Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ACR support for Canon 5d mk2  (Read 40732 times)
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1399



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2008, 03:25:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW.  There have been a few other file formats launched recently jpeg xr for one, I wonder how quick Canon/Nikon will be to convert all their cameras to this, or will they wait and see what happens?

Jpeg is a good example. Imagine, that every camera has it's own jpeg format... Do you need any evidence to belive, that one standard jpeg format is better than 1000 camera specific jpeg formats?
Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 583


« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2008, 04:05:57 PM »
ReplyReply

No but I have seen the rubbish VHS format bounce the far better quality Betamax off the planet, mainly because one company pushed it.   Remind you of anything???  Wayne  
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 18, 2008, 04:51:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.


Then perhaps you all should educate yourselves...there's an upcoming event at The Institute of Physics, London, UK you may be interested in 4th International Conference on Preservation and Conservation Issue in Digital Printing and Didigtal Photography. So at least some Brits are up on current events relating to conversation and preservation and it's a pretty big issue for the National Archives. Ask some of these people what they think about undocumented and proprietary raw file formats for digital photography and the what they think of the benefits of DNG would be.

Seriously, if you don't think this is a big problem, you've got your head in the sand...
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 04:53:13 PM by Schewe » Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2008, 07:17:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
Gabor, you have now thrown "lousy software architects" and "nightmare of software architecture" in Adobe's direction. You have made some reasonable technical arguments in the past, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but the insulting remarks are out of line. Watch your tone, please.
There are separate issues here:

1. The professional aspects, i.e. what makes the architecture inadequate; but does anyone dispute this?

2. The underlying reasons, i.e. if Adobe planned to further the sale of PS/LR by means of ACR, or the designers have not realized the negative consequences of their decisions, or the consequences were not deemed important enough. This is pure speculation for outsiders.

3. The choise of the terms describing the inadequacy; this is a subjective matter.

Anyway, my professional assessment is unchanged, and mincing the words is the last item on my list of priorities.
Logged

Gabor
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2008, 07:19:11 PM »
ReplyReply

A clear distinction has to be made between following aspects:

1. Creating the raw file in a form, which allows a generic interpretation of the data,

2. Adding information, which is useful but not essential for the interpretation of the data.

DNG accomodates both concerns. However, one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) for users sticking to the propriatory formats and to the propriatory raw processing software is, that most cameras offer features/options, which were/are not transformable in standard DNG format.

Examples:

- saturation, contrast, sharpness. These are particularly striking, for many, perhaps most users wish to preserv and automatically use these in-camera settings,

- custom curve, like some Nikon and Canon cameras support,

- color rendering options, like "portrait", "landscape"

- exotic camera features, like Canon's Dust Delete Data, noise calibration, whatever.

ACR (and thus the DNG converter) did not allow for custom curves, nor for color rendering options up to the DNG version 1.2, which came out in 2008-05. Saturation, contrast, sharpness are still not covered. (*)

One can't expect customers to exert pressure on the manufacturers towards adopting DNG, while important features are not accessible that way.

(*) Saturation, contrast, sharpness are covered by Exif, but not adequately.
Logged

Gabor
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2008, 07:25:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
An interesting and blunt reply Jeff, sadly coloured by your connections with Adobe.  I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.
Most people who used Internet Explorer or Safari as their browser, do so as it came with the computer and hence the great market share of these two amongst PC + Apple users respectively. Most people don't bother to use DNG as if their files aren't DNG in first place you have to make a concious decision to change your files during import.


Quote
I personally suspect it would cost more than a trivial sum for Canon/Nikon to convert their cameras and software to DNG.  It certainly seems to cost Adobe too much to offer updates for older versions of it's ACR, but it's alway cheaper when it's someone else money your spending.
I'm sure it could be done in Firmware as you can hack Canon P+Ss to do RAW files that way - and that's by people who had to reverse engineer the software.
Adobe only have to rewrite software as camera companies keep changing their RAW formats. But Adobe make it possible to keep working with new file formats in old software for no charge if you convert to DNG. So there is no need to waste time rewriting the old software. And Canikon can use DNG for free as well.


Quote
As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW.  There have been a few other file formats launched recently jpeg xr for one, I wonder how quick Canon/Nikon will be to convert all their cameras to this, or will they wait and see what happens? after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past.     Wayne
Uh RAW is RAW, so a better brand of is not a relevant term. Just like various movie/sound files are often identical bar their extension and the wrapper.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1399



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2008, 10:33:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
No but I have seen the rubbish VHS format bounce the far better quality Betamax off the planet, mainly because one company pushed it.   Remind you of anything???

No, it doesn't. There's no "VHS-like" RAW standard.
Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #47 on: November 18, 2008, 11:17:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
DNG accomodates both concerns. However, one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) for users sticking to the propriatory formats and to the propriatory raw processing software is, that most cameras offer features/options, which were/are not transformable in standard DNG format.

Examples:

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.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 11:19:11 PM by madmanchan » Logged

BFoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241



WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2008, 01:03:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
An interesting and blunt reply Jeff, sadly coloured by your connections with Adobe.  I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.
Maybe cause they're idiots!  Show some respect to Jeff. Jeff's "coloured (AND i will spell it the correct way Jeff!!) connection to adobe" is the 'circle' that has done a whole bunch for this industry that you will only ever have wet dreams of doing mate. His abrasive approach can be unsettling, yes, i sometime wonder if he was an Aussie in a past life, but we love his direct to the point no bull. (Colour colour colour....!)

Quote from: sniper
As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW.
This is not a matter of whether one is better than the other from a consumer/marketing perspective. Stop viewing this as a product release type issue, when was the last time you viewed an advertisement for DPP?.  Precisely because it is the camera manufacturers own brand, is what gets in the way of my control of my intellectual property. I bought the camera, not the proprietary RAW format.

Quote from: sniper
after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past.
AAhhh well, i think you need to read your own words on this one, exactly, you hit the nail on the head, spot on, could not have said it better myself, cha ching. So, then, what are you waiting for, switch to DNG and you wont have to worry about that in the long term future?

Logged

laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2008, 03:28:26 AM »
ReplyReply

That undocmented proprietary formats are unsafe for future use is indisputable in my opinion. The impulse to develop a standard probably came from the nightmare Adobe faced by supporting xyz versions of different RAW formats in ACR.

Agreed?

Some seem to claim that Adobe's whole intention is to create a dependency/cash making maschine. While they are in the business to make money there are very good people in Adobe that have a passion for photography, otherwise we would not be were we are in terms of post processing!

Since DNG was first introduced in 2004 many have joined to support it, and besides it has evolved, but only revised twice ever since I think.

If anyone doubts that the intention is to make this a standard, of which we all would benefit at the end, you may not have noticed that Adobe, to the best of my knowlegde, is applying for DNG to become an integer part of ISO 12234-2:2001. TIFF/EP

In handing over DNG to this body there is not a doubt left of their intentions to make this a standard such as PDF already is.

While not in ISO, today, EPS postscript is quasi a defacto standard.

Version 4 ICC became ISO15076, seriously folks what's so bad about that? Think about the benefits! DNG turned into such de facto standard in the past 4 years, against the roadblocks put up by manufacturers.

The world of photography will move towards standardisation, and this is of benefit to us, the photographers/printers/publishers/artists.

While I would not call colleagues who are against DNG idiots, I would ask to think twice about the benefits of such initiative before bragging on about Adbe being a bad company in general temrs, which is BS and counterproductive.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 03:32:34 AM by laughingbear » Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 583


« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2008, 03:48:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BFoto
Maybe cause they're idiots!  Show some respect to Jeff. Jeff's "coloured (AND i will spell it the correct way Jeff!!) connection to adobe" is the 'circle' that has done a whole bunch for this industry that you will only ever have wet dreams of doing mate. His abrasive approach can be unsettling, yes, i sometime wonder if he was an Aussie in a past life, but we love his direct to the point no bull. (Colour colour colour....!)


This is not a matter of whether one is better than the other from a consumer/marketing perspective. Stop viewing this as a product release type issue, when was the last time you viewed an advertisement for DPP?.  Precisely because it is the camera manufacturers own brand, is what gets in the way of my control of my intellectual property. I bought the camera, not the proprietary RAW format.


AAhhh well, i think you need to read your own words on this one, exactly, you hit the nail on the head, spot on, could not have said it better myself, cha ching. So, then, what are you waiting for, switch to DNG and you wont have to worry about that in the long term future?


Just because Jeff works for Adobe doesn't mean he gets any more respect than anyone else.
Of course it's a matter of one better than another, many people claim Canon software gives better results with CR2 files than Adobes rendering, so no advantage for DNG there.
As for the long term archival use, why change the system we have now, if Adobes DNG converter can always convert our old RAW images at a later date we can just convert them when and if Canon/Nikon go bust (unlightly) and all the other companies making raw converters stop supporting them.  
If the thought of working for Adobe gives you guys wet dreams you really need to get out more.  
Coming back to the original post Canon now offer support for the 5d2 Wayne
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 03:50:52 AM by sniper » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2008, 04:09:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Just because Jeff works for Adobe doesn't mean he gets any more respect than anyone else.

It would be useful if you got your facts straight on many levels...but on this point, let me disabuse you of your incorrect notion. While it is true that I sometimes with WITH Adobe, I do not (and never have) worked FOR Adobe. There is a huge difference...the fact I don't work FOR Adobe means I'm free to maintain any opinions I please. The fact that I don't work FOR Adobe means that my opinions are NOT guided by my employment nor can Adobe use any leverage over me to make me say anything (or not say anything). So, if you discount my opinion because of my "working for Adobe", you might want to get the record correct. Otherwise, you're likely to fall in that "I" camp, ya know?

:~)
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2008, 07:26:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.

Wayne, it's good to have someone with such knowledge on the forum. Obviously you have made a thorough survey of all pro photographers here in the UK otherwise, obviously, you wouldn't make such a claim... Perhaps I could have access to your data base so I can make some pretty authoritative statements of my own, on behalf of all UK pro photographers. Thanks in advance.

Edit: forgot to say, MOST of the pro photographers that I mix with in the UK are acutely aware of the danger of not being able to process a valuable image (and so lose income) a few years after the only raw converter that could handle it has gone from the shelves. But then maybe I don't mix with idiots. Except occasionally on forums...
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 07:38:41 AM by stewarthemley » Logged
BFoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241



WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2008, 11:48:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Of course it's a matter of one better than another, many people claim Canon software gives better results with CR2 files than Adobes rendering, so no advantage for DNG there.
Not any more. Adobe has done a great deal to improve the ACR/LR rendering with the camera profiles that came with 2.0.

Quote from: sniper
As for the long term archival use, why change the system we have now, if Adobes DNG converter can always convert our old RAW images at a later date we can just convert them when and if Canon/Nikon go bust (unlightly) and all the other companies making raw converters stop supporting them.
Why not have everything as DNG now and not have to worry about file naming conventions and archival issues later?


Quote from: sniper
Coming back to the original post Canon now offer support for the 5d2 Wayne
Ok then, just rub it in everyone's face...., they now support it cause THEY have the propriety RAW information. SO, now when the camera is released i can't use it until adobe has time to test and profile and then release the next ACR/LR update. This is the problem.

Also, i would love to see the data on your survey research. Maybe the camera manufacturers could use this data to continue is justification to its monopoly on MY images!!
Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 583


« Reply #54 on: November 19, 2008, 12:32:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stewarthemley
Wayne, it's good to have someone with such knowledge on the forum. Obviously you have made a thorough survey of all pro photographers here in the UK otherwise, obviously, you wouldn't make such a claim... Perhaps I could have access to your data base so I can make some pretty authoritative statements of my own, on behalf of all UK pro photographers. Thanks in advance.



Edit: forgot to say, MOST of the pro photographers that I mix with in the UK are acutely aware of the danger of not being able to process a valuable image (and so lose income) a few years after the only raw converter that could handle it has gone from the shelves. But then maybe I don't mix with idiots. Except occasionally on forums...
You used the words pro photographers, I didn't, over 65% of the images taken daily are with either moble phone or compact cameras, comon sense says they are not using DNG (as most of them don't even have raw thats impossible) out of the remaining35% (ish) a fair proportion use only jpeg, leaving only the serious guys using RAW/DNG  So most are not using DNG (as I said)
Jeff whether you work with or for Adobe, you still get paid by them, that means you have certain obligations to your employer (or don't you do loyalty?)  That is always assuming you want to work for (or with) them again.

There seems to be a very fixed idea here, ADOBE IS GOOD everything else is bad, like you guys I'm entitled to my opinion, I think removing the competiton and switching over to DNG is bad.  Yes it will make life easier for Adobe, they wont have to spend money on ACR updates. But I doubt photoshop going to get any cheaper as a result.
If you guys are right then what I think doesn't matter, if on the other hand I'm right, and lets face it they are not beating a path to adobes door to jump on the I love DNG bandwagon then maybe DNG as an archival format is not as clever as you thought.
If and when all the big Cameras companies adopt DNG I'll happily hold up my hands and surrender to your greater wisdom, but I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.
My last words on this subject.  Wayne
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2008, 12:43:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Of course it's a matter of one better than another, many people claim Canon software gives better results with CR2 files than Adobes rendering, so no advantage for DNG there.

Adobe's rendering has nothing to do with DNG.  If Canon's DPP could read DNG files it would provide the same rendering that it does with CR2 files.  It is just a container and DNG is better documented.

Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2008, 12:55:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think removing the competiton and switching over to DNG is bad.

Hi Wayne, removing competition is not the goal of DNG. As I have explained earlier, camera makers that support in-camera creation of DNG raw files can compete both on the hardware side (e.g., sensor stabilization, lower read noise, ergonomics, etc.) and on the software side (e.g., proprietary image processing algorithms, such as Canon's Dust Off, Nikon's U-Point licensed from Nik Software, ALO, D-Lighting, Picture Styles, etc.).

