Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Rantatorials [ARCHIVED] => Topic started by: AlterEgo on July 16, 2015, 11:22:54 am
-
So Michael, when you are going to vote with your $ and stop buying cameras w/o DNG ?
-
In practical effect, is there any issue other than that camera reviewers have to use crappy RAW processing software until the major RAW converters support the new camera?
I happen to believe that future RAW conversion software will continue to support old camera RAW formats.
-
Michael, what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG? As long as Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft all hustle with every camera release to provide the means to process the new RAW there is NO MOTIVATION for camera makers to change.
If however, Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft were to form an industry consortium for DNG there might then be some incentive. This group might take the stance that they would provide RAW processing for new proprietary RAW camera formats only 6 months after their public release then you have a real economic incentive.
-
Hi,
Problem may be that most of the companies you mention are not really pro DNG.
Best regards
Erik
Michael, what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG? As long as Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft all hustle with every camera release to provide the means to process the new RAW there is NO MOTIVATION for camera makers to change.
If however, Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft were to form an industry consortium for DNG there might then be some incentive. This group might take the stance that they would provide RAW processing for new proprietary RAW camera formats only 6 months after their public release then you have a real economic incentive.
-
Hi,
Problem may be that most of the companies you mention are not really pro DNG.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly!!!!! Adobe doesn't have a leg to stand on at this point.
-
Problem may be that most of the companies you mention are not really pro DNG.
even Adobe is not - I mean they just push DNG as an element of their workflow and happy w/ that... RIP.
-
Exactly!!!!! Adobe doesn't have a leg to stand on at this point.
Adobe is standing firmly on 2 legs - they do support both DNG and other all other formats that have good marketshare...
-
This group might take the stance that they would provide RAW processing for new proprietary RAW camera formats only 6 months after their public release then you have a real economic incentive.
that will be a boon for ISL, Corel and the rest of the pack like small shops a-la Iridient !!! dream comes true
-
Warning, danger: Crush, Kill, Destroy (Adobe and those who subscribe to their intended workflows). Michael, don't bite, this is another thread sure to end up being locked down.
-
Michael, what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG?
The satisfaction of their customers?
-
Michael, don't bite
and what was the point of the public rant then ?
-
The satisfaction of their customers?
absolute majority of their customers are totally satisfied ... those who claim that they are not still regularly (and among the first ones, paying full price) buy the products that they are allegedly not satisfied with...
-
The satisfaction of their customers?
Andrew, I've used used ACR since it was released. I've used LR since its first public beta. I subscribe to CC. I'm NOT anti Adobe.
I just don't see the value of DNG to me or why camera manufacturers would adopt it.
Scenario: If I were to convert a file to DNG in Lr and switch to another RAW converter such as CaptureOne will the DNG be processed the same in C1 as if it were in the proprietary format? If not, it doesn't seem so portable to me.
-
I'll make one comment and then let the article stand on its own.
In future years when a format that one of your cameras used to use no longer is supported, because the manufacturer has gone out of business or moved on to other things, don't come crying to me.
How likely is this? Well, there are currently 36 raw camera file formats that are not supported by their manufacturers and whose original software no longer runs on current operating systems. Extrapolate this forward a decade or two.
Thinking that your .ARW or .CR2 or whatever will be readable by a future computer or future operating system is a pipe dream. I predict that this will only end in tears.
Michael
-
:
Warning, danger: Crush, Kill, Destroy (Adobe and those who subscribe to their intended workflows). Michael, don't bite, this is another thread sure to end up being locked down.
:D :D :D
-
I personally don't care what RAW format(s) camera makers use. But I do object to the proprietary nature of most of 'em. Complete specs should be freely available. Canikon & Sony & etc. don't own my photo data. I do.
So far the RAW formats of every camera I've owned have been reverse engineered. But I'd like not having to rely on that continuing.
-Dave-
-
I'll make one comment and then let the article stand on its own.
In future years when a format that one of your cameras used to use no longer is supported, because the manufacturer has gone out of business or moved on to other things, don't come crying to me.
How likely is this? Well, there are currently 36 raw camera file formats that are not supported by their manufacturers and whose original software no longer runs on current operating systems. Extrapolate this forward a decade or two.
Thinking that your .ARW or .CR2 or whatever will be readable by a future computer or future operating system is a pipe dream. I predict that this will only end in tears.
Michael
With all due respect.....who is to say that DNG could not included in your doomsday scenario?
-
and what was the point of the public rant then ?
More traffic to the site :)
In reality, I believe that Michael is sincere and really believes in DNG. So, I respect his view, even if I do not agree with it.
-
and what was the point of the public rant then ?
Your rant and this post? Good question!
-
absolute majority of their customers are totally satisfied ...
No one said otherwise! Try sticking to facts. Facts are, some customers are not totally satisfied and myself, Michael and other's would greatly desire a DNG option from their cameras. So I'll repeat, since you have difficulty in such areas: what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG? The satisfaction of their customers? Not every one of them, but a share of them, those of us that use DNG every day.
Andrew, I've used used ACR since it was released. I've used LR since its first public beta. I subscribe to CC. I'm NOT anti Adobe.
I just don't see the value of DNG to me or why camera manufacturers would adopt it.
And I've been using ACR and LR before even that. I do use a DNG workflow and do see a huge amount of value of DNG, you don't. So what? If the camera manufacturers would adopt it, it would be valuable to me and others.
It's not just Michael, Schewe and Rodney using DNG boys.
-
Scenario: If I were to convert a file to DNG in Lr and switch to another RAW converter such as CaptureOne will the DNG be processed the same in C1 as if it were in the proprietary format? If not, it doesn't seem so portable to me.
That's merely C1's business decision, not a problem with DNG. If you switched Aperture, the DNG would appear precisely the same as its proprietary equivalent. If you switched to PhotoMechanic, the DNG would appear precisely the same as in Lr.
-
Michael is being disingenuous in this piece. If, as a businessman, he can't see any reason the camera makers don't support DNG, then I submit that he's a poor businessman.
There's at least once obvious business reason:
It costs money to support DNG.
-
No one said otherwise! Try sticking to facts. Facts are, some customers are not totally satisfied and myself, Michael and other's would greatly desire a DNG option from their cameras.
yes, you do... and I do not have anything against DNG as a format either __IF__ some camera manufacturer decides to use it... however unlike "you" I see valid reasons for most manufacturers not to use or at least not to bother with DNG and them not using DNG do not create any problems for me...
So I'll repeat, since you have difficulty in such areas: what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG? The satisfaction of their customers? Not every one of them, but a share of them, those of us that use DNG every day.
only somewhat bigger satisfactions of the same some customers... because they are not dissatisfied, they are lesser satisfied... and camera manufacturers do see that it is not worth the trouble to provide you with somewhat bigger satisfaction - because you will not stop buying their cameras w/o DNG and you will not be buying more of their cameras with DNG... I did not see people switching systems just for DNG... nobody goes Leica or Ricoh because they are using DNG... and Adobe does a wonderful job by supporting those non DNG camera manufacturers by making sure that their raw formats are supported in sufficiently timely manner... so blame yourself and blame Adobe for not standing the ground.
And I've been using ACR and LR before even that. I do use a DNG workflow and do see a huge amount of value of DNG, you don't. So what? If the camera manufacturers would adopt it, it would be valuable to me and others.
yes, it will be valuable for you, certainly and seriously... but the situation is that it is not worth the trouble for camera manufacturers... and you refuse to understand their position.
-
No, it costs everyone money to develop and test new file formats.
-
Canikon & Sony & etc. don't own my photo data. I do.
seriously ? how about Adobe owning your parametric adjustments in LR/ACR - you can't take them to continue your work to other raw converter :D in the same manner with a raw file - the nature of those adjusments, how to interpret them is Adobe's secret (some of them, some of them of course are known/deciphered - just like with so called proprietary raw files most of the data/data tags/etc there is/are known and how to use them publicly available - dcraw, libraw, etc, etc)
-
No, it costs everyone money to develop and test new file formats.
1) it cost less money to manufacturers to stick with their format
2) it does not require them to disclose their new features to 3rd parties in advance
3) it does not force them to wait till Adobe will manage to come up with a new DNG spec to accomodate new features
example with Panasonic introducing optics correction parameters in their raw files was given here a lot of times... do you recall how much time took Adobe to get their act with DNG spec for that in order ? was Panasonic supposed to wait with product release and lose money waiting for Adobe ? was Panasonic supposed to disclose their move to competition well in advance ? they (Panasonic) clearly did not think so...
-
In future years when a format that one of your cameras used to use no longer is supported, because the manufacturer has gone out of business or moved on to other things, don't come crying to me.
ouch... does it include publicly available information from dcraw, exiftool, libraw, DNG SDK and others venues to disappear from the body of human knowledge ?
-
How likely is this? Well, there are currently 36 raw camera file formats that are not supported by their manufacturers and whose original software no longer runs on current operating systems. Extrapolate this forward a decade or two.
any particular example from "36" of something worthy our concern ? the last time I checked things like VmWare do exist for those who really want to bother with the original software, that is if those "36" are not supported by 3rd party converters...
-
any particular example from "36" of something worthy our concern ? the last time I checked things like VmWare do exist for those who really want to bother with the original software, that is if those "36" are not supported by 3rd party converters...
Sure. Try decoding various Casio raw files from the mid-2000's.
Michael
-
yes, you do... and I do not have anything against DNG as a format either __IF__ some camera manufacturer decides to use it... however unlike "you" I see valid reasons for most manufacturers not to use or at least not to bother with DNG and them not using DNG do not create any problems for me...
Yes, that's obviously the difference. You're clearly a camera manufacturer. I'm a camera user and customer. So unlike you, I don't care one bit about the minimal cost to add a 3rd option to save off DNG (or not if you want that fancy Panasonic optics correction) while you, someone who clearly works for a company or owns one that creates digital cameras are only concerned with the bottom line. Maybe if you were a consumer, you'd understand a customers needs and desires. Even if it's not 99.999% of your customers who agree and would use said 'feature'.
-
Minimal cost?
You have to develop the software, in camera. You have to QA it. You have to update manuals and marketing materials. You have to QA it every time you release new firmware, so it's a gift that keeps giving. There's a good probability that you'll get involved in at least one goat rodeo requiring emergency firmware updates, because you get the DNG wrong in some important corner case that your regression testing missed.
Proprietary RAW means that you can fix a lot of problems in the downloadable free native software, rather than with a firmware update. They mean you don't have to do much in the camera, in fact. That's why they're different from model-to-model within the same lineup, they're trying to push as much work as possible offboard, for excellent reasons.
We're talking 6 figures, USD, easily, to convert from a proprietary RAW to DNG as your standard supported RAW, over a five year period, say.
And what do you get for this? How many sales is this specific feature going to drive? If it costs $100,000 to build and support this for 5 years, which is a lowball estimate, you better show me, I dunno, a thousand units shifted specifically because of this.
And you and I both know it's not actually gonna shift a single unit. Sure, put it in, and Michael will sing your praises, but he still won't buy the camera because you don't allow him to microadjust the temporal thrusters or something. And every guy like Michael will have their own reasons for not buying your camera, because ultimately, the care about stuff like lenses and weight and shooting speed and color renderings and resolution and and and and not about minor convenience features.
The best you could hope for is that three guys who were really torn between camera X and camera Y will finally tip over to yours because of DNG. If only you'd spent the $100,000 reengineering the body to pull out 17 grams more weight, you'd have sold 1000 more units because you'd be lighter than camera Y instead of the same weight. Ooops.
-
Plus, just using DNG would take half the fun away.
The guys who buy the cameras in those few days before ACR supports the new RAW *love* the war stories.
Ah had to shewt JAY PEGS! It was lahk shewting SLAHD FEELM! Y'ALL REMEMBER SLAHD FEELM? Man, men was MEN in them days
Gosh, I had to download the latest Nikon XZ3 Software and install it and it was a nightmare and I was up until three AM until I could finally convert RAW into something decent and now I feel extremely manly and dedicated to my craft
I hate Adobe! It has been 17 minutes since my camera arrived and I have downloaded ACR 4 times and it STILL DOES NOT SUPPORT MY CAMERA
and so on. These fellows clearly glory in the trials and suffering they endure, as desperados of the camera frontier. Why on earth would anyone take this away from them, just for convenience?
-
Minimal cost?
In the grand scheme of things and the entire system costs, yes.
You have to develop the software, in camera. You have to QA it. You have to update manuals and marketing materials. You have to QA it every time you release new firmware, so it's a gift that keeps giving.
Sounds much like the work Adobe does to support DNG, so I guess it's OK for them to do so but not the company who's hardware I've purchased to provide a digital file I wish to use as I want to?
Proprietary RAW means that you can fix a lot of problems in the downloadable free native software, rather than with a firmware update.
For those customers who use the manufacturer's raw converter, great. For the rest of us?
We're talking 6 figures, USD, easily, to convert from a proprietary RAW to DNG as your standard supported RAW, over a five year period, say.
Peanuts.
And what do you get for this?
A non proprietary format like the JPEG I can also select. But no, I want raw data. MY raw data!
How many sales is this specific feature going to drive?
How many sales is providing a JPEG instead of a TIFF or vise versa? I don't care how many sales it provides. How many sales does the little goodie that goes on the back of the viewfinder cost so you can shoot with a cable release? How many sales does software bundled to convert the raw data that massive number of customers don't use provide?
And you and I both know it's not actually gonna shift a single unit.
Actually neither of us know that. You're making huge numbers of speculations here and counting them as factual. OK, show us the actual numbers. Not that I care.
-
I've spent 25 years building software, firmware, and hardware. I pretty much know what I'm talking about.
$100,000 is not peanuts. It's a big enough number that you need to make a case for it, and a case means you have to show not only that it actually generates revenue and that it generates more revenue than an alternate investment of $100,000. If you are under the impression that companies can and should spend $100,000 just because a handful of potential customers think that would be a cool thing, then you are a worse businessman than.. anyone.
The customers wishing with all their might does not constitute a business case. You can save fairies with it, but fairies, alas, are not revenue.
-
I've spent 25 years building software, firmware, and hardware. I pretty much know what I'm talking about.
For a camera maker like Canon or Nikon?
Look, I've had an engineer to pay along with my partner for 8-10 years too. So I know they are expensive. And if you want me to talk factual costs about a specific software need (in our case an Automate plug-in) and you want to talk about whatever you built (we're all hears by the way) we can do so. Otherwise, in terms of a complex camera system by the big two or more, you're speculating. You have zero idea how Canon or Nikon or similar cost their products. You can guess. I'm not interested in that kind of speculation. I've got a book shelf of great science fiction to read if that's my desire.
-
Andrew (Digital Dog), the question still boils down to what is the advantage to ME to use DNG? As long as ACR and Lr are going to going to process all my old Canon RAW files, my current Canon RAW files and my Fuji RAW files then I don't see the advantage of DNG other than they're smaller. The fact that others use DNG isn't compelling to me.
I'd rather there was a standard for RAW files but it doesn't seem that proprietary RAW files are going away any time soon.
Please point me to what advantages I'd derive from DNG so that I can see the light and become a convert.
-
Ok, now you're just being a jerk, because I have the temerity to disagree with you.
-
Andrew, the question still boils down to what is the advantage to ME to use DNG?
Absolutely! It's unique for each user/customer.
As long as ACR and Lr are going to going to process all my old Canon RAW files, my current Canon RAW files and my Fuji RAW files then I don't see the advantage of DNG other than they're smaller.
There are far, far more features and capability of DNG besides a smaller file! But I'm not going to list them, been there, done that! I'll point out one however, data verification (kind of important to me): http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2013/08/dng-verification-in-lightroom-5.html
The fact that others use DNG isn't compelling to me.
I have no problem with that. The fact that others don not use DNG isn't compelling to me.
I'd rather there was a standard for RAW files but it doesn't seem that proprietary RAW files are going away any time soon.
I'm fine with that option too (although that's what DNG is partially supposed to provide as a feature).
Please point me to what advantages I'd derive from DNG so that I can see the light and become a convert.
Damn ;D, OK, nothing new but start here after reading Julieann's URL:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf
http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/
-
I've spent 25 years building software, firmware, and hardware. I pretty much know what I'm talking about.
$100,000 is not peanuts. It's a big enough number that you need to make a case for it, and a case means you have to show not only that it actually generates revenue and that it generates more revenue than an alternate investment of $100,000. If you are under the impression that companies can and should spend $100,000 just because a handful of potential customers think that would be a cool thing, then you are a worse businessman than.. anyone.
The customers wishing with all their might does not constitute a business case. You can save fairies with it, but fairies, alas, are not revenue.
Andrew...suggest you just give up. I've been through this. It is like the old story about teaching a pig to sing...
Edit: just in case someone has not heard it, it is a quote from Robert Heinlein: Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
-
Ok, now you're just being a jerk, because I have the temerity to disagree with you.
OK, I'm being a jerk to ask you to prove your points (and you can't)?
I've already predicted the end result of this thread. Not pretty.
-
Andrew...suggest you just give up. I've been through this. It is like the old story about teaching a pig to sing...
You are so correct on that point!
-
Andrew, the question still boils down to what is the advantage to ME to use DNG?
I think Michael has a point about long term support. To be honest, I think TIFF is the right answer for long term storage of high bit depth files, but they're not as raw as they could be.
Michael is very much a purist, and is steeped in the Adams tradition to the effect that we need to preserve photographs. If he was working in the darkroom, he'd be selenium toning and washing his prints for hours to get full archival effects. He wants to apply the same fetish to the digital world, and who am I to deny him? He'd rather archive a universal RAW format than TIFFs. OK.
It's not a bad idea at all, technically. The ROI analysis doesn't pan out, unfortunately. Same as for most of the other stuff Michael agitates for, like ETTR exposure modes and so on. Good ideas, terrible ROI, and hence not gonna happen.
But great for generating discussion!
-
OK, I'm being a jerk to ask you to prove your points (and you can't)?
I've already predicted the end result of this thread. Not pretty.
What would constitute proof? Nothing would, obviously. You can just keep asking "But why?" like a 5 year old.
I've been on the internets since they were invented, so you're not gonna pull that one over on me. What I've said makes sense and is as checkable as is reasonable for an internet forum. I'm not going to work up a rough BOM cost for a Nikon D7100 and rough out ongoing firmware development costs just to please you, and so that you can lazily take 4 seconds to say "Eh, I don't believe it, do you actually WORK for Nikon?!!"
-
In practical effect, is there any issue other than that camera reviewers have to use crappy RAW processing software until the major RAW converters support the new camera?
Sometimes it's not as bad as that. For example, there's a nice little dodge doing the rounds for owners of the new Fuji X-T10. Capture One, for example, won't recognise its files. The trick is to change the EXIF data on those files to "X-T1", which fools C1 into working with them. The two cameras use the same sensor and processor, so the results are good.
This doesn't, of course, invalidate the general argument.
Roger
-
What would constitute proof? Nothing would, obviously.
Well having a lick of experience actually working for or with a company that builds a digital camera would be a good start. Have you done this?
I've been on the internets since they were invented, so you're not gonna pull that one over on me.
IOW, if asked to prove or back up your points, nothing is fair game, you can speculate about costs and revenue and we are just to accept it as fact?
-
I think Michael has a point about long term support. To be honest, I think TIFF is the right answer for long term storage of high bit depth files, but they're not as raw as they could be.
A DNG and a TIFF are pretty darn close. Cousins in fact, owned and controlled by the same company.
Michael is very much a purist, and is steeped in the Adams tradition to the effect that we need to preserve photographs. If he was working in the darkroom, he'd be selenium toning and washing his prints for hours to get full archival effects.
Which Michael would that be? How well do you know Michael Reichmann?
-
OK, I'm being a jerk to ask you to prove your points (and you can't)?
I've already predicted the end result of this thread. Not pretty.
Easy to predict. This thread should never have started. Michael was fully aware that his article would just raise passions....with no result.
The issues are part "religious" and mostly economic and freedom to provide creative features and functions. Some just are not honest enough with themselves to see, or admit they see, all sides of the discussion.
-
You are so correct on that point!
Sorry Andrew...I was addressing the other Andrew
-
No I have not worked for a camera company.
And now that I understand that camera companies are magical unicorns, unlike technology companies, in that they do not use metal, plastics, integrated circuits, and so on, but instead build their equipment out the bones of winged horses, archangel tallow, and the powerful wishes of whining idiots, I see that all my speculation is irrelevant. Since I only know a tremendous amount about how to build technology based products.
-
Easy to predict. This thread should never have started. Michael was fully aware that his article would just raise passions....with no result.
The issues are part "religious" and mostly economic and freedom to provide creative features and functions. Some just are not honest enough with themselves to see, or admit they see, all sides of the discussion.
In his article, Michael refers several times to "proprietary raw formats", seemingly overlooking the proprietary nature of DNG. This is wholly owned by Adobe Systems (as is TIFF).
In discussions like this, "open" is often made to do two jobs at once. On the one hand, it is treated as a synonym for "standard". On the other, is put in opposition to the word "proprietary". Therein lies confusion.
Instead, imagine that the terms "proprietary", "standard", "closed" and "open" lie not on one scale but two. On one axis (the horizontal, say) is set out the range between completely proprietary at one end and completely standard at the other. These concepts are distinct — proprietary objects are owned by one person or organization (e.g. Adobe), while standard ones are owned by many (e.g. the members of ISO).
The other, vertical, axis has at its base the notion of an object's being open. In other words, the details of it have been published. The converse of this, at the top of the axis, is the notion of an object's being closed, or kept secret.
To simplify matters, one might position these four attributes at the corners of a four-cell matrix. Thus:
1. The upper right quadrant refers to objects or designs that are proprietary and closed. I think this is what Michael means with his "proprietary raw formats".
2. Lower right is stuff that's proprietary and open. As noted, DNG and TFF would seem to belong here.
3. The lower left quadrant encompasses material that is open and standard. Its details are readily available and its application doesn't vary (or vary much). ISO standards are an obvious example, as are those of IEEE.
4. The upper left quadrant (standard but secret) is logically possible but commercially absurd, unless it's intended for spooks or the some of the military.
Of course, none of this addresses Michael's gripe but I hope that it will help the debate. Greater precision in terminology often clarifies thinking.
Roger
-
Easy to predict. This thread should never have started.
Exactly what I stated in my first post (we agree, surprise?)
Michael was fully aware that his article would just raise passions....with no result.
Part of the sentence is correct, the last part, maybe not. Those of us who keep asking for DNG or open raw format support expect and hope for results.
The issues are part "religious" and mostly economic and freedom to provide creative features and functions.
One religion asks to simply give us data as we desire without restriction (like the other file format it can create), the other religion deny us that request because they don't use it. Worse, they come to the defense of big companies keeping our data proprietary, acting unlike selfless photographers.
Using DNG is a bit like same sex marriage. You don't believe in marrying someone of the same sex or using DNG, don't. Let the rest of us have that option.
-
In his article, Michael refers several times to "proprietary raw formats", seemingly overlooking the proprietary nature of DNG. This is wholly owned by Adobe Systems (as is TIFF).
Please look at the differences in what proprietary means and what owning a file format means. Yes, Adobe owns TIFF too, it's not a proprietary format.
DNG isn't proprietary in it's an open format anyone can use without cost (unlike PSD but just like TIFF) and is fully documented for anyone to do so IF they desire.
Or maybe your take is, we should just store all our image data in a format no company owns, like JPEG? I'll pass thank you.
-
No I have not worked for a camera company.
And now that I understand that camera companies are magical unicorns, unlike technology companies, in that they do not use metal, plastics, integrated circuits, and so on, but instead build their equipment out the bones of winged horses, archangel tallow, and the powerful wishes of whining idiots, I see that all my speculation is irrelevant. Since I only know a tremendous amount about how to build technology based products.
Today's cameras are basically computers. I worked my last 20 years in development and product management for a major computer company...PCs and Servers. I can attest to what 'amolitor' says. The green eye shades (accountants) will want every dollar spent to contribute to the ROI. By the time you go through the distribution chain, every penny of cost must generate big dollars in sales.
-
Exactly what I stated in my first post (we agree, surprise?)
no
Part of the sentence is correct, the last part, maybe not. Those of us who keep asking for DNG or open raw format support expect and hope for results.
Hoping for results and getting results are quite different. In this case it doing something up a rope or into the wind One religion asks to simply give us data as we desire without restriction (like the other file format it can create), the other religion deny us that request because they don't use it. Worse, they come to the defense of big companies keeping our data proprietary, acting unlike selfless photographers.
Using DNG is a bit like same sex marriage. You don't believe in marrying someone of the same sex or using DNG, don't. Let the rest of us have that option.
...but arguing wildly to have an option without admitting the economic cost to the other party results in my answer to the second response above.
-
DNG isn't proprietary in it's an open format...
You appear not to have read all my message or not to have understood it. "Proprietary" and "open" are not mutually exclusive.
Re my "take". I have put forward no suggestions for a solution. If you choose to infer one from what I wrote, I can't stop you.
Roger
-
Today's cameras are basically computers. I worked my last 20 years in development and product management for a major computer company...PCs and Servers. I can attest to what 'amolitor' says. The green eye shades (accountants) will want every dollar spent to contribute to the ROI. By the time you go through the distribution chain, every penny of cost must generate big dollars in sales.
But wait a minute. I don't buy amolitor's analysis. It seems to me there is a lot of savings not accounted for. What about the costs to maintain the proprietary software that goes along with that proprietary file format? If they switched to DNG, they no longer need to supply or support that software. No software code writers. No more software updates for Windows 19 / OS 10.37.4. No more shipping shipping CD's (really?). No more download pages. No more tech service questions about the bloat ware that comes with the CD.
None of those savings were considered, but it all could go away. He just didn't go far enough with the cutting. Jeeze if little Leica can do it, surely the others could figure it out.
Dave
-
no Hoping for results and getting results are quite different. In this case it doing something up a rope or into the wind ...but arguing wildly to have an option without admitting the economic cost to the other party results in my answer to the second response above.
So give up?
What I find so sad is the number of photographers, or people who say they are photographers, who argue so loudly that a feature I and many others use is something we don't deserve. As Mr. Schewe has said a number of times on this subject (and I agree), you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Don't use or like DNG? Don't use it. The only people who can and should argue against some or our desires isn't here and never have come here to give us their side of the story; the camera manufacturers, their reps. We get so called 'photographers' who speculate about the poor burden of the big camera companies of which I don't give a damn about. I'm a consumer. I pay for my cameras. I should have a say in the data it provides. I'll pay more to get what I want. I'll gladly refrain from Canon (the system I currently use) ceasing it's expense to produce a raw processor in the box for a DNG from the camera.
-
Can you really make your proprietary software go away, or does it just need to also support DNG now?
There is also a cost to end of life-ing a product.
It's turtles all the way down.
-
Re my "take". I have put forward no suggestions for a solution. If you choose to infer one from what I wrote, I can't stop you.
I'm not inferring such a solution, I'm simply saying that DNG isn't proprietary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
Proprietary software, non-free software (in the sense of missing freedoms[1]), or closed-source software is software, where the developers or distributors reserve all freedoms and rights.
-
Bold move, digitaldog. Trying to argue that people who disagree with you actually have no right to speak.
Insane, but bold.
-
Bold move, digitaldog. Trying to argue that people who disagree with you actually have no right to speak.
They have the right to argue and thus speak. Making up facts, speculating? Not useful if you're trying to convince the other side to your POV.
You have every right to make up stuff or guess, we have every right to ignore it as baseless. At least until you can prove the point. So far, you've done none of this.
-
Can you really make your proprietary software go away, or does it just need to also support DNG now?
There is also a cost to end of life-ing a product.
It's turtles all the way down.
Sure you can make it go away, and of course there is a cost to ending a product. But not nearly as high as keeping it going. And there is no revenue from these proprietary software products. Zilch.
-
A universal raw format would make a lot of sense. I had hope DNG would gain more traction it's a slow process
I do use lossy DNG quite a bit to save HDD space and it's fine for most jobs
-
Bold move, digitaldog. Trying to argue that people who disagree with you actually have no right to speak.
Insane, but bold.
Nah, it's a Schewe-ism
It's like the artist that says true intellectuals will "get" what he is saying. To say you don't get it....well....
-
Nah, it's a Schewe-ism
Don't bring me into this useless thread...
-
I'm not inferring such a solution...
Of course you are, by suggesting I advocate storing data "in a format no company owns, like JPEG". I've advocated nothing beyond greater precision in the use of terms, something you seem determined to avoid.
> I'm simply saying that DNG isn't proprietary.
Argument by assertion. Doesn't work, I'm afraid.
And resorting to Wikipedia to prop up an argument is a sign of desperation. It's Gresham's Law applied to information.
Roger
-
> I'm simply saying that DNG isn't proprietary.
Argument by assertion. Doesn't work, I'm afraid.
And you would know, wouldn't you, because your assertion that it's proprietary is on a par with claiming the earth is flat. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Whatever your other issues with it, it's just not a proprietary format.
-
Roger,
Your axis don't make sense to me. Proprietary means ownership, but it also means ownership with restricted use. It's like fuchsia is a purplish-red color, and you are using the "color" part of its description, then claiming brown is fuchsia because they are both colors.
And as far as the "standard" scale being free and widely available, really? Please send me an ISO 12232 standard. A bit expensive to buy isn't it! The DNG standard is a whole lot cheaper.
The use of the term proprietary commonly means restricted use. In fact it is all too often used in marketing to describe an exclusive feature. You may not like that, but that's what John means about your Flat World.
Dave
-
DNG conversion of raw files (and storing both) after import is crucial to the workflow imho.
Camera makers might think (or at least in the early 2000s) that they could lock customers into their ecosystem (so to speak of) and keep them in their developing app. I bet there are many amateurs/hobbyists that read the manual, pop the disc in and install the crappy apps that come with the cameras?! Not the readers of this site, but the general consumer that never heard of Lightroom... but then do they use RAW? No, but all the filters, effects, that comes with these apps.
A total fail from camera makers and their pride to not change course.
What about a standard/consortium like we have when HDMI, 1080p etc. get established? It can be hard, just look what's going on now with 4k delivery of content and the Blue-Ray specs finally out.
??? CaNikon and Sony wake up on this!
-
Don't bring me into this useless thread...
:D Sorry :D
-
So much speculation.... so little factual knowledge.
So much pissy commentary aimed at one-upping the other guy.
As predicted this thread has gone off the rails and I''m tempted to shut it down. Next gratuitous insult aimed at anyone and I will.
But, since I have the floor for a moment, a few comments.
DNG is free. It was developed by Adobe but it has been offered to the ISO as an open standard.
DNG is fully capable of supporting new features without being altered. This was anticipated in its architecture by Thomas Knoll, its author, from the beginning. DNG is designed to be extensible in this regard. Talk to Thomas. He'll explain it.
There already are orphaned raw formats (Casio is but one example). There will be more. Some raw formats are actually encrypted. Isn't it comforting to know that these companies therefore regard your images as theirs, not yours?
For the purposes of this discussion I don't care about DNG as a long terms storage format. That's a red herring and not part of what I wrote about in my article.
The motivations of the major camera companies in maintaining proprietary raw formats has nothing to do with money or engineering issues. It actually costs them more to pay programmers and third party house than to use an open standard. It has to do with corporate hubris. Sit with the managers and engineers and drink sake for an evening or two, as I have, and you'll understand that the perpetuation of these formats has zero to do with cost or engineering issues. It's about corporate pride. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply speculating or just plain making it up.
I repeat. Hubris and Pride. Our images are held in formats which are the sole property of single companies. Remember the phrase... "Trust me, I'm from the government"? Well, I don't like the phrase, "Trust me, I'm from Canon" any better.
Finally, this has nothing whatever to do with my accessing raw files before third party support is available. I simply set white balance in the manufacturer's software then batch export to 16 bit TIFF. No big deal. This is about a moral principal, not one person's personal inconvenience.
Here's my best analogy. My image files are mine. I created them. I don't want them put them in a locked box that requires a key, even if there are keys available from others. I want the box not to have a lock on it at all, because over time keys get lost and locks rust.
No locks on my files please. They're mine. Sorry if it hurts your ego to give them to me in a plain box, but I'm much happier that way than in the fancy box you prefer. Sorry. That's not in my best interest, and guess what. I'm the customer.
Michael
-
No locks on my files please. They're mine.
Michael, is this what you want? -
- The freedom to open the RAW data in programs of your choosing (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how most (all?) of the RAW data is stored by the camera (freedom 1). Access to the manufacturer specs is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to transform on your computer or in your camera the camera RAW data into an ISO standard format (e.g. DNG) without losing any nontrivial data (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of how you transformed your RAW data with others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source and destination file format specs and the precise transformations made on them are a precondition for this.
It seems to me that these freedoms are mutually interdependent, i.e. to have freedom 0 you need the others too.
If these four freedoms ring a bell, it's because I have derived them from the those (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) advocated by the Free Software Foundation. As a quick glance makes clear, the freedoms as I have outlined them here are considerably more restricted than the originals.
-
DNG is free. It was developed by Adobe but it has been offered to the ISO as an open standard.
it is not - there is a price you pay, namely - you have to get Adobe to agree to your changes, you have to wait for Adobe to implement changes, you have to share you information with competition and you have to redo code on your side
DNG is fully capable of supporting new features without being altered.
so does any other raw format, as they mostly tiffs - that is not the root of your issues
There already are orphaned raw formats (Casio is but one example).
well, as you studied the issue - you claim that Casion was never supported by any 3rd party raw converter, never ever ? how about that = http://www.inweb.ch/foto/rawformat.html ? and those are not raw formats - that's just one raw format, one
There will be more. Some raw formats are actually encrypted. Isn't it comforting to know that these companies therefore regard your images as theirs, not yours?
Adobe regards my parametric edits in ACR as theirs - how about that ?
The motivations of the major camera companies in maintaining proprietary raw formats has nothing to do with money or engineering issues. It actually costs them more to pay programmers and third party house than to use an open standard.
so your camera's firmware will be magically written/tested/etc by whom ? it does not matter whether you are using a different tiff flavor... for your internal technical team your non DNG is as open as DNG... no difference, but one - you still have to spend money rewriting/retesting your code to make output DNG
-
Our images are held in formats which are the sole property of single companies.
formats are tiffs, you are referring to non disclosure of the tag usage, whereas that the usage is known (and document in a freely available code for eternity) for a lot of 3rd party converters to successfully work regards of this ever repeated smoke-mirros-doom-gloom-fud... and btw so are your parametric edits in LR, the sole property of Adobe... that somehow does not bother you at all
Remember the phrase... "Trust me, I'm from the government"? Well, I don't like the phrase, "Trust me, I'm from Canon" any better.
trust me, I am from Adobe :D
-
When I got my A7 I was an early adopter and of course I had to use the bundled software and I hated it and I didn't like the results and I actually thought I'd made a big mistake buying the camera.
Had anyone been looking over my shoulder, seeing what was going on on my screen and listening to my frustrated rants I'm pretty sure any thought of buying an A7 would have vanished from their mind.
I do wish that the manufacturers would just stop it and adopt DNG.
-
A universal raw format would make a lot of sense.
it already exists - tiff... what is missing is the formal disclosure of the tag usage by cameras manufacturers, while informal exists and will not disappear, never ever... and that informal information is as sufficient as DNG itself.
-
And you would know, wouldn't you, because your assertion that it's proprietary is on a par with claiming the earth is flat. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Whatever your other issues with it, it's just not a proprietary format.
Blimey! Do you buy your clichés wholesale?
Here's the notice at the top of the Adobe document, "Digital Negative (DNG) Specification", version 1.4.0.0, dated June 2012:
"All information contained herein is the property of Adobe Systems Incorporated. No part of this publication (whether in hardcopy or electronic form) may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Adobe Systems Incorporated."
Sounds pretty proprietary to me.
Here are the relevant definitions of "proprietary" from a couple of reputable sources:
1. Merrian -Webster -- something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker
2, Oxford English Dictionary -- Belonging to a proprietor or proprietors; owned or held as property; held in private ownership.
(And, by publishing the specification, Adobe have of course also made DNG open.)
Roger
-
DNG isn't proprietary in it's an open format
you can't extend it in a manner that suits you (only in a manner that suits Adobe)... again optics corrections introduced by Panasonic is a prime example.
-
Sure. Try decoding various Casio raw files from the mid-2000's.
Michael
one format - and which camera ? please name one model as an example so that we can switch to specifics
-
Of course you are, by suggesting I advocate storing data "in a format no company owns, like JPEG".
No, I've suggested nothing of the sort BTW. I asked you what file format you're advocating if any (we do need something).
TIFF like DNG is owned and controlled by Adobe so while you're way off base about what proprietary means, just what file format are you OK with and suggest? PSD is out of the question, talk about proprietary file formats.
Argument by assertion. Doesn't work, I'm afraid.
Zero assertion, just facts.
And resorting to Wikipedia to prop up an argument is a sign of desperation. It's Gresham's Law applied to information.
Just Wikipedia or any site I supply that disagrees with your idea of what proprietary means? Just trying to figure out if you're interested in a real debate and expression of ideas of you've made up your mind that no matter what outside reference is applied, in your mind, it's just a sign of desperation. If so, like so many of these silly debates, I'll ignore you. AOK with me.
-
The only image format I know of that isn't encumbered is png, and I'm not sure about that one.
-
You're clearly a camera manufacturer. I'm a camera user and customer.
I am camera user and customer who understands why manufacturers do not want to use DNG... and that does not complicate my life, neither the life of majority of photographers (pro & amateurs)... it does complicate life for some people, true... but then the life is not ideal, my life is complicated by Adobe's subscription model, by their so far inefficient switch to GPU support in ACR, but so many other things that DNG is simply a tiny photon in a bright daylight
-
I shoot raw and use Nikon's software.
Since I would prefer to continue using it, it follows logically, using Internet Logic, that dropping support would instantly destroy Nikon as all their users fled to Canon.
-
what proprietary means?
for camera manufacturers it means not being able to modify it as they want w/o necessity to disclose and get approval from a 3rd party and potentially a competitor.... that simple... they do not care about JPG or TIFF because these are purely the end product and they do not foresee a need to have any changes there + there is, unlike with raw files an existing market that simply does not support deviations... while raw, are not only the end product but also still in the middle of their own internal hardware/firmware workflow - so for them this is clearly a different matter, regardless of your opinion... and existing market does actively (with Adobe being in the first place) supports their "proprietary" raws ;D ... and you support them too, with your $$$ by buying those cameras.... try to imagine a JPG shooter buying a camera that makes incompatible OOC JPG that can't be viewed OOC ? but you do buy cameras w/o DNG ... you are not willing to take a stand, to put your $$$ where your mouth is... so does Michael, etc... he does not even refuse to review non DNG cameras... why ?
-
for camera manufacturers it means not being able to modify it as they want w/o necessity to disclose and get approval from a 3rd party and potentially a competitor....
Thanks for speaking out for all camera manufacturers, I'm sure they are all pleased you're here to speak for them. That was one hell of a long rambling sentence too! Hence the need to cut you off above in 'mid sentence'? ;D
Thankfully we have someone like Michael who speaks as and for photographers and provides this venue to do so.
-
Here's the notice at the top of the Adobe document, "Digital Negative (DNG) Specification", version 1.4.0.0, dated June 2012:
"All information contained herein is the property of Adobe Systems Incorporated. No part of this publication (whether in hardcopy or electronic form) may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Adobe Systems Incorporated."
Sounds pretty proprietary to me.
I agree. The document itself. DNG, nope. Or are you confused between the content of a PDF and a DNG?
Here are the relevant definitions of "proprietary" from a couple of reputable sources:
1. Merrian -Webster -- something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker
2, Oxford English Dictionary -- Belonging to a proprietor or proprietors; owned or held as property; held in private ownership.
Well then, you've provided two more sources that prove DNG isn't proprietary.
-
Michael's philosophical argument is fallacious. The camera companies are not keeping your pictures in a locked box in any meaningful way.
They make keys freely available. A lock that everyone has a key to is not in any functional way a lock.
-
They make keys freely available. A lock that everyone has a key to is not in any functional way a lock.
If that were true, the day a new camera model is released, everyone could have access to the raw in the software they prefer (like the JPEG the camera creates) but that's clearly not the case!If the keys are made freely available, why do all the 3rd party raw converter companies have to hack the new format? Seems stating the keys are freely available is the philosophical argument that is fallacious.
-
You are being deliberately disingenuous because you are in Battle Mode. What I mean, obviously, is that you can convert your raw files to whatever you like.
The capability exists and is not particularly arduous.
-
You are being deliberately disingenuous because you are in Battle Mode. What I mean, obviously, is that you can convert your raw files to whatever you like.
No, I can't as I described. Not as I desire. Not with the products I desire. Yet you can with the JPEG.
The raw file is my image data. As Michael so well expressed. How can anyone justify these data limitations from a camera (for a raw file that doesn't apply for the secondary file the JPEG) illustrates the problem and there's no justification for it as it negatively affects the customer and his data.
-
Proprietary means ownership, but it also means ownership with restricted use.
If that's what the proprietor wants but the latter aspect isn't essential to something's being proprietary. DNG is a perfect example of a proprietary product with great freedoms as to its use. See my #76 for more on DNG's proprietary nature.
> It's like fuchsia is a purplish-red color...
I have no idea what you're on about there, I'm afraid.
> "standard" scale being free and widely available
I didn't say anything about cost. My words about the open-standard quadrant were "Its details are readily available". I welcome debate about what I say but please don't make things up.
> ...proprietary commonly means restricted use.
Again, not necessarily (see above). Also, the makers of proprietary medicine customarily try to /increase/ the use of their products.
> ...in fact it is all too often used in marketing an exclusive feature.
You're proposing marketeers as exemplars of precision in terminology? That's a first. 8=)
> that's what John means about your Flat World
How ironic. I'm the person proposing a two-dimensional view of the area as opposed to the common unidimensional one, yet I'm the one accused of living in a flat world.
Roger
-
Blimey! Do you buy your clichés wholesale?
Here's the notice at the top of the Adobe document, "Digital Negative (DNG) Specification", version 1.4.0.0, dated June 2012:
"All information contained herein is the property of Adobe Systems Incorporated. No part of this publication (whether in hardcopy or electronic form) may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Adobe Systems Incorporated."
Sounds pretty proprietary to me.
Here are the relevant definitions of "proprietary" from a couple of reputable sources:
1. Merrian -Webster -- something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker
2, Oxford English Dictionary -- Belonging to a proprietor or proprietors; owned or held as property; held in private ownership.
(And, by publishing the specification, Adobe have of course also made DNG open.)
Roger
Sounds like you buy your understanding of "proprietary" at the pound store, on discount.
-
By the way, if you want to quote from the DNG specification, read past the first page:
"About This Document
The Digital Negative (DNG) Specification describes a non-proprietary file format for storing
camera raw files that can be used by a wide range of hardware and software vendors."
-
I didn't say anything about cost. My words about the open-standard quadrant were "Its details are readily available". I welcome debate about what I say but please don't make things up.
I apologize. My mistake.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
1. The sensor senses some light. There's your image data. You can't get to it.
2. And then proprietary camera software extracts that from the sensor, and runs it through proprietary camera hardware and firmware to produce a file format. At no point here can you get to your image data.
3. The file format is written to some sort of media, typically. In, typically, a proprietary format.
4. Then you pull that off the media convert that into whatever you like on an external computer, which you are free to do. Now, and only now, can you get at your image data.
The "cameras should support DNG" essentially moves that last step back by one step, from 4 to 3.
This is some sort of important philosophical distinction? Moving the point at which it leaves the cold hard hands of the camera maker back by one step? If it's truly about having access to your precious bits, surely you should be demanding access to the sensor? To the in-camera pipeline? Why is it suddenly a gigantic issue at step 4, but not at step 2?
This is a convenience feature, dressing it up as a philosophical issue is a red herring. A red herring manifestly designed to distract from the issue of 'well, there are legitimate concerns on the camera maker's side, in addition to the legitimate concerns on the camera user's side'.
If there are legitimate concerns on both sides, and it's a relatively minor feature, then there's room for an actual discussion, and ideas like ROI matter. By making it "philosophical" you take that off the table. With is excellent rhetorical technique, until you're busted. Then it kind of falls apart.
-
I really wonder if this issue is worth such a heated argument and iron clad opposite positions.
If you want dng just convert your raws to it and you have the file in your desired format, just one minor extra step in your workflow, hardly significant vs. all the other work you're doing to your files. Would it be better if all major brands gave it as an option in their camera, yes of course but I don't think it's anywhere near essential.
In case the painted doomsday scenario plays out (which I do not believe, but my Crystal Ball is worse than Michael's) just keep an old laptop around which can still open or convert the raw file which is no longer supported in the newest converter/OS, or convert to dng before you do your system upgrade.
-
Many issues are essentially philosophical. That doesn't invalidate them, even when at their core the topic is technical.
It comes down to the fact that some companies and people support open standards, while others don't.
Philosophy and practicality intersect.
Michael
-
Certainly you can consider this a philosophical issue. By making it one, however, you open the argument up to the methods of philosophical argument.
In this case that produces the question, 'why are you not asking for direct sensor access?'
-
In general, it is not a good idea to have changes to your business subject to the consent of a third party (although this is sometimes unavoidable).
If a camera maker develops an improvement which makes its products better, but which requires changes to dng to implement, can it amend dng for its use without the permission of Adobe?
-
If a camera maker develops an improvement which makes its products better, but which requires changes to dng to implement, can it amend dng for its use without the permission of Adobe?
I believe that is so but could stand corrected. ;)
There are private tags available in the format. But then it's not a big deal as I attempted to point out with the AlterEgo weak example using Panasonic's special proprietary features. The camera should provide a DNG as an option. I don't know that anyone is suggesting that be the sole format for raw. So in the case of say Panasonic, IF a feature is provided that can only be used in a proprietary raw (which I still doubt), nothing stops the user from asking picking that format instead of DNG.
The DNG proponents just want an option, nothing more. The other side wishes to deny us that option for reasons that make no sense, acting on the side of the camera manufacturers and not on the side of photographers.
-
An open standard is useless without a central authority approving, managing, and publishing extensions and changes.
If Nikon does an extension only usable by Nikon software, that completely fails to solve the customer issue and they might as well not support DNG at all.
This is yet another expense for Nikon - managing the Adobe relationship, working with the standard committee to get desirable changes made. Dealing with the fallout when Adobe declines, thus negating the benefit of whatever underlying technological change Nikon wants the change for.
Complying with standards has costs, and not all of then are directly monetary. Been there. Done that.
But I guess since it's a moral and philosophical question, all this is moot. The concerns of camera makers are irrelevant. I cannot help but wonder why the camera makers are not closely monitoring Lula for ideas.
-
The DNG spec includes a whole section dealing with proprietary data. If Nikon does an extension only usable by Nikon software, there's no customer issue because Nikon can simply write it to the DNG file without asking anyone's permission.
-
The concerns of camera makers are irrelevant.
No, but they don't necessarily nor should they supersede the concerns of the camera makers customers.
And if customers who don't care about DNG support but do care for their follow photographers needs would simply support those fellow photographers (or remain silent), the likelihood of an open raw format would have a far, far better chance of succeeding. So you're either part of the solution of a part of the problem.
-
Let us imagine a new sensor feature that allows more precise color rendition from the sensor. It turns up as a block of metadata.
I'm sure the maker could write it to the DNG right now. And their software could make something of it. And everyone else's could read the DNG but get no benefit from the new sensor technology.
Now what?
The customer problem is not addressed until the new metadata is part of DNG and is supported. At least not fully. The feature I bought the camera for, maybe, is not usable without the proprietary software.
Therefore, incidentally, the camera maker has to release information about the new technology on Adobe's schedule and well before the camera comes out.
Suppose the new color rendition is an important new feature that will drive sales in an interesting way. Think through the marketing consequences here.
-
Now what?
The customer problem is not addressed until the new metadata is part of DNG and is supported. At least not fully. The feature I bought the camera for, maybe, is not usable without the proprietary software
More like so what? That's only a problem for Nikon persuading people to use wonderful Nikon software to take advantage of that feature.
They can store their extra data in the DNG without asking anyone's permission or waiting for any extra support. Other programs ignore this proprietary data, as they do now (eg in camera sharpening or noise settings), but the new camera is supported by 3rd party programs from day one.
-
More like so what?
Exactly!
That's only a problem for Nikon persuading people to use wonderful Nikon software to take advantage of that feature.
Or as already addressed, Panasonic.
You'd think having a dual raw format (DNG/non proprietary and proprietary) but with only one that contains more useful proprietary features would put the nail in the coffin for those who insist on DNG but since the camera makers don't give us that option, it's moot.
They can store their extra data in the DNG without asking anyone's permission or waiting for any extra support.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected.
Other programs ignore this proprietary data, as they do now (eg in camera sharpening or noise settings), but the new camera is supported by 3rd party programs from day one.
Right, so again, IF this proprietary feature is so great and DNG can't support it, seems a powerful argument for their way of working. What are they afraid of?
-
Certainly you can consider this a philosophical issue. By making it one, however, you open the argument up to the methods of philosophical argument.
In this case that produces the question, 'why are you not asking for direct sensor access?'
You have now created a straw man argument which I won't bother pursuing.
Michael
-
That makes three airy dismissals in a row!
Do I get a prize?
(Sorry, typo)
-
I don't know what an "airy dismissal" is but yes, my guess is that you have been.
Michael
-
You have now created a straw man argument which I won't bother pursuing.
I deny this.
Your image data is available to you in any format you like, as soon as you run it through the camera maker's supplied software.
Therefore if there is a philosophical argument or moral point here, it has to be not about the eventual liberation of your image data, but the time at which it is liberated. It is not liberated sufficiently soon for moral rectitude. There is simply no other interpretation of your argument that I can see.
If this is the case, that freedom should occur earlier, then you are apparently privileging one moment in the process over others. Why is DNG a moral imperative, but direct sensor access is not? Isn't this about freeing your image data earlier rather than later?
The reasonable conclusion is that you're NOT agitating for direct sensor access because that would be of no particular use to you. You ask for DNG because it would be convenient.
The moral or philosophical argument leads directly to direct sensor access.
The convenience argument leads to DNG.
You are of course free to ignore this, or to wave me off again. Or you could take a crack at why the one point in the process is morally privileged over the other.
If my brother is wrongly convicted, my response is not "well, you must free him next Tuesday, rather than next Wednesday, it is a moral imperative" my response is "you must free him immediately". Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that your brother must be released next Tuesday, because that's when you have time to swing by and fetch him.
-
Your image data is available to you in any format you like, as soon as you run it through the camera maker's supplied software.
I don't want to use the camera makers supplied software, should I be FORCED to do so?
That isn't the case if I set the camera for a JPEG, I can use any software that can read a JPEG to do so. But for raw? I'm forced as you suggest to use the camera maker's supplied software and that's OK to you? Not me.
You are of course free to ignore this, or to wave me off again.
Very tempting!
-
Once again you are presenting a straw man argument and asking me to defend it.
Sorry, but I don't play those games.
I have taken a position. I have stated it clearly, and I have rebutted several misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
The rest is just debating, and I don't choose to engage.
The weekend is almost upon us and I have no inclination to continue this when the beautiful summer outdoors awaits.
Michael
-
As I said, you're free to ignore it, I'm not even sure why you're bothering to be involved at all.
"straw man! but I refuse to get involved" is the rhetorical equivalent of punching your buddy in the arm and quickly yelling "no backs!"
-
digitaldog, you are conflating two quite different and almost unrelated threads of argument.
-
The weekend is almost upon us and I have no inclination to continue this when the beautiful summer outdoors awaits.
Make images and enjoy the beautiful summer outdoors instead of arguing for a feature request that aids some consumers, harms no one? You are a radical thinker Michael. I think I'll join you!
-
The rest is just debating, and I don't choose to engage.
Actually, I wouldn't call what's transpired "debating" I would call it FUD.
Look, DNG was an accident perpetrated by Thomas Knoll. Adobe had no specific desire to produce DNG, DNG was a total development by Thomas to teach the industry how to write raw files. Prior to the release on DNG SDK 1, the camera companies were flailing about and causing some serious problems. Consider the original 1Ds file. It was a .tif file. Which when double-clicked would launch into Photoshop (at the time). The file would open with a tiny EXIF file opening. If the user clicked Save, the original raw file would be over-written by the tiny file-effectively trashing the original raw file.
Does this sound like the camera companies have half a clue?
Beside Dave Coffin (author of D-craw) there are very few people on this planet that knows more about raw file formats besides Thomas Knoll. TK wrote DNG initially to teach the camera companies how to write out a raw file and store the required sensor data. From DNG has come CR2 and reformulated NEF files.
Ironically, both file formats adhere to TIFF-EP (Tiff for electronic photography). Thomas thinks that a simple firmware upgrade could allow current Canon and Nikon camera to save out DNG files. They refuse to so so. Why? I agree with Michael...hubris and arrogance.
Look, the only "secret" in a proprietary raw file is, there's no secrets. Between the various engineers dealing with raw file formats, everything can be decoded...there are no secrets.
I happen to know that certain people can create a synthetic raw file format fille and process the file to be a valid CR2 or NEF that can be opened in the camera company's software. In effect a round trip from raw to DNG and back to raw.
All the bullshyte about DNG being owned by Adobe, that none of the camera companies want to be beholding to Adobe and that DNG contains proprietary data is an attempt to sidetrack the real question of why DNG isn't already a standard or why none of the camera companies have failed to offer any alternatives. Why?
The camera companies think they have some sort of leverage so they refuse to adhere to any standards. Why? cause they can, photographers seem willing to let them off the hook.
DNG costs too much money? Bullshyte...it's the smaller camera venders that can afford it like Leica. Nikon and Canon could afford it out of the less than the cost of tea drunk by the CEO's of either company–which means it's a meaningless cost. Any argument that cost is a barrier is specious at best...none of these companies could care less about the cost of writing out DNG files. Easie Peasie...seriously any argument against is FUD.
So, is it too hard? Bullshyte...does DNG not pass the technical stink test? Thomas has already rewritten DNG to address early DNG SDK limitations. All ya gotta do is talk to Thomas and all will be fixed.
