Started by gerryrobinson, April 19, 2013, 05:17:29 pm
Quote from: gerryrobinson on April 19, 2013, 05:17:29 pmI'm starting this to ask:If we, as a photographic community,believe it is our best interests to support the adoption of a non-proprietary raw format..
Quote from: Tony Jay on April 19, 2013, 07:58:47 pmMany mainline camera manufacturers are currently ignoring the issue however there are no technical reasons mitigating against a DNG being generated in-camera.
Quote from: Tony Jay on April 19, 2013, 07:58:47 pmIn the last few days I have read some wild arguments about firmware bloat as a consequence but again some knowledge about the DNG format and its historical timeline demonstrate an intriguing fact: before the release of DNG as an open format most camera manufacturers had appalling RAW formats that were a real mess. Subsequent to the release of DNG the next generation of proprietary RAW formats across a lot of brands suddenly improved out of sight. Coincidence?
QuoteA commercial argument has also been put forward to defend the camera-makers current stance. However, Jeff Schewe has been making the point, ad nauseum, and he is right, that the real 'secret sauce' for the camera-maker lies in the sensor/processor, and what that combination does, not in the subsequent recording of 0's and 1's in the RAW file.
QuoteEven if the makers want to embed secret information in the RAW file for their own RAW processing software the DNG standard already allows for that.
QuoteAs already pointed out it is likely that DNG genetics are to be found in many proprietary RAW formats right now.
QuoteRather, the prime stumbling block appears to be a stubborn selfish pride by most camera-makers to even acknowledge that there may be a problem.
Quote from: jwstl on April 20, 2013, 12:27:42 amI'll admit up front that I don't know a lot about this subject but it seems to me the camera makers would be more likely to include a DNG option once it's accepted by the ISO. Until then it's someone else's format so the camera makers feel they might as well stick with their own.
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on April 20, 2013, 04:36:14 amHi Tony,I suppose you have some objective evidence for that theory?Is that so?Raw files do more than record the exposed and converted data as processed by the camera. Outside the exposed image area there is a number of proprietary masked and other sensel data (to do with black level, vignetting, banding, amongst others). Is all that copied into the DNG file? If so (and it certainly wasn't in early DNG versions, so who guarantees it is now?) what does a(n) (error free?) conversion add for high quality future conversions? DNG is just a conversion to another format. My Raw files can be read just fine, bit by bit, and can be converted into an image by the manufacturer's software (with generally reported better color than from other converters), and by a number of independent software solutions, and even with something as universal as DCRaw, although they won't be able to utilize the proprietary data in the Raw file (that is, assuming it is still there).Is that so? Do you have any credible and independent source for that theory?It's just another theory. Do you really think that pride is the reason, or could it be that they see no benefit in putting Adobe in a spotlight. What commercial benefit would having to spend resources in keeping up with a changing file-format bring them? Besides, it would be more of a benefit for Adobe to only having to deal with a single Raw file format than the manufacturers of cameras. Is Adobe willing to share some of those savings with the camera manfacturers?The camera manufacturers now have the liberty to produce hardware, which produces a Raw file, with exactly the data in it that the camera generates, and can utilize for a potentially high quality output. Then they move to the next technological step and that will produce a somewhat different Raw file, without the need to think about incorporating deprecated legacy parameters or file structures. They can also reserve space for features that didn't make it in time for the initial release, but which will be needed for a later firmware upgrade (and they won't have to tip off Adobe about it in advance).I think people have a too romantic view of commercial manufacturing companies. They are not in this world to secure the future of our Kodak moments, they are here to make money. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is what it is. They will only adopt something universal, if it brings a lot of clear (competitive) benefits, and no downsides. Cheers,Bart
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on April 20, 2013, 04:36:14 amCheers,Bart
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on April 20, 2013, 04:36:14 amRaw files do more than record the exposed and converted data as processed by the camera. Outside the exposed image area there is a number of proprietary masked and other sensel data (to do with black level, vignetting, banding, amongst others). Is all that copied into the DNG file?
Quote from: Schewe on April 20, 2013, 12:23:20 pmYep...outside of some early raw file formats (Canon's CRW is one I know of) and some oddball raw file formats like Sigma cameras, all the raw image data and all metadata-even if DNG doesn't understand or use them-is stored in the DNG. Both Thomas and Eric have stated this and there are provisions for this metadata migration in the DNG SDK.I also know (cause I've seen it) that certain individuals can actually take a DNG without an embedded raw and reconstitute a valid proprietary raw file format from it. Currently, there is no way of doing that which has been released...so it's sort of a home brew operation :~)DNG is simply a well formed and documented raw file format that is consistent with TIFF-EP which is the basis of most the current crop of proprietary raw file formats out there (with a couple of exceptions such as Sigma).
Quote from: PeterAit on April 20, 2013, 03:39:57 pmIf you are worried about future lack of support for proprietary RAW files in the future, then convert to DNG on import.
Quote from: PeterAit on April 20, 2013, 05:26:26 pmPerhaps LightRoom's default could be to convert imports to DNG? No burden on the user, no need to whine to the camera manufacturers, and we can get back to making beautiful photos.
Quote from: Schewe on April 20, 2013, 05:07:06 pmYes, but that puts the burden on the user and again gives the camera companies a pass to continue the proliferation of undocumented, proprietary raw files. So, this doesn't address the underlying problem, just shifts the burden to millions of users instead of a relatively few camera makers.
Quote from: fredjeang2 on April 20, 2013, 03:18:25 pmYeah, but as an open format, it has a weired downside as well. In the motion version, the fact that it is open actually blocks the developpement of support into proprietary NLEs. That also happens with open EXR too. Nobody is willing to develop the support and put engineers at work as it will also be usable by the competition.
Quote from: Schewe on April 20, 2013, 06:04:02 pmWell, I'm not at all familiar with the issues of digital video file formats...I'm aware of CinemaDNG but I really have knowledge of the issues and the various venders involved. So, I don't know if CinemaDNG has any technical benefits or weakness. I gather it's gotten some support but I don't know where it stands relative to the DNG raw file format.
Page created in 0.033 seconds with 17 queries.