from the RAW file. If you shot
with correct WB I can see how this (might) improve image quality or
maybe just imcreases compression but at the cost of not allowing 'real'
WB adjustment later???