Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: DNG again and again and again...  (Read 85743 times)

sandymc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #120 on: July 18, 2015, 09:24:41 am »

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.

I pointed this out to Eric years ago. Not that he wasn't fully aware of it. And he was helpful enough to explain how the various Adobe products actually use the field. But it's still no way to write a spec. Adobe can (and in fact did) change how the field is used without making the new usage public.

The point is, with all due respect to all on this thread, there are valid technical and financial reasons why DNG might not make sense a camera manufacturer. There's no conspiracy - if you're a small manufacturer starting from zero, with simple requirements, DNG probably will make sense. E.g., Leica. For a large manufacturer (a) with a huge installed base of cameras, and millions of images in an existing format out there in the hands of users, and (b) competing on the basis of more and more features, many of which require additional fields in the raw format, it probably won't make sense. Which is exactly how things have played out.

And BTW, for those that suggest that DNG can accommodate proprietary extensions, sure it can. But DNG with proprietary extensions is just another proprietary format. Almost every raw format out there today is already a standard (TIFF/EXIF) plus proprietary extensions. There's no reason to replace one proprietary format with another.

Sandy
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 09:41:06 am by sandymc »
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #121 on: July 18, 2015, 09:30:48 am »

I find it telling that when I point out the obvious fact that supporting DNG would cost money, this is rebutted with

'You don't work for Nikon, you cannot know that it would cost money! And by the way, even though I also don't work for Nikon, I can assure you that Nikon only refuses to support DNG out of corporate hubris'

I am stitching together a few different responses here, unfairly, but that's pretty much the level of debate here.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #122 on: July 18, 2015, 10:11:14 am »

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.

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...

Well stated! It's amazing the amount of effort so called photographers make in defending this practice you pointed out above.

As to those stating it will cost money, yes, it will. Very little in the grand scheme of the entire new camera system. Every time a Nikon or Canon engineer has to take a leak and then wash his hands, it cost the company money. So what? We're not asking for some 3D OLED wide gamut removable LCD for the camera! We're asking for a raw file that behaves like the last camera system such any raw converter can understand it and provide us our image data! Why is it that every new camera system has a new raw file that has to be updated? And yet we hear "these raw files are all very similar with tiny differences from model to model from one manufacturer". If true, can you blame some for wondering about conspiracies? Either output the same damn file format (like we see with the JPEG) or provide a switch for DNG (the hard and expensive work is done, by Adobe). Add another $15 to the price of the camera, no one will know why or care, the silly debate (FUD) will cease and we photographers  will have full access to our image data!

To argue otherwise is a disservice to the photography industry but it's great for the camera making industry.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 10:13:44 am by digitaldog »
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #123 on: July 18, 2015, 11:02:09 am »

I am confident that literally nobody has argued that camera makers should not support DNG. THAT is an actual straw man.

The point that I and everyone else has made over and over is that it's not the obvious no brainer several people here seem to think it is. It is not cheap. It is not a moral imperative. It will not bring the dark and light sides of the force together. It is not trivial.

I see wild unsupported claims about how easy and beneficial it would be be, and more sensible people saying 'uh.. It might not be quite as uncomplicated as that'
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #124 on: July 18, 2015, 11:47:11 am »

I am confident that literally nobody has argued that camera makers should not support DNG. THAT is an actual straw man.

The point that I and everyone else has made over and over is that it's not the obvious no brainer several people here seem to think it is. It is not cheap. It is not a moral imperative. It will not bring the dark and light sides of the force together. It is not trivial.

I see wild unsupported claims about how easy and beneficial it would be be, and more sensible people saying 'uh.. It might not be quite as uncomplicated as that'


As you know, it is always easy for the person with the idea....not so much for the person who must implement it :-)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 12:59:34 pm by jrsforums »
Logged
John

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #125 on: July 18, 2015, 12:18:00 pm »

Fifteen years ago or so I worked at a place where we had a running joke.

When some incoherent and internally complicated feature request came in that would mainly please some sales guy we would cry KOONT-YA-JUST! (couldn't you just...) And laugh merrily.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #126 on: July 18, 2015, 12:23:30 pm »

The point that I and everyone else has made over and over is that it's not the obvious no brainer several people here seem to think it is.
Pretty close as evidence of companies that have done just what we've requested!
Quote
It is not cheap.
More speculation.
Quote
It is not a moral imperative.
For you no, for some of us yes.
Quote
It will not bring the dark and light sides of the force together.
True but no one but you said it would. Talk about straw men!
Quote
It is not trivial.
Actually it is, as illustrated again by much smaller companies than Nikon and Canon.
Quote
I see wild unsupported claims about how easy and beneficial it would be be, and more sensible people saying 'uh.. It might not be quite as uncomplicated as that'
As someone that has provided a share of wild unsupported claims, you fall into that camp well.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #127 on: July 18, 2015, 12:36:24 pm »

So the fact that Leica does a thing is proof that the thing is trivial?

