Paul Shields wrote:
> They are not! They are 100% not supported. You've misunderstood what I
> am saying. Many RAW converters may support various RAW formats, but
> they are ALL reverse engineered. None of the DSLR manufacturers
> publish how their RAW formats are compiled, so all of the third party
> editors have to start from first principles and hack the files to make
> it work with their editors. The only editors that don't do this are
> those provided by the originating DSLR manufacturer (often at cost).
>
Then what, pray tell are these?
<http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=SDKHomePageAct&keycode=Sdk_Lic&fcategoryid=325&modelid=14999&id=3464>
I know there was a brouhaha about access to WB data in Nikon RAW files
three years ago, in which Adobe was complaining about a shortcoming in
the Nikon RAW SDK, so clearly it exists.
No, they are not bit level file definitions. Yes, they should allow C
developers to access and process RAW files from Nikon & Canon cameras.
Without wasting more time, a quick search finds references to an Oly SDK
for handling RAW images.
So, I don't know which other makers provide SDKs, but at least the big
two and Oly do.
Your statement "None of the DSLR manufacturers publish how their RAW
formats are compiled..." is undoubtedly true.
But your statement "...so all of the third party editors have to start
from first principles and hack the files to make it work with their
editors." is clearly not true.
I'm not sure one should expect the makers to provide low level
definitions of their RAW formats, as long as they provide a way to
conveniently program to process them. In a way, they are protecting
themselves from incompetent work.
> .............
>
> If you're happy with reverse engineering then fine, though it's not a
> solution - it's a workaround of the fundamental problem. I recall that Nikon
> did some radical changes to their NEF format a while ago that screwed up a
> lot of third party RAW editors for quite a while. An open and supported
> digital negative format would prevent such re-occurrences.
>
I don't disagree. I just don't see the existing situation as anywhere
near as bad as you do. And DNG is no panacea against incompetent
programming. There's a fellow in Russia who makes a CRW to DNG converter
for RAW files made possible by the CHDK program, which are
understandably not supported by Canon. Unfortunately, it isn't very
good. The A650 support, in particular puts odd, magentaish blobs in
noisy shadow areas. Fortunately, Dave Coffin is more competent.
>
> .... Support may go on for 'a long, long time' - though historical support is
> really not the issue. The issue is how quickly various RAW editors can react
> to new DSLR releases. Ask anyone shooting with an E-3 and using Aperture -
> they'll be waiting a while before they have any native support. The same will
> be true for future releases across various editors and platforms. It's been
> like this from day one.
>
As far as I know, the Canon SDKs are updated to support their new models
as they are released. Perhaps your complaint should be addressed to the
makers of Aperture. Adobe seems to update ACR pretty promptly and
currently support the E-3.
>> dcraw added E-3 support quite promptly. I assume Aperture will read TIFFs?
>> dcraw itself is command line only, but very good quality and very flexible,
>> and does batches well.....
>>
> Great for you. Lots of low level editors used by 0.1% of the userbase.
>
So what, you want to force N, C, Oly and others to output DNG? I use ACR
for my main line cameras. It's only for the hacked RAW output that I use
dcraw, et. al.
Many of the GUI editors based on dcraw are not low level at all, but
high function apps.
And what's Aperture's market share in the "userbase"? You aren't exactly
in the mainstream, yourself.
> .....TIFF is controlled by Adobe.
They hold the old Aldus copyright to the spec. But, as a practical
matter, they have no control. Everybody and their siblings have been
using TIFF forever. It is, in effect, in the public domain. If Adobe
tried to alter the spec, it would have no practical effect. If they
tried to apply their patent in court, long term existing adverse
(unlicensed) use would block any effect, putting it into the public domain.
> Like DNG, the specification is well known and so anyone can support or use
> it. This is the point I'm trying to make. A supported open standard is great!
> ALL RAW formats are not - they are 100% proprietorial and that is a
> fundamental problem for both users (ref: Aperture 2/E-3 issues) and
> developers (having to reverse engineer every new RAW format).
>
Been here. SDKs exist and are up to date. PS and Lightroom added the E-3
promptly, as did dcraw. The problem you generalize is specific to Aperture.
There has been complaining in other places about the hold-up in adding
RAW file support in general to Aperture. Apparently it has something to
do with the integration of Aperture in to the Mac OS and requiring OS
support for formats before Aperture can support them. Integration CAN be
wonderful..
But I forgot, Apple is perfect. It's the rest of the world that needs to
straighten up and make things work with them.
> It's already starting to become an issue with new RAW formats. There are lots
> and lots of RAW editors out there, and some of them either don't have the
> resource or the willingness to keep their software up to date with every
> variant of RAW format that gets released.
So it's a wild west market, changing rapidly. Too many players. And
those that can't keep up will fall by the wayside, or be bought up, like
RawShooter. But many of them rest on the base of dcraw, and it updates
pretty quickly, so they aren't all at as big a disadvantage as you portray.
> I have paid-for licenses for Silkypix (as an example)
Another very small player, like those you dinged me for using.
> who took many months to support E-400 ORF files (their excuse was that
> Olympus would not
> release a camera to them for testing).
They couldn't afford an E-400? Or they couldn't get a pre-release one
and it took them months after it was released to gen up their own
support? They couldn't afford the SDK? They aren't very competent? Dave
Coffin had no problem. If the business model of one particular developer
isn't any good, generalizing it to all players is wrong.
> I can skip such issues by using the Adobe DNG converter and loading the files
> without issue. The
> same goes for many other RAW editors that now support DNG. In fact, can you
> currently load E-3 ORF files in Silkypix?
>
How would I know? I use ACR. Again, you are making complaints with a
couple of specific developers, generalizing and supposing there are
large scale problems for everyone that need some sort of systemic fix.
Ain't necessarily so.
> I really don't think DNG will die a quiet death.
And I hope you are right. An open standard is a good thing
> There are a few cameras that produce DNG natively (the Leica M8 comes to
> mind).
Another big player in the userbase.
> Leica never had any reason to produce their own version of RAW (they
> obviously make enough money from hardware sales alone ;)).
>
I guess I'm out of touch, but my Canon DSLRs have come with extensive
RAW support software and upgrades are free. Where is the profit in that?
I think they retain control over their RAW formats to retain flexibility
in their camera development and provide good software and SDKs in the
hope of minimizing the number of images damaged by incompetent software
hacks which may reflect badly on their cameras.
When people see a crap image, they ask what camera made it, not what
software messed it up. I'm not saying that all the third party
processors are junk - they aren't. Many of them are probably using the SDKs.
Sure, they are in business to make money, but you portray them as
actively stupid, in addition to mercenary.
Moose, who has no stake in any of the folks, big and little, mentioned
above, but is a pragmatist and finds idealism and windmill tilting tiring.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|