DNG again and again and again...

[amolitor]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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. 

[digitaldog]

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.

[amolitor]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[digitaldog]

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?

[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?'

You have now created a straw man argument which I won't bother pursuing.

Michael

[amolitor]

That makes three airy dismissals in a row!

Do I get a prize?

(Sorry, typo)

[michael]

I don't know what an "airy dismissal" is but yes, my guess is that you have been.

Michael

[amolitor]

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.

[digitaldog]

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!

[michael]

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

[amolitor]

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!"

[amolitor]

digitaldog, you are conflating two quite different and almost unrelated threads of argument.

[digitaldog]

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!

[Schewe]

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...

[Damon Lynch]

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.

[sandymc]

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

[Schewe]

"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.

[amolitor]

Swearing at everyone and yelling 'you're wrong'.... Wait, is this the internet?