Camera Raw 4.6 "Release Candidate" on Adobe Labs

[madmanchan]

FYI:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_4.6

This will be primarily of interest to those with new cameras:

    * Fuji Finepix IS Pro
    * Nikon D700
    * Nikon D90
    * Nikon Coolpix P6000

There is an additional list of cameras with preliminary support, given here:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/

These additional cameras, which we have __not__ completed testing for yet, include:

   * Canon EOS Rebel XS (a.k.a. 1000D)
   * Canon EOS 50D
   * Olympus SP-565 UZ
   * Sony A900
   * Sigma DP1

[alfin]

Eric,
of course there is no support for the EOS 5D Mk II announced yesterday, but can you tell if 5DII will be supported by CS3 at all, or do we need CS4, i.e. ACR 5.0?

Thanks!

[hubell]

FYI:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_4.6

This will be primarily of interest to those with new cameras:

    * Fuji Finepix IS Pro
    * Nikon D700
    * Nikon D90
    * Nikon Coolpix P6000

There is an additional list of cameras with preliminary support, given here:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/

These additional cameras, which we have __not__ completed testing for yet, include:

   * Canon EOS Rebel XS (a.k.a. 1000D)
   * Canon EOS 50D
   * Olympus SP-565 UZ
   * Sony A900
   * Sigma DP1
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is it that Adobe has not supported any of the Hasselblad digital backs in ACR? Apple seems to have figured out how to do it in Aperture.

[madmanchan]

alfin, unfortunately I don't know the answer to that right now, in terms of CR2 files from the 5D II.

You will always be able to use CR 4.x (or earlier) to process DNG raw files from the 5D II. I understand this is not everybody's cup of tea, but it's an option and it's free.

[NikosR]

Interesting that Adobe rushed to support the Nikon Coolpix P6000 'weird' NRW raw format. That's one thing I didn't expect to happen so fast. Nikon themselves do not properly support the P6000 RAW format. Kudos to Adobe. I suspect there's more happening behind the scenes regarding Adobe - Nikon cooperation than they will have us believe.

This puts the P6000 back on the map for me as a P&S purchase candidate (assuming that LR support will follow)

Any additional info on p6000 support? Are there any limitations on its RAW support or is it handled like any other RAW format?

[madmanchan]

Are there any limitations on its RAW support or is it handled like any other RAW format?

NikosR, no limitations. We are treating P6000 raw files like we do with all other supported cameras: namely, by processing the raw image data directly.

[NikosR]

NikosR, no limitations. We are treating P6000 raw files like we do with all other supported cameras: namely, by processing the raw image data directly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, that's good to know.

[httivals]

Why no support yet for the Panasonic LX3?    

[madmanchan]

Sorry, can't go there.

[hubell]

Sorry, can't go there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Too bad Adobe seems to have you on a short leash. I am curious as to the internal "politics" in Adobe as to why some cameras are supported and others are not. I asked you in private and then I asked you in public about why Hasselblad digital backs are not supported, and you did not answer. Strange.

[Schewe]

I am curious as to the internal "politics" in Adobe as to why some cameras are supported and others are not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why are you curious? Does your job rely on knowing this? Are you doing research for a paper or some other investigation? Or are you just being nosey?

Eric, now that he works for Adobe, has constraints put on him regarding what he can and can't say. Prior to Feb this year, he wasn't an Adobe employee...now he is...and now he has to be careful what he says where.

Adobe is a publicly traded company. As such, employees are under certain restrictions regarding what they can and can't say. Part of it is proprietary company info and part is restrictions on forward looking statements as it relates to their stock. In this case, part of this subject are company relations with other companies which must remain private or could be disrupted.

Eric has done a great job of walking that line and being accessible to the community. If you push, he will have to back away. Is that what you want? That will result in LESS info for all of us...is _THAT_ worth you satisfying YOUR curiosity? I don't think so bud.

Eric says what Eric says...no pushing allowed.

[Czornyj]

why Hasselblad digital backs are not supported

I'd rather ask Hasselblad, althou it's rather a rethorical question.
(I really wish them death since my client uploaded me a few GB of 3F files for photo editing, that I couldn't open nor even convert to DNG)

[Schewe]

I'd rather ask Hasselblad, althou it's rather a rethorical question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I doubt you would get a useful answer...at one point Hassellblad digital backs _DID_ output DNG. Then after a firmware upgrade the cameras quit outputting DNG...why? Well, it was either because the DNG format didn't allow for the type of lens metadata Hassellblad deemed necessary or they were too incompetent to figure out how to put the metadata in the DNG file. Take your pick (I know which answer is true).

At about this time, Hassellblad also came out with new cameras and backs that could ONLY be used on Hassellblads and required their software...see a trend?
(which is a good clue to the answer above).

[hubell]

Why are you curious? Does your job rely on knowing this? Are you doing research for a paper or some other investigation? Or are you just being nosey?

Eric, now that he works for Adobe, has constraints put on him regarding what he can and can't say. Prior to Feb this year, he wasn't an Adobe employee...now he is...and now he has to be careful what he says where.

Adobe is a publicly traded company. As such, employees are under certain restrictions regarding what they can and can't say. Part of it is proprietary company info and part is restrictions on forward looking statements as it relates to their stock. In this case, part of this subject are company relations with other companies which must remain private or could be disrupted.

Eric has done a great job of walking that line and being accessible to the community. If you push, he will have to back away. Is that what you want? That will result in LESS info for all of us...is _THAT_ worth you satisfying YOUR curiosity? I don't think so bud.

Eric says what Eric says...no pushing allowed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gee, I think I hit a raw nerve! But please, spare me the bull... about Eric not being able to talk about why certain cameras are not supported because he is an employee of Adobe and is subject to restrictions on forward looking statements under the securities laws that might be violated by explaining why Hasselblad digital backs are not supported by ACR.  You think a statement like "we are working on it but there are technical issues" would rile the stock market with investors clamoring to buy Adobe stock becuase of the possibility of Hasselblad backs being supported by ACR? Stick to digital imaging; you know about that.
BTW, you speculated as to several reasons why I was curious about why Hasselblad digital backs are not supported. Is he nosey? Does he like to write papers. Is he doing an investigation? Well, the real reason is that I own one. That should have occured to you, but the cheap, sarcastic responses always come more easily, don't they?

[Czornyj]

Well, the real reason is that I own one.

It was quite obvious.
On the other hand - as a Hasselblad user you should notice, that Hasselblad is consistently closing his system lately. For that reason one can suspect, that it also doesn't allow anyone to provide support for their RAW files, and in fact - AFAIK there's nothing that can open 3F files (apart from Hasselblad software).

[Schewe]

That should have occured to you, but the cheap, sarcastic responses always come more easily, don't they?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, you are being nosey and figured Eric might be an easy touch instead of fighting upstream and talking to Hasselblad...

As to the point you made above, that just shows the limits of YOUR understanding...because of the reasons I outlined, Adobe being a publicly traded company, has policies and restrictions upon Adobe employees saying anything about anything...and if you knew anything about the SEC you would realize why. In addition to the company ban on employees talking about "stuff in general", the fact is Adobe is always talking to other companies about "stuff" and it's not in Adobe's best interest to talk about those discussions until both companies agree on public dissemination. So, even if Adobe WAS working with or NOT working with Hasselblad, any public mention may adversely impact those discussions since they are private...

As for the specifics of Hasselblad, I took the liberty of mentioning why I think (based on what I know–not from any sources at Adobe) why Hasselblad can't get their act together...it's because they (Hasselblad) don't want to play ball. So, if ya wanna be pissed, aim it at Hasselblad...

[KeithR]

Eric says what Eric says...no pushing allowed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And I for one am happy for his time, help and information in these forums.

[hubell]

As to the point you made above, that just shows the limits of YOUR understanding...because of the reasons I outlined, Adobe being a publicly traded company, has policies and restrictions upon Adobe employees saying anything about anything...and if you knew anything about the SEC you would realize why.
As for the specifics of Hasselblad, I took the liberty of mentioning why I think (based on what I know–not from any sources at Adobe) why Hasselblad can't get their act together...it's because they (Hasselblad) don't want to play ball. So, if ya wanna be pissed, aim it at Hasselblad...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, Jeff, you are so influential  that the SEC has nothing better to do this week when the financial markets of the US are collapsing than to lurk on the LL Forums to see if Jeff Schewe and Eric Chan are making "forward looking statements" about Adobe's intent(or not) to support Hasselblad backs in ACR.  Get a grip.
BTW, if Apple could natively support Hasselblad's files, why not Adobe?

[Schewe]

Yes, Jeff, you are so influential  that...SNIP
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doode, this ain't about me...it's about YOU trying to pressure Eric into saying something that isn't your right to know. If you appreciate Eric's generous time spent here on the LL forums (which I know many people do) you would do well to understand that there is a line that Eric can't cross and you need to quit trying to push it. Simple as that bud. You either back off or you will be contributing to the pressure put on all of the Adobe engineers to not post anywhere publicly.

Eric can only say what Eric can say and if that ain't enough for YOU, tough.

[hubell]

It was quite obvious.
On the other hand - as a Hasselblad user you should notice, that Hasselblad is consistently closing his system lately. For that reason one can suspect, that it also doesn't allow anyone to provide support for their RAW files, and in fact - AFAIK there's nothing that can open 3F files (apart from Hasselblad software).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, once the Hasselblad digital files are imported into the Hasselblad software, they are converted into "another" Hasselblad raw format, the .fff format. These raw files are read natively by both Aperture and Raw Developer. No need to convert them into DNGs. But hey, Raw Developer is a big international operation that has loads of resources, so it makes sense that they can do it but not Adobe.