Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose

Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
From: Paul Shields <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:31:59 +0000

On 21 Feb 2008, at 02:11, Moose wrote:

> 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 think the more pertinent question is - how many third party RAW  
editors use the Canon SDK? Last time I looked it could be counted on  
two fingers. The problem with the Canon SDK is that it still keeps  
certain information hidden away.


> 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.
>

But - if we adhered to a universal RAW standard then there would be no  
need for any incompetent work. There is no reason why they do not do  
that, apart from keeping proprietary ownership of the digital  
negative. When you shoot 35mm colour film, you don't expect to be  
limited to a particular developer I presume? C-41 is universal and we  
expect similar results no matter which company develops the negative.  
Imagine if a universal film type came out that was only able to be  
processed by the manufacturer :).


>> .............
>>
>> 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.

Yes, bad programming results in bad images. No doubt about that. I do  
trust Adobe to understand what they're doing though. After all, DNG or  
no DNG they are still having to interpret an ORF file for actual image  
editing, and they've done a good job so far (as have many other  
software companies).

>
>>
>> .... 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.
>

But if you're using ACR then you're already relying on Adobe to  
manipulate the proprietary RAW format. Canon/Nikon/Olympus et al don't  
provide this information to third parties. Adobe still have to work  
out how the RAW data should be interpreted, with consequential loss of  
information if it is not retrievable via the conversion process. A  
standard digital RAW format would resolve these problems.



> 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.


I beg to differ. Please list any SDK describing an interface to a  
proprietary RAW format that exposes every element of the RAW data.


> 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.

They are but one example. If you think that every piece of RAW editor  
software out there absorbs new RAW formats over night (or even over a  
week or two) then you're very much mistaken :).


>
>> 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.

It was a rhetorical question. Though as you once again say you use ACR  
for your RAW conversion, I would refer my learned gentleman to the  
prior points. Adobe via ACR are quite quick at re-engineering  
proprietary RAW data. That is not the solution, especially when there  
are X number of competing RAW formats out there - hence Adobe's push  
for DNG.


>
>> 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.
>

All of that may be true Moose, and I'm not going to attempt to  
convince you otherwise. I do feel though that Adobe are trying to do  
the right thing with DNG, and it's nothing to be scared of. Now, if it  
were Microsoft DNG then that would be a different matter entirely...


> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz