Nikon - Good cameras and lenses, dumb company!

[BryanHansel]

All the above is meaningless drivel when played out against todays backdrop. Nikon should give its Capture away with it's D line and charge a nominal amount for the budget line IMHO.

Amen.

[BryanHansel]

Everyone should wander over to dpreview and check out the interview with Dave Coffin:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701...ininterview.asp

It seems that Canon also applies a type of encryption to color balance on some of their cameras.  And Phase One encrypts their entire RAW file. Also Sony.

Makes you wonder why Adobe didn't throw their arms up in the air about those cameras.  Hmm...


This is from Dave Coffin's site:

A note about metadata encryption:

A firestorm of controversy recently erupted when Thomas Knoll of Adobe accused Nikon of encrypting the white balance data in the D2X and D2Hs cameras, thus preventing Adobe from fully supporting these cameras.

I cracked this encryption on April 15, and updated dcraw.c and parse.c on April 17. So "dcraw -w" now works correctly with all Nikon cameras.

This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all apply some form of encryption to their raw files. Dcraw decodes them all -- you can easily find decryption code by searching for the ^ operator.

Compression is not encryption. Phase One and Sony do encryption only. Kodak does compression only. Canon, Nikon, and Foveon compress the image data and encrypt some of the metadata.

[etmpasadena]

The best action is to write to Nikon. To be honest, I don't think ACR is all that hot. It's sub-par in terms of workflow and the interface isn't so hot either. Kodak's Photodesk is a good example of what a manufacturer can do.

I think the whole idea of ACR-Rules is wrong. The new ACR will be very nice, I'm sure. But they'll still have side-cart files, etc. Kodak is a good example of what a company can do with software if they put their mind to it. In the last two years Photodesk has turned into a fine program. In December of 04 they recompiled both the Mac and PC version, which resulted in huge speed increases all around. The idea of manufacturer-based RAW converters isn't wrong or bad. It just needs to be implemented correctly, and with a lot of user input. If Nikon does this (and perhaps follows Kodak's examples) things will be okay.

I

[Robert Roaldi]

I am not an expert either, but based on what I read  and if my understanding of English is not failing me,
that's not simply laid out differently, the WB data ARE ENCRYPTED:

see e.g. Thomas Knoll reply on DPRforum < here >  and  < here >.

You may be right and I may have been too quick on the draw. I saw something on Rob Galbraith's forum about there being a "key" that is embedded in the file that is used to read the WB data. If it actually is a "key" in the data encryption sense of the word, and not something else (such as a lookup index) which someone who is not technically inclined is mis-identifying as a "key", then it is a bizarre design decision indeed. After all, why just "encrypt" that one piece of data, then provide the unlocking key for everyone to read? Anyway, I'll bow out and let Nikon, Adobe and Bibble sort it out. They're big boys, they don't need my help. It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last that a big corporation makes a dumb move. Happens all the time.

[gryffyn]

Just after I posted my prior thoughts, I checked the Nikonians discussions, finding to my delight, that this has already been done!  Read on....

"A Massachusetts programmer says he has broken a proprietary encryption code that has effectively forced some Nikon digital camera owners to use the company’s own software.

Because Nikon scrambled a portion of the file, legal worries have kept third-party developers like Adobe Systems from supporting Nikon’s uncompressed 'raw' photos in their software. Nikon sells its Nikon Capture utility for $100.

'It’s an open format now,' said programmer Dave Coffin, who posted the decryption code on his Web site this week. 'I broke that encryption–I reverse-engineered it.'"

More at this link:

http://news.com.com/Nikons+....48.html

 Dave Coffin is the author of the DCRaw program, an open source raw converter. Source code can be found here:

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/index.html

Take that Nikon (and everyone else who dares try to screw with their customers!)!   This is the era of the internet, where information and data formats want to be free....nay, demand to be free!  You are fighting a losing battle...and may lose the war (and your market share) by warring with your customers.

Now stop this silliness and support an open format like DNG or open up the specs for your own RAW formats.  The market demands it.  If your software can't compete in a competitive market, then this silly proprietary behaviour ain't gonna cure the problem.

The customers have spoken!  Stick to creating better cameras and lenses, which is what you are good at.

<wide grins>

[bob mccarthy]

Software is property.

No it's not. It's intelectual property. There's quite a difference. When a person buys software, that copy of it is owned by the purchaser (it's their property).

You don't own the software when you buy CS or almost any other software I can think of. You acquire a "right to use" license. This is where the conditions on use come in. How many installations / copies etc. in use. How many can run at once. Including the now common network search to insure a copy is not being run on an other "puter.

I have no problem using my NEF files now. And I never touch Capture. All of my work exists within some other converting/editing application.

So how is Nikon hurting us? Trying to develop features unique to Capture. What everyone calls encription is not functionally and practicially different from compiling.

In the end..You get the output of your input. Nikon is not withholding anything.

This is a discussion/debate which will never be agreed upon. One poll I'd like to see is how many have paid for CS in the user group. I know some have. Other justify not paying in many ways. Its too expensive, it's cool but..., Adobe makes too much money... and on and on. The only thing I hold against Adobe is this smear campaign. But they won the hearts and mind and took the focus off their new conditions of purchase.

Maybe some day you'll have someone use one of your images for personal or commercial gain without your permission. Actually I hope not.

[bob mccarthy]

Sorry, Bob, you're clueless and

Cheap shot...  

You don't know me and I don't know you. Please keep the discussion on a civil level.

[jani]

> What everyone calls encription is not functionally and
> practicially different from compiling.

It's very different, and after 30+ years in the software business, I think I'm qualified to judge that, having worked on compilers and encryption both.  Bob, you don't seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to the technical issues of software..

Well, I was speaking in the metaphorical. The sensibility is to mask all that goes on upstream and to accept the product at face value.

I don't think you see the fundamental difference between a compiler and encryption software (or you're simply not expressing yourself in a way that indicates such understanding).

A compiler takes human-readable instructions to the computer and compiles those instructions in a way that the computer can understand.  The result may very well be human-readable, too, there is no need to hide what actually goes on.

Encryption software attempts to make it extremely hard or impossible for any unauthorized entity to get at the encrypted data.  This includes computers and software, not just humans.  Encrypted data is nothing to accept, even at face value, it's intentionally inaccessible.

Or, in over-simplified brevity: a compiler deals with computer programs, encryption deals with data.  Your image in NEF format is not a program, it's data.

Of course, in some instances, the encryption is a product of ineptitude, and is easy to break, q.v. DeCSS, and apparently also the NEF format.  But that does not affect the legal issue at hand; Nikon has intentionally placed a constraint on the practical use of photographers' works of art, and the use of "circumvention devices" to get at your own data is practically necessary if you don't want to use software provided by Nikon.  Mind you, this is currently only an issue in nations with the DMCA or similar legislation.

[Rob C]

Hi JC

Nikon as plural or singular? It's not complicated from a UK point of view: Nikon is a company - 'a' company - a form of collective plural, so you would use the singular.

In a way, and a propos of nothing much, it reminds me of the hoary old one about the glass being half-full or half-empty: if you are in the process of filling it, then when you reach the mid-point it becomes half-full; if you are emptying it, then it becomes half-empty. Ain't a lot more to it.

Something which seems odd to my U.K. eyes is the transatlantic thing with colons: you seem to use a capital straight after them unlike the custom in G.B. but then, we are a people divided by a common language, no? But don't let it bug you - we find so many of our own countrymen completely beyond understanding on any level.

Ciao - Rob C

[didger]

I still don't get how Nikon didn't see the ####storm coming from a mile off though..

Yeah, the more I have my face right close into this mess (with a crappy raw converter that won't even install on my Mac systems), it seems totally inconceivable that a company that makes such great lenses and cameras can also be so stupid as to release their first really innovative new camera in years along with an unfinished beta raw converter that they're trying to shove down everyone's throat while extorting $100 for it.  
An all around amazing degree of Nikon myopia and Shit_Storm weather prediction dysfunctionality.  The D2X and available lenses are so great, however, that I believe Nikon will weather the storm somehow.