Proprietary raw file formats help zero photographers except those people who seem to hate Adobe. An open and publicly documented raw file format would help the photographic industry. So, why hasn't this happened?
Ask yourself this question...who in this thread is advocating photographer's rights and who is advocating camera company right's? Then, ask yourself why...
I stand with Michael (and Andrew) and any others that are fighting against proprietary raw file formats. Anybody on the side of proprietary raw file formats are the enemy of the photographic industry. Simple as that...
-
Jeff, Michael, et. al., where have you stated what you want in precise detail? Saying "we want the computer manufacturers to implement DNG" is not enough. It's interesting that CR2 & new generation NEF take their cues from DNG, but in most other respects the push to DNG has been a large failure. You're convinced of the justness of your cause, but it seems to me the cause is going nowhere.
My guess is that none of you are great admirers of Richard Stallman and his four software freedoms, but he gets stuff done. Indeed I think he is the first prophet of the computer software age. I can think of no other computer person who has had such a massive influence on the software industry and broader society at large. If humanity is still around, hundreds of years from now he'll be a major figure in human history.
Stallman didn't win by saying "please implement xyz" and complaining when it wasn't. He laid out a precise, compelling vision, and started building the tools to implement it. Others joined him and the rest is history. I don't see that happening with the push for DNG, despite the fact that Thomas Knoll has already built it. For instance I don't see a central resource on the LL where uninformed readers can come to learn about what's at stake and educate themselves -- something that lays out both a vision and a technical way to get it done. That's something pretty basic, and it doesn't exist yet.
-
So, is it too hard? Bullshyte...does DNG not pass the technical stink test? Thomas has already rewritten DNG to address early DNG SDK limitations. All ya gotta do is talk to Thomas and all will be fixed.
I wasn't going to get involved with this thread. But let me give one example of where the DNG spec is sheer BS:
BayerGreenSplit - "This tag specifies, in arbitrary units, how closely the values of the green pixels in the blue/green rows track the values of the green pixels in the red/green rows."
"In arbitrary units" has no place in any well written spec. What value is a camera manufacturer supposed to write to that field without knowing the internal operation of Adobe's products? Suggest you take that to Thomas and ask him to fix it.
Sandy
-
"In arbitrary units" has no place in any well written spec. What value is a camera manufacturer supposed to write to that field without knowing the internal operation of Adobe's products? Suggest you take that to Thomas and ask him to fix it.
Well, I suspect you know how to talk engineering to Thomas so I suggest you do so. His email address isn't hard to find.
-
Swearing at everyone and yelling 'you're wrong'.... Wait, is this the internet?
-
Well, I suspect you know how to talk engineering to Thomas so I suggest you do so. His email address isn't hard to find.
I pointed this out to Eric years ago. Not that he wasn't fully aware of it. And he was helpful enough to explain how the various Adobe products actually use the field. But it's still no way to write a spec. Adobe can (and in fact did) change how the field is used without making the new usage public.
The point is, with all due respect to all on this thread, there are valid technical and financial reasons why DNG might not make sense a camera manufacturer. There's no conspiracy - if you're a small manufacturer starting from zero, with simple requirements, DNG probably will make sense. E.g., Leica. For a large manufacturer (a) with a huge installed base of cameras, and millions of images in an existing format out there in the hands of users, and (b) competing on the basis of more and more features, many of which require additional fields in the raw format, it probably won't make sense. Which is exactly how things have played out.
And BTW, for those that suggest that DNG can accommodate proprietary extensions, sure it can. But DNG with proprietary extensions is just another proprietary format. Almost every raw format out there today is already a standard (TIFF/EXIF) plus proprietary extensions. There's no reason to replace one proprietary format with another.
Sandy
-
I find it telling that when I point out the obvious fact that supporting DNG would cost money, this is rebutted with
'You don't work for Nikon, you cannot know that it would cost money! And by the way, even though I also don't work for Nikon, I can assure you that Nikon only refuses to support DNG out of corporate hubris'
I am stitching together a few different responses here, unfairly, but that's pretty much the level of debate here.
-
The camera companies think they have some sort of leverage so they refuse to adhere to any standards. Why? cause they can, photographers seem willing to let them off the hook.
Proprietary raw file formats help zero photographers except those people who seem to hate Adobe. An open and publicly documented raw file format would help the photographic industry. So, why hasn't this happened?
Ask yourself this question...who in this thread is advocating photographer's rights and who is advocating camera company right's? Then, ask yourself why...
Well stated! It's amazing the amount of effort so called photographers make in defending this practice you pointed out above.
As to those stating it will cost money, yes, it will. Very little in the grand scheme of the entire new camera system. Every time a Nikon or Canon engineer has to take a leak and then wash his hands, it cost the company money. So what? We're not asking for some 3D OLED wide gamut removable LCD for the camera! We're asking for a raw file that behaves like the last camera system such any raw converter can understand it and provide us our image data! Why is it that every new camera system has a new raw file that has to be updated? And yet we hear "these raw files are all very similar with tiny differences from model to model from one manufacturer". If true, can you blame some for wondering about conspiracies? Either output the same damn file format (like we see with the JPEG) or provide a switch for DNG (the hard and expensive work is done, by Adobe). Add another $15 to the price of the camera, no one will know why or care, the silly debate (FUD) will cease and we photographers will have full access to our image data!
To argue otherwise is a disservice to the photography industry but it's great for the camera making industry.
-
I am confident that literally nobody has argued that camera makers should not support DNG. THAT is an actual straw man.
The point that I and everyone else has made over and over is that it's not the obvious no brainer several people here seem to think it is. It is not cheap. It is not a moral imperative. It will not bring the dark and light sides of the force together. It is not trivial.
I see wild unsupported claims about how easy and beneficial it would be be, and more sensible people saying 'uh.. It might not be quite as uncomplicated as that'
-
I am confident that literally nobody has argued that camera makers should not support DNG. THAT is an actual straw man.
The point that I and everyone else has made over and over is that it's not the obvious no brainer several people here seem to think it is. It is not cheap. It is not a moral imperative. It will not bring the dark and light sides of the force together. It is not trivial.
I see wild unsupported claims about how easy and beneficial it would be be, and more sensible people saying 'uh.. It might not be quite as uncomplicated as that'
As you know, it is always easy for the person with the idea....not so much for the person who must implement it :-)
-
Fifteen years ago or so I worked at a place where we had a running joke.
When some incoherent and internally complicated feature request came in that would mainly please some sales guy we would cry KOONT-YA-JUST! (couldn't you just...) And laugh merrily.
-
The point that I and everyone else has made over and over is that it's not the obvious no brainer several people here seem to think it is.
Pretty close as evidence of companies that have done just what we've requested!
It is not cheap.
More speculation.
It is not a moral imperative.
For you no, for some of us yes.
It will not bring the dark and light sides of the force together.
True but no one but you said it would. Talk about straw men!
It is not trivial.
Actually it is, as illustrated again by much smaller companies than Nikon and Canon.
I see wild unsupported claims about how easy and beneficial it would be be, and more sensible people saying 'uh.. It might not be quite as uncomplicated as that'
As someone that has provided a share of wild unsupported claims, you fall into that camp well.
-
So the fact that Leica does a thing is proof that the thing is trivial?
That is fascinating. I'm going to start banging out some lens designs right now!
-
Very interesting topic.
Some are happy and some not ...
Understandable as usual.
I am by far not expert to judge if " DNG or not DNG ... ", (I have made some tests again based on this long topic and found out some things and I will adapt my working to what I like), but it looks like there are enough people who really would like DNG directly out of the camera ...
So my question is
Have all those who want DNG directly out of the camera formed somehow an association or whatever Lobby and contacted the camera builders who are reluctant to implement it and presented your wish ?
I see here a lot of Lonesome fighters arguing what they would like but nobody mentioned that a huge amount of Photographers have united or lobbied and brought up their wishes to the camera builders ...
Perhaps what I just wrote has already happened, and if yes well just ignore my post ...
-
So the fact that Leica does a thing is proof that the thing is trivial?
Kind of yes! It's doable, it's not hugely expensive for a small(er) company to implement. Far, far from impossible or difficult and considering most of the work was done by Adobe in the first place.
With your mindset, it's huge and expensive engineering to have the camera save to a TIFF instead of a JPEG. My engineer could do it in hours or less.
-
That's a great idea, Rainier. Lula and Michael are well positioned to build an independent market research organization representing photographers and providing information to the industry.
Drink less sake, gather more data.
-
When I say 'it would be expensive' that is mere useless speculation.
But when you say 'it would be cheap' that is gospel truth. Got it.
I'd discuss further but I'm wrapping up my lens designs.
-
But when you say 'it would be cheap' that is gospel truth. Got it.
Who said 'it would be cheap'? What's that supposed to mean?
Going back to Leica, they were able to do this, it's called proof of concept!
-
You said it would be cheap.
'Not hugely expensive'
'My engineer could do it in hours'
Etc etc.
-
You said it would be cheap.
I did, where?
'Not hugely expensive'
'My engineer could do it in hours'
Yes, that I said and it's true. Did I say it would be cheap? Because I don't know what you believe cheap means.
You're pretty good at putting words in people's mouths too...
-
You're just weaseling out by arguing about what "cheap" means.
You dismiss my educated guesses as idle speculation, while your opposing remarks are gospel truth.
Bottom line, if what I say is stupid speculation, then what you say is no better. Probably worse, unless you happen to have 25 or more years in building technology products. Game. Set. Match.
-
You're just weaseling out by arguing about what "cheap" means.
Look, you're getting desperate and wasting my time and probably others. I don't believe I ever used the word cheap as you attribute to me and IF I did, point out the post. You're just putting words into people's mouth which is a sign of desperation. I'll stick with the exact words I WROTE about my engineer!
You dismiss my educated guesses as idle speculation, while your opposing remarks are gospel truth.
Yes, I'm dismissing your speculations as have others.
-
Look, you're getting desperate and wasting my time and probably others. I don't believe I ever used the word cheap as you attribute to me and IF I did, point out the post. You're just putting words into people's mouth which is a sign of desperation. I'll stick with the exact words I WROTE about my engineer! Yes, I'm dismissing your speculations as have others.
All due respect, Andrew ((Rodney).....
"Cheap" vs "not hugely expensive".....how does one quantify the difference????
-
"Cheap" vs "not hugely expensive".....how does one quantify the difference????
Indeed, how!
But the real point is, I never wrote cheap, I don't like being misquoted. It shows how far amolitor has gone to move this topic into getting locked down. As I predicted two days ago. What a waste of time...
I should have read his signature before engaging with him. Anyone with the Hubris to post a quote about his $2 book being "The most important book on photography written in the last 123 years" should consider being Donald Trump's running partner. ;D
-
That's two jokes in a row you've failed to get, digitaldog. I'm beginning to understand some things better.
-
Ironically, both file formats adhere to TIFF-EP (Tiff for electronic photography). Thomas thinks that a simple firmware upgrade could allow current Canon and Nikon camera to save out DNG files. . . .
I happen to know that certain people can create a synthetic raw file format fille and process the file to be a valid CR2 or NEF that can be opened in the camera company's software. In effect a round trip from raw to DNG and back to raw.
As far as I'm concerned, these are the two most interesting pieces of actual information in an otherwise overly noisy thread.
I read the current DNG spec yesterday — I wanted to understand what the shouting here was all about — and was surprised to find it is pretty accessible. (I have an IT background and am accustomed to reading technical specification documents; your mileage may vary.) I got the impression it did indeed include all the features necessary to make a round-trip with just about any raw format so, although I confess it never occurred to me, it strikes me as plausible that Thomas Knoll thinks Canon or Nikon could emit DNGs just by modifying their firmware.
Anybody here got any contacts in either company they could use to make the case for trying to do this? Would Knoll be available to consult if either of them wanted to try? Get one of the two big players to do it and the other would no doubt feel compelled to do so.
-
Would Knoll be available to consult if either of them wanted to try? Get one of the two big players to do it and the other would no doubt feel compelled to do so.
Well, Thomas and the Camera Raw team were just in Japan last month. I wonder what they did :~)
-
Well, Thomas and the Camera Raw team were just in Japan last month. I wonder what they did :~)
People ;D
Looks like you will be getting what you want, so why do not smoke the Peace Pipe and get back to the roots what we all enjoy
Photography
-
Well, Thomas and the Camera Raw team were just in Japan last month. I wonder what they did :~)
I hope they also spent some time with Fuji. :)
-
I hope they also spent some time with Fuji. :)
I agree, Ron. While LR6 has improved X-T1 and X-Pro1 raw process capabilities (over LR5), it's far from perfect. I'm especially thinking of b&w conversions and haloing. Canon 5D Mk III files are much better in that respect.
-
Anybody here got any contacts in either company they could use to make the case for trying to do this?
:D
-
There's no conspiracy - if you're a small manufacturer starting from zero, with simple requirements, DNG probably will make sense. E.g., Leica.
Leica is not small though, neither is Ricoh... they have miniscule marketshare, but not small companies... and we have Samsung, a giant, who had, when it was in alliance with Pentax (in pre Ricoh days) DNG only dSLR cameras and got rid of DNG as soon as the the alliance was over, so they restarted in dSLM market w/o DNG... which clearly says that they had reasons not to use DNG even when they had experience with it already
And BTW, for those that suggest that DNG can accommodate proprietary extensions, sure it can. But DNG with proprietary extensions is just another proprietary format. Almost every raw format out there today is already a standard (TIFF/EXIF) plus proprietary extensions. There's no reason to replace one proprietary format with another.
right, otherwise when they want to disclose everything they can just publicly document all tags in their format(s), again w/o bothering with DNG... so the root of the problem is not the format, but willingness to disclose.
-
Well, I suspect you know how to talk engineering to Thomas so I suggest you do so. His email address isn't hard to find.
Schewe, Knoll is not a saint... not yet at least.
-
I stand with Michael (and Andrew) and any others that are fighting against proprietary raw file formats.
by buying cameras mostly w/o DNG... at least you do not review them, give you a credit for that
-
Nikon and Canon could afford it
certainly they can afford it in terms of PMs, developers, QAs, technical writers, man-hours for design/code/test/build/release/support/etc (you still think that in a big company that is just one tea party ?) - but there is no reason to waste the money...
-
I'd like to emphasize and repeat that Rainier has an excellent idea.
I see guys like Michael, Ming, Thom, and probably a bunch more doing a lot of complaining, but not much helping.
They all claim to know how businesses work, and then say 'no matter how many personal conversations I have with these companies, they never build the feature!' Which is a bit of a puzzle. Do they really think personal conversations with bloggers is how large companies develop strategy? Do any of them, in actuality, know anything about business?
These people are all well positioned to actually do market research and to bring actionable data to the major players. They choose instead to write complaining columns and collect clicks. Good luck with that as a long term strategy, by the way. The world is starting to shift.
-
Schewe, Knoll is not a saint... not yet at least.
What a utterly silly and unnecessary sentence to post! No one suggested anything of the sort.
I think John's got the answer here, I wonder if he minds if others inert this into their signatures, it would save us some time and is quite brilliant:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Ignore.jpg)
-
They all claim to know how businesses work, and then say 'no matter how many personal conversations I have with these companies, they never build the feature!' Which is a bit of a puzzle.
If you have editorial input to a reasonably influential site, than what you are going to hear is exactly what the company reps across the table think you want to hear, just short of an actual commitment to do anything real. That's how companies get favorable coverage. I've been the company rep across that table ;)
Sandy
-
Bingo.
These people are called 'influencers' and if they choose to think the influence is on the company rather than the customers, well, no need to clarify that.
Kampai!
-
What many people forget in having conversations with the Japanese (engineers or otherwise) is that 'hai' is usually more accurately interpreted as "yes, I hear you" rather than "yes, I agree with you"
-
Hi,
The America version is: No problem, we can fix it! The result is usually some mess.
Best regards
Erik
What many people forget in having conversations with the Japanese (engineers or otherwise) is that 'hai' is usually more accurately interpreted as "yes, I hear you" rather than "yes, I agree with you"
-
I think John's got the answer here, I wonder if he minds if others inert this into their signatures, it would save us some time and is quite brilliant:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Ignore.jpg)
It's only to help others follow any threads where I appear to fail to answer him back, Andrew, and it's neither copyright nor proprietary ;)
John
-
It's only to help others follow any threads where I appear to fail to answer him back, Andrew, and it's neither copyright nor proprietary ;)
Understood, I think it's a excellent idea! I concur with both of the people you mention.
-
This particularly unsavory idea has been reported for moderation.
-
This particularly unsavory idea has been reported for moderation.
As I say, it's only to help others follow any threads where I appear to fail to answer him back. I think it's far more unsavoury that when a forum member is given a 30 day ban (IIRC for being an apologist for war crimes), they immediately register with a new alter ego....
-
I think it's far more unsavoury that when a forum member is given a 30 day ban (IIRC for being an apologist for war crimes), they immediately register with a new alter ego....
One of the issues with many of the various forum sites that allow zero transparency by allowing an alias people who troll can hide behind.
Last week, deeejjaaa over on DP Review posted NDA material from X-rite. How's that company going to figure out without the site's aid who they should expunge from their outside betas?
-
Hi,
The America version is: No problem, we can fix it! The result is usually some mess.
Best regards
Erik
I think that is worldwide. 😅.
It is usually made by sales/marketing guys....not the people who need to find root cause and implement the fix. (It is also made by many people to win agruments such as the ease of implementing DNG) 😀
-
Hi,
The America version is: No problem, we can fix it! The result is usually some mess.
Best regards
Erik
The Mexican version is : " Mañana " (Tomorrow)
which means " not today " or said in a more understandable way " Never "
;D
-
The rest of us seem to muddle along OK without sticking our personal beefs into our .sigs.
Anyways, well outside my pay grade. I don't care what you guys do with your signatures, just letting you know that the moderation team has been given a heads up, as a courtesy.
-
The rest of us seem to muddle along OK without sticking our personal beefs into our .sigs.
John made it clear why we now both have the SIG's the way we do. There's always room for more names :o
I don't care what you guys do with your signatures, just letting you know that the moderation team has been given a heads up, as a courtesy.
Neither they nor I care.
-
OK folks. Time to move in.
MichaeL