Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's DNG comment  (Read 31681 times)
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #160 on: August 17, 2012, 04:26:21 PM »
ReplyReply

and the same exactly software will be able to handle non DNG files exactly in the same manner... because I'd assume they are already using non Adobe tools to make DNG files from non DNG raws (or you are talking about folks who use either Ricoh/Pentax or Leica gear or something)... so where is the problem and where is a tie down ?

I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned explanation of why multiple incompatible formats are a better thing than a single unified standard....
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5259


WWW
« Reply #161 on: August 17, 2012, 04:59:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned explanation of why multiple incompatible formats are a better thing than a single unified standard....

You're gonna have to wait for quite a while because there ARE no good reasons why the proliferation of undocumented, proprietary file formats is better than adopting standards.

It's really not a technical issues–as Eric mentioned, all of the current undocumented proprietary raw files formats are using the same basic TIFF-EP standard. The only real technical issue is the requirement to provide a reasonable DNG profile. I'm not aware of any other substantial and legitimate technical roadblocks but there are a lot of "opinions" that really don't hold water.

And let's clear the matter of a camera maker being required to get Adobe's "permission" to use DNG, all they need to do is adhere to the DNG specification. If for some reason a camera company comes up with an all new sensor design, the camera company would still need to come up with a way of recording and storing that sensor info even in their own formats...the same sort of work they would have to do with DNG...

Again, any photographers who think it's somehow a good idea to let the camera companies off the hook and NOT adhere to standards simply doesn't understand the problem and the issues...the current situation is simply not in the best interest of the photographic industry.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5259


WWW
« Reply #162 on: August 17, 2012, 05:10:11 PM »
ReplyReply

again Adobe may start making cameras tomorrow, MS started to make computers and Google started to make phones


This is a ridiculous statement in support of refusing to adopt raw file format standards...it's downright goofy really because nobody is going to be stupid enough to try to get into an already overcrowded industry that's already severely loosing market share to, wait for it, cell phone cameras. This argument is simply fantasy...
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #163 on: August 17, 2012, 07:16:27 PM »
ReplyReply

This is a ridiculous statement in support of refusing to adopt raw file format standards...

I gave you examples (google, ms), you gave only an adjective ("ridiculous").

it's downright goofy really because nobody is going to be stupid enough to try to get into an already overcrowded industry that's already severely loosing market share to, wait for it, cell phone cameras. This argument is simply fantasy...

cell phone market is overcrowded more than digital cameras market, tablets market is overcrowded and dominated by one player more than the market for digital cameras.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 07:22:04 PM by deejjjaaaa » Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #164 on: August 17, 2012, 07:20:05 PM »
ReplyReply

And let's clear the matter of a camera maker being required to get Adobe's "permission" to use DNG, all they need to do is adhere to the DNG specification. If for some reason a camera company comes up with an all new sensor design, the camera company would still need to come up with a way of recording and storing that sensor info even in their own formats...the same sort of work they would have to do with DNG...

except that they do not need to ask Adobe's permission and wait for Adobe to do whatever they want w/ their own format, hence your argument is not valid...

Again, any photographers who think it's somehow a good idea to let the camera companies off the hook and NOT adhere to standards simply doesn't understand the problem and the issues...the current situation is simply not in the best interest of the photographic industry.

Camera companies are off the hook from the very beginning and the world still stands intact and you have no issues w/ raw converters for your cameras and your non DNG raw files - that is the fact... and, yes - that is because of Adobe too - so may be Adobe has to start first by refusing to support the non DNG raw files  Grin
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #165 on: August 17, 2012, 07:25:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned explanation of why multiple incompatible formats are a better thing than a single unified standard....
do you know the difference between "better" and "non issue" ? different formats are non issue ... specifically for Adobe raw converters users (so the question is - why they are a majority of people who cry wolf)
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5259


WWW
« Reply #166 on: August 17, 2012, 09:45:47 PM »
ReplyReply

do you know the difference between "better" and "non issue" ? different formats are non issue ... specifically for Adobe raw converters users (so the question is - why they are a majority of people who cry wolf)

That may be true now, but it won't true further into the future...digital objects are at great risk of being lost in the future and non-standard, undocumented proprietary file formats is a major cause. But hey, don't believe me...believe the exports (which last time I checked, you aren't). Go back and reread the digital preservation article...those are the people I would listen to, not some anonymous screen name like "deejjjaaaa". The more you argue the more you dig yourself in a hole...and yes, some of your arguments are ridicules...
Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 511


WWW
« Reply #167 on: August 17, 2012, 11:57:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, all of this discussion has been very entertaining, stimulating to my noggin', and informative.  But exactly what can we dng supporters realistically do that has a chance of being effective? All of this discussion on a forum probably is not enough pressure to bring on a change even if someone at any of the manufacturers is monitoring this thread. 

So, what can we do?  This is a serious 'lets get organized' question.
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1254


« Reply #168 on: August 18, 2012, 12:28:55 AM »
ReplyReply

As I said several pages back, what we're dealing with isn't a technical issue, but a political one. The customers do have ways to threaten the camera companies. Imagine Nikon's reaction if they produced the brilliant D800, but the people of all the major forums peed on the camera and those who wanted brag about having it, for the simple reason that the camera did not offer a DNG option. The big companies really count on making that initial splash at launch...

Would it work? Who knows. But again, the problem is political, not technical.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5259


WWW
« Reply #169 on: August 18, 2012, 12:35:43 AM »
ReplyReply

So, what can we do?  This is a serious 'lets get organized' question.

Writing letters will help...not form stuff but stuff like "I just bought XYZ camera and was shocked, shocked I tell you that my workflow was broken because my software didn't support my new camera–and it's all YOUR fault".

Also, when the dweebes who piss$moan about Adobe dragging their heels about supporting the most recent camera "de jure", it would be useful to point out it's not a problem of Adobe's making but the camera companies' fault for not adopting standards...this bullshyte of allowing the camera companies to get off scott free while standing by and letting Adobe get the blame for being slow to upgrade ACR/LR has gotta stop.

You get a new camera, you have to wait because the "friggin' camera company can't adopt a standard raw file format" should be the standard response..."if they had adopted DNG, then you wouldn't be in this fix" should be the knee-jerck response–not piling on Adobe for dragging their heels...heck, it's Eric and Thomas that has to do the work because the camera companies refuse to do the right thing. Nikon and Canon should be castigated for their behavior not let off the hook by some anonymous poster on the forums...

Back when Nikon screwed the pootch and encrypted the white balance data of the the D2X and D2Hs cameras, Adobe (and the industry) got a lesson in the power of the internet...because of the crap Nikon faced, they blinked and basically said "what to we have to do to make this all go away". The result was a specific mini-Nikon SDK that resulted in Adobe being willing to support the white balance info that Nikon encrypted...it was not Nikon's finest hour (but a win for the folks that believe all this undocumented, proprietary raw file format crap is bad for the industry).

Not buying a new camera is not a realistic strategy...blaming the right company when the users have to wait for support is.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 12:40:06 AM by Schewe » Logged
sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #170 on: August 18, 2012, 01:41:22 AM »
ReplyReply

But again, the problem is political, not technical.

Not really. The problem is actually economic. There's no money in it for any major manufacturer to support DNG. Firstly, they all have huge amounts of money tied up in firmware and raw developer software that is built around their format. Supporting DNG means spending money to upgrade that software. Secondly, it means that they can't do something different to their competitors - e.g., show focus points in the raw developer or whatever. Doing something like that would mean private data in the DNG. And private data in DNG is just another proprietary format, so that just becomes changing one proprietary format for another.

So for a camera manufacturer, DNG support means spending money, and restricting the features you can put in the camera. DNG's advantages are to end-users, and end-users have shown no willingness at all to spend more money to buy a camera that has DNG support.

Sandy
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5259


WWW
« Reply #171 on: August 18, 2012, 03:32:36 AM »
ReplyReply

So for a camera manufacturer, DNG support means spending money, and restricting the features you can put in the camera.

You sure? Do you have any examples of the restriction of technology caused by DNG?

I know Hasselblad at one point supported DNG in their camera backs and a singe firmware wiped that capability because it was claimed that DNG couldn't hold their lens data due to shortcomings of the DNG format...turns out that wasn't really the reality, Hasselblad just used that claim to close their system...fact was, at that point of time, they chose to kill DNG for completely political reasons, not technical nor economic reasons–they already had DNG as an output format and chose to eliminate it.

Look, TIFF-EP, CR2 and NEF are all close enough that with little effort (meaning economic cost) the major camera companies could support DNG as an output option–the cost of doing so would be very little–a firmware update for recent cameras would be all it takes. Free? no...it would have some cost. But there is no real desire because there's not enough pressure on them to do so...that's political...not technical.
Logged
Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« Reply #172 on: August 18, 2012, 03:47:23 AM »
ReplyReply

and the same exactly software will be able to handle non DNG files exactly in the same manner.

So? The point I was replying to was a suggestion that this was a barrier to using DNG, and it is not.

Your obsessive need to put down DNG at every opportunity is rather tiresome, you know. The fact is that it's as valid as any other "Raw" format, and has advantages not available to proprietary formats. It's great to have the option, to choose or not.

You're not going to persuade people who already know this otherwise, so why even try?
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« Reply #173 on: August 18, 2012, 04:00:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I wasn't saying that you had to use Adobe software to use DNG.

Absolutely, Les - you didn't: but you did say that DNG was "an Adobe centric standard designed to provide raw files that work great with Adobe software", but in fact - to Adobe's credit - DNG is far, far more versatile and useful than that.

It would, I'm sure, have been trivially easy for Adobe to have subtly designed DNG in such a way as to make it work best in an Adobe-specific workflow, but (speaking from actual personal experience, here, being a relative latecomer to the Adobe hegemony) I know it's not the case.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #174 on: August 18, 2012, 04:35:22 AM »
ReplyReply

It would, I'm sure, have been trivially easy for Adobe to have subtly designed DNG in such a way as to make it work best in an Adobe-specific workflow, but (speaking from actual personal experience, here, being a relative latecomer to the Adobe hegemony) I know it's not the case.

You'd still be wrong. Not that Adobe deliberately designed it to work best in an Adobe specific workflow, but it is Adobe centric, as correctly described. 3 prime examples:

- color-temperature + tint is an Adobe invention that makes very little to no sense from a colorscience point of view.

- dual illuminant profiles are a convenience in processing but have very little relevance in other RAW converters.

- Lens corrections can be done by several methods. Instead of providing measurement data to describe the lens-error, DNG insists on describing polynomial parameters of a specific type, as if every RAW converter will use polynomial lens corrections, which simply isn't the case.

These are examples that illustrate the larger problem of DNG, which is that it doesn't properly separate DATA from PROCESSING, if it did separate the 2 properly, I would totally agree with you about it not being Adobe centric or Adobe specific.



Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #175 on: August 18, 2012, 04:43:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Of further interest:
Kodak Image patents

It's sad that the world has come to this point. It is sad because of this is very counter productive. It is one thing to protect your own productivity with patents, which is fine and possibly necessary, but it is entirely another to attack productivity via patent purchases that subsequently represent no productivity whatsoever.

If the money machines over in washington keep spitting out dollarbills on the basis of future productivity making up for current national debt, then they better do something about patenttrolls real soon…

But this is digressing...
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5259


WWW
« Reply #176 on: August 18, 2012, 04:52:02 AM »
ReplyReply

- color-temperature + tint is an Adobe invention that makes very little to no sense from a colorscience point of view.

Ding, ding, ding...wrong..Color temp/tint has been a long standing approach to white point balancing...

Quote
- dual illuminant profiles are a convenience in processing but have very little relevance in other RAW converters.

Correct...but it was Thomas that concocted this approach which has proven to be superior in tweening the various white point balance–do you have any proof to the contrary? Do you have any proof that Thomas' approach is suboptimal? Or are you simply complaining that it's "different"?

Quote
- Lens corrections can be done by several methods. Instead of providing measurement data to describe the lens-error, DNG insists on describing polynomial parameters of a specific type, as if every RAW converter will use polynomial lens corrections, which simply isn't the case.

So, are you disputing the fact that the way ACR/LR does lens corrections isn't useful (read optimal?) What exactly is wrong n the way ACR 7.x and LR 4.x is doing lens corrections (other than the fact there's no way to do asymmetrical lens corrections–yet!!!)

If you are gonna snipe from the sidelines, it would be useful to offer proof of your statements rather than grandiose statements...

If you have better ways of handling this stuff, I suspect Eric and Thomas would listen (course, they are difficult to convince unless they grok what you are saying and you have proof). Complaining for the sake of complaining doesn't get you very far with those guys...
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2464



WWW
« Reply #177 on: August 18, 2012, 05:00:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Lens correction, for example, can be done by several methods and other vendors can save that information into the DNG's metadata or update its previews.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« Reply #178 on: August 18, 2012, 05:03:07 AM »
ReplyReply

You'd still be wrong. Not that Adobe deliberately designed it to work best in an Adobe specific workflow, but it is Adobe centric, as correctly described. 3 prime examples...

Three examples that can be easily managed or ignored completely and utterly in an non-Adobe workflow.

I'm not wrong, I used a DNG-based Adobe-free workflow for years. Bringing three irrelevant "bells and whistles" into the argument doesn't prove a thing.

Y'know, it really is tiresome when first hand, practical, hands-on experience is dismissed in favour of hypothetical "what if..?" arguments...
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 05:08:06 AM by Keith Reeder » Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #179 on: August 18, 2012, 05:13:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Ding, ding, ding...wrong..Color temp/tint has been a long standing approach to white point balancing...

Dude, stick to photography, because that remark makes no sense and has no relevance whatsoever. The approach is Adobe centric which is the assertion we are discussing.

Correct...but it was Thomas that concocted this approach which has proven to be superior in tweening the various white point balance–do you have any proof to the contrary? Do you have any proof that Thomas' approach is suboptimal? Or are you simply complaining that it's "different"?

Superiority is not at discussion here, so I don't find the need for any one of us to "proof" anything. The question is whether it is Adobe centric or not.

So, are you disputing the fact that the way ACR/LR does lens corrections isn't useful (read optimal?) What exactly is wrong n the way ACR 7.x and LR 4.x is doing lens corrections (other than the fact there's no way to do asymmetrical lens corrections–yet!!!)

No, I am not disputing that.

If you are gonna snipe from the sidelines, it would be useful to offer proof of your statements rather than grandiose statements...

Huh

If you have better ways of handling this stuff, I suspect Eric and Thomas would listen (course, they are difficult to convince unless they grok what you are saying and you have proof). Complaining for the sake of complaining doesn't get you very far with those guys...

I have given samples of my arguments in the past. Hardly ever seen them chiming in on our discussions here to disproof or acknowledge what has been discussed.
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad