Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ACR support for Canon 5d mk2  (Read 41764 times)
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2008, 05:07:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
All of your examples are simply proprietary rendering instructions which can be (and already are) stuffed into the maker note. This is easily compatible with the DNG container, and in fact, DNGs created from the DNG Converter (or Camera Raw, or Lightroom) already contain all this data. So it would be trivial for DPP or Capture NX to extract the special data (e.g., shooting distance) from the DNG private maker note tag, just like it does today from the maker note (or private TIFF tags) of a CR2 or NEF.

This is the acknowledgment, that interpreting the raw data based on DNG is inferior to that based on the native raw files. It is really not the point I intended to arrive at in the coruse of this discussion, but the fact is, that DNG is an un-coordinated effort to go in the right direction but ignoring the actual demand.

As long as the raw data processor has to go back to the native raw data for such basic information, the claim for DNG's "universality" remains unserious.

There is no reason for anyone to convert the native raw data in DNG if the accepted result can not be achieved without MakerNote.
Logged

Gabor
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8334



WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2008, 05:18:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
That's where Andrew and I diverge...I think it's unconscionable for ANY photographer in their right mind to think that the current undocumented and proprietary raw file situation is anything but totally unacceptable long term. Anybody who does think that is either uneducated about the issues or has no interest for the well being of the photography industry. And don't confuse "religion" with technology...and that's what this boils down to, information technology and the importance of documented and open file formats. If, after all of this discussion, a photographer doesn't accept the facts as presented, then their are either under the influence of the camera makers or they are an idiot. Seriously folks, there is NOTHING GOOD about the current undocumented, proprietary raw file format problem for photographers and to reject that notion is to give aid and comfort to the enemy (the file format, not the companies).

ISO is a must, discussions will start the day DNG is an ISO standard, not the day before.

Besides, there is probably nothing good about un-documented file formats, but there is potentially something bad about having to use a standard that - as all standards - can only evolve slowly to take into account new requirements from the users (in this case the camera companies).

If the DNG spec evolution is too slow, the practical result would be proprietary extensions whose documentation will be left to camera manufacturers to do. Will they do it? Perhaps, but there will be some reluctance from them in explaining in the open what kind of data they want to store in the raw files, since it will de facto leak some information about their imaging chain and what they are trying to do to deliver value to their customers (the photographers).

Some examples?

- data about actual sensor light response as measured in factory
- info from other camera sensors (accelerometers to help removing camera motion blur in post-processing,...)
- sensor dust live map
- ...

I am not saying that this can not be overcome, and I assume that Adobe has factored this in and proposed a convincing set of arguments to help camera manufacturers move in the right direction, but I have at last never seen any convincing argument on this point expressed by anybody Adobe related.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5527


WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 19, 2008, 05:40:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
ISO is a must, discussions will start the day DNG is an ISO standard, not the day before.


Ya see, that's what the problem is...so many people seem hellbent to keep ADOBE out of the position of leading the documented raw file format effort but then also sit around and complain about STANDARDS being slow to evolve. Which was the whole reason Adobe kept onto the grassroots standard since 2004. Adobe CAN react quickly to eh development of new cameras–the proof is that Thomas and team have been doing 3-4+ updates of Camera Raw since it was started–which is a pretty darn good track record. And, as needed, they've updated the specs recently to include DNG Profiles.  Naw, the claim that you'll wait till the ISO has control over the standard is more of the same...feet dragging (just like some of the camera makers are doing).

Again there is NOTHING about the current situation that is the LEAST bit good for photographers and the photographic industry, and any side issue like not wanting Adobe to be in charge of the standard is crap...Adobe owns TIFF and it's never been a problem (except for when some sloppy developers break the spec) and even the ISO needed TIFF-6 for their TIFF-EP spec. But if you look at the ISO timetable for updates, it's enough to make you want to cry...you seriously don't want a standard's body to be in charge of updating quick moving standards, dooode!
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #63 on: November 19, 2008, 06:02:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
ISO is a must, discussions will start the day DNG is an ISO standard, not the day before

Well, this is a dire outlook. Would not one expect a dicussion before a standard is declared?

One of the basic problem is, that Adobe declared a "standard" on their own.

There are two sides to that issue.

1. Some other parties were not prepared to move. This problem can not be stressed enough.

2. Adobe's "expertise" is everything but expertise, when the issue is to declare an intenational standard. In fact, it would be a sad day for digital photography, if Adobe found enough suckers to support the present DNG to be accepted as a standard.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 06:02:46 PM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5527


WWW
« Reply #64 on: November 19, 2008, 06:55:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
One of the basic problem is, that Adobe declared a "standard" on their own.

No...that's not at all uncommon, it's called a "grassroots standard" and it happens all the time in a variety of industries...it happens where one participant has needs, creates a reasonable standard and then touts that standard...it's slightly unusual that the standard creator just gives it away as Adobe is/will be doing...

Quote
2. Adobe's "expertise" is everything but expertise, when the issue is to declare an intenational standard.

That's your opinion but it's not backed up by facts. Adobe has a long track record at creating standards...
PDF
TIFF (they didn't actually start it, Aldus did but Adobe has kept it alive)
XMP
DNG
And a host of recent open source (mainly for the web which I don't care about)

So, you better back up the statement that Adobe doesn't have the expertise if you're gonna go flapping your gums bud...their "expertise" is backed by Adobe's track record, your opinion is based on what, exactly?

Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #65 on: November 19, 2008, 07:04:47 PM »
ReplyReply

The current DNG 1.2 specification is sufficiently rich to represent (and allow decoding of) raw data for the vast majority of the cameras that shoot raw. (The exception is Foveon.) The specification does contain a chapter presenting a baseline scene-referred processing model, i.e., how to get from camera-native coordinates to RIMM.

However, as I've indicated earlier in the thread, and elsewhere, DNG is not intended to universalize or standardize output-referred rendering (whether display-referred or print-referred, the two most common options). There is little point in standardizing scene-to-output rendering controls commonly found in raw conversion software and given common labels such as contrast, saturation, presence, clarity, boost, etc. Just like there is little point in standardizing the print-referred perceptual tables that go into ICC printer profiles; it is up to each profile-creation software (e.g., ProfileMaker, MonacoPROFILER, Argyll, etc.) to make its own decisions/tradeoffs about the rendering, but ultimately they stuff the secret sauce into a common container, i.e., the BtoA0 tag in an ICC profile.

That said, the DNG specification does allow camera makers to include a desired default "appearance" or "style" if they wish to (I have demonstrated this with the Camera Matching beta profiles, and Casio will demonstrate it with the EX-FH20, which has full support for DNG 1.2 extended color profile format, and two other unnamed camera makers will follow suit in 2009 and 2010.)

I should also mention that many photographers are under the (mistaken) impression that Adobe just cranks away on DNG on its own without consulting the camera makers, then simply expects the camera makers to "catch up" and "get on board" whenever Adobe releases an updated DNG spec. If that were true, then I could sympathize with the perception that Adobe is being arrogant with respect to "dictating" the format for the industry. However, that is not the case. We consult with most of the camera makers regarding future plans/updates for DNG, and some of the changes & additions made to the previous 2 DNG spec updates (1.1 and 1.2) were the direct result of constructive feedback from these camera makers. There are some encouraging signs that this collaboration will expand in 2009.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 07:11:06 PM by madmanchan » Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4914



« Reply #66 on: November 19, 2008, 07:08:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Come on Jeff! Stop confusing people with facts. They're soooo boring.

Michael

Logged
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #67 on: November 19, 2008, 08:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Come on Jeff! Stop confusing people with facts. They're soooo boring.

Michael




Ahem....

Logged
button
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2008, 10:36:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Since we're on the subject, how many of you convert your RAW files to DNG when importing from your memory cards?
Logged
JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2008, 05:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: button
Since we're on the subject, how many of you convert your RAW files to DNG when importing from your memory cards?

I do.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2008, 06:26:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Depends on the camera.  I still use DPP on occasion so I do not convert the 40D's files.
Logged
David Good
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2008, 06:26:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JDClements
I do.

Yup, then back up the originals.
Logged

laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #72 on: November 22, 2008, 12:14:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: button
Since we're on the subject, how many of you convert your RAW files to DNG when importing from your memory cards?

Interesting question.

I started a Poll on this one here:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=29675&st=0
Logged
JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 22, 2008, 08:29:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, I added my vote over there.
Logged

dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 576



WWW
« Reply #74 on: November 22, 2008, 08:41:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Not from the memory cards, but I do after first edit.

Dave Chew
Logged

robertjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #75 on: November 23, 2008, 03:23:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: button
Since we're on the subject, how many of you convert your RAW files to DNG when importing from your memory cards?

Depends on the number of cards to be downloaded. I archive the original RAW as well as the DNG after edtiing.
If I have to DL one card, I let Downloader Pro call the DNG converter as a plug-in, if there are more cards it is easier to let DL pro do only the downloading and let the DNG converter run on all files in one go
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1987


WWW
« Reply #76 on: November 25, 2008, 04:40:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Support for the 5dII is now in place with ACR 5.2.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4220

So it looks like Adobe have got it out before the camera ships! You can't really complain about that......OK someone will, but...
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #77 on: November 25, 2008, 05:02:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I use Breeze Downloader Pro to copy / rename images to a couple of locations - it's set to autoload on one of my desktops whenever cards are inserted - I just walk away . . .

I then use LR to import from one of the drives and convert to DNG.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad