Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on November 12, 2012, 08:18:58 AM

Title: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 08:18:58 AM
I'm not particularly fond of proprietary camera formats. I'd go so far as saying that it is immoral by camera manufacturers to lock in the photographer's work in a proprietary container without public documentation.

Anyway, now it seems to me like DNG is a quite mature standard. I understand why Canon and Nikon don't care about it, but I find it a bit surprising that the MFDB makers are not embracing it, the ones that are supposed to like "open systems" and who not produce JPEGs primarily (Canon and Nikon are workflow-wise afterall designed as jpeg cameras). Shouldn't DNG be the default in the file format setting in the backs by now? As far as I understand there are some backs out there that actually store to DNG but it is far from all of them.

Am I missing something here? Is there still something Adobe proprietary about the DNG format causing for example Phase One and Leaf to avoid it, or perhaps they still see some reason to lock in photographers in their formats? Maybe Phase One might want own formats to give Capture One a stronger position against Lightroom?

And do people really care? I get annoyed by the proprietary format thing now and then, but I'm not sure if any other photographers care. I guess some of us have nagged about this thing so many years that we are exhausted from doing it...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: dchew on November 12, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Oh boy Anders, why do you want to poke the Angry Bear?
:)

I agree digital backs and high-end cameras are where lack of adoption is particularly annoying.  Kudos to Leica.

Dave
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Doug Peterson on November 12, 2012, 09:55:18 AM
Am I missing something here? Is there still something Adobe proprietary about the DNG format causing for example Phase One and Leaf to avoid it, or perhaps they still see some reason to lock in photographers in their formats? Maybe Phase One might want own formats to give Capture One a stronger position against Lightroom?

Lightroom is compatible with the following Phase One raws:
H 20
H 25
P 20
P 20+
P 21
P 21+
P 25
P 25+
P 30
P 30+
P 40+
P 45
P 45+
P 65+
IQ140
IQ160
IQ180

In addition Capture One 7 has better support for converting DNGs for those still convinced that is important to their needs. I don't see how any Phase photographer is "locked into" anything.

I assume your annoyance is at your legacy Leaf Aptus back which you purchased privately. If purchased from a good dealer your initial training would have covered (from the start) the use of the compressed raw, free leaf raw convertor, and DNG options to make sure that, from the getgo, your captures would be available in whatever software you wanted to use. It can, for sure, to learn these lessons and wade through some of the complexity on your own.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 10:02:18 AM
Oh boy Anders, why do you want to poke the Angry Bear?

I thought it was a long time ago :-).... and I just got a bit bored by C1 only supporting LCC for compressed .mos files, and my favorite open source tools only support uncompressed (since only that has been reverse engineered so far), so I'm kind of facing trying to reverse-engineer the compressed formats and contribute code or messing around with some conversion tools, or looking into getting a DNG workflow (converting to DNG first thing). I like using all sorts of tools, not just the mainstream ones given to me by the manufacturer. That however requires a format that is open and can be decoded without lots of licensing issues.

So it is true it is my legacy leaf that got me started this time around. I'm not exactly happy with my Canon CR2s either and I've been known to complain about them too. And Nikon - they even encrypted their files there for a while!

Doug is missing my point though. This is not only about me. This is about the whole industry continuing with the same sh*tty approach year by year product by product. Why should the camera manufacturer unnecessarily lock in the photographers in a specific workflow? Why should not I as the photographer have full access to my own work right out of the camera?

I guess it's only Leica and Sinar that's doing DNG so far.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on November 12, 2012, 10:04:41 AM
Before we start seeing how Phase one ripped me off posts. Hassy also has there own software Phocus but is also seen by Lightroom as well. Phocus and C1 are programs designed specifically for each of there backs and you can get the most out of them using there specific software. But they can also be used by ACR and LR. Leica S2 has no specific raw processing software, nor does there M series of cams and depends on programs like LR and ACR for there raw processing. Now the DNG can of worms is a very debatable issue and a major can of worms at least it was when things where far more software specific but times have changed since that debate and not sure its such a big issue anymore. I could be wrong but have not seen that debate in recent times.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 10:34:57 AM
I work professionally as a software engineer, and I get to read licensing terms for various things all day long so I guess I'm a bit more sensitive concerning these issues. Using closed proprietary formats at this point provides no value whatsoever and is just a waste of resources for everyone. So I'm a bit curious what the logic behind the companies that still use closed formats is.

That I get a little bit upset by having my work put into a container controlled by the manufacturer I would guess I'm pretty alone with :-). Most are is just happy if it works of course, and it is true that today there is wider support of most files compared to earlier. Open file formats is a big thing for me though, and I just cannot understand why the industry is soooo afraid of using them, and when Phase One CEO talks about "open architecture" I can't help wonder how he thinks using proprietary file formats helps with that message.

The fact that MF is more open than any DSLR is one thing that attracts me to the platform, and I think that it is one aspect that MF manufacturers should nourish and migrating to DNG fits just so natural into this so I'm honestly surprised that it has not happened yet. With the Leica and Sinar exceptions.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on November 12, 2012, 10:46:45 AM
Might just come down to marketing advantage reasons. Not sure but for me its really a non issue. I am a devoted C1 user so as long as the cameras i buy are supported by C1 than I really dont care. On the other hand i like the fact that my Phase back has software specifically designed for me to get the utmost out of that back. I know the gnomes are sitting there making the absolute best profiles and enhancements for me to use my back to the best of its abilities or technology on hand. For me that is a advantage as a consumer. I cant count on Adobe to do that specifically for my Phase back or Hassy back for that matter so I do like software that is specific to my cam since they can devote more time to it and also that is what there job security is to make it the best they can for the company they work for. Leaving this up to Adobe in my mind given all the backs and cams out there not sure they can specifically make the best software for my sensor on hand given they support a lot of them and make there programs more generic. I like having specialized software. Thats my preference at least, others may not care.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: ndevlin on November 12, 2012, 10:53:56 AM
There is no good reason. 

