Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's DNG comment  (Read 31410 times)
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #180 on: August 18, 2012, 05:22:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Y'know, it really is tiresome when first hand, practical, hands-on experience is dismissed in favour of hypothetical "what if..?" arguments...

I am not dismissing your experience. The fact is that the DNG specs are partly designed from the context of the Adobe way of processing. That doesn't mean you can not do that processing with other software, but it does mean that there are Adobe specific processing steps that make the DNG definition Adobe-centric.

Of course, if it comes down to a word-game about "Adobe-centric" then you can safely ignore my posts. (Actually, you can always do that anyway.  Cool )
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


« Reply #181 on: August 18, 2012, 05:57:46 AM »
ReplyReply

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

Jeff,

The example i gave in the post - focus points. Not in the DNG spec. Can be included as private data or an EXIF field of some sort, but not part of the DNG spec. There are a huge number of other possible items.

Regards,

Sandy
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2456



WWW
« Reply #182 on: August 18, 2012, 06:16:03 AM »
ReplyReply

None of which need to be itemized in the spec. XMP has been part of the spec since day 1, and the X means....
Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2029


« Reply #183 on: August 18, 2012, 06:17:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Phew, thanks John.

That was needed.

Regards

Tony Jay
Logged
sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


« Reply #184 on: August 18, 2012, 07:23:17 AM »
ReplyReply

None of which need to be itemized in the spec. XMP has been part of the spec since day 1, and the X means....

Absolutely. But I think you're missing the point  Grin

As has been pointed out previously on this thread, NEF, CRW, etc are just TIFF/EP plus proprietary undocumented extensions.

How is "DNG plus proprietary undocumented extensions" better for anyone than "TIFF/EP with proprietary undocumented extensions"? Because we've already got the latter.

DNG only makes sense if its 100% documented so that all raw converters can read and understand all tags.

Sandy
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2456



WWW
« Reply #185 on: August 18, 2012, 07:41:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Sadly you're obscuring the point. We're talking XMP, not FUD.
Logged

sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


« Reply #186 on: August 18, 2012, 08:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Sadly you're obscuring the point. We're talking XMP, not FUD.

John,

Well, in a previous post, there was an example given of some XMP, I repeat it here:

   <crs:FillLight>58</crs:FillLight>
   <crs:Vibrance>0</crs:Vibrance>
   <crs:HighlightRecovery>47</crs:HighlightRecovery>
   <crs:Clarity>+50</crs:Clarity>

Please point me at the documentation for FillLight, Vibrance, etc. XMP is a just a container, nothing more.

I've written a lot of software for DNG, some specifically for DNG, and I wish DNG was more widely used. It would make my life so much easier. But claiming that the reason why it isn't used is "political" or similar isn't helpful.

For DNG to be broadly adopted, it had to make economic sense for all the players in the chain, starting with camera manufacturers. And while DNG is a technical success, in economic terms it never got any traction at all.

Sandy
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2456



WWW
« Reply #187 on: August 18, 2012, 08:43:10 AM »
ReplyReply

You do keep erecting straw men. "For DNG to be broadly adopted....", "DNG only makes sense if...". And you're expecting processing parameters like vibrance to be documented? You can read the values, can't you? They are described with vaguely-English terms? And there is a logical structure to where you find them? In a way you're making an unreasonable perfect the enemy of the good and the achievable, when the latter is already big steps ahead of the camera makers' morass of formats. I doubt Canikon's failure to offer the DNG option comes down to economics - it's probably a wash - more that they simply don't get enough bad PR every time they twist their raw formats. We're too soft on them, not least because the anti-DNG brigade is their fifth column!
Logged

sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


« Reply #188 on: August 18, 2012, 09:22:34 AM »
ReplyReply

You do keep erecting straw men. "For DNG to be broadly adopted....", "DNG only makes sense if...". And you're expecting processing parameters like vibrance to be documented? You can read the values, can't you? They are described with vaguely-English terms?


John,

I can't write software from "vaguely-English terms" - life is too short to waste huge amounts of time reengineering specifications, even if it were possible. And people not writing software for DNG is why DNG is where it is today.

As for "straw men", DNG's failure to achieve any kind of broad acceptance is a fact. I understand that this is something that causes some people a lot of frustration, but this thread proves that fact, to whatever extent any further proof was required.

Sandy
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #189 on: August 18, 2012, 09:48:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi, Jeff...
Quote
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.

I do not believe it is political or technical.  I believe it is financial.  

There would be a cost to support Adobe's DNG standard.  This would add to the price of the camera where pennies in DE or parts costs result in dollars in price.  I am sure the "green eye shades" (financial guys) have a problem justifying any return for the expense.

I, personally, find no need to add price to a camera for DNG.  Even if Canon died tomorrow, the CR2 files could still be interpreted by Adobe, Capture One, Aperture, dcraw, etc.

In addition, I doubt any outside party is offering the camera manufacturers funding to support DNG.

Lastly, I do suspect that the camera manufacturers are concerned with any future restrictions or limitations a commitment to DNG might come up.  Right now, they are in control of their RAW "standard"....and can change it as needed.  Of course, any change would require the software creators support it...adding to their DE cost...but that is the business that they are in and can realize a ROI by supporting the new camera.

Having spent my last 20 years of my working career in PC development, product planning,management, and marketing, I can assure you that most decisions have a decidedly strong financial seasoning to them.

John
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 09:50:55 AM by jrsforums » Logged

John
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #190 on: August 18, 2012, 12:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply


There would be a cost to support Adobe's DNG standard.  This would add to the price of the camera where pennies in DE or parts costs result in dollars in price.  I am sure the "green eye shades" (financial guys) have a problem justifying any return for the expense.
It's a software implementation and as such is a one time only cost and probably not much more than they are paying in house to keep their own software (which is not widely used) up to date and functional
Quote
In addition, I doubt any outside party is offering the camera manufacturers funding to support DNG.

Lastly, I do suspect that the camera manufacturers are concerned with any future restrictions or limitations a commitment to DNG might come up.  Right now, they are in control of their RAW "standard"....and can change it as needed.  Of course, any change would require the software creators support it...adding to their DE cost...but that is the business that they are in and can realize a ROI by supporting the new camera.
What I and others have argued for is putting DNG into a standards organization where everyone participates.  Adobe has already stated that this is a good way to go.  In the end this saves everyone money.

Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8054



WWW
« Reply #191 on: August 18, 2012, 12:45:11 PM »
ReplyReply

The example i gave in the post - focus points. Not in the DNG spec. Can be included as private data or an EXIF field of some sort, but not part of the DNG spec. There are a huge number of other possible items.

So it goes into a private tag OR even if not, if that was super important to you, and considering that only the manufacturer’s raw converter could understand it, you don’t turn the switch on your camera to output DNG. You ask for proprietary raw.

As yet, NO ONE here has provided an ounce of evidence why having the option to have DNG or Proprietary raw, based on your needs isn’t the best solution for customers. If as some have tried to assert that proprietary raw is ‘better’ for the end user, great, we have that option. For those that don’t care and just want an open raw format they can use the day a new camera ships, they turn on the DNG setting, just as then can with another open format, JPEG.

It is astonishing how close minded some are here in terms of just giving the customer another option.

Has anyone in the pro DNG camp here said we should deny the manufacturer the option of providing a proprietary file or proprietary data? We just one an open raw format option along side the others. Don’t like or want to use DNG, don’t.
Logged

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

Posts: 235


« Reply #192 on: August 18, 2012, 01:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

As yet, NO ONE here has provided an ounce of evidence why having the option to have DNG or Proprietary raw, based on your needs isn’t the best solution for customers.

Andrew,

I guess I'll try one last time - software development (and especially testing), done professionally, is hugely expensive. And then you have to maintain the software, provide customer support for the additional functions, etc, etc. It all costs money, and customers have clearly shown that they aren't willing to pay extra for, or buy cameras on the basis of, DNG capability.

Now I think I'll go find a different windmill to tilt at, because I don't think I'm making progress on this one  Grin

Sandy
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8054



WWW
« Reply #193 on: August 18, 2012, 01:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess I'll try one last time - software development (and especially testing), done professionally, is hugely expensive.

In case you’re not aware, I’m a partner in a company that produces software. I believe it is professionally done. And I’m keenly aware of the expense of paying enginnners! So I’m happy to hear this is the last time you’ll use this rather lame argument in terms of a simple DNG switch which should be small if not tiny engineering.

Quote
Now I think I'll go find a different windmill to tilt at, because I don't think I'm making progress on this one 

Please take your own advise, you’re not doing a very good job convincing me and I suspect others to what would be a useful and inexpensive feature for all DSLRs.
Logged

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

Posts: 8054



WWW
« Reply #194 on: August 18, 2012, 02:07:47 PM »
ReplyReply

customers have clearly shown that they aren't willing to pay extra for, or buy cameras on the basis of, DNG capability.

I’m sorry, it isn’t clear (as yet) even if you say it is.

The data for that statement is based on what? Where did you get the data on the extra money those companies who happen to provide DNG as an option tacked onto the price of the camera system? Where might we hear from customers who have stated that they are willing or unwilling to pay for that functionality or any functionality in a DSLR?
Logged

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

Posts: 2100


« Reply #195 on: August 18, 2012, 03:05:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Casio, Leica, Pentax, and Ricoh generate DNG files in camera but did not require permission from Adobe to do so (nor any patent licensing, nor any money changing hands, etc.).  Occasionally they may ask us some questions or ask us to verify compatibility, check recommended settings, etc. 

Pentax used to offer a choice between their own PEF format and DNG, but dropped PEF in their latest models.  There remains vendor-specific and proprietary information in the private MakerNotes, which is fine.  That is, DNG supports private MakerNotes so Pentax actually just embeds the same private metadata in their DNG that they used to embed in their PEF.

Vendors who want to provide private or model-specific metadata like focus point information, or focus position metadata, or body orientation (e.g., roll, pitch) can easily do so with DNG, and the vendors listed above are already doing so.  In some cases, their own software is able to report additional information to the user or perform image processing functions using this private metadata, that Adobe software does not (this is private data, after all).

Ultimately there is an important distinction between the ability to (1) read a raw image, and (2) process and/or interpret the raw image & metadata.  DNG as a file format is really only concerned with #1, though it does have some optional tags for assisting with #2.  In other words, different vendors may have different preferred appearances and different features (e.g., focus point display) -- which falls under #2 -- but none of that should prevent you from fundamentally reading the image (#1).
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #196 on: August 18, 2012, 03:13:45 PM »
ReplyReply

In case you’re not aware, I’m a partner in a company that produces software. I believe it is professionally done. And I’m keenly aware of the expense of paying enginnners! So I’m happy to hear this is the last time you’ll use this rather lame argument in terms of a simple DNG switch which should be small if not tiny engineering.

Being involved in small little operation like PixelGenius, gives you no idea of the cost to price considerations of a large worldwide operation such as Canon is.

Also, if you have been involved with actual software development and regression testing across numerous software and hardware (in this case camera) platforms you would never consider ANY change as simple or small.

Concept may be simple and/or small, execution is not.
Logged

John
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252


« Reply #197 on: August 18, 2012, 03:22:44 PM »
ReplyReply

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

No, it's political. If we photographers organized, and pressured the camera companies to go to DNG, that's a political act that may have some economic consequences for the camera companies. We'd be forming a special interest group that advocates a certain kind of behavior by the camera companies. If they chose to include a DNG switch, that might certainly have some economic consequences for them. If they chose not to include a switch, that might also have some economic consequences -- that is, members of our special interest group might choose not to buy their cameras, and might advocate that other photographers not buy their cameras. So there might be any number of economic outcomes for the camera companies, but what WE would be doing is essentially organizing a political special interest group.

What you're doing is looking at it from the camera companies' point of view. They have to figure out this economic question, and the different companies have done it in different ways -- Pentax and Leica have gone to DNG, the others have not. But from our (photographers) point of view, we'll pay pretty much the same amount for the cameras either way, but we won't be able to do anything unless we organize. (Damn, I'm starting to sound like a Wobbly; Photographers of the World Unite!)
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 03:27:23 PM by John Camp » Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #198 on: August 18, 2012, 03:26:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I’m sorry, it isn’t clear (as yet) even if you say it is.

The data for that statement is based on what? Where did you get the data on the extra money those companies who happen to provide DNG as an option tacked onto the price of the camera system? Where might we hear from customers who have stated that they are willing or unwilling to pay for that functionality or any functionality in a DSLR?

Where do you have data that a significant number of customers want it or would be willing to pay more for DNG?

Don't ask the question unless you can fulfill your side of it?

Personally, I really do not care what a company, such as Canon, provides as RAW format.  I just care that it works across numerous software platforms.  CR2 does that today.  DNG would do that also.

I do not see that DNG provides me anything additional.  The FUD of future support of CR2 doesn't hold water.  Too many software programs successfully support it....and, as Eric just said, the private data would still be private, so DNG would not improve that.
Logged

John
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252


« Reply #199 on: August 18, 2012, 03:30:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Being involved in small little operation like PixelGenius, gives you no idea of the cost to price considerations of a large worldwide operation such as Canon is.

Also, if you have been involved with actual software development and regression testing across numerous software and hardware (in this case camera) platforms you would never consider ANY change as simple or small.

Concept may be simple and/or small, execution is not.

Let me reply for Digitaldog, and not to be snappish or anything, but you don't know what you're talking about. His company exists in the same universe as the others.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad