Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's DNG comment  (Read 39757 times)
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #220 on: August 22, 2012, 12:28:59 PM »
ReplyReply

It's already helped the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG...but even if Nikon & Canon don't see any benefit, this whole argument by somebody I presume is a photographer (you) arguing on behalf of the camera companies is again, one of the roots of the problem. Why the hell would you care what's "good" for Nikon and Canon. Do you have stock in the companies? Even if adopting raw standards might not be optimal for Nikon and Canon, don't you think the benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few?

Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?

I would think Nikon and Canon are the many in the non-P&S 35mm market.  Also, in high end cameras, wouldn't a photographer want the very best image, not the best within a constrained format.  

Photography has evolved more in the last 10 than its previous history.  Not sure it needs new standards.  Besides, the old Marist axiom "the many rather than the few" probably not the best approach to photography.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 12:30:56 PM by James R » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #221 on: August 22, 2012, 02:19:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Also, in high end cameras, wouldn't a photographer want the very best image, not the best within a constrained format.  

Uh huh...and so you think you can get better image quality from a CR2 or NEF than from a DNG? So, you use Canon's DPP or Nikon Capture? If you don't then your question above is moot since ACR or LR will produce equal quality from either proprietary raws of DNGs (the first process when opening a proprietary raw is to in essence, convert to DNG on the fly into Camera Raw).
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #222 on: August 22, 2012, 02:31:27 PM »
ReplyReply

It's already helped the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG...but even if Nikon & Canon don't see any benefit, this whole argument by somebody I presume is a photographer (you) arguing on behalf of the camera companies is again, one of the roots of the problem. Why the hell would you care what's "good" for Nikon and Canon. Do you have stock in the companies? Even if adopting raw standards might not be optimal for Nikon and Canon, don't you think the benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few?

Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?

Gosh, Jeff....I was aware that I needed a share of stock to participate in a stockholder's meeting, but was not aware that that extended to participating in this forum.  I would be more concerned if I was voicing my opinions driven by outside relationships I had with Nikon/Canon....and I can state that my statements and opinions create no ethical issues.  

I think I have a right on this forum to state what I believe...and, as differentiated from many others, to attempt to explain the reasoning behind them.  

As for Nikon/Canon, I am sure Adobe has made at least one pass at each of them to drive the benefits of DNG.  Are you suggesting that their decision to not support DNG is not a financial based business decision. but some ulterior motive?

Please help me understand...
  • what benefits "...the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG..." have derived.
  • How are the cost/rewards these companies get differ from what Nikon/Canon would realize?  
  • When you say "...benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few..." please explain who are the "many" and the "few" and, if different groups, what benefits they derive from all DNG vs what exists now?  
  • Help me understand, if all is DNG and Adobe goes "belly up" in, say, 10 years, what then?


Standards can be good and bad.  The JPEG standard has help proliferate the online distribution of images.  On the other hand, it's success has kept improvements from occurring.  

You say, "...Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general..." try to assume that we all agree with that.  I, for one...from a photographers basis, do not believe that to be the case.  

Perhaps you can detail how it has hurt me (and those like me) other than some small delay in getting immediate support on some software. If, with DNG, you are going to detail cost and efficiency improvements on the software vendor side, please balance it with any effect it will have on the camera vendors, which will be different for the large, established vendor from those smaller, newer entry vendors.

I have, in an early post, stated that I really did not care what format was used....as long as I get the function that I am getting now....and the best function in the future.  However, there are a vocal few who are driving this DNG issue with an emotional furor unjustified by the size of the issue.  My point was to try to explain what the other side of the issue could be.  That you do not agree with my stance gives you no right to attack me personally.  We can agree to disagree and we can discuss the points and merits....but with some respect, please....something which is often lacking in your dealing with people on these forums.



« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 02:54:48 PM by jrsforums » Logged

John
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #223 on: August 22, 2012, 03:07:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Come back in twelve years and four OS (operating system) generations later and say what you think...

Best regards
Erik
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #224 on: August 22, 2012, 03:13:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Come back in twelve years and four OS (operating system) generations later and say what you think...

Best regards
Erik

If your comment was to me, I have completely missed your point....
Logged

John
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #225 on: August 22, 2012, 05:22:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Gosh, Jeff....I was aware that I needed a share of stock to participate in a stockholder's meeting, but was not aware that that extended to participating in this forum.  I would be more concerned if I was voicing my opinions driven by outside relationships I had with Nikon/Canon....and I can state that my statements and opinions create no ethical issues.  

Are you implying my opinions are not my own?

I was asking why you are arguing on behalf of Nikon and Canon?

Quote
Are you suggesting that their decision to not support DNG is not a financial based business decision. but some ulterior motive?

Yes...supporting DNG would be a trivial expense...the reason they aren't is some misguided decisions on their part that they (Nikon and Canon) "think" they have something "special" and refuse to either adopt a standard or fully document their raw file formats. Their positions are based on ignorance, arrogance and a misguided sense of ownership. Very typical Japanese corporate thinking...(and I say this from personal experience dealing with these companies not out of some racial bias–anybody who has had direct dealing with these companies correct me if I'm wrong).

Quote
Please help me understand...
what benefits "...the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG..." have derived.
How are the cost/rewards these companies get differ from what Nikon/Canon would realize? 
When you say "...benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few..." please explain who are the "many" and the "few" and, if different groups, what benefits they derive from all DNG vs what exists now? 
Help me understand, if all is DNG and Adobe goes "belly up" in, say, 10 years, what then?

First question–the companies who have adopted DNG no longer have to worry about engineering a new raw file format each time they release a new camera. They no longer have to worry about new camera support for 3rd party software, out of the box.

Second question–Nikon and Canon have departments that have been budgeted to developing new raw file formats and the software required to support new cameras. At this point those departments have done a good job of downplaying the adoption of standards while advancing their own position for the purposes of their continued existence...it's corporate politics.

The "many" is the photographic industry at large that includes photographers and the consumers of photography–neither of which benefit by Nikon and Canon refusing to adopt standards. The "few" is Nikon and Canon (and a few more) that refuse to adopt any standards at the expense of the many...

If Adobe went away in 10 years it would mean little with regards to DNG because the DNG spec is freely and publicly documented. Anybody who could write code could decode DNG files...the only downside if in 10 years Adobe went belly up is that the bright boys like Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan prolly wouldn't keep advancing the DNG spec but others could because, well, it's publicly documented. Unlike the raw file formats from Nikon and Canon.

Again, your position is one that exacerbates the problem and lets Canon and Nikon off the hook for their behavior. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Logged
Fips
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #226 on: August 23, 2012, 01:25:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If your comment was to me, I have completely missed your point....

Erik's point was -- and please correct me if I'm wrong here -- that in a decades time or so, many old raw formats will not be supported anymore. And I completely agree with this. It's also 'will' and not 'might' because it's already happening. With DNG being i) completely documented and ii) on it's way to become an official standard it is much more likely that in many years time you will still be able to process it. And keep in mind that adopting DNG doesn't come with any licensing costs.

Another point, which IMHO is often missed, is that DNG as a standard is not so much beneficial for Adobe as it is for other companies. Especially innovative startups. When I gaze into my crystal ball, I see the following: In 10 years time, Lightroom has become an bloated, overcomplicated mess with an awfully expensive subscription model. Also, Adobe has failed to fully embrace the mobile market and still only delivers some trimmed down for tablets. Mind you, tablets now come in 15" with high resolution, calibratible displays and wacom digitizers built in. Great as a wireless viewfinder for you mirrorless fullframe... but I digress. So with this situation you are looking for an alternative to the bit-long-in-the-tood Adobe products. Luckily there's this new software by some MIT graduates with gives sooo much better IQ that LR ever did. Makes you just want to go back and reedit some of your ancient raw files from that D800 which was the hottest thing back in 2012. But you're out of luck! No startup can afford to implement support for the 847 undocumented raw formats in existence since the mid 90s. How sad is that?!
But then again, the IQ of those old raws isn't so great anyway. Even your iPhone 11 has better resolution, lower noise and shoots DNG...  Wink

EDIT:
Ok, maybe that was a bit over the top. But still, the point is that a standard raw format makes a more competitive and transparent software market. I believe that's hard to argue with.

Oh, and apologies to Eric and Thomas. I'm sure they are doing their best to prevent the scenario above from happening.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 01:30:19 AM by Fips » Logged
Robert-Peter Westphal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



WWW
« Reply #227 on: August 23, 2012, 04:20:53 AM »
ReplyReply

hello,

I've got a strange idea !

Why not removing the sirect support for raw-formats from ACR and Lr and supporting only DNG. So everybody who doesn't want to lose Lr or PS, has to put force on C* and N*. So the only way to use these two tools is either to convert all NEF and CR* to DNG prior to import them into Lr or to put force on the manufacturer to have the option of photographing in DNG directly from the camera.

This would be a very extreme way to go, but I think that so many people use lr and PS either for their job, or for their hobby and becasue of the few alternatives, it could lead directly to the goal.

I don't expect C* or N* to through away their propietary formats, but I could imagine that they would give us the choice in their menu.


In my opinion, changes can be achieved either by realization or revolution - and in this special case the second could be the only way to go.


Just my 5 cents !

Robert
Logged

'visit my completly renewed gallery at http://www.naturfotografie-westphal.com '
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #228 on: August 23, 2012, 07:47:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you implying my opinions are not my own?

I was asking why you are arguing on behalf of Nikon and Canon?

Yes...supporting DNG would be a trivial expense...the reason they aren't is some misguided decisions on their part that they (Nikon and Canon) "think" they have something "special" and refuse to either adopt a standard or fully document their raw file formats. Their positions are based on ignorance, arrogance and a misguided sense of ownership. Very typical Japanese corporate thinking...(and I say this from personal experience dealing with these companies not out of some racial bias–anybody who has had direct dealing with these companies correct me if I'm wrong).

First question–the companies who have adopted DNG no longer have to worry about engineering a new raw file format each time they release a new camera. They no longer have to worry about new camera support for 3rd party software, out of the box.

Second question–Nikon and Canon have departments that have been budgeted to developing new raw file formats and the software required to support new cameras. At this point those departments have done a good job of downplaying the adoption of standards while advancing their own position for the purposes of their continued existence...it's corporate politics.

The "many" is the photographic industry at large that includes photographers and the consumers of photography–neither of which benefit by Nikon and Canon refusing to adopt standards. The "few" is Nikon and Canon (and a few more) that refuse to adopt any standards at the expense of the many...

If Adobe went away in 10 years it would mean little with regards to DNG because the DNG spec is freely and publicly documented. Anybody who could write code could decode DNG files...the only downside if in 10 years Adobe went belly up is that the bright boys like Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan prolly wouldn't keep advancing the DNG spec but others could because, well, it's publicly documented. Unlike the raw file formats from Nikon and Canon.

Again, your position is one that exacerbates the problem and lets Canon and Nikon off the hook for their behavior. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.





Jeff, thank you for your reasoned response.

I do not disagree with much of what you said.  Particularly, that Asian culture is different and difficult for us westerners to understand....or, in many cases, agree with.  I know I had initial difficulties.

However, I believe the actions you ascribe them to are not significantly different from what one would see in a western large business, especially very large complex ones.

The are doing....and continue to do what has worked and continues to work for them.  Simplified, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To think that they do not have standards for their raw formats, and that they are not documented, is naive....and you are far from naive.  They just chose not to release them to us.

If the formats change slightly from camera to camera, I think you would find it hard to say that this is due to sloppiness or poor planning or engineering.  I seriously doubt it is just to obfuscate or to make Eric Chan's life more difficult. 

Why would they make extra work for themselves?  I surmise that their is some efficiency, ease of design, or other benefits in getting the most bringing a camera to market that having flexibility in the raw gives them.  Pushing the envelop of performance and function in their cameras will bring them sales.  Making life easier for the raw converter developers will not.

Last, it is cultural to resist change or to admit you have done wrong.....but not Japanese culture only....human and business culture.  While it works, you continue doing it.  We need reason to change....and obviously, there is not yet a strong enough reason to change.

Jeff, my disagreeing with you that change is needed does not make me the problem.  If the actions that Canon were taking effected me negatively I would vote with my dollars.  However, the current status works for me....right now....and the FUD of DNG does not resonate.

Regards and respect for your position....John
Logged

John
Snoopy Lane
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #229 on: August 25, 2012, 11:29:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Their positions are based on ignorance, arrogance and a misguided sense of ownership. Very typical Japanese corporate thinking...(and I say this from personal experience dealing with these companies not out of some racial bias–anybody who has had direct dealing with these companies correct me if I'm wrong).

+1.  I have never worked with Canon or Nikon, but I have spent time with other Japanese consumer electronics companies, helping them design new products, and participating in standards organizations with them, and completely agree with the summary.  Well, maybe not the "ignorant" part.  They're probably completely aware of what's going on.  I'm not even sure about arrogance (certainly the Japanese have no monopoly on arrogance).  But definitely "misguided sense of ownership".

I would like for there to be a single standard.  And I have nothing against DNG, would be happy if it turned into the one single standard (I convert my CR2s to DNG on import).  However, it's really not that simple.

For starters, it's naive to think that Canon, Nikon, et.al. are "reengineering" their raw formats for each new camera.  They are not.  They add a wee bit of metadata here and there.  Maybe just change a version number.  But imply/infer that they are redesigning things from the ground up is naive.  As evidence of this, I'll point to two things:  1) it really doesn't take Adobe very long to release the next version of ACR that reads the raw files from the latest cameras.  and 2) go read dcraw.c, a widely available open source raw file parser.

More importantly, and a good concrete engineering reason why Canon, Nikon, et.al. can convince themselves that their own formats are preferable, is ease/speed of innovation, coupled with keeping secrets for longer.  As an example, look at Canon's  GP-E2 GPS unit.  It embeds directional (compass) information into the pictures in addition to GPS coordinates.  This is new.  Lightroom doesn't know how to display this.  More importantly, the EXIF/IPTC/whatever metadata for this hasn't been standardized.  Let's pretend you're an engineer at Canon, with bright idea of delivering compass information.  Do you want to play with a standards organization, that may have their own schedule, for a long drawn out decision about how to record compass info?  Heck no.  Worse yet, do you want even tell a public standards body that you want to store compass info?  Hell no, that gives advance warning to competitors of your product plans.

[Ok, I just looked it up, and EXIF does have a way to define compass direction.  My point is the same, though:  if a company wants to do something truly new they certainly don't want to wait on a standards body to tell them how, much less tell their competitors (on the standards body) about the new things being planned]

Of course, the way this is dealt with in the industry is to allow people to have their own custom metadata.  If that happened in DNG, then Canon could provide their own private stuff in DNG.  And Nikon their own private stuff.  And so on.  And at that point, your common standard has solved nothing:  it's just a well documented wrapper for embedding undocumented stuff.

That, in addition to Japanese corporate decision making, is why any hopes that a standard will be adopted by the big guys is just wishful thinking.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2831



WWW
« Reply #230 on: August 26, 2012, 02:37:16 AM »
ReplyReply

DNG already allows custom metadata.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #231 on: August 26, 2012, 06:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply


Of course, the way this is dealt with in the industry is to allow people to have their own custom metadata.  If that happened in DNG, then Canon could provide their own private stuff in DNG.  And Nikon their own private stuff.  And so on.  And at that point, your common standard has solved nothing:  it's just a well documented wrapper for embedding undocumented stuff.

I have nothing against "undocumented stuff" I have a problem with that "stuff" being stuffed into an undocumented file format.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #232 on: August 31, 2012, 10:23:45 AM »
ReplyReply

That's what the MakerNote is for.  Consider Pentax's example.  They have the standard stuff (white balance tags, color profile, etc.) stored in the public and documented tags of their DNG raw files.  Any DNG-reading software can read that, and makes it possible to read and process Pentax files.  Then, they have their private stuff in the DNG's MakerNote.  Nobody but Pentax knows the meaning of that data.  Maybe it helps their software deliver better quality, or helps their technicians diagnose problems if a camera stops working.  And all of that's fine. 
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #233 on: September 06, 2012, 09:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I suspected that DNG would not get universal adoption and that has proved right in most respects. I think Pentax are doing DNG only with the K-30 but there is no sign of anyone else dumping their own raw formats.
Of course..there is no doubt that a single format is beneficial to all of us.

But I point the finger of blame at Adobe, whilst they're not charging for it's use I do not want to see a commercial company have control over this format. If the format went open source then I believe it would have a much brighter future. As it is Adobe have messed up in a very big way here. Let it go or let it die simple as that. Right now it's failed to gain the adoption that was needed.

Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #234 on: September 06, 2012, 11:21:35 AM »
ReplyReply

But I point the finger of blame at Adobe, whilst they're not charging for it's use I do not want to see a commercial company have control over this format.

I guess you missed the post where I mentioned Adobe has officially offered DNG to the ISO for their next update of TIFF-EP?
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #235 on: September 06, 2012, 12:07:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess you missed the post where I mentioned Adobe has officially offered DNG to the ISO for their next update of TIFF-EP?

Quite possibly a minute late and a dollar short.  Time will tell.

If it is adopted, it will be interesting to see the time duration from offer to acceptance/implementation.  This will give a good indication of responsiveness of ISO standards to change.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 12:09:57 PM by jrsforums » Logged

John
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 965



« Reply #236 on: September 06, 2012, 09:11:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I suspected that DNG would not get universal adoption and that has proved right in most respects. I think Pentax are doing DNG only with the K-30 but there is no sign of anyone else dumping their own raw formats.

not Pentax, but Ricoh... the new owner of Pentax was/is DNG only
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #237 on: September 11, 2012, 02:34:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I am interested in the new 6x6 CFA pattern in the Fujifilm X-trans sensors.

Would the current DNG format support encoding all the RAW data produced by the sensor, or does it essentially assume that the sensor has a Bayer pattern?

I have heard "Linear DNG" mentioned, but would that in fact be RAW data? Or would it require a pre-processing stage which would essentially mean that although the files would then be readable by existing software, they would not actually be reading the RAW data?
Logged

sandymc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


« Reply #238 on: September 11, 2012, 05:16:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I am interested in the new 6x6 CFA pattern in the Fujifilm X-trans sensors.

Would the current DNG format support encoding all the RAW data produced by the sensor, or does it essentially assume that the sensor has a Bayer pattern?

I have heard "Linear DNG" mentioned, but would that in fact be RAW data? Or would it require a pre-processing stage which would essentially mean that although the files would then be readable by existing software, they would not actually be reading the RAW data?

The current DNG spec, and in fact previous versions as well, supports the 6x6 layout without any problem. Linear raw isn't required. But there are two reasons why you might still want to use linear raw with the X-Pro: (a) compatibility with other software - e.g., CornerFix won't correct a "native" X-Pro DNG, but will correct a Linear raw DNG version. Also (b) some people have used DNG converter set for linear DNG conversions to avoid the chroma smearing problem that LightRoom/ACR suffer from with the X-tran sensor.

Sandy
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #239 on: September 11, 2012, 05:59:07 AM »
ReplyReply

The current DNG spec, and in fact previous versions as well, supports the 6x6 layout without any problem. Linear raw isn't required. But there are two reasons why you might still want to use linear raw with the X-Pro: (a) compatibility with other software - e.g., CornerFix won't correct a "native" X-Pro DNG, but will correct a Linear raw DNG version. Also (b) some people have used DNG converter set for linear DNG conversions to avoid the chroma smearing problem that LightRoom/ACR suffer from with the X-tran sensor.

Sandy

Thanks, very interesting.

So am I correct in thinking that at the point of release (assuming Fuji RAW files had been written in DNG format) that the converters, ACR, etc would not have been able to render the file unless it had been converted into Linear DNG, and that if so, then you would still require advanced algorithms to do the conversion into Linear DNG. Is Linear DNG essentially just a DNG wrapper around a TIF file?

If my questions are too simplistic I would be happy with a redirection to a link. Smiley

Currently the RAW converters are struggling somewhat with the X-trans sensor, different converters seeming to do better or worse depending on the image, with ACR at this stage probably being the weakest of the bunch. (Note that I do not assume this is due to intransigence by either Fuji or Adobe, nor due to any lack of ability or brilliance on the part of Eric/Thomas. Rather I imagine it has to do with limited resources, a small user base, and possibly other factors like keeping performance reasonable, etc.)
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad