"Raw" file issues?

On 27 May 2005 11:16:24 -0700, "
wrote:

Now if the DNG can't handle that, what do you recommend I do with my
multi-minute minute exposure CR2 files I have?

Dunno, but based on the original article, I'm just looking forward to
playing all my Betamax tapes on my VHS recorder again, which it almost
promises the DNG standard will be capable of doing.

Traci Lords anyone?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

On 27 May 2005 00:29:43 -0700, Barry Pearson
wrote:

4. To summarise: TIFF 6.0 is what people tend to mean when they say
"TIFF" without qualification. TIFF/EP is TIFF 6.0 plus a lot of the
stuff needed to make Raw files. DNG is TIFF/EP brought up to date and
made fit for purpose. (Now I'll duck for cover!)

Thanks for this explanation. I found it quite enlightening.

--
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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

I have data that suggests that Canon cameras have unique black level
estimation for long exposure images. The DNG format does not allow for
such behaviour (or at least you have not presented me with a citation
-- and I couldn't find one when the DNG spec was initially released).

Now if the DNG can't handle that, what do you recommend I do with my
multi-minute minute exposure CR2 files I have?

It is not something DNG needs to "handle".

Then the DNG is useless the above situation, since the native
CR2/CRW files (and their decoders from Canon) handle it just fine.

Try taking your files, converting them to DNG, and loading them into
Camera Raw. It'll work.

Something will happen, but probably not the _optimal_ thing. Maybe you
have lesser goals, but I paid alot for my camera, and want my images
given as good a treatment as possible. If DNG can't do it, why should
I use it?

On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:34:32 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:08:27 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
wrote:

I have had to help computer users who changed computers and suddenly
couldn't open their old files any more. It isn't pretty.

Out of interest, having lived through all the formats from 7" floppies
on down, could you be more specific as to what problems these people
encountered?

I'm thinking mostly of a fellow whose Mac (SE?) died. He was unable
to read his old Word (4, I think) files on an iMac. And if I recall
correctly, his old Word binary wouldn't run under Classic. Perhaps
Apple didn't include the 680x0 emulation stuff in Classic; or
perhaps Word 4 made hardware-specific calls that weren't supported
under all that emulation.

It's not that there's no way to get the data out of those files.
It's that the cost of doing so became relatively high due to use of
a proprietary format.

My copy of Word that come in a 2004 version of Office XP still opens
an ASCII text file format, a standard that dates back to 1963.

Because it's a standard. That's my point.

--
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

wrote:

It is not something DNG needs to "handle".

Then the DNG is useless the above situation, since the native
CR2/CRW files (and their decoders from Canon) handle it just fine.

You don't understand what DNG is. The native RAW files don't have to
"handle" it, either. One has nothing to do with the other.

--
Jeremy |

DoN. Nichols wrote:

If they wanted to be *serious* about the encryption, I don't
think that "softice" could do much about it.

Cryptographic snake-oil. Numerous people have proposed mechanisms that
can somehow secure information on fundamentally insecure/untrusted
hardware or media. None of them have worked. The RIAA, MPAA and other
"content" people have idiotic, aphysical dreams about this, but it
won't ever happen, no matter how many lawsuis they file, laws they
manage to pass, etc.

Add a private key to get which you have to send to the vendor
both an image from your camera (to get the EXIF data), and a unique
number in the computer (hostID on Sun workstations, something else in
the firmware on a PC or a Mac). In exchange, you will get a key which
will work only with *your* camera on *your* computer.

The camera maker _may_ be able to trust the camera, but that's as far
as they can go. Everything else is not under their control.
Extracting the final crypto-key would be a simple debugging job.

Jeremy Nixon babbles:

The native RAW files don't have to "handle" it, either.

Once again, nitwit: I have data that hints that Canon has a special
black-level estimator for long exposure images.

This estimator, if it exists, would be built into Canon CR2 file
decoders.

None of this is known to DNG. (I am still awaiting a DNG spec
citation.)

Thus no current DNG decoder uses this special estimator.

Given this context, why should I use DNG over CR2?

Oh, you might argue, but Canon could make a DNG decoder that knows all
about that. Shall I respond to this now, or can you figure out the
problem on your own?

On Fri, 27 May 2005 18:55:05 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

wrote:

It is not something DNG needs to "handle".

Then the DNG is useless the above situation, since the native
CR2/CRW files (and their decoders from Canon) handle it just fine.

You don't understand what DNG is. The native RAW files don't have to
"handle" it, either. One has nothing to do with the other.

Then explain, because your comments have me confused now.

Either DNG is:

1) Simply a container, imbecilically storing the RAW file within
without any comprehension as to its content. Basically no better than
zipping the damn RAW file up.

2) A new representation of the data within the RAW file, which
therefore must either understand and re-represent every aspect of the
original RAW file in an open format manner or be considered a lossy
storage method.

3) Some hybrid of the above, meaning it must be significantly larger
than the RAW file originally was.

Until DNG is so good, that in every case, once a RAW is converted to
DNG we can safely throw the original RAW file away and have lost
nothing, it'll have extremely limited appeal.

Even if Adobe's solution promises to be able to recreate the original
RAW file from the DNG, that's really zero steps better than a zip
file.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

On Fri, 27 May 2005 18:53:21 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:34:32 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:08:27 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
wrote:

I have had to help computer users who changed computers and suddenly
couldn't open their old files any more. It isn't pretty.

Out of interest, having lived through all the formats from 7" floppies
on down, could you be more specific as to what problems these people
encountered?

I'm thinking mostly of a fellow whose Mac (SE?) died. He was unable
to read his old Word (4, I think) files on an iMac. And if I recall
correctly, his old Word binary wouldn't run under Classic. Perhaps
Apple didn't include the 680x0 emulation stuff in Classic; or
perhaps Word 4 made hardware-specific calls that weren't supported
under all that emulation.

It's not that there's no way to get the data out of those files.
It's that the cost of doing so became relatively high due to use of
a proprietary format.

I'm not sure what the mac introduces into this, but it does amaze me,
that Microsoft would drop one of their old formats from being able to
be read in the latest version of the software.

My copy of Word that come in a 2004 version of Office XP still opens
an ASCII text file format, a standard that dates back to 1963.

Because it's a standard. That's my point.

But it's from 1963, that's my point. You said 'old' files, and age
really has zilch to do with it.

Mainstream files, standard or not, will be able to be read in the
future, weird-arse files are at risk, I agree. So, buy a Canon or a
Nikon, shoot RAW and worry not.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:19:26 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005 18:53:21 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
wrote:

I'm thinking mostly of a fellow whose Mac (SE?) died. He was unable
to read his old Word (4, I think) files on an iMac. And if I recall
correctly, his old Word binary wouldn't run under Classic. Perhaps
Apple didn't include the 680x0 emulation stuff in Classic; or
perhaps Word 4 made hardware-specific calls that weren't supported
under all that emulation.

It's not that there's no way to get the data out of those files.
It's that the cost of doing so became relatively high due to use of
a proprietary format.

I'm not sure what the mac introduces into this, but it does amaze me,
that Microsoft would drop one of their old formats from being able to
be read in the latest version of the software.

I'm not sure he had a modern copy of Word. He was fairly broke, and
buying Word would have hurt him. See my last paragraph above.

My copy of Word that come in a 2004 version of Office XP still opens
an ASCII text file format, a standard that dates back to 1963.

Because it's a standard. That's my point.

But it's from 1963, that's my point. You said 'old' files, and age
really has zilch to do with it.

You're right. The issue is standardization, not age.

Mainstream files, standard or not, will be able to be read in the
future, weird-arse files are at risk, I agree. So, buy a Canon or a
Nikon, shoot RAW and worry not.

I don't see it that way. All else being equal, one is always safer
from the ravages of vendor greed and mismanagement if one's data is
stored in standard, "open" formats.

Incidentally, have you ever read about NASA's problems interpreting
their own old data from the '60s?

--
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