Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Should Camera Companies adopt non-proprietary raw?  (Read 12559 times)
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2013, 05:43:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Being a little more precise. Taking Red example, as Red is a commercial company that wants to make profits, sell their cameras and codecs; they developped supports
that now with time has become very matured. The metadatas files is clearly separated from the raw file  where the info remains untouched and those metadatas can
work in the camera itself, in the raw dev itself (provided by Red for free) or in the editorial facilities as well as finishing apps.

If you take for ex Adobe Premiere or Avid, the Red source settings is very similar and it works the same way, because the provider is Red. But who will take the initiative
to do that with cinema DNG ? There is no commercial brand involved behind and if Adobe or Avid are not willing to do the job for integrate support in their products as Red
did, we can't do anything and it's frustrating.

So it would be like independants decide to group their efforts for free, or free donations, a little bit like what happened with the Hacked GH2 or 5D2, but as they don't access
the brands core programmation, the only hoppe is that cameras that adopted cinema DNG have such great success that commercial interests have no other choices to
integrate it as a standart, forced to do it.

Because Arri talks to Apple and says: great, we will provide Prores option in our Alexas. Then, they talk to Avid and say: great, we will provide DNxHD in our Alexas too, so Avid guys will be happy.
But then, will they say: we will provide a cinema DNG version? ...no, because they have their Arriraw.
  
« Last Edit: April 20, 2013, 05:56:06 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2013, 06:58:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps LightRoom's default could be to convert imports to DNG? No burden on the user, no need to whine to the camera manufacturers, and we can get back to making beautiful photos.
Peter, just to enlarge on Jeff's point.
This is NOT a DNG crusade.
This is all about the adoption of a standardized open RAW format.
DNG is the only candidate in play currently but it may not be the format eventually adopted.
What if many people converted all their RAW files to DNG and DNG was not adopted as the standardized RAW format.
If Adobe were to subsequently go out of business and DNG lost its support then all those DNG files would effectively be orphaned.
BACK TO SQUARE ONE!

So, the only way forward is the adoption of a standardized RAW format.

Tony Jay
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2013, 07:31:54 PM »
ReplyReply

If Adobe were to subsequently go out of business and DNG lost its support then all those DNG files would effectively be orphaned.

Well, actually not...because DNG is publicly documented :~)
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2013, 07:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, actually not...because DNG is publicly documented :~)

True, but someone still has to actually continue to make the software that can see the file.
The fact that it is an open format makes this possible but does not guarantee that it actually happens.

Tony Jay
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2013, 08:32:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps LightRoom's default could be to convert imports to DNG? No burden on the user, no need to whine to the camera manufacturers, and we can get back to making beautiful photos.

BTW Peter it would be nice if all we had to think about was how to make beautiful photos rather than how to guarantee the survival of our digital negatives.

Tony Jay
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2013, 09:12:09 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW Peter it would be nice if all we had to think about was how to make beautiful photos rather than how to guarantee the survival of our digital negatives.

Tony Jay

Good grief....some of us try to do that....but some people keep dragging us away from taking pictures with FUD about the end of the world for future images...something which, after we have thought about it carefully, still do not believe it is an acute problem...at least one which needs constant harping on about.
Logged

John
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2013, 09:31:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Good grief....some of us try to do that....but some people keep dragging us away from taking pictures with FUD about the end of the world for future images...something which, after we have thought about it carefully, still do not believe it is an acute problem...at least one which needs constant harping on about.

You can stick your head in the sand if you want to ... but don't complain if you get your arse shot off eventually.

Tony Jay
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2013, 09:41:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Good grief....some of us try to do that....but some people keep dragging us away from taking pictures...

You are under no obligation to pay attention to this subject nor this thread. And personally, this is the last message of yours I will ever respond to directly here on LuLa. You just ceased to exist to me bud.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2013, 09:42:51 PM »
ReplyReply

You can stick your head in the sand if you want to ... but don't complain if you get your arse shot off eventually.

Tony Jay

Thank you for you CONTINUAL useless words of warning.  I, like mny others, take full responsibility for our actions.  

I have been "warned"...but, of course, there is no current "solution"....only whinging for some future, questionable needed fix....with some unknown availability date, and without any proof that, even if it individually works, is the entire solution....or if there continue to be other items that need to be solved or looked out for.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2013, 09:45:03 PM »
ReplyReply

You are under no obligation to pay attention to this subject nor this thread. And personally, this is the last message of yours I will ever respond to directly here on LuLa. You just ceased to exist to me bud.

Stop acting like a child.  You cannot get someone to agree with your position, so you act like that...?

I have disagreed with your position, but agreed with your right to have it.

My comment was at TonyJay's comment, not your position...which I agreed was a situation needing attention...but not agreeing to your path of solving it....as others have also said.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2013, 09:49:02 PM by jrsforums » Logged

John
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2013, 10:01:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Good grief....some of us try to do that....but some people keep dragging us away from taking pictures with FUD about the end of the world for future images...something which, after we have thought about it carefully, still do not believe it is an acute problem...at least one which needs constant harping on about.
You are still not paying attention - every RAW image is