Should Camera Companies adopt non-proprietary raw?

[jrsforums]

Chris, nice review of the historical beginnings of mail on the internet.

I think your last paragraph sums up where this situation is quite different, where you say, "...I never heard of anyone who claimed to have purchased a particular camera because he preferred NEF to CR2, or vice-versa."

If the end users were only able to use the camera manufacturers RAW conversion software, the email analogy would be quite close.

It is Open source and 3rd party RAW conversion software availability which makes it different.  End users do not need to disrupt their workflow to change from one RAW format to another.  It is also, as dpBestFlow says, the reason why the risk of inaccessibility (loss of reading RAW images) is significantly less.

[jrsforums]

As for camera makers getting no benefit, actually, that's not really true...each and every new camera requires additional work for the camera makers to update their own software. That could be mitigated of they adopted a standard because new cameras would enjoy auto support. Yes, they still need to do the work specifying the metadata and the sensor responses–which they have to do anyway...you are overstating the amount of work that would be required...why are you doing that? Simply to be devil's advocate? Or do you know something I don't know?

You are absolutely correct.  Changes to the RAW format must drive cost into the camera maker's RAW conversion software.  Manufacturers such as Canon do not charge for their software, so that cost needs to be recovered in the product cost, which drives up the cost.

If Adobe had a situation like this, where sloppiness or poor planning on one part of the development team for a product caused increase cost in another area, thus driving overall cost for the product under development, wouldn't they fix it?  Particularly if this problem reoccurred again and again with each new release  of the product?

So, now back to Canon.  Do you think their financial people are asleep at the switch?  Why do they keep repeating this over and over again, driving cost from their RAW software?  You are smart....if you are honest, you would admit that the logical conclusion must be that there are other factors involved, probably not driven by costs, but resulting in cost, where it is more costly to produce the same RAW format for each camera and safe the cost of updating their RAW software.

If the logic is wrong...where?

[Rhossydd]

First of all, it's not an entirely new file format.

But different enough that third party software won't read them, so in effect totally different to the end user.

There were technological advances from 12.8 ...... It only seems logical that some changes were required in the Raw data that was recorded.

The issue is providing a standard file format that allows a degree of future proofing.

Why people resist technological progress in favor of uniformity, beats my sense of logic.

From what others have written on this I've yet to see that end users have actually seen any benefit from propriety file formats.

[fredjeang2]

The progress in favor of uniformity
Is evident and necessary.
No, not necesary, urgent.

Taking a simple example that can be
Extrapolate to still: I'm interested
in this pocket BM camera
That uses Cinema DNG and supposed
To be the attempt of RAW standart in
Motion imagery. Fine so far.

But then, the workflow has to go through
Resolve. It's not that Resolve is bad, it's
That I don't like it and I have other system
I paied for. If you are on smoke2013 for
Ex, Cinema DNG isn't supported. Media Composer?
Not supported. Etc etc...so first, I'm on
Bondage with some software: no choice.
2) metadatas. So if we got standardized metadatas
Protocol, the way we can apply the workflow
Will be extremely more simplify and user friendly,
And the archiving preservation ] guarantee.
So if I buy this camera, not only I buy the
Camera, but a specific workflow that gives
No choice to the user. Then, if I mix with Red footage,
I have to apply also another Type of workflow
Within the same project, wich isn't rare.
The result of this proprietary mess is an over
Complicated workflow, issues within roundtrippings,
More time spent in order to acheive tasks,
No support during some time each time a
New format is released etc etc...

WHO wants that?

Progress has always been about simplifying.

[Vladimirovich]

Uh, ok...so some changes are recorded as metadata in the raw file...so? What's to say that data can't be recored in a meaningful instead of undocumented, proprietary method? Do you think there is intellectual property in proprietary raw files? I don't...(and neither do the guys I know who decode them). The big secret is there are no secrets...

so the push really shall be just for documenting of the information... which can be perfectly achieved w/o DNG at all.

[gerryrobinson]

 Nothing more sinister than trying to keep the message out, that I think adopting a standard format, as an option, just makes more sense, in the long term, then to keep generating new generations of ORFs,CR2s,NEFs etc.
I'm a bit under-informed as the better method of doing that, short of writing to the camera companies directly, In my case I'll be sending a note off to Canon. If others feel the same as I do maybe that's what we need to do.

[Vladimirovich]

Let's just be clear here...there is no know issue with patents as it relates to files written to media. Exactly what patents are you referring to or are you just imagining there are patent problems?

As for camera makers getting no benefit, actually, that's not really true...each and every new camera requires additional work for the camera makers to update their own software.

That could be mitigated of they adopted a standard because new cameras would enjoy auto support. Yes, they still need to do the work specifying the metadata and the sensor responses–which they have to do anyway...you are overstating the amount of work that would be required...why are you doing that? Simply to be devil's advocate? Or do you know something I don't know?

and where did you the exact amount of work required which is different from creating/testing camera profiles, adding/testing new features to that software, etc...  plus as you perfectly know (and keep silent) rarely new format features are added to the format itself, so you argument is lame

[Schewe]

and where did you the exact amount of work required which is different from creating/testing camera profiles, adding/testing new features to that software, etc...  plus as you perfectly know (and keep silent) rarely new format features are added to the format itself, so you argument is lame

Huh? Do you mean where did I learn about how much work is required by the camera companies to add new camera raw files? Is that what you are asking? If so, I've talked with engineers at Phase One and Leaf...and adding support for new cameras or backs takes a lot of work, but it's work they would have to do regardless of whether or not they do/don't add DNG support. Taking the sensor and lens data and putting that into a usable form for DNG would not be much extra work. Some, but not much over what they have to do anyway.

As for the lame argument comment, again, I'm not sure what you are talking about...are you referring to new features of proprietary raw file formats?

[jrsforums]

Huh? Do you mean where did I learn about how much work is required by the camera companies to add new camera raw files? Is that what you are asking? If so, I've talked with engineers at Phase One and Leaf...and adding support for new cameras or backs takes a lot of work, but it's work they would have to do regardless of whether or not they do/don't add DNG support. Taking the sensor and lens data and putting that into a usable form for DNG would not be much extra work. Some, but not much over what they have to do anyway.

As for the lame argument comment, again, I'm not sure what you are talking about...are you referring to new features of proprietary raw file formats?

But it is addtional work.  How do you define a little?  Did these engineers just look at their effort or did someone cost out the total effect of their work on DNG, which is much more that just writing the code and unit testing it.

Was this DHG work replacing their native RAW or side by side?  Do they have to contend with timing factors to support 10 or 12 fps?  Or other similar factors?

Your offhand comments, while I am sure factually relating the conversations you had, are quite typical of one who has not brought an entire complex hardware/software product to market.  Concept is easy, execution and the effect on the pricing and P&L can be significant.  With your experience you should know it.

[PeterAit]

Time to call the euthanasia people for this thread.

[jrsforums]

Uh, ok...so some changes are recorded as metadata in the raw file...so? What's to say that data can't be recored in a meaningful instead of undocumented, proprietary method? Do you think there is intellectual property in proprietary raw files? I don't...(and neither do the guys I know who decode them). The big secret is there are no secrets...

If there are no secrets, there are no problems.  Just work effort for people who want to be in the business of decoding/reverse engineering the RAW data.

[Schewe]

Time to call the euthanasia people for this thread.

Well, you are under no obligation to keep reading and posting...but some useful discussion and new information has come out of the thread. So I agree with Mike, I wouldn't kill it off prematurely. I'm just not going to respond to certain posts and poster. You could consider exercising the same discipline.

[jrsforums]

Well, you are under no obligation to keep reading and posting...but some useful discussion and new information has come out of the thread. So I agree with Mike, I wouldn't kill it off prematurely. I'm just not going to respond to certain posts and poster. You could consider exercising the same discipline.

So....you think everyone is on your side.  

I find it interesting that you choose not to respond to posts which poke holes in you ill thought out logic.

[rasterdogs]

Well, you are under no obligation to keep reading and posting...but some useful discussion and new information has come out of the thread. So I agree with Mike, I wouldn't kill it off prematurely. I'm just not going to respond to certain posts and poster. You could consider exercising the same discipline.

This is a good point but seems to have little impact on certain parties who seem intent on argument for the sake of argument.  And you were correct on the other thread on this topic, pigs can fly.
I continue to doubt that they can be taught to sing.   

[jrsforums]

This is a good point but seems to have little impact on certain parties who seem intent on argument for the sake of argument.  And you were correct on the other thread on this topic, pigs can fly.
I continue to doubt that they can be taught to sing.   

Gosh....I guess some people cannot understand and/or honor Michael's request....

BTW...if you have not noticed, the disagreement (argument, in your terms) goes both ways....with more than one person on each side.

[rasterdogs]

Gosh....I guess some people cannot understand and/or honor Michael's request....

BTW...if you have not noticed, the disagreement (argument, in your terms) goes both ways....with more than one person on each side.

Seriously? I'm betting that you will have the last word here.

[jrsforums]

Seriously? I'm betting that you will have the last word here.

If you have value to add to the discussion, feel free to post.  If all you have is insults, please find a playground.

[fredjeang2]

Mmmm...

It smells more and more like
Tópic's closed.

So before it does, I put My final
Words:
Should camera companies adopt
A non proprietary RAW format?
Yes!

[peterv]

No, this thread should not be closed, it should be moderated.

As a regular reader to this forum, I find this an interesting subject and I'd like to hear sensible reasoning that lead to a conclusion from which we as photograpers can all benefit in the future.

So far, it hasn't been made very clear why DNG would not be a good idea.

Please no name calling, just sane discussion.

[jrsforums]

No, this thread should not be closed, it should be moderated.

As a regular reader to this forum, I find this an interesting subject and I'd like to hear sensible reasoning that lead to a conclusion from which we as photograpers can all benefit in the future.

So far, it hasn't been made very clear why DNG would not be a good idea.

Please no name calling, just sane discussion.

Peterv, I agree.

I have also not been against the CONCEPT of DNG, or other open RAW standard.  I think it would be a good idea.

I have been disagreeing that the camera manufacturers are malicious, or whatever, not falling in line.

It is not "giving them a pass" to attempt to understand their side of the equation.  How does it effect them?  What does it cost them to implement and/or maintain it.  Is it total conversion or side by side versions of RAW from them.  What if any competitive exposures would this create for them?  Will the "standard" constrain their ability to innovate in the future?

These considerations are belittled by (most of) the DNG proponents.  Unfortunately, without understanding them and finding a value proposition that solves them, I do not believe will ever be overcome by the handwringing which is going on.  All business, including Adobe, are driven by P&L.