Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Proprietary RAW formats  (Read 3918 times)
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2012, 04:07:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Makes no sense, doesn’t wash with the various camera systems that have been saving out DNG’s for 6+ years.

Are you saying that there was nothing "needed" to get a nice rendering?  Just decoding the RAW file and it works and gives a nice rendering? 

If it's DNG it's already build in, if it's another RAW format only some extra decoding is needed.  A RAW file is just a container of RAW data, mostly "bayer" based.

No need to "calibrate" the new camera type, no need to shoot targets with it, just convert?

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2012, 04:31:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you saying that there was nothing "needed" to get a nice rendering?  Just decoding the RAW file and it works and gives a nice rendering?

You need a converter, you need a user, you need controls. It makes zero difference if the raw is a DNG or proprietary in any such case. Your points thus far make no sense.

If you feed a NEF or CRW to Lightroom with default rendering you get one appearance. If you convert to DNG and feed that to the converter, you get exactly the same thing. The DNG is raw data. It is just data the converter can decipher from the get go.

Why should a NEF or an NEF converted to a DNG, either in-camera or 5 minutes after capture with a DNG converter be any different in terms of nice or not nice rendering?

The so called ‘issues’ you raise haven’t been anything I’ve heard of being an issue for the camera systems that save off a DNG from the get go. The main difference is, we don’t need to wait for the 3rd party raw converter folks to do anything.
Logged

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

Posts: 743


« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2012, 07:21:04 PM »
ReplyReply



If the DNG converter, LR, or any other method of converting proprietary raw to DNG can do this, so can the camera. The rendering afterwards is totally moot. And don’t a few Nikon and Canon competitions do exactly what I suggested, save off a DNG? Ricoh has been doing it since 2005. Pentax and Leica has been doing it since 2006!


And Samsung happily dropped DNG as soon as they stopped selling rebranded Pentax dSLRs... Ricoh purchased Pentax (even the brand name stayed)... so DNG adoption -= 2.
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2012, 07:23:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Why would the rendering be poor? It isn’t now with the current products that can render a DNG.
they can render DNG decently colorwise for example if the manufacturer supplied there a decent DNG profile... which may or may not be the case... proper raw converter manufacturers still profile the cameras.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2012, 08:19:07 PM »
ReplyReply

And Samsung happily dropped DNG as soon as they stopped selling rebranded Pentax dSLRs... Ricoh purchased Pentax (even the brand name stayed)... so DNG adoption -= 2.

And you say happily based on what actual data points? And this in what way changes the facts about other’s who save DNG on the fly or how it would be useful to photographers?

Quote
they can render DNG decently colorwise for example if the manufacturer supplied there a decent DNG profile... which may or may not be the case... proper raw converter manufacturers still profile the cameras.

They don’t need a profile. It might be useful, it isn’t a requirement to start the rendering process. Or end users with a 24 patch ColorChecker could build their own quite easily. So the other manufacturers who save off a DNG on the fly are producing non decent color in your opinion (again based on what data points?). Or to put it another way, the camera manufacturers could produce a butt ugly DNG or they could produce a butt ugly JPEG but in the case of the later, they don’t try to do this.
Logged

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

Posts: 743


« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2012, 02:02:56 AM »
ReplyReply

And you say happily based on what actual data points?

yes, the data point is one and it is very simple ... no more DNG in Samsung cameras... gone...

And this in what way changes the facts about other’s who save DNG on the fly

the fact is - DNG adoption was reduced by 2 companies...


or how it would be useful to photographers?

DNG is as useful as TIFF - just another intermediate format... DNG does not prevent manufacturers to put (and encrypt) undocumented data inside, which may (or may not) be essential for a proper raw conversion... nothing wrong w/ using DNG as a container... yet another TIFF based one, like the others... yes, it is documented... so what ? take Fuji... how DNG may help Adobe to handle new bayer filter in their new camera ?


They don’t need a profile. It might be useful, it isn’t a requirement to start the rendering process.

the same is true for non DNG raw formats as well - we do not need a profile to start the rendering process...


Or end users with a 24 patch ColorChecker could build their own quite easily.

the same is true for non DNG raw formats

So the other manufacturers who save off a DNG on the fly are producing non decent color in your opinion (again based on what data points?).

I said - they may or may not... the mere fact that Adobe itself does profiling for cameras that have in camera DNG is the data point that you are asking for...

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2012, 08:38:58 AM »
ReplyReply

the fact is - DNG adoption was reduced by 2 companies...

Ah, so that is your argument that companies should not provide us a switch to have a DNG? We should continue to wait everyone but the manufacture’s raw converter to render the data we produce and own?

Quote
DNG is as useful as TIFF - just another intermediate format... DNG does not prevent manufacturers to put (and encrypt) undocumented data inside, which may (or may not) be essential for a proper raw conversion... nothing wrong w/ using DNG as a container... yet another TIFF based one, like the others... yes, it is documented... so what ? take Fuji... how DNG may help Adobe to handle new bayer filter in their new camera ?

You’re not telling many of us here anything we don’t already know. Expect a DNG is a lot more useful than a TIFF if we want to render the data in our raw converters. What you are doing is digressing into an area that has nothing to do with the idea that as customers, we should expect the camera manufacturers to provide is a non proprietary raw data file we can render the day the camera ships. Want to stay on topic? Can you explain why having this DNG option isn’t good for anyone but the manufacturer?
Logged

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

Posts: 514


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2012, 08:51:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Can you explain why having this DNG option isn’t good for anyone but the manufacturer?

heck, I am interested in real tangible reasons why having an open source RAW format isn’t good period.  I have read a lot of info today in support of an open source RAW format and a lot against one. A lot of the people that right against dng, for example, seem to be a bit anti Adobe and not so much anti dng.  It seems to be an issue that Adobe has created this and also has a monetary interest in digital photography.  I think this is silly unless Adobe was planning to enter the camera market.

 I dont care if the open source format is dng or dog (create your own Andrew!), I just think that it is a logical step in the same sense that jpeg was a logical step in the past.  Heck...call it RPEG (rawpeg).
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2012, 08:57:00 AM »
ReplyReply

heck, I am interested in real tangible reasons why having an open source RAW format isn’t good period.  I have read a lot of info today in support of an open source RAW format and a lot against one. A lot of the people that right against dng, for example, seem to be a bit anti Adobe and not so much anti dng. 

Sure seems that way when you attempt to find out their actual beef with having an open format. Like deejjjaaa (whoever that is, and whatever vested interest he/she may have against either DNG or an open raw format), they never answer simple questions like why it isn’t in our best interest to have an open format (raw or otherwise). JPEG out of the camera is fine but an open raw format? Not from the evil Adobe empire.

Quote
I dont care if the open source format is dng or dog (create your own Andrew!), I just think that it is a logical step in the same sense that jpeg was a logical step in the past.  Heck...call it RPEG (rawpeg).

I’m with you.
Logged

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

Posts: 743


« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2012, 09:14:45 AM »
ReplyReply

heck, I am interested in real tangible reasons why having an open source RAW format isn’t good period. 
it prevents manufacturer from implementing something new quickly and w/o letting a competition know well in advance for example.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2012, 09:16:31 AM »
ReplyReply

it prevents manufacturer from implementing something new quickly and w/o letting a competition know well in advance for example.

Quote
DNG does not prevent manufacturers to put (and encrypt) undocumented data inside, which may (or may not) be essential for a proper raw conversion

Make up your mind.
Logged

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

Posts: 743


« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2012, 09:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah, so that is your argument that companies should not provide us a switch to have a DNG?

no, it is not such an argument, I have nothing against DNG as a native camera raw format (except it ties manufacturers hands to certain extent) - not sure where did you get such an idea in my text... it is just a trend - DNG adoption by manufacturers is not growing both numberwise and markersharewise, but declining... when I owned Pentax cameras I did not use DNG though - just because its support by 3rd party raw converters was not as good as for PEF... plus I did not want to be in a situation when Adobe products might alter the files (even that was preventable by a proper setup - but the mere fact that Adobe products can treat raw files as not R/O only was enough).
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2012, 09:29:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Make up your mind.
everything is correct - those who use DNG now can (and do) still put undocumented data there (think Pentax/Ricoh for example) and that kills the whole idea (you know where the data is, but you do not know what it means... great, isn't it ?) and those who might want to use DNG in a proper way (= do not put undocumented data) can't innovate w/o waiting for Adobe to accomodate their needs (plus they might not want to let the world know in advance what they are up to) - think how much time it took Adobe to handle Panasonic' software optics correction in DNG
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2012, 09:34:31 AM »
ReplyReply

whatever vested interest he/she may have

well - you, for the record, clearly have vested interest in Adobe's products... you participate in PixelGenius, which is a commercial for profit company, selling products for Adobe products...
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2012, 09:39:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Can you explain why having this DNG option isn’t good for anyone but the manufacturer?

the issue is whether or not manufacturers want to fully document the data (even in their own container), not whether or not they want to use a documented container that can (and does) contain proprietary undocumented data and by nature of being a standard can tie their hands, etc.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 02, 2012, 10:19:55 AM »
ReplyReply

well - you, for the record, clearly have vested interest in Adobe's products... you participate in PixelGenius, which is a commercial for profit company, selling products for Adobe products...

Doing my best imitation of Samuel Jackson as Jules: Check out the big brain on Brad! <g>
You connect those dots yourself?

Of course I have a vested interest in Adobe products. Not that their design or the use of DNG has anything to do with a Pixel Genius product. Not a day goes by that I don’t use either Lightroom, Photoshop, InDesign, Acrobat. And yes, I make a living teaching people to use many of those tools. Vested interest? You bet. The difference between you and I is that this is all very transparent and obvious. And none of has any bearing on photographers needs, my needs, to have an open raw format be it DNG or DOG. Unlike you, I don’t use aliases here, there is a link in every post I make that takes you to a web site that spells out my involvements, including PG and Adobe.

Getting back to the topic (although you are doing a good job of digressing again)...

Quote
those who use DNG now can (and do) still put undocumented data there (think Pentax/Ricoh for example) and that kills the whole idea (you know where the data is, but you do not know what it means... great, isn't it ?)

Kills it, nope. Not even close (talk about the mind set of throwing the baby out with the bath water). The data is sufficient that should say Canon come out with the 5DMIV with a DNG switch, I can handle that data in my beloved Adobe raw converter the day it ships. If I want whatever you consider useful undocumented data, I move the switch to proprietary raw and use the Canon converter. Or I move the switch to JPEG.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 04:01:40 PM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 514


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 02, 2012, 02:30:03 PM »
ReplyReply

the issue is whether or not manufacturers want to fully document the data (even in their own container), not whether or not they want to use a documented container that can (and does) contain proprietary undocumented data and by nature of being a standard can tie their hands, etc.

How can you know that proprietary undocumented data exists if it is undocumented?
Logged

deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #37 on: May 02, 2012, 06:15:58 PM »
ReplyReply

How can you know that proprietary undocumented data exists if it is undocumented?

how did we know that Adobe was removing masked to light pixels during non DNG to DNG conversion and then silently stopped removing starting from a certain version of Adobe DNG converter... we spend time reading forums and testings what was reported.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2012, 08:43:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with you 100% about everyone working together.  But, as long as the bottom line is money, the happiness of the customer is going to always be second at best.
I am not holding my breath, but there have been cases where competitors see the advantages of standardizing on some things that are not a key basis for competition (JPEG, MPEG/H.264) and I do not see the advantages of one raw format over another being used as marketing points, so standardization could be relatively painless.

But maybe raw formats are adapted to new hardware features, so that there would be the fear of having to share secrets in order to get the common format to work optimally with each new generation of sensors. After all, raw formats do seem to be refined for each new sensor.
Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 03, 2012, 12:03:05 AM »
ReplyReply

how did we know that Adobe was removing masked to light pixels during non DNG to DNG conversion and then silently stopped removing starting from a certain version of Adobe DNG converter... we spend time reading forums and testings what was reported.

Then this is not undocumented data!  It had to be documented for anyone to know about it.  Also, you are talking about Adobe data, not a camera manufacturers raw file data.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad