Is there something in the Secret Sauce portion of these files that could conceivably provide clues to other manufacturers about, say, how a sensor is constructed, or about how a given camera's embedded software is encoded? The manufacturers must all feel there is some advantage to this constant churn -- some advantage that justifies the cost of the unending RAW-format development. Coding being expensive, the cost must be considerable.
That is the argument... however, there's always the point that the chips are standard products made by 3rd parties whose specs are open and accessible. Maybe that's it... maybe that's precisely why, since everyone's got access to the same chips the way the process it is the key, but I don't buy it.
I've personally seen some of this with the older Imacon, and now the Hasselblad raw files. The way that worked was, if you shot to the CF card of that DB, it captured in DNG. The approved workflow was to download to the system through the DB and the software, in the process converting to the proprietary RAW file (FFF). This allowed the software to take the DNG data and add the chip data. On the back itself (accessible via a couple service codes) and also in the reference folders of the software, were camera ID files that specified the distinct parameters of that DB and chip. (Sometimes when we had service issues the trick was to rebuild that file from the reference file on the camera firmware.)
The evidence for that was the just plain awful rendering that PS did with those DNG files. Well, I thought it was. Now I'm wondering if it was just other basic data like camera "profiling" and white point etc, that wasn't getting set in the DNG file in a way that ACR could read it. That, I suppose, could be in the maker notes, and left out of the standard readable metadata by Imacon. Whatever.
The point I always come back to with the OEM argument that they have remarkable special data that they aren't going to release is show me the beef. I've spent a great deal of time looking at the differences between Nikon, Canon and Adobe RAW processing (and have looked, not recently mind you, but looked, at and compared the quality factors of virtually every other processor out there). I've not seen any particular overwhelming thing that justifies this proprietary attitude. MAYBE Nikon's rendering low-light noise, but please. My conclusion has pretty much always been that they don't have anything on any other package that processes their files.
But Adobe has allowed for this in the DNG structure. They allow for the maker notes, if Nikon wants to write proprietary data into the DNG file, there's a place to do it. (Actually, that begs the question, does Pentax and Leica have maker notes in their DNG files that anyone's aware of? Does their software process the files differently because of those notes?)
Again, where's the beef? The camera manufacturer software was so bad that a few companies, Phase in particular, has made a business replacing it. If the camera OEM guys could make a package that was the standard of the industry, as Adobe is, and could go toe-to-toe with Adobe or even produce some brilliant innovations like Iridient or others, that would be one thing. My personal experience is they can't. They can barely keep up. Granted, now it seems like most of them are pretty workable and mature, but that is because of, not in spite of, Adobe and Phase kicking them in the head.
So yes, I have the tattoo. (no you can't see it). DNG is a remarkable initiative, and it's interesting to me that Jeff say's it's Knoll's initiative, that's the first thing I've heard that makes sense about why they're spending resources on it. (All I'd heard was marketing hoo-haa from the product managers...) I think it's a thing that would be good for Photography. I seriously doubt, as I've said before, that it's not inevitable, actually, but that's because I have faith that photographers will demand it, and I echo the need for a unified voice in that regard.
That said, I teach workflow. I will stand by my advice given to the OP. At some point, or even as a current habit, it's a good idea to convert to DNG. I am still trying to work out the "other advantages" in specifically workflow and beyond archiving, others talk about, thus my other thread...