Camera makers continue to produce new files formats on a roughly 1 to 1 ratio with new cameras.  It is insane. That Leica and Pentax, who produce some of the best cameras and RAW files around, do not do this is proof-enough for me of the inane  nature of this file-format arms race. 

There's a reason Michael has railed about this for years....

- N.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Pascalf on November 12, 2012, 11:06:15 AM
Am I missing something here? Is there still something Adobe proprietary about the DNG format causing for example Phase One and Leaf to avoid it, or perhaps they still see some reason to lock in photographers in their formats? Maybe Phase One might want own formats to give Capture One a stronger position against Lightroom?

One reason that I have heard mentioned [and was also 'unofficially stated when Apple did not support Flash on the iPad] is that adhering to the DNG format ties you, as a developer, to the whims/ decisions of an outside company.

Let's go through a basic scenario:
1) Adobe modifies the parameters for DNG
2) the revisions breaks the compatibility of your files to the most recent version of Lightroom
3) the issue is brought to the attention of Adobe Lightroom devs

Two basic outcomes:
A) the issue is resolved with the next update to the software
B) the issue is on the schedule, yet to be resolved

For (A), this means that there is a span of time where your device is NOT compatible with the latest version of a popular software.  I leave it to you to extrapolate what this can mean to current [or potential] sales of whatever you're making.  The most obvious example in the not so recent past is to look at the contortions Apple went through to get continued Microsoft Office support for OSX [when Apple was on shaky financial grounds]

For (B), this means that you future products might be bound by issues other than only software issues. One example might be political, where continued support is dependent on an unrelated action: like QuickTime on Windows [again, many years ago] being threatened by unrelated politics.

"In his testimony, Tevanian outlines how Microsoft pressured Apple to make Internet Explorer the default web browser on the Mac for a period of five years. If Apple had said no, Microsoft would have pulled the Office suite for the Mac, which would have torpedoed the platform. The testimony also details how Microsoft pressured companies like Compaq and AVID to not use Apple’s QuickTime technology,"
- http://thecoredump.org/2004/01/tevanian-microsoft-trial-testimony-online/

By no means an I saying that the above reason are the only reasons why any digital camera manufacturer develops and maintains their own code base and proprietary formats.  Thought I have heard, every one in a while, why a company would not want to outsource a very fundamental part of what makes their product reach a particular quality of result.


Owning the whole experience is the best way to control the quality of the product you provide/ sell.  Like the reason Apple developed the Apple Stores.


Pascal
/there are other reason, also
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 11:09:56 AM
Using DNG format would not make C1 in a worse position to provide special support for Phase One backs. Its just a container of the raw data, the program decides how this is processed. I would certainly not be surprised if the companies would use that kind of argument -- that they need proprietary features in their files to make the best out of the camera -- but that is not true. They only need raw data and meta data, and that DNG can store.

Anyway, I perfectly understand that many don't really care, and I also think that is why this has gone largely silent. Not so many bump into format issues any longer, and then most are pragmatic about the issue and stay happy, which is the healthiest thing to do I guess :-).
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: FredBGG on November 12, 2012, 11:15:19 AM
....... I think that it is one aspect that MF manufacturers should nourish and migrating to DNG fits just so natural into this so I'm honestly surprised that it has not happened yet. With the Leica and Sinar exceptions.

The Pentax 645D supports both PEF and DNG.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 11:18:22 AM
Pascal: thank you very much for the interesting feedback. I did not mention it, but this was actually one thing I was wondering about -- if DNG really is free or if Adobe is going to be able to harass people using it. The guy behind OpenRaw that existed a few years ago complained a lot about DNG if I remember correctly, perhaps a bit unfair criticism too. OpenRaw campaign was not very successful, and I suspect the leading figure behind it can be blamed to some extent, he seemed even more aggressive about this than I do :-).

However, from what I've read lately on DNG it does seem like Adobe is really releasing it and it would not be the same problems as we have seen with other "freely available formats". This is from Wikipedia:

DNG is based on the TIFF/EP standard format, and mandates significant use of metadata. Exploitation of the file format is royalty-free; Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG,[4] and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.[5] Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea.[6] Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.[7]
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: FredBGG on November 12, 2012, 11:19:42 AM

Let's go through a basic scenario:
1) Adobe modifies the parameters for DNG
2) the revisions breaks the compatibility of your files to the most recent version of Lightroom
3) the issue is brought to the attention of Adobe Lightroom devs


Pascal


If Adobe modifies DNG parameters it would maintain compatibility of previous DNG files. Just as it has with opening old photoshop files.
File format issues are resolved very well by Adobe with it's vast Beta testing prior to even public beta.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 11:23:55 AM
The Pentax 645D supports both PEF and DNG.

Great, maybe it is a trend! I was myself a bit paranoid about DNG when it was new (what was Adobe's real intentions), but it looks much better now. There is one final step left though it seems, to move the control of the format completely from Adobe into a standards body.

As long as sensor tech stay the way it is today the DNG format is probably more than we need, but if there is a drastic change in the future the DNG might need completely new extensions and in that case it may not be so fun for the others if Adobe is the sole master of it. On the other hand one can fall back to proprietary formats again in that unlikely event...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: FredBGG on November 12, 2012, 11:36:01 AM
I assume your annoyance is at your legacy Leaf Aptus back which you purchased privately. If purchased from a good dealer your initial training would have covered (from the start) the use of the compressed raw, free leaf raw convertor, and DNG options to make sure that, from the getgo, your captures would be available in whatever software you wanted to use. It can, for sure, to learn these lessons and wade through some of the complexity on your own.

Why do you have to respond to a perfectly legitimate question or discussion with a personal attack with a built in plug for you the dealer.
Trying to discredit the poster for not having the newest gear and for buying privately.
Seems to bother you that a digital back changes hands without a dealer getting a cut.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 11:40:16 AM
Am I missing something here?

