D810 support?

[Vladimirovich]

Happens that profiling from targets renders better results (both in terms of dE2000 and visually).

what is behind getting better profiles from some targets (one can assume all the strings attached including individually measured patches, target rotations, proper illuminations, bracketing, light traps, you name it) than from monochromator (one can assume all the proper calibration) ?

[digitaldog]

and that covers 99.5% early adopters... so for a mass user it is not a problem and so it is not a problem for manufacturers... and the fools are people who earn money using cameras and who sell their old cameras to afford a brand new one w/o waiting for it to be supported by tools used in their "workflow", those are fools...

Look, in just one week on one forum (the Adobe UtoU) there are 18 different topics from customers of just the 810 asking about support in one raw processor:
https://forums.adobe.com/search.jspa?q=Nikon+d810
Obviously it is not a problem for the manufactures or they'd do something about it. Obviously it is a problem for photographers who take the time asking for help.

I can hardly imagine the need to sell in a rush for example D800/800e to buy D810 if your $$$ do not allow to buy it just to play... in most cases that just GAS w/o $$$ to support it.

And you can hardly imagine their frustrations, you can hardly describe (you haven't) why this has to be an issue. It doesn't concern you so it's not relevant. As I said, it's all about you. Time to move on. One of us has an interest in their fellow photographers and the issues that plague them, the other isn't and doesn't care. If at least you had one justification for this behavior, you wouldn't come across (to me, maybe others) has being rather heartless.

[Vladimirovich]

Look, in just one week on one forum (the Adobe UtoU) there are 18 different topics from customers of just the 810 asking about support in one raw processor:
https://forums.adobe.com/search.jspa?q=Nikon+d810

do you care actually read the text in the search results ? not every out of 18 shown results was about what you try to show... for example one result is "Can't open D810 RAW files, even after ACR 8.6 RC download!" - that' clearly about somebody with a different issue (something is wrong with his ACR installations)... or some non onwers are just asking about the time table = "Since today the new Nikon D810 is available in stores. When will this camera is supported by Lightroom?" ... you are a master of FUD, that's for sure...

[Vladimirovich]

And you can hardly imagine their frustrations

and you try to inflate a non issue... I mean that is an issue for example for IB as he might spend some of his time actually developing something for new cameras and he might be the person who actually buys them among the first, but for the regular folks it is not.

, you can hardly describe (you haven't) why this has to be an issue.

that's you just repeat the same stuff... there is no issue for manufacturers (apparently not even for Fuji with x-trans demosaicking issues or for Sigma where the proper support for .X3F is simply absent in ACR/LR - even in those cases it is/was really a problem for customers because the relevant support was not coming either for many month /Fuji/ or is not coming ever at all /Sigma/) and there is no issue for 999 out of 1000 buyers of new cameras... because again - by the time those folks buy, support is in place (and most of folks anyways does use OOC JPG and/or use OEM raw converters... not even LR/ACR can compete w/ that crowd marketwise)

One of us has an interest in their fellow photographers and the issues that plague them, the other isn't and doesn't care.

one of us has an interest to inflate the issue (more so in case of D810) and one of us just shows the real situation

[digitaldog]

do you care actually read the text in the search results ? not every out of 18 shown results was about what you try to show... for example one result is "Can't open D810 RAW files, even after ACR 8.6 RC download!" - that' clearly about somebody with a different issue (something is wrong with his ACR installations)... or some non onwers are just asking about the time table = "Since today the new Nikon D810 is available in stores. When will this camera is supported by Lightroom?" ...

Wrong! The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format! Had this been implemented, there would be no such issue. Want to wager the same person had no issue what so ever with the same camera and the JPEG?

you are a master of FUD, that's for sure...

Well at least unlike you, I'm not a self centered empthy-less photographer, that's for sure. In all these threads, you've been unable to explain why the current conditions are acceptable, desirable or useful be it 18 or 17 or 1700 frustrated photographers. Because you just don't care about the photo industry or the people who make it up.

[Iliah]

The biggest problem with monochromator is cameras with semi-transparent mirrors. Some OLPF/AA filters also pose a problem. If a sensor has metameric issues that goes into memory colours (green-orange, some of the Sony sensors have it), measurements with monochromator result in awkward colours.

[Iliah]

> The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format!

Again, in reality raw formats are very few and seldom change. Issue is that metadata is not documented. Universal raw format is irrelevant, what is relevant is documentation.

[ErikKaffehr]

Isn't DNG a step into the right direction? Do we have a better alternative?

Best regards
Erik

... Issue is that metadata is not documented. Universal raw format is irrelevant, what is relevant is documentation.

[ErikKaffehr]

Iliah,

Thanks for the information. A longer explanation may be of interest, you don't happen to have a nice link to one of the more technical threads? (I know you post a lot of good stuff on DPreview for instance).

Best regards
Erik

The biggest problem with monochromator is cameras with semi-transparent mirrors. Some OLPF/AA filters also pose a problem. If a sensor has metameric issues that goes into memory colours (green-orange, some of the Sony sensors have it), measurements with monochromator result in awkward colours.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Wrong! The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format! Had this been implemented, there would be no such issue.

Andrew, that still doesn't make sense, no matter how often you repeat it.

Camera RGB is universal (although some e.g. use different blackpoints or store the data in non-linear response curves), but useless without calibration of some sort. So any time the camera's CFA characteristics change, any Raw converter software maker must determine the best parameters to use in their specific (usually undocumented) Raw demosaicing method by trial and error. Even between cameras of the same type, there may be (small) differences.

Besides, camera Raw formats are typically TIFFs with known (Tagged) storage positions for the various parameters, but the actual data stored at those offset positions can differ between manufacturers and camera models. So it's not about the file format but about interpreting the data itself. Even if the file format would be identical between manufacturers, the data would still need interpretation and calibration for the specific demosaicing process one wishes to use. So with each new camera introduced to the market, there will be some effort required, unless all software producers use the same demosaicing engine. Don't hold your breath for that to happen ...

It's mostly about the software, not the camera producers (unless they use non-standard sensor designs, e.g. Foveon). Camera makers will keep on innovating (one hopes), therefore some of the new features must be recorded in the known Tagged Makernote position of the EXIF data, because they are unique to that camera model and other camera makers have no need for an agreed standardized file format for that. Again, it's about interpretation of that information, not the file format.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

> The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format!

Again, in reality raw formats are very few and seldom change. Issue is that metadata is not documented. Universal raw format is irrelevant, what is relevant is documentation.

I 100% agree with that. And the reason is for competitive reasons, to stay in business or grow it, not to annoy software developers.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

On the other hand, the DNG format have the information needed. I don't know how many users use vendors software, but folks like me who use Lightroom would be much helped by manufacturers directly supporting DNG.

I have been fortunate enough that I only once bought a camera without proper support by LR, and I simply will not buy any camera any more which is not supported by choice of tools.

It seems that Nikon is struggling to have an decent quality raw converter on the Mac while Canon gives away their software for free. I don't konow if it makes business sense for any of those companies. Leica has chosen to support DNG, one reason to buy a Leica M or Leica S.

Best regards
Erik

Andrew, that still doesn't make sense, no matter how often you repeat it.

Camera RGB is universal (although some e.g. use different blackpoints or store the data in non-linear response curves), but useless without calibration of some sort. So any time the camera's CFA characteristics change, any Raw converter software maker must determine the best parameters to use in their specific (usually undocumented) Raw demosaicing method by trial and error. Even between cameras of the same type, there may be (small) differences.

Besides, camera Raw formats are typically TIFFs with known (Tagged) storage positions for the various parameters, but the actual data stored at those offset positions can differ between manufacturers and camera models. So it's not about the file format but about interpreting the data itself. Even if the file format would be identical between manufacturers, the data would still need interpretation and calibration for the specific demosaicing process one wishes to use. So with each new camera introduced to the market, there will be some effort required, unless all software producers use the same demosaicing engine. Don't hold your breath for that to happen ...

It's mostly about the software, not the camera producers (unless they use non-standard sensor designs, e.g. Foveon). Camera makers will keep on innovating (one hopes), therefore some of the new features must be recorded in the known Tagged Makernote position of the EXIF data, because they are unique to that camera model and other camera makers have no need for an agreed standardized file format for that. Again, it's about interpretation of that information, not the file format.

Cheers,
Bart

[Iliah]

Dear  Erik,

Isn't DNG a step into the right direction? Do we have a better alternative?

DNG is not a format, it is a container, and it solves nothing. Problem is, decoding raw format is not an issue. You can roll back dcraw to about 3 years ago and it will decode D810 NEFs. Problem is metadata. And DNG explicitly allows un-documented metadata tags.

[Iliah]

Dear Bart,
> the reason is for competitive reasons
They say so. But it is an extremely weak argument, trust me.

[digitaldog]

Isn't DNG a step into the right direction? Do we have a better alternative?

Sure it is, but the politics doesn’t support it. You’re hearing a lot of semantic minutia such is DNG isn’t a format but a container, it’s not the raw data, it is the metadata and so on. What you don’t hear is this side telling us it’s technically impossible to create a universal format/container (or whatever they want to call it), that provides data the camera saves that acts like the JPEG; that being, the day the camera is released, the raw converter you used to access other raw data behaves with this new data the same way. You have tech whinnies drilling down into the minutia every time you ask such simple questions because they can’t answer simple questions, it kills the debate dead in it's tracks. Go ahead, ask these people the same questions I have over the years and see if you can clear yes or no answers such as:

• Is this technically impossible for the camera raw file released today to like camera raw file that worked last week in my converter?
  How is the current behavior beneficial to anyone but the camera manufacturers?
  Is the current behavior beneficial to the photographer who has no intention of using the manufacturers raw converter?
  Why can’t we have a 3rd option on the camera to produce a raw to DNG conversion, just as we have a switch on the camera to produce a raw to JPEG conversion, producing a file 20+ year old software is able to read.
  

Instead, you’ll hear them say in one sentence the data is the same but it isn’t, that the problem isn’t a problem (despite years of posts from photographers saying otherwise), that it only affects a tiny group, that this group is foolish to buy a new camera so quickly etc. They never get to the heart of the debate or answer the key question. What is the cause of the issue and how can it be fixed. Best some can do is suggest it isn't an issue. Hogwash, there have to be thousands of posts if not more over the years asking the same question: I just bought XYZ camera and ABC's converter can't read the data. Help!

This is real simple: either the problem reported is technology impossible and always will be or it can be fixed and hasn't over all these years due to politics and a lack of  a loud enough demand by the customer base, while being dismissed and defended by another group that for whatever reason, would rather justify this practice than aid in the requests of (presumably) their fellow photographers. As has been said here and elsewhere regarding this issue; you're either part of the solution or part of the problem.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Dear Bart,
> the reason is for competitive reasons
They say so. But it is an extremely weak argument, trust me.

Hi Iliah,

Maybe, but I can imagine that reaching consensus with competitors to create a specific tag for some new patented feature, will not be a fast process... Also, removing deprecated tags to avoid EXIF bloat, would not work as it would render the old camera Raws useless. So Raw formats will grow, and grow, and grow, even if the number of pixels would remain the same. The undocumented Makernotes section in the EXIF is here to stay. Besides, why alert your competitors that you need a new tag in some universal format.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Maybe, but I can imagine that reaching consensus with competitors to create a specific tag for some new patented feature, will not be a fast process... Besides, why alert your competitors that you need a new tag in some universal format.

Another political not technological excuse.

Can anyone imagine the early days in the car industy:

Ford: we're putting the gas pedal to the right of the break pedal.
Other company: no, we want the gas pedal to the left.
Result for consumer: chaos!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Another political not technological excuse.

I was adding some technilogical 'excuses' while you posted.

[Iliah]

Dear Bart,

> Raw formats will grow

Raw is a bitmap, one way or another. It is not growing - meta- and metemetadata are growing. It is a myth that there are some secret features in metadata that manufactures are trying to keep from each other. Teams that develop camera firmware sometimes work for competing camera manufactures.

[Iliah]

> I just bought XYZ camera and ABC's converter can't read the data. Help!

It is the problem with metadata, and it is not a problem with raw format, and metadata problems can't be solved by DNG.
Is is also a problem with raw converter updates schedule.