OK, one last reply on this fascinating topic.
Sure there are legit reasons for encrypting data but the encrypted data in the NEF is nothing but a WB tag so the comparison to Phase One holds no water.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really? It appears that the "encrypted" AWB value in the .nef file can be "decrypted" thanks to the serial number of the body... which does obviously point to a given sensor batch.
The reason mentioned by Phase for not adopting DNG was that their RAW file contains references to the actual characterisitcs of the sensor used in the back as measured at the end of the assembly line. Something similar to a serial number.
In other words, both formats are based on the usage of non explicit values to determine the actual colors... I see at least some ground for comparison, even if I confess that I don't know the whole story.
Emphasis added. Nikon themselves stated that was the case in their press release which I linked to previously:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'll notice the usage of quotes arount the word "encryption". They are basically saying that only them can garantee the quality of the conversions of the .nef, through the usage of their SDK.
Most Westerns would say to this "go to hell, I am responsible enough to do my own conversions myself", but it isn't very surprising for someone used to doing business with Japanese companies that they see the scope of their responsibilities as going rather far. To my eyes, Nikon just didn't want to take the risk of having bad press because of files converted in a non Nikon certified way.
They probably went too far in doing so, but my interpretation differs from yours as far as their motives is concerned.
Emphasis added. At the time, if you wanted to access the raw data and the auto WB tag (sans converters that hacked it) you had to use Nikon's software. That is factual evidence of restricting the use of the file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How is "hacking" difference from "reverse engineering" which is done for all RAW files? The difference is only in the object you are working on, which takes us back to the question whether it was encryption or not...
Nobody sued the hackers, which can only mean that they were not hacking anything since there was nothing to be hacked.
One only has to look at other examples of open standards to see that that is not an issue. In fact, the very technologies that allow us to post to these boards is one such example of how open standards has not negatively effected innovation. In fact, it has had an enormous positive benefit to innovation. Another example is open source software. IBM, Linksys, Sysco, Sun, Dell and Apple are just some examples of companies that have thrived from openness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I happen to have a bit of knowledge on this topic... :-) Open standards, which is different from open source, has indeed contributed to helping some companies do business... BUT...
- the open standards were always defined by groups of companies that AGREED on the standards, which is obviously not the case with DNG,
- most of these open standards were geared at enabling the communication between systems and the companies that benefited from them were in the business of making these devices that had to communicate. The middelware was not where the battle was taking place then,
- in most fields, the developement of such standards took years of iterations, and the intermediate steps were not always succesful (ever heard of CORBA?),
- there are many examples, and databases are a good one, where the players have always resisted with success the usage of standardized objects because it DID slow their innovation and ability to add functions and capabilities, and to differentiate themselves from their competitors. The base is a standard, but the proprietary extensions are where each vendors adds real value, and this prevents actual interoperability.
My point with DNG not being a clearcut option right now is that there is no point in having a standard format if each camera manufacturer has to add proprietary extensions to be able to do what they want to do for our good...
Regards,
Bernard