Boils down to politics and to some degree, the misunderstandings people have that doesn't shift the policies to an open format option. There's no reason why we can't have three switches on a camera: JPEG, DNG, Proprietary raw.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Schewe on November 12, 2012, 11:46:02 AM
One reason that I have heard mentioned [and was also 'unofficially stated when Apple did not support Flash on the iPad] is that adhering to the DNG format ties you, as a developer, to the whims/ decisions of an outside company.

Let's go through a basic scenario:
1) Adobe modifies the parameters for DNG
2) the revisions breaks the compatibility of your files to the most recent version of Lightroom
3) the issue is brought to the attention of Adobe Lightroom devs

The problem with this example is that history has not born this out...DNG is already at version 1.4 and the SDK is available. As far as breaking compatibility to ACR/LR, uh, no...that doesn't happen. What can happen is that a new version of DNG can add features that older DNG readers can't handle but all you need to do is set the correct compatibility for the DNG and it can be read all the way back to ACR 2.4 in Photoshop CS....

BTW, Adobe has already offered DNG to the ISO for their next revision of TIFF-EP. Adobe owns the TIFF file format and granted it to the ISO for use in TIFF-EP. So Adobe's track record of preserving a file format for the use of others is pretty good.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 11:48:28 AM
Camera makers continue to produce new files formats on a roughly 1 to 1 ratio with new cameras. 

it is not true... check the sequential releases of dcraw code
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 11:51:38 AM
So I'm a bit curious what the logic behind the companies that still use closed formats is.

standard question - you are Panasonic, you want to bring a new camera to the market with software optics corrections, DNG does not support that (tags)... what are you going to do ? delay the release until Adobe will agree (not necessarily) to do as you want and suffer financially ? share you move with competition in advance (assume that DNG made it to the standard and it is necessary to get approvals by C&N&S&others) ?


Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 11:53:01 AM
Looking at my own "Legacy Leaf" (sounds kinda hip-hop) workflow I think I'll finally look into making it into DNG. I was planning to when I first got the back, but thought it would be cool to implement support for it in my favorite app that I use for my landscape work, RawTherapee, so I did that. Since RT has a good flat field function (LCC) and I use my back exclusively for fine art landscape work I have never really got any reason to fully use C1, but I like to have a diversity of tools to choose from. Maybe it makes me look like a fundamentalist free software type of guy using RT (which is open source) and desiring open file formats, but I actually use RT for artistic reasons :). When I do "artwork" (I'm too humble to not use quotes) I like starting with a very neutral base rendering and have very detailed control and insight into what all changes do, something I think RT excels in.

The fine thing is that DNG SDK is open source, and there's open source available for the uncompressed .mos format too so I could even write my own little batch software to do the conversion automated by a script when I put the CF card into my computer (things programmers like to do... :D ). Not sure yet though if C1 can do LCC on DNGs though so maybe it would make no difference in that particular use case. But then I can always run Leaf's own conversion software, and maybe they already have auto/batch functionality, haven't tried it yet.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 11:57:53 AM
standard question - you are Panasonic, you want to bring a new camera to the market with software optics corrections, DNG does not support that (tags)... what are you going to do ?

You let the user set the camera to something other than JPEG and DNG.

You make the assumption that the Panasonic user who wants that option is NOT going pick JPEG so let's assume the same people have the intelligence to pick whatever Panasonic wants to call super-duper, high end special proprietary raw on the switch that currently allows one to select JPEG.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 12:06:56 PM
You let the user set the camera to something other than JPEG and DNG.

sure, as soon as Adobe will pay for extra hours of development/qa/tech writers/etc to maintain extra functionality.


Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 12:09:05 PM
sure, as soon as Adobe will pay for extra hours of development/qa/tech writers/etc to maintain extra functionality.

Your arguments are really nonsensical. It isn't about Adobe, it's about customers.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 12:15:59 PM
Your arguments are really nonsensical. It isn't about Adobe, it's about customers.
customers en masse do not care... it is a non factor marketwise.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 12:34:39 PM
I've not read up on the details on DNG but I'm assuming that in its default incaration is quite extensible concerning meta data, so I don't think that the features we see in cameras today is a problem.

Sure, we could in the future see some radically new sensor tech that needs fundamental extensions of the format, but then you can always fall back to proprietary formats while its worked out in DNG.

My guess though is that DNG is quite "future proof" so I find it unlikely this would be a large problem.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: yaya on November 12, 2012, 12:46:22 PM
Some pointers for you Anders;

1. The Leaf Valeo 6 was the first digital back EVER to be supported by ACR (2003). Since then, every time we bring a new model out, we make sure that Adobe receives files, sometimes before the back is shipping (the Credo 80 is one example) so that they can test, tune (if needed) and add support in the next release of ACR & LR. There are no politics involved and no conspiracy theories. Adobe choose what format types they wish to support and to what extent and we all respect that. They also work according to their own schedule and we respect that as well.

2. If a file is supported, there is no real difference, workflow wise between DNG/ CR2/ NEF/ MOS/ IIQ etc....in your case the only difference is LCC and that is where (I believe) using our own software (LC or C1) is a plus.

3. Leaf Capture provides one of the best LCC implementations for your back (if not THE best) and it leaves you with .mos files that are corrected for colour cast, falloff and dust spots and that are 100% compatible with Adobe software (and I assume RT and DCRAW as well)

4. If you insist on using RT for its LCC function, all you need to do is run your compressed files through our Raw Converter (Leaf Software download page (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/downloads.asp)). This can be done straight off the CF card so you can convert and copy the files at the same time, or you can convert the files from your HDD while backing them up so there's a gain there as well

5. Capture One 7's new and improved LCC function is intuitive and easy and you can export the files as DNG with some of the corrections applied (no colour cast).

6. I've been personally involved (since 2000, that's Leaf Capture 7 for you...) in developing and testing the LCC workflow from the user's stand point most people here at that time did not know that it existed...I am always happy to discuss it with people who use it regularly and who may have suggestions for improvements.

Any serious developers or customers (including OEM customers) who wish to work closer with us can contact us with their requirements and have access the relevant SDK (Capture One or Leaf Capture and subject to signing NDA or licence agreement). Our business model requires that these enquiries will be genuine and present value for our business so that we can justify and plan any resources allocation.

So as a start I suggest that you spend some time trying the above options and see if they work for you, you may even find that they work better than what you already use ;)

BR

Yair
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 12:47:25 PM
customers en masse do not care... it is a non factor marketwise.

Can you share we us where this metric can be varied? Also how you came to the cost analysis to add a setting via the LCD for DNG and all the work it would take to engineer DNG into the system.

Be also interested to know the percentage of cameras that capture raw + JPEG, the percentage of users who use one versus the other.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 12:57:00 PM
Can you share we us where this metric can be varied?

check marketshare of non DNG companies vs DNG companies... that simple... nobody cares about absence of DNG really... and 99% of those who do typically care until the next ACR/LR RC release and somehow still buy the camera...

and... if you care about the customers 2 examples

1) GH3 - no cameras sold so far but already supported by ACR/LR RC, w/o any DNG...

2) Fuji XTrans - where is the Adobe's love to their users to help them w/ Fuji's CFA ?
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 01:16:41 PM
check marketshare of non DNG companies vs DNG companies... that simple... nobody cares about absence of DNG really... and 99% of those who do typically care until the next ACR/LR RC release and somehow still buy the camera...

I asked you to provide the data, where can I find it please? URL and numbers if you have them for us.

Also please explain how your conclusions about the number of cameras supporting DNG equates into the number of people who care or don't care for such an option. IOW, if 5% of market share supports a system that provides DNG as an option, what methodology did you use to conclude the other 95% of those users don't care about DNG?

I think your arguments are nonsensical but I'd like to find out if you have any facts or figures to back up your belief. Otherwise I'd find your arguments both nonsensical and without any facts.

You're either part of the problem or you're part of the solution. I have to assume you perhaps shoot raw and you don't care for DNG as an option. Great. Don't use it. There's as yet zero support from your camp that it would be unduly expensive to provide an option for DNG to those who do want it. Again, this is all politics. If enough customers make a stink for what they want, the more likely we'll get it. The more people such as yourself defend the practices of the big camera companies, the less good done for the photo and imaging industry. Now if you have actual facts and figures that using Canon as an example, that company would undergo an unfair expense to implement DNG versus actual numbers of users who, when told the options would or wouldn’t use it, we're all ears.

Quote
and... if you care about the customers 2 examples

1) GH3 - no cameras sold so far but already supported by ACR/LR RC, w/o any DNG...

2) Fuji XTrans - where is the Adobe's love to their users to help them w/ Fuji's CFA ?

OK, so where in those two stat's does this explicitly and accurately account for these differences due solely to DNG?

I suspect vastly more images are captured as JPEGs world wide and within all digital capture devices than any other format. That therefore equates to my suggesting that people who purchases cameras don't care about the option to capture raw? Silly thought pattern.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 01:22:58 PM
1) GH3 - no cameras sold so far but already supported by ACR/LR RC, w/o any DNG...

And of course, it didn't cost Adobe anything to do this.

Funny, if we ask the camera manufacturers to do the work, it's too costly for them (poor babies). But it's OK for Adobe engineers as well as ever other raw converter's engineers to figure out the newer format and support it.

Do camera manufacturers have lobbyists?
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 12, 2012, 01:45:13 PM
Hi,

I have not bought any Leaf back publicly or privately, but I still think that the situation which all vendors having proprietary file formats is just insane. Also, the way I see it, photographers should own their images. If the images are in an undocumented format that ownership is at risk.

Having a lot of incompatible formats has in my view little benefits but lots of costs and creates frustration.

Best regards
Erik




I assume your annoyance is at your legacy Leaf Aptus back which you purchased privately. If purchased from a good dealer your initial training would have covered (from the start) the use of the compressed raw, free leaf raw convertor, and DNG options to make sure that, from the getgo, your captures would be available in whatever software you wanted to use. It can, for sure, to learn these lessons and wade through some of the complexity on your own.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 02:00:39 PM

I have not bought any Leaf back publicly or privately, but I still think that the situation which all vendors having proprietary file formats is just insane. Also, the way I see it, photographers should own their images. If the images are in an undocumented format that ownership is at risk.

do you see that photographers should own their cameras and then why don't you ask the manufacturer to disclose you the firmware code the for example ?   


Having a lot of incompatible formats has in my view little benefits but lots of costs and creates frustration.

what is incompatible (and with what) there exactly ?
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 02:03:37 PM
Funny, if we ask the camera manufacturers to do the work, it's too costly for them (poor babies). But it's OK for Adobe engineers as well as ever other raw converter's engineers to figure out the newer format and support it.

when dcraw code will be released you can find how how many bytes were added to support GH3 specifically... I bet < 100 ASCII symbols (including comments if any)... shall we check then ?

much more work is to profile the camera and Adobe shall do it in any case as any selfrespecting vendor of raw conversion software...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Some pointers for you Anders;

Thank you for your time Yair. I surely shall investigate these options with great interest. I'm not too worried about solving my own issues. This thread is actually mainly about why DNG is not supported in current products although there seems to be a great interest in why I came up with this question at this particular time :).

So may I ask, why do you not provide a DNG option in your newest backs? Is it because you there are no customers asking for it any longer, or is it lack of resources, or don't you think DNG is mature enough yet, or is it some other reason?

Concerning NDAs for getting access to the image format spec I'm as you might expect not particularly fond of that type of arrangement, but Leaf is certainly not unique in that aspect. The typical reason things becomes like this is because the business folks don't see any difference between internal hardware design or image file format, everything is equally secret to them and should be protected. The "soft" arguments about providing a public documented and therefore archive proof format to the photographer (without conversion hassle), and just simply that it would provide goodwill and convey the message that the company is serious about open architecture don't really get through this dense mindset.

There's no commercial need to support compressed .mos files in the type of commercial image software I and collegues are currently developing, because the customer base is too small. So there's no need to apply for that NDA, and we would probably not get it anyway since you would consider the sales of our specialized software too small and not present enough "value to your business".

In the open source world we are however many tech enthusiasts and we like to support our own gear and cool legacy stuff, and leaf backs are certainly very cool legacy stuff. In this case reverse engineering seems to be the way to go though also with this format. This is not always the case though. Many years ago I implemented a sound card driver for Linux for a pro studio sound card, and I got the documentation from the manufacturer, no NDA or anything (and that was not legacy stuff). They knew it would do no harm. The sound card did become quite popular on the linux platform later on for serious audio hackers, but of no real "business value" for the company due to the microscopic number of users in relation to other platforms. But I guess someone on that company thought it was cool thing that some tech nerd would implement a driver for free.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 02:30:39 PM
I asked you to provide the data, where can I find it please? URL and numbers if you have them for us.
Also please explain how your conclusions about the number of cameras supporting DNG equates into the number of people who care or don't care for such an option.

only after you do this for the number of people who can't do w/o DNG - DNG proponents were first in this thread - hence you shall come w/ your numbers first... and let me guess - you own cameras w/ native DNG support and you use Adobe software and you do not have any real issues w/ non DNG raw files because of that.




IOW, if 5% of market share supports a system that provides DNG as an option, what methodology did you use to conclude the other 95% of those users don't care about DNG?

and why do you think that 5% care about DNG and not just to have cameras/lenses that they want (like if people are buying Leica or Ricoh/Pentax to have DNG  ;D)... and again the same note - DNG proponents started first here (and there) so you please come up with you methodology to prove something... note that nobody disputes that you and some other people (you do not have any statistics how many) want DNG, however neither you, nor Reichman, no others so far were able to influence no manufacturers except niche ones... that is the market answer to the amount and seriousness of that market demand... which says - nobody cares really except niche players.


I think your arguments are nonsensical but I'd like to find out if you have any facts or figures to back up your belief. Otherwise I'd find your arguments both nonsensical and without any facts.

I think your arguments are the same and you are trying to turn the table and for some numbers w/o providing them first to support your claims... again I did not hear any good explanation about what Panasonic had to do w/ optics correction...


You're either part of the problem or you're part of the solution. I have to assume you perhaps shoot raw and you don't care for DNG as an option. Great. Don't use it. There's as yet zero support from your camp that it would be unduly expensive to provide an option for DNG to those who do want it.

DNG is not a solution - solution is when manufacturer discloses both format (and most of raw formats are pretty much documented by crowdsourcing, by individuals and companies, resulting in Coffin's work and its refactoring like libraw) and the content... DNG does not force them to disclose the content fully hence it is not a solution... DNG ties the hands when something new is to be released (see Panasonic)... DNG is still controlled by Adobe (and remember - Google makes hardware, MS makes hardware... there is good chance that Adobe will start making hardware too... and which hardware Adobe might start to make ?) - no changes or additions to DNG standards so far can be done w/ Adobe's OK regardless of where DNG standard was submitted... free != safe.

Again, this is all politics. If enough customers make a stink for what they want, the more likely we'll get it. The more people such as yourself defend the practices of the big camera companies, the less good done for the photo and imaging industry.

big camera companies do not want their hands tied by necessity to wait for approval from others and by disclosing changes in advance to their competition... push shall be not for DNG, but for documenting their own format _and_ data inside post factum - that is a more reasonable goal...

Now if you have actual facts and figures that using Canon as an example, that company would undergo an unfair expense to implement DNG versus actual numbers of users who, when told the options would or wouldn’t use it, we're all ears.

only after you will come up with facts and figures about the same DNG...

OK, so where in those two stat's does this explicitly and accurately account for these differences due solely to DNG?

again - you shall come up w/ some numbers about DNG first...


I suspect vastly more images are captured as JPEGs world wide and within all digital capture devices than any other format. That therefore equates to my suggesting that people who purchases cameras don't care about the option to capture raw? Silly thought pattern.

please do not put your words into my mouth... and then in camera JPGs are just that - same raw images converted by in camera raw converter... not really a different thing from raw images converted by off camera OEM raw converter...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 02:36:26 PM
do you see that photographers should own their cameras and then why don't you ask the manufacturer to disclose you the firmware code the for example ?   

These type of arguments is about "fair use", and where one should draw the line, where should the user be let in to the system.

I think the image file format is very reasonable, and I see a big difference between firmware and image file format. The image file is the thing you store for posterity. It is also where you store your own unique copyrighted work. The firmware has nothing to do with that.

Sure manufacturers can always get away with "well you can just convert it to a big TIFF file (or DNG) in later stage in the process using tool ABC we provide on platform XY under license Z", but is it really so unreasonable to demand that the camera output is an open format? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 02:37:06 PM
only after you do this for the number of people who can't do w/o DNG - DNG proponent

OK. More than 5 people on LuLa forums would like a DNG option on their cameras. I can get you a specific list if you must.

OK, your turn. Let's see your figures for why the percentage of cameras sold equates into the desire or lack thereof for DNG.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 02:44:18 PM
OK. More than 5 people on LuLa forums would like a DNG option on their cameras. I can get you a specific list if you must.

and I do not dispute that ... and so what ? Does the main shareholder here stop using P1 backs ? hahaha... he will not... hence P1 does not really care... he is a non factor in such decision in P1, unless he will put something where his mouth is and returns all P1 equipment and stops all P1 reviews here, etc here and prominently put a sign - P1 backs are not welcome anymore - please buy Leica or whatever... now that will be something, may be...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 02:45:30 PM
Consumer cameras are primarily designed for JPEGs. Most MFDBs *only* shoot raw. Many MFDB manufacturers also brag about having open architectures. I think it is reasonable to put higher expectations on them on being in the forefront of supporting open formats. And well, they do. Sinar, Leica, Pentax. But there are some still missing...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 02:48:46 PM
and I do not dispute that ... and so what ?

Three times in your last post to me, you refused to answer a question asked of you only to demand an answer from me. I assumed that for this game to work, I have to answer your question first so I did.

So I guess getting you to supply the answers originally asked of you below will go unanswered?

I told you I thought your arguments were nonsensical and was just wondering if your belief system was based on anything anyone else could examine. It appears not.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: yaya on November 12, 2012, 02:50:06 PM
Anders there are (too?) many cooks here but did you see my reply?
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 02:56:45 PM
The firmware has nothing to do with that.

firmware creates what you own.

Sure manufacturers can always get away with "well you can just convert it to a big TIFF file (or DNG) in later stage in the process using tool ABC we provide on platform XY under license Z", but is it really so unreasonable to demand that the camera output is an open format? I don't think so.

you have the full right to demand everything and they have the full right to follow the real market demand and real market demand is not about DNG because you buy and use non DNG cameras, hence your demands are not serious... you do not have any alternatives otherwise you will be there... manufacturers understand only $$$ and only demands that when unmet results in $$$ loss... DNG demand does not mean $$$ loss.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 02:57:22 PM
Anders there are (too?) many cooks here but did you see my reply?

Yes Yair, I saw it, and actually replied too :). The actual technical aspect here I can deal with, since I don't need to play with C1 that often I can mess around some extra with those files, so it's cool.

On the main issue on why current products don't use DNG and why file formats are generally closed for the public I have my opinions on and I like to ventilate them and see what people think. So I'm sorry if I'm being a pain in the b*tt :), but it's nothing personal...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Schewe on November 12, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
standard question - you are Panasonic, you want to bring a new camera to the market with software optics corrections, DNG does not support that (tags)... what are you going to do ?

The opcodes for DNG do indeed support lens data correction...so all Panasonic would need to do is correctly embed the lens correction data.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 03:12:33 PM
you have the full right to demand everything and they have the full right to follow the real market demand and real market demand is not about DNG because you buy and use non DNG cameras, hence your demands are not serious... you do not have any alternatives otherwise you will be there... manufacturers understand only $$$ and only demands that when unmet results in $$$ loss... DNG demand does not mean $$$ loss.

You are being a bit categorical, but that's kind of entertaining I guess :).

You do point out a problem, when manufacturers are large enough and provide enough value to the customers they can do a bit as they like. This is perhaps more evident in the world of internet services. Facebook can change their integrity policies and lots of people get upset, but they still continue to use facebook because they have so much use of that service. Google would have to do some increadibly bad thing before folks would stop using the gmail etc.

But turn it the other way around, what would the company risk from using DNG? Nothing really at this point. There are already companies that
have made the move.

And I do think there are management decisions from time to time made not entirely from short term $$$. Some think about how the brand should be viewed upon and things like that, and some just do things because they think it's a fair thing to do. Introducing DNG (or opening up proprietary formats to the public) can be such a thing.

Say if Canon completely changed the raw format, encrypted it and only made raw processing available through their native processing software, and they would say "you can always develop to 16 bit tiff in our software and continue in lightroom whatever afterwards" would I then sell my Canon gear? I don't know really. It would surely hurt a lot, but it's a mess to change camera platform.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Schewe on November 12, 2012, 03:21:59 PM
DNG is still controlled by Adobe (and remember - Google makes hardware, MS makes hardware... there is good chance that Adobe will start making hardware too... and which hardware Adobe might start to make ?) - no changes or additions to DNG standards so far can be done w/ Adobe's OK regardless of where DNG standard was submitted... free != safe.

I've seen you make this claim before...Adobe is not and never has been interested in hardware, just cross platform software. There is no evidence what so ever for this claim. As far as 3rd parties making changes to the DNG SDK? I know of several occasions where Adobe changed aspects of DNG to satisfy 3rd parties. Adobe allowed the ISO to change the TIFF spec for TIFF-EP...so there is history at Adobe for working with standards. Compare that to the camera companies...EXIF is a standard too, which Nikon and Canon (and others) often choose to ignore. The various camera company's track records are very poor relating to standards.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: ndevlin on November 12, 2012, 04:11:44 PM

Allow me to summarize this thread to date:

1. There is no good reason.

2. Deeejjaaaa disagrees, but is unwilling to share his proprietary data source   :D

- N.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 04:43:48 PM
Allow me to summarize this thread to date:

1. There is no good reason.

2. Deeejjaaaa disagrees, but is unwilling to share his proprietary data source   :D


You forgot:

3. If you just would have bought from a dealer, he would have implemented DNG in the back for you  :D
Title: if you don't like it ....
Post by: hsteeves on November 12, 2012, 05:02:39 PM
my view:
1. if you want a back with DNG, buy one or make your own;
1a. DNG converter if you want it so bad;
2. the cameras I have that don't have DNG, I am perfectly OK with. I knew when I purchased them what they had;
3. I don't trust Adobe any further than I can throw them.
Title: Re: if you don't like it ....
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 12, 2012, 05:14:37 PM
Hi,

How long do you keep your raw files?

How long do you expect your camera vendor to hang around?

Who will support your raw files if your camera/software maker passes away?

Best regards
Erik


my view:
1. if you want a back with DNG, buy one or make your own;
1a. DNG converter if you want it so bad;
2. the cameras I have that don't have DNG, I am perfectly OK with. I knew when I purchased them what they had;
3. I don't trust Adobe any further than I can throw them.
Title: Re: if you don't like it ....
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 05:24:06 PM
Who will support your raw files if your camera/software maker passes away?
source code to access the raw data is available forever...
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 05:26:28 PM

1. There is no good reason.


sure, camera manufacturers which are selling "90%+" of all cameras are all stupid and have no reasons (and it does not matter if you do not like their reasons)

Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 05:34:00 PM
I've seen you make this claim before...

we all did our claims before... yet, Jeff, you are happy shooting you P1 back(s) and you are not going to refuse P1 back(s) because of no DNG support...

Adobe is not and never has been interested in hardware, just cross platform software. There is no evidence what so ever for this claim.

just words... we have plenty of non hardware companies moving into hardware business now... when the move happen it will be too late.

As far as 3rd parties making changes to the DNG SDK?

not SDK but DNG standard... what Panasonic did, forced Adobe to change the standard, but Panasonic neither had to ask, nor wait, nor to disclose in advance... and as the result -> DNG SDK was changed as well

I know of several occasions where Adobe changed aspects of DNG to satisfy 3rd parties.

and we know that nazis (no relation to Adobe) granted some exceptions to some jewish people... so ?

Adobe allowed the ISO to change the TIFF spec for TIFF-EP...

see... "allowed"... and next time something will not be "allowed" how about that ?

so there is history at Adobe for working with standards. Compare that to the camera companies...EXIF is a standard too, which Nikon and Canon (and others) often choose to ignore. The various camera company's track records are very poor relating to standards.

true, however that does not mean that they want to be in a position to wait or ask Adobe to "allow" something
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 05:40:50 PM
Say if Canon completely changed the raw format, encrypted it and only made raw processing available through their native processing software, and they would say "you can always develop to 16 bit tiff in our software and continue in lightroom whatever afterwards" would I then sell my Canon gear? I don't know really. It would surely hurt a lot, but it's a mess to change camera platform.

look, if you imagine something about "C" you can as well imagine something about "A"... the reality is - C does not have DNG files and I am yet to witness somebody leaving C for XYZ because of that... specifically people who are living in Adobe's raw conversion realm and who do not experience any difference based on what is the input for their LR or ACR... Adobe's software is like a gun... it makes everything so equal, so far from raw
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on November 12, 2012, 05:43:22 PM
The opcodes for DNG do indeed support lens data correction...so all Panasonic would need to do is correctly embed the lens correction data.
the issue is - when Panasonic did that - there was no Adobe DNG standard to support that... and no such standard was in place for quite a long time since first Panasonic cameras w/ such .RW2 raw files hit the market
Title: Re: if you don't like it ....
Post by: digitaldog on November 12, 2012, 05:58:24 PM
source code to access the raw data is available forever...

Read the question again! He didn't ask about access to source code data. He asked Who will support your raw files if your camera/software maker passes away?which is a valid question. Who supports my really old Kodak DCS data today?
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 12, 2012, 06:18:25 PM
look, if you imagine something about "C" you can as well imagine something about "A"... the reality is - C does not have DNG files and I am yet to witness somebody leaving C for XYZ because of that... specifically people who are living in Adobe's raw conversion realm and who do not experience any difference based on what is the input for their LR or ACR... Adobe's software is like a gun... it makes everything so equal, so far from raw

It makes everything so equal I choose to use other tools ;). But I'm still interested in open formats. Canon's raw format has been reverse engineered for years and has a relatively stable implementation. Makes me a little bit less annoyed (requiring new silly micro additions for each new model due to lack of meta data is annoying though). Leaf's compressed format has not been reverse engineered at all and there's some issues with one program wanting compressed and an other uncompressed, and I need to use conversion tools. Makes me a little bit more annoyed. All annoyance could be avoided if they implemented DNG. My use case is a bit special though, I admit. If you use the latest and greatest and only standard tools it's smooth.

Only in extreme situations photographers leave a brand from one single reason. Instead it is usually several smaller things and annoyances adding up over time. If I were an MFDB maker I would in these days try to make things that make photographers less annoyed, to get some margin. Implementing DNG is a really low risk, low cost, and a right thing to do(tm), which some have realized and reacted on, but others still stubbornly refuse for no apparent reason except from annoying people.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Schewe on November 12, 2012, 06:26:50 PM
and we know that nazis (no relation to Adobe) granted some exceptions to some jewish people... so ?

Yeah, ya know...you have crossed the line bud...you just ceased to exist for me. You'll be happy to hear this is the last time I will EVER respond to you and I would encourage Mike (or Chris) to ban you for this kinda shyte. You bring nothing useful to the table...buzz off doode.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: hsteeves on November 12, 2012, 11:53:25 PM
Erik:

greetings,

1. If my RAW files are around tomorrow, fine.  If they are not, fine.  I am not that important that they need to exist. The images prove nothing, show nothing.
2. Get a new camera.
3. Again, the images I make and the RAW files from them are not that important in this world - there are more important things.  If they survive, they will simply take up space somewhere.  And I can always create more images and more RAW files ...

Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: julius0377 on November 13, 2012, 04:48:40 AM
One (for me) hassle with the ever changing RAW formats is the need to upgrade software all the time. I used to buy about every second iteration of Adobes software, and every second iteration of Capture1. The same went for Microsoft office (to read files other folks send me).

Because I now upgrade my day to day cameras with every iteration, I ofthen have to buy every iteration of software due to raw incompatibility with previous software generations (ACR - Adobe Camera Raw, being the prime example.) If camera makers wrote to a DNG format, this would presumably be easier, even though there are frequent updates to that format also.

My costs are basically up by an small sum because of proprietary formats.

Other issues are software/firmware tie-ins to operating systems. When Apple upgraded their OS a little while back, Canon's stopped working tethered to Capture1 because of software issues. This was a disaster to me, as my assistant just pressed the "upgrade" button on the laptop I use for location work, and a number of following shoots had to be shot to CF card due to tethering problems (I always shoot tethered for the client to see the work progress and be able to provide feedback to me.)

I wholeheartedly support open file formats and standards, on everything that produces files. For me the only true answer to how much DNG factors in is if one of the big two (canon/nikon) would offer DNG on their very top model. Only then would we see if it had any impact on camera choice.

On a side note about standards, even attatching .jpg files in emails are a hassle. Clients with windows machines ofthen complain of "not being able to save" the .jpg from a mail attatchment. So I have to make a .zip file as the attachment, and then they dont understand how to open the .zip, etc. etc. Life would be sooo easy if there was an accepted open standard for compressing files across operating systems. A lot of clients don't even understand how to download and open .zip files if I make a download link for them. They do such things as click on the temporary files to open them before they are downloaded, try to move the temp files before they are downloaded, etc.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: julius0377 on November 13, 2012, 04:54:56 AM
....And I can always create more images and more RAW files ...

This might function well for some business models, but a lot of photographers (like me) have a policy of several years of storage for clients. Just the other day I got a request for some images taken on a shoot more than seven years ago by a private client. I could provide this due to software being able to read these files, had they not I would not have made an easy extra income.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 13, 2012, 09:40:27 AM
This type of thing is not a must-have feature, but it is annoying that it is not there, and it is annoying that manufacturers don't care, and at least I find it annoying that my work is stored in a secret container which gives the manufacturer control over which platforms and workflows that works. As soon as the image is out of the camera I want it to be as free as possible from intellectual property claims from other entities. Having it in an open format helps.

So you should give them what they deserve - continue nagging and nagging and nagging about DNG support until they can't take it anymore and just implement it :)
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Pascalf on November 13, 2012, 11:01:05 AM
Warning: This is a long post.

As soon as the image is out of the camera I want it to be as free as possible from intellectual property claims from other entities. Having it in an open format helps.

So you should give them what they deserve - continue nagging and nagging and nagging about DNG support until they can't take it anymore and just implement it :)

- This.

For me, I've seen both sides of this discussion, as it pertains to formats and accessibility.

To illustrate, I'll use two episode that have happened to me, using Adobe and Apple [I edit video, so, yes].

Adobe:
Many moons ago, Adobe [on the Macintosh OS8 and OS9 platform] had a non-linear video editor called Premiere.

I was one of the users of Premiere, for it came with the RasterOps MoviePak™ board when the company I worked for at the time wanted to get into the computer/ non-linear editing services.  We had a full Betacam A/B roll suite, and we saw that the future would include digital editing, at least so that we could sample/ digitize the tapes to include video into our CD productions.  If you can't tell, this was in the early nineties.

So the company went in big, and got a Quadra 950, AV rated Micropolis [SCSI] drives, with a MoviePak board, which came with Premiere [version 1] as the software pack.

Continents shift, stars fade.

With version 4.5 Adobe decides to stop supporting the Truevision Targa 200 Pro, which was, at the time, the digitizing board we were using on both our workstations.

After some research, we find out that Apple Final Cut Pro [version 1.25] supports the Truevision Targa 200 Pro.  We decide to move both of our editing stations to FCPro.

Main issue:
- No translator for Premiere projects to FCPro, meaning that any old project would not be accessible or transferable.  We keep an older machine setup as the Adobe Premiere station, to have access to the prior four years of edits/ projects.
- Two different companies, at two different software development efforts, were not expected to have a common file format that easily allowed full project compatibility.

Apple:
Moving ahead to the transition from Final Cut Pro v7.x to Final Cut Pro vX [ten].
- Apple breaks compatibility between the two version, citing a completely new codebase as the reason that creating a translator would not be worth the time
- Apple immediately stops [without forewarning] the sale of FCPro v7
- User base pushes back
- Apple extends the sale of FCPro v7
- Automatic Duck creates a 'translator' between FCPro 7 and FCPro X


World is saved, until next time, right?

What the above examples [probably] illustrates, and points to ponder:
- if both companies had takes resources to write their file/ project formats to a universal format [which at the time would have been either AVID of Media 100] it would not have had an impact on sales: Premiere and FCPro were bought by those who could not afford AVID.
- Only with companies seeing a clear cost/ benefit argument does a dev team take the resources to write to a format that is alien to their codebase
- clear cost/ benefit argument occurs when many current customers call for a feature [that would get the user base to upgrade, offsetting the development costs of said new feature]
- professional programs require stability, and in my experience, the resources that would go to a feature [relatively] few
would use would instead be put to fixing stability or improving speed
- Leica now depends on Adobe Lightroom supporting the exact DNG format from Leica cameras.  They are beholden to Adobe.  If Adobe stops supporting [insert operating system here, like Windows XP], then all that user base stops getting updates/ upgrades.
- It it the users' responsibility to translate/ convert files that will become obsolete with the termination of formats or software
- MacPaint [on OS6/7] used to be the 'universal' bitmap drawing file format: what happened to that?
- WordPerfect used to be franca lingua for word processing: what happened to that?  Does *anything* read WordPerfect?
- I used to know [and use] WordPerfect.  I'm that old.  Though not too old.  My files are on 5.25" diskettes.  They are 'lost' unless I put a massive amount of resources to 'get them back'.  The same for any other file on a medium that is retired or obsolete.
- I don't know of many companies that would help you NOT be loyal to their products, by making it easier to move to another supplier/ manufacturer.

Conclusion:
, . . . continue nagging and nagging and nagging about DNG support until they can't take it anymore and just implement it :)
- this is what usually works


Pascal
/I said this was going to be long.
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: Schewe on November 13, 2012, 11:46:42 AM
- Leica now depends on Adobe Lightroom supporting the exact DNG format from Leica cameras.  They are beholden to Adobe.  If Adobe stops supporting [insert operating system here, like Windows XP], then all that user base stops getting updates/ upgrades.

The DNG file format is not OS dependent...applications are. Yes, LR and ACR (and DNG Converter) versions are limited to specific OS versions such as LR 4 dropping XP and Mac OS X 10.5.8. But a DNG from a Leica camera should be usable in older apps that are no longer supported. So, Leica is not beholden to Adobe for DNG support (except for the fact they OEM Lightroom and include it with their cameras–but that's a different deal and doesn't related to the question of DNG support).
Title: Re: Why hasn't DNG become standard in digital backs?
Post by: torger on November 13, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
More on cross-platform: Adobe's DNG SDK is source based and although they only provide Mac OS X and windows build scripts out-of-the-box, it is fairly easy to build on Linux (I just did) and the code looks portable, and it is an MIT license, that is that you can use this code free of charge and without licensing issues in both free and commercial and closed source and open source projects, just like it should be for an open file format.

Small independent developers as well as large can use this format for free and sell applications with support for it using readily available code, all without even talking to Adobe.

I'm satisfied with the openness of this format, and I'm not easy to please  ;D