That is fascinating. I'm going to start banging out some lens designs right now!
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 12:51:49 pm by amolitor »
Logged

Rainer SLP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
    • RS-Fotografia
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #128 on: July 18, 2015, 01:10:38 pm »

Very interesting topic.

Some are happy and some not ...

Understandable as usual.

I am by far not expert to judge if " DNG or not DNG ... ", (I have made some tests again based on this long topic and found out some things and I will adapt my working to what I like), but it looks like there are enough people who really would like DNG directly out of the camera ...

So my question is

Have all those who want DNG directly out of the camera formed somehow an association or whatever Lobby and contacted the camera builders who are reluctant to implement it and presented your wish ?

I see here a lot of Lonesome fighters arguing what they would like but nobody mentioned that a huge amount of Photographers have united or lobbied and brought up their wishes to the camera builders ...

Perhaps what I just wrote has already happened, and if yes well just ignore my post ...
Logged
Thanks and regards Rainer
 I am here for

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #129 on: July 18, 2015, 02:22:25 pm »

So the fact that Leica does a thing is proof that the thing is trivial?
Kind of yes! It's doable, it's not hugely expensive for a small(er) company to implement. Far, far from impossible or difficult and considering most of the work was done by Adobe in the first place.
With your mindset, it's huge and expensive engineering to have the camera save to a TIFF instead of a JPEG. My engineer could do it in hours or less.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #130 on: July 18, 2015, 02:54:19 pm »

That's a great idea, Rainier. Lula and Michael are well positioned to build an independent market research organization representing photographers and providing information to the industry.

Drink less sake, gather more data.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #131 on: July 18, 2015, 03:25:52 pm »

When I say 'it would be expensive' that is mere useless speculation.

But when you say 'it would be cheap' that is gospel truth. Got it.

I'd discuss further but I'm wrapping up my lens designs.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #132 on: July 18, 2015, 03:36:26 pm »

But when you say 'it would be cheap' that is gospel truth. Got it.
Who said  'it would be cheap'? What's that supposed to mean?

Going back to Leica, they were able to do this, it's called proof of concept!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #133 on: July 18, 2015, 03:50:23 pm »

You said it would be cheap.

'Not hugely expensive'
'My engineer could do it in hours'

Etc etc.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #134 on: July 18, 2015, 03:54:05 pm »

You said it would be cheap.
I did, where?
Quote
'Not hugely expensive'
'My engineer could do it in hours'

Yes, that I said and it's true. Did I say it would be cheap? Because I don't know what you believe cheap means.
You're pretty good at putting words in people's mouths too...
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #135 on: July 18, 2015, 04:03:17 pm »

You're just weaseling out by arguing about what "cheap" means.

You dismiss my educated guesses as idle speculation, while your opposing remarks are gospel truth.

Bottom line, if what I say is stupid speculation, then what you say is no better. Probably worse, unless you happen to have 25 or more years in building technology products. Game. Set. Match.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #136 on: July 18, 2015, 04:09:44 pm »

You're just weaseling out by arguing about what "cheap" means.
Look, you're getting desperate and wasting my time and probably others. I don't believe I ever used the word cheap as you attribute to me and IF I did, point out the post. You're just putting words into people's mouth which is a sign of desperation. I'll stick with the exact words I WROTE about my engineer!
Quote
You dismiss my educated guesses as idle speculation, while your opposing remarks are gospel truth.
Yes, I'm dismissing your speculations as have others.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #137 on: July 18, 2015, 07:18:00 pm »

Look, you're getting desperate and wasting my time and probably others. I don't believe I ever used the word cheap as you attribute to me and IF I did, point out the post. You're just putting words into people's mouth which is a sign of desperation. I'll stick with the exact words I WROTE about my engineer!  Yes, I'm dismissing your speculations as have others.


All due respect, Andrew ((Rodney).....

"Cheap" vs "not hugely expensive".....how does one quantify the difference????
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #138 on: July 18, 2015, 07:25:06 pm »

"Cheap" vs "not hugely expensive".....how does one quantify the difference????

Indeed, how!

But the real point is, I never wrote cheap, I don't like being misquoted. It shows how far amolitor has gone to move this topic into getting locked down. As I predicted two days ago. What a waste of time...

I should have read his signature before engaging with him. Anyone with the Hubris to post a quote about his $2 book being "The most important book on photography written in the last 123 years" should consider being Donald Trump's running partner.  ;D
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: DNG again and again and again...
« Reply #139 on: July 18, 2015, 07:41:42 pm »

That's two jokes in a row you've failed to get, digitaldog. I'm beginning to understand some things better.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up