Raw CR2 vs. Raw DNG

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That's ridiculous, sorry. It doesn't do any good for Adobe, it does bad by the Phase One customer to provide a half-ass implantation. They should just fix their mess or remove all support for DNG! There's no middle ground that makes any sense.

Hi Andrew, don't quit your day job if you are thinking of going into marketing. I respect your experience in Colormanagement, but this is something else. Any removal of boundaries for people who want to use, or even convert to DNG files (for whatever reason), will make it easier to enter and get sucked into the DNG centric Adobe vortex. How hard can it be to recognize that simple fact. It mostly benefits Adobe, they need not concern themselves with any compliance other than to their own format.

It also forces other parties to spend resources on compliance with someone else's file format that may still not facilitate all required data (other than a miscellaneous Maker-notes kind of repository), and because it needs to cater to all possible Raw data specifics it's  is more bloated than a specific Raw file needs to be. Of course Adobe created something called fast loading for their own programs, to circumvent the slowdowns (and create some distance with competitive products). More things to comply with for others to stay competitive and not give Adobe an unwanted benefit.

And then to recognize that DNG is just a TIFF in disguise ..., just like other Raw formats are basically TIFFs (for which companies can make their own decisions on what legacy data to strip and new competitive data to add without having to consult with anyone else, or to comply with changes in the file format they didn't initiate themselves).

Cheers,
Bart

[AlterEgo]

That's ridiculous, sorry. It doesn't do any good for Adobe

if does not do any good for Adobe, why Adobe bothered to introduce it ?

[digitaldog]

Hi Andrew, don't quit your day job if you are thinking of going into marketing.

Considering my distaste for most of the marketing for digital and photo products I see, I certainly will not.

Any removal of boundaries for people who want to use, or even convert to DNG files (for whatever reason), will make it easier to enter and get sucked into the DNG centric Adobe vortex. How hard can it be to recognize that simple fact. It mostly benefits Adobe, they need not concern themselves with any compliance other than to their own format.

So this applies to TIFF as well?
What vortex and what sucking? People who don't educate themselves and make poor workflow choices have only themselves to blame. As for a simple fact, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. You as yet haven't presented any facts but plenty of opinion. There's a difference my friend.

And then to recognize that DNG is just a TIFF in disguise ..., just like other Raw formats are basically TIFFs (for which companies can make their own decisions on what legacy data to strip and new competitive data to add without having to consult with anyone else, or to comply with changes in the file format they didn't initiate themselves).

Yes, it's based on TIFF so what you're proposing is we stop using both DNG and TIFF, stick with say PSD? Both are owned and controlled by Adobe. Both are openly documented formats and the pitfalls of either, in terms of improper support by any company, is or isn't the same?

[AlterEgo]

Yes, it's based on TIFF so what you're proposing is we stop using both DNG and TIFF, stick with say PSD? Both are owned and controlled by Adobe. Both are openly documented formats and the pitfalls of either, in terms of improper support by any company, is or isn't the same?

C1 uses both TIFF and DNG for output, but carefully limits how & when both can be used as a source... it is for profit company, so I think they have some business reasons for that - but feel free to teach them how to do the business...

[digitaldog]

C1 uses both TIFF and DNG for output, but carefully limits how & when both can be used as a source... it is for profit company, so I think they have some business reasons for that - but feel free to teach them how to do the business...

You think or you know? Carefully limits? 
I'm not going to make the same mistake as you produce assumptions. I'm not interested in teaching them how to do business based on assumptions. Better to inform the potential customer base of their sloppiness in partially supporting a format and let that base decide if they should shower the company in money or not.

[jjj]

Sorry but this sounds a lot like C1 bashing without much basis for it.

Nothing else than FUD spreading. How is this any different from all the other Raw converters, and what evidence do you have that they would drop support, other than for old Operating Systems (for which you can then keep using the older version)?

Which is why I asked for clarification as it seemed unlikely. Issue was confirmed a second time before poster realised he'd confused two things.

Maybe it's because you got caught in the Adobe DNG propaganda, and C1 indeed doesn't waste much of their resources on whatever Adobe sees fit to change in the file format that requires recoding part of all other converters? C1's mission is not to help Adobe sell more products, but to sell more Phase One products.

Talk about FUD. I am simply not interested in C1 as they do not bother to support all cameras, some for political reasons. Why would anyone invest time and effort into software that may not support future camera purchases?
Adobe's open and free DNG format was simply to get away from the pointless constant 'new' raw formats that software needs updating for unnecessarily. The new part may simply be nothing more the new model name in the raw file. The whole point of DNG is you do not have to wait for your favourite processing tool to be updated to work on raw files from your shiny new camera, except C1. It even means you can use old Adobe products with new cameras by using the free DNG convertor, so DNG will in fact not help sell any more Adobe products.

Would it be nice to have better DNG support? Sure it wouldn't hurt the users of such, but there are many more non-DNG camera Raws out there than there are native DNG only ones. Even Pentax offers a choice of Raw formats in (some? of) their cameras, if I'm not mistaken (PEF or DNG). Then there are Foveon sensors, which require a totally different kind of Raw conversion, and support for that is not widespread either, due to small market share which makes the cost / benefit ratio unattractive for software developers.

You seem to be missing the point, DNG doesn't require support like other file formats do, unless software decides not to support specific [mainly rival] cameras, such as Pentax 645D.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I am simply not interested in C1 as they do not bother to support all cameras, some for political reasons.

That's your choice, and your loss. C1 supports very many Raw formats. It's not that they don't 'bother' (why are you so negative?) to support all cameras, but they choose to not support certain cameras, mostly technological outliers with low marketshare (e.g. Foveon) and competitor's MF cameras, indeed for commercial (low or negative return on R&D expense/investment) and 'political' reasons.

Why would anyone invest time and effort into software that may not support future camera purchases?

LOL, talk about spreading FUD. Which non-MF cameras do you own that are not supported, and didn't they come with their own Raw conversion software? And why do you expect Adobe to support every camera that the future may produce and that you need to have? I'll grant you that they will perhaps try, but you do not have their written guarantee either. Just because you prefer to use Lightroom or ACR doesn't mean that everybody else in the universe should then make it possible for you to keep using their competitors product.

Adobe's open and free DNG format was simply to get away from the pointless constant 'new' raw formats that software needs updating for unnecessarily. The new part may simply be nothing more the new model name in the raw file.

I sincerely hope you are kidding, and not serious. If you are serious then that explains part of the misguided comments. DNG is nothing more than a container, a TIFF variety, but all Raw converter software (including a generic glutton like DCRaw) still needs to be tuned to decode the raw data properly, for every new Raw format. It's not a simple read the RGB data from the designated fields and demosaic it, it's much more involved than that (if you want good quality). Otherwise there would not have been issues with the Fuji Xtrans Raw data or the Foveon Raw data, or the Olympus E-M5 II Multishot (Pixel Shift), or Lytro models, to name a few special ones.

It is also a lot of work for Camera makers to adapt to the specific file layout requirements of DNGs that may be too rigid because all their competitor's cameras also need to use the same fields and thus that data must be made uniform. For example, because Nikon uses WhiteBalance prescaling to allow compresssion of their Raws, also Canon would now need to convert their Raw data and/or populate the fields that instruct the Raw converter to reverse part of that even though the Canon files do not use such scaling. They do not need those extra steps with their own Raw conversion engine, and it's only more work with potential for mistakes, cost but no benefits for them.

The whole point of DNG is you do not have to wait for your favourite processing tool to be updated to work on raw files from your shiny new camera, except C1.

That's a load of misguided crock. Also Adobe needs to at least create profiles before they formally can support a camera, and when Sony cameras use lossy compression, they need to figure out how to reverse the compression, and adjust for non-linear tone curves, etc. It may be true that Adobe doesn't use all the Raw data to make a superior Raw conversion, and it shows (e.g. they originally ignored Canon data that was needed to reduce banding issues, and even didn't store it in the DNG).

C1's Raw conversions on average are sharper, usually have fewer artifacts, and are correctable for specific sensor issues with LCCs, and offer corrections for sharpness fall-off towards the corners, reduce impulse noise, etc. C1 also needs time to create that, but they are usually pretty well up-to-date (e.g. EOS 5DS is already supported before the camera is commercially available).

It even means you can use old Adobe products with new cameras by using the free DNG convertor, so DNG will in fact not help sell any more Adobe products.

Sure, of course Adobe wants to lower the threshold for using their products, but why would competitors need to help them with that by creating DNGs for Adobe products? Besides, if Adobe's DNG conversion works so great, by all means do continue to use it. Oh wait, it too needs to learn the new Raw formats, because it is more complex than just putting the R/G/B data in the R/G/B fields. Some of the sensel positions may have Phase detect data in them, and may not be suitable for demosaicing of color triplets. Your 'solution' seems to be; let the camera manufacturers do the work for Adobe, so Adobe can reduce cost and sell more Adobe products that can also be used with competing camera brands ...

Cheers,
Bart

[jjj]

I don't use Adobe's DNG convertor, because there is no need. Adobe try to support all cameras that come out whereas C1 doesn't. And of course I will use negative terminology about that, because it's a seriously negative attribute. I would like to have C1 as an option to LR, but C1 not supporting all my current cameras means that's a non starter. Not FUD at all, just the reality of how C1 operates. Phase Cameras and C1 being interlinked results in a conflict of interest when it comes to camera support, unlike with Adobe.  It is in Adobe's favour to support all cameras as it sells them more software, so very unlikely for them to not support a raw file as they do not have to protect their marketplace from competitors. Unlike Phase.
I still see no reason from you why anyone should bother investing time and effort into software that may not support your future camera purchases. If you only intend to use Phase cameras for the rest of your life that's fine, but otherwise a potential big problem down the line if swapping brands.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I don't use Adobe's DNG convertor, because there is no need. Adobe try to support all cameras that come out whereas C1 doesn't. And of course I will use negative terminology about that, because it's a seriously negative attribute. I would like to have C1 as an option to LR, but C1 not supporting all my current cameras means that's a non starter. Not FUD at all, just the reality of how C1 operates. Phase Cameras and C1 being interlinked results in a conflict of interest when it comes to camera support, unlike with Adobe.  It is in Adobe's favour to support all cameras as it sells them more software, so very unlikely for them to not support a raw file as they do not have to protect their marketplace from competitors. Unlike Phase.

Indeed, Adobe currently do not sell cameras, and therefore will try and cater to everybody who does make cameras (except Foveon, Lytro, and a couple of others that Phase One also doesn't invest resources in).

I still see no reason from you why anyone should bother investing time and effort into software that may not support your future camera purchases.

I thought it was clear, because of the better raw conversion quality (fewer artifacts and higher resolution), great color control and quality, and because C1 increases my productivity (e.g. batch processing of output in multiple formats). Another example would be e.g. focusstacking stacks of 100+ images, and there happens to be an unforeseen dust spot or two. In a focus stack that will become a very noticeable trail of dustspots. One LCC file will cure all issues and some others (vignetting, light fall-off, and color casts) as well.

If you only intend to use Phase cameras for the rest of your life that's fine, but otherwise a potential big problem down the line if swapping brands.

FUD, I could also do that by asking; What if Adobe goes out of business? But I won't, because we both do not know the future ...

All my current cameras that shoot Raw, and many others as well, are supported so I can process those files. I can also reprocess them if needed when the Raw conversion quality improves further. My future cameras are probably not MF, so they will probably also be supported.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

FUD, I could also do that by asking; What if Adobe goes out of business?

What will happen to TIFF, PSD and DNG in such a case? The sky will fall, nope, two of those file formats are openly documented and any company who wishes to continue to support them or new companies who wish to use them can, and quite easily.