As an analogy, all cameras support writing JPEG files. They all look different, because each camera has different base sensor capabilities and also because each does different in-camera processing (using the camera makers' secret sauces). However, the fact that they all write a shared format (JPEG) doesn't remove the competition, does it?

Quote
Yes it will make life easier for Adobe, they wont have to spend money on ACR updates.

I disagree. Adobe will continue to spend resources on improving the aspects of CR (and LR) that actually matter to the craft of digital photography: image quality, tools, and workflow. In other words, instead of spending time on the task of decoding new raw formats (which makes zero contribution to the craft of photography, because it doesn't improve image quality or workflow whatsoever) developers of raw conversion software (not just the Adobe team, but also those at Phase One, Bibble Labs, etc.) could work on improvements and new features that photographers have been asking for.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 19, 2008, 12:57:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Jeff whether you work with or for Adobe, you still get paid by them, that means you have certain obligations to your employer (or don't you do loyalty?)  That is always assuming you want to work for (or with) them again.

That's a pretty big assumption there bud...and again, not sure if you know what the heck an "independent contractor" is...here in the US, somebody who works with a company as a consultant is considered just that, an independent contractor...now focus on the word "independent" Wayne...are you getting my drift? I'm NOT "employed" by Adobe....I'm contracted by Adobe when there's an interesting project to work with them with (such as capture sharpening in Camera Raw and output sharpening in Lightroom). As far as being concerned that my future relationship with Adobe may be altered, the ONLY thing I could possibly do that would put me in dutch with Adobe is violate my NDA (in a massive, not sorta fun way that I tend to do).

If you can't understand this relationship or more accurately, relationships with PEOPLE at Adobe (from the CEO on down and including the PMs for both Lightroom and Photoshop) and even the guy who coauthored Camera Raw and Photoshop, then let me say this...I don't have to work for a living...ok? If I never did another thing for money, it would not effect my life style, so sorry to say, I and neither motivated by money nor "employment" (as you seem to keep calling it). And no, it ain't in stocks, it's in bonds. So, unless the US Treasury goes belly up (sure looked like a possible thing a month or so again but China sure seems to like to invest in the good 'ole US of A).

It sure sounds like you are bringing your own assumptions to this table and are carrying you own baggage. So, again, get your facts and your interpretation of them corrected...

Quote
There seems to be a very fixed idea here, ADOBE IS GOOD everything else is bad, like you guys I'm entitled to my opinion, I think removing the competiton and switching over to DNG is bad. Yes it will make life easier for Adobe, they wont have to spend money on ACR updates. But I doubt photoshop going to get any cheaper as a result.

Ya see, that's where you start sounding like an "idiot"...we aren't taking Adobe is good, camera companies are bad...we are talking DNG is a documented and fully open raw file format (which is good) and NEF and CR2 are undocumented and proprietary raw file formats (which is bad). Forget about this being an "Adobe Thing" ok? In the not too distant future, it won't even be an Adobe thing if the ISO (you do know what that stands for, right?) includes it as part of the revised TIFF-EP spec. And it's not about removing competition in the switch to DNG, I guess you don't understand that DNG can contain ALL of the metadata that an NEF and CR2 can hold...there is no giving away the secrets...there is no removal of  competition (unless you want to count the "competition" for which camera maker has the least friggin'  useful raw file format...)

Again, any photographer who honestly thinks the current situation is "good" really needs help. Seriously...
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 01:00:55 PM by Schewe » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2008, 01:04:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
There seems to be a very fixed idea here, ADOBE IS GOOD everything else is bad, like you guys I'm entitled to my opinion, I think removing the competiton and switching over to DNG is bad.

Of course you're entitled to your opinions, even in this case, its highly questionable why you have formed them as such. You've pretty much failed at providing any reasons why DNG is "bad" and Eric has attempted to explain to you what this open non proprietary file container does and how it in no way takes away from the camera manufacturers. Bringing up existing rendered captures from cell phone cameras is taking this way off course and doesn't at all help in your so called argument.

From a technical standpoint, you've provided nothing to explain this belief system you have about DNG. Now if this is an opinion based on some religious belief, so be it. I doubt any of us want to convince you otherwise as arguing about religion is pointless.

If you've got something concrete that suggests DNG is bad for us end users, pro or otherwise that has technical merits, I'm all ears.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 01:04:55 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2008, 02:52:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
From a technical standpoint, you've provided nothing to explain this belief system you have about DNG. Now if this is an opinion based on some religious belief, so be it. I doubt any of us want to convince you otherwise as arguing about religion is pointless.


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).
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad