Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: DNG again and again and again...  (Read 51757 times)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4196
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2015, 06:18:20 PM »

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.
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2015, 06:34:56 PM »

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.

Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2015, 07:15:40 PM »

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.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4196
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2015, 07:16:47 PM »

No, it costs everyone money to develop and test new file formats.
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2015, 07:22:12 PM »

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)
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2015, 07:26:24 PM »

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...
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2015, 07:29:23 PM »

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 ?
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2015, 07:33:24 PM »

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...


Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2015, 07:50:47 PM »

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
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12502
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2015, 07:59:40 PM »

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'.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2015, 08:14:41 PM »

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.

Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2015, 08:22:38 PM »

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?
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12502
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2015, 08:23:24 PM »

Minimal cost?
In the grand scheme of things and the entire system costs, yes.
Quote
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?
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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!
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2015, 08:26:57 PM »

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.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12502
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2015, 08:31:02 PM »

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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2655
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2015, 08:32:39 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 08:35:07 PM by rdonson »
Logged
Regards,
Ron

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2015, 08:33:55 PM »

Ok, now you're just being a jerk, because I have the temerity to disagree with you.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12502
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2015, 08:38:07 PM »

Andrew, the question still boils down to what is the advantage to ME to use DNG?
Absolutely! It's unique for each user/customer.
Quote
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
Quote
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.
Quote
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).
Quote
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/
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2015, 08:38:47 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 08:45:17 PM by jrsforums »
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12502
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2015, 08:39:14 PM »

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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Up