All my current cameras that shoot Raw, and many others as well, are supported so I can process those files. I can also reprocess them if needed when the Raw conversion quality improves further.

The same is true for me, with DNG, using a number of excellent products I have picked that are not produced by Adobe.

[Denis de Gannes]

What will happen to TIFF, PSD and DNG in such a case? The sky will fall, nope, two of those file formats are openly documented and any company who wishes to continue to support them or new companies who wish to use them can, and quite easily. The same is true for me, with DNG, using a number of excellent products I have picked that are not produced by Adobe.

This thread is going nowhere, there are those who choose to support DNG and others who are just not interested including the majority of Camera Manufacturers.
Its my opinion that the Camera Manufactures view the format as a threat to their creative process and competitive edge.

[Damon Lynch]

As I said in another thread a modern DSLR is a powerful computer that can take photos. From my perspective the problem is that we photographers have been conditioned to see them only as cameras, and not as the computers they also are. This is relevant to the struggle over RAW file formats because the fight is not only about technical ins and outs but the culture of the industry, including us photographers.

Perhaps the heart of the problem is that the culture of the photography industry is rather monotonous and passive compared to the general purpose computing industry. In the general purpose computing industry we have interesting things like open source hardware design. Here we see genuine inter-industry collaboration driving innovation at the very heart of some of the most dynamic and successful organizations in contemporary capitalism.  Here we see heads of industry learning new ways of running their companies because of these initiatives. We see them learning in ways they did not expect from the free and open source software community, where collaboration is king. And they're reaping the benefits.

In the photography industry, particularly the software side, what do we see? By contrast we see practically nothing particularly interesting or truly innovative. Sure some people are making a lot of money, and all-in-all the majority are getting by.  But where is the camera on which we can run a free and open source general purpose operating system kernel and run our own programs on it? Where is the inter-industry collaboration to push down the barriers that stop us sharing and securing our data more effectively? The fight over a DNG type format is only one small element of this much bigger struggle.

Isn't it ironic that the photography hardware & software industry -- with its engineers, marketeers and mangers, some of whom are photographers who love creating art -- is in some crucial measures far less creative than the general purpose computing industry?

And it is we photographers who pay for this stagnation. We don't have self-healing systems that recover from data corruption and data loss, even though we could. We can't draw upon the vast volumes of data inside a Flickr or a 500px when out in the field with our camera, unless we bring another computer with us. We cannot share our work in real time with our photographer friends when on location, facilitating new ways of creating imagery. Technically all of these things are doable with the right combinations of hardware and software.  Harder is the cultural part. If the industry as a whole can't imagine it, it won't make the rules to allow them to collaborate and do it.

[jjj]

As I said in another thread a modern DSLR is a powerful computer that can take photos. From my perspective the problem is that we photographers have been conditioned to see them only as cameras, and not as the computers they also are. This is relevant to the struggle over RAW file formats because the fight is not only about technical ins and outs but the culture of the industry, including us photographers.

If you want to do a specific job, use the right tool and remember that different jobs require different form factors. Also just because a camera can process data in some way does not make it a computer in the sense most people use the term for. Once you start trying to make tools do all jobs they become less good at the work they were originally designed for.
If you want a computer/camera get a smartphone. A smartphone/tablet in addition to a camera would be a much better solution than putting a computer into a camera.
Don't see any relevance to the varieties of raw format BTW.

Perhaps the heart of the problem is that the culture of the photography industry is rather monotonous and passive compared to the general purpose computing industry. In the general purpose computing industry we have interesting things like open source hardware design. Here we see genuine inter-industry collaboration driving innovation at the very heart of some of the most dynamic and successful organizations in contemporary capitalism.  Here we see heads of industry learning new ways of running their companies because of these initiatives. We see them learning in ways they did not expect from the free and open source software community, where collaboration is king. And they're reaping the benefits.

Didn't PCs come from IMB's design which would now be called open source?

In the photography industry, particularly the software side, what do we see? By contrast we see practically nothing particularly interesting or truly innovative.

If you think the last decade or so hasn't been innovative, then nothing will impress you.   

Sure some people are making a lot of money, and all-in-all the majority are getting by.  But where is the camera on which we can run a free and open source general purpose operating system kernel and run our own programs on it?

Where is the demand for it?
Linux is an niche option that most people already eschew. Why would [enough] photographers be interested in such a thing.

Where is the inter-industry collaboration to push down the barriers that stop us sharing and securing our data more effectively?
The fight over a DNG type format is only one small element of this much bigger struggle.

There is no fight over DNG, it's an open source option that some manufacturers use and others do not. Business rivals do not collaborate if they can avoid it on the whole, they want to destroy their opposition and dominate the market.

Isn't it ironic that the photography hardware & software industry -- with its engineers, marketeers and mangers, some of whom are photographers who love creating art -- is in some crucial measures far less creative than the general purpose computing industry?

Don't see much difference between the two myself.

And it is we photographers who pay for this stagnation. We don't have self-healing systems that recover from data corruption and data loss, even though we could.

So how come the computer industry doesn't have this miracle cure either then?

We can't draw upon the vast volumes of data inside a Flickr or a 500px when out in the field with our camera, unless we bring another computer with us. We cannot share our work in real time with our photographer friends when on location, facilitating new ways of creating imagery. Technically all of these things are doable with the right combinations of hardware and software.  Harder is the cultural part. If the industry as a whole can't imagine it, it won't make the rules to allow them to collaborate and do it.

Ahem smartphones. 
They are a very powerful computer in your pocket and which can already link to [some] cameras to do as you require.

[jjj]

Indeed, Adobe currently do not sell cameras, and therefore will try and cater to everybody who does make cameras (except Foveon, Lytro, and a couple of others that Phase One also doesn't invest resources in).

And why if you may use other cameras C1 is not the best choice.

I thought it was clear, because of the better raw conversion quality (fewer artifacts and higher resolution), great color control and quality, and because C1 increases my productivity (e.g. batch processing of output in multiple formats). Another example would be e.g. focusstacking stacks of 100+ images, and there happens to be an unforeseen dust spot or two. In a focus stack that will become a very noticeable trail of dustspots. One LCC file will cure all issues and some others (vignetting, light fall-off, and color casts) as well.

Funy as C1 can't do any of that to cameras it chooses not to support for political reasons.

FUD, I could also do that by asking; What if Adobe goes out of business? But I won't, because we both do not know the future ...

Not FUD at all or comparing like situations. Future behaviour can usually be be predicted by past behaviour. Currently C1 has no interest in supporting all cameras as that works against the other part of their business [in their eyes] or they simply can't be arsed. So unless C1 get separated from Phase cameras or Phase cameras cease being sold, they are very likely to maintain that business model.

All my current cameras that shoot Raw, and many others as well, are supported so I can process those files. I can also reprocess them if needed when the Raw conversion quality improves further. My future cameras are probably not MF, so they will probably also be supported.

Not necessarily. They don't support my pocket Ricoh for example, even though it outputs DNG.

[Damon Lynch]

If you want a computer/camera get a smartphone. A smartphone/tablet in addition to a camera would be a much better solution than putting a computer into a camera.

There is a computer already in your camera. It has an operating system. A digital camera is a computer. It can be programmed to do all kinds of things.  Some of them even have Ethernet ports.

Don't see any relevance to the varieties of raw format BTW.

The relevance is because the photographic industry is currently unable to collaborate effectively enough to define a common format in which to store RAW data, although we have one already for JPEG, TIFF, PNG etc. Why that is so is a rich topic with which we've had robust discussions over several months if not years. Personally I find these discussions interesting and I'm grateful to be able to learn from the technical gurus here. I'm trying to point to what I see as the bigger picture, based on my vision of how things could be, not how they are.

Didn't PCs come from IMB's design which would now be called open source?

No. Read the Business Insider article I linked to above and you'll see what's different.

Linux is an niche option that most people already eschew. Why would [enough] photographers be interested in such a thing.

Linux is the most successful operating system kernel in the history of computing. It's everywhere. Perhaps you've never owned a Sony camera that already runs Linux. But have you ever used Google or Facebook or an Android device? Sent an email or bought or sold stocks? And since we're using this forum, it looks likes we're all using Linux. 

The point is Linux can be adapted to run on practically anything, big or small. People find a way to make it work. All it takes is a few technically proficient people who are really into it, and viola you have a general purpose OS running on your DSLR, or your fridge, or whatever. Programmers at large can only do that with free and open source software. You can't adapt your copy of Windows to do that, not unless you are Microsoft that is, and the reason is obvious - you're not allowed to.

Business rivals do not collaborate if they can avoid it on the whole, they want to destroy their opposition and dominate the market.

Business rivals collaborate all the time. How could they not? Collaboration, like competition, is an integral part of being human.

So how come the computer industry doesn't have this miracle cure either then?

It does, brought to you by Oracle and their competitors, who are collaborating on this project because it makes so much sense to do so.

Ahem smartphones. 
They are a very powerful computer in your pocket and which can already link to [some] cameras to do as you require.

Maybe it helps to think of it in terms of workflow. All DSLRs takes photos. Some include GPS and real-time communication (Wifi / Ethernet). The workflow process is one-way. For instance the photojournalist documenting the 2011 royal wedding kiss in the UK shared his photos in real time over Ethernet to his news agency which shared it with the world at large. The news agency could not send the post-processed image back to his camera for his approval or just to give him feedback. Maybe in this particular case they never would, but there are plenty of situations where it would be handy to have the workflow process be two-way, where the photographer uses his/her camera as a tool whose purpose is to produce images in collaboration with others.

Today you cannot do something as super-trivial as be on a shoot with your buddy and then review on your camera in real time the images in chronological sequence from both cameras. You could if your cameras were communicating in a mesh network. We programmers have the tools to do that today.

We photographers do not have the tools (cameras) that allow us to do useful things like these. We could do them if the photographic industry (hardware and software) was better at allowing the tools of the trade to be used as a platform for innovation and collaboration by people outside of the Canons and Adobes.

[jjj]

There is a computer already in your camera. It has an operating system. A digital camera is a computer. It can be programmed to do all kinds of things.  Some of them even have Ethernet ports.

So what? Many things have 'computers' in them to do clever things for that device. However an interface usable by a human should not be jammed in everything just because you can. Otherwise you may end up with something like this. 

The relevance is because the photographic industry is currently unable to collaborate effectively enough to define a common format in which to store RAW data, although we have one already for JPEG, TIFF, PNG etc. Why that is so is a rich topic with which we've had robust discussions over several months if not years. Personally I find these discussions interesting and I'm grateful to be able to learn from the technical gurus here. I'm trying to point to what I see as the bigger picture, based on my vision of how things could be, not how they are.

Yet you then say this...

Business rivals collaborate all the time. How could they not? Collaboration, like competition, is an integral part of being human.

Business are not human beings. If anything they are psychopaths and why they do not as a rule collaborate.
[not sure what your link was meant to be BTW, as a robbery I doubt was it]

Linux is the most successful operating system kernel in the history of computing. It's everywhere. Perhaps you've never owned a Sony camera that already runs Linux. But have you ever used Google or Facebook or an Android device? Sent an email or bought or sold stocks? And since we're using this forum, it looks likes we're all using Linux. 

It may be everywhere but it isn't used by consumers that are not tech geeks in the same way as consumers use win/OSX/iOS etc. Big difference.

The point is Linux can be adapted to run on practically anything, big or small. People find a way to make it work. All it takes is a few technically proficient people who are really into it, and viola you have a general purpose OS running on your DSLR, or your fridge, or whatever.

But computers running your fridge or DSLR always strike me as something computer people are trying to convince people they want. When in fact, they do not. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

It does, brought to you by Oracle and their competitors, who are collaborating on this project because it makes so much sense to do so.

Still vapourware as yet then. The sooner bitrot and the other benefits gets sorted the better as far as I'm concerned, so I'd be very pleased if they do sort the problem.

Maybe it helps to think of it in terms of workflow. All DSLRs takes photos. Some include GPS and real-time communication (Wifi / Ethernet). The workflow process is one-way. For instance the photojournalist documenting the 2011 royal wedding kiss in the UK shared his photos in real time over Ethernet to his news agency which shared it with the world at large. The news agency could not send the post-processed image back to his camera for his approval or just to give him feedback.

Ahem yet again, phone, smart or dumb this time can do just that and in real time too, amazingly enough. 
Computers wonderful as they are are not the answer to every problem or even non problems.

Maybe in this particular case they never would, but there are plenty of situations where it would be handy to have the workflow process be two-way, where the photographer uses his/her camera as a tool whose purpose is to produce images in collaboration with others.

People already do that on shoots with tethered cameras and the art director sitting at the monitor. The client could be elsewhere viewing screen remotely. Being part of the camera though that could be intrusive or distracting.

Today you cannot do something as super-trivial as be on a shoot with your buddy and then review on your camera in real time the images in chronological sequence from both cameras. You could if your cameras were communicating in a mesh network. We programmers have the tools to do that today.

Being able to do something and it being worthwhile doing is what needs considering. Most photographers by their very nature work individually. Being able to collaborate as you suggest is such an incredible outlier on all the ways photographers work.

We photographers do not have the tools (cameras) that allow us to do useful things like these.

Not trying to be a downer, but not seen anything yet mentioned that would be of benefit outside of very rare specific cases. I'm all for new improved ways of doing things, even if they have no relevance to me but features for the sake of features, not so much.

We could do them if the photographic industry (hardware and software) was better at allowing the tools of the trade to be used as a platform for innovation and collaboration by people outside of the Canons and Adobes.

Why would they do that? Adobe already gave away a open raw file format which has limited adoption.

[Damon Lynch]

Yet you then say this...Business are not human beings. If anything they are psychopaths and why they do not as a rule collaborate.
[not sure what your link was meant to be BTW, as a robbery I doubt was it]

JJJ I suspect this discussion has passed the point of usefulness so I'm calling it a day. To answer your question about the link, yes there was a major theft at LensProToGo, but their business rivals LensRentals.com stepped up to the plate to help them out.

[Denis de Gannes]

So what? Many things have 'computers' in them to do clever things for that device. However an interface usable by a human should not be jammed in everything just because you can. Otherwise you may end up with something like this. 





Yet you then say this...Business are not human beings. If anything they are psychopaths and why they do not as a rule collaborate.
[not sure what your link was meant to be BTW, as a robbery I doubt was it]

 It may be everywhere but it isn't used by consumers that are not tech geeks in the same way as consumers use win/OSX/iOS etc. Big difference.

But computers running your fridge or DSLR always strike me as something computer people are trying to convince people they want. When in fact, they do not. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Still vapourware as yet then. The sooner bitrot and the other benefits gets sorted the better as far as I'm concerned, so I'd be very pleased if they do sort the problem.

Ahem yet again, phone, smart or dumb this time can do just that and in real time too, amazingly enough. 
Computers wonderful as they are are not the answer to every problem or even non problems.
People already do that on shoots with tethered cameras and the art director sitting at the monitor. The client could be elsewhere viewing screen remotely. Being part of the camera though that could be intrusive or distracting.
Being able to do something and it being worthwhile doing is what needs considering. Most photographers by their very nature work individually. Being able to collaborate as you suggest is such an incredible outlier on all the ways photographers work.
Not trying to be a downer, but not seen anything yet mentioned that would be of benefit outside of very rare specific cases. I'm all for new improved ways of doing things, even if they have no relevance to me but features for the sake of features, not so much.Why would they do that? Adobe already gave away a open raw file format which has limited adoption.

Is this what DNG looks like.
 

[jjj]

Is this what DNG looks like.
 

Nope.
That's possibly how some people bizarrely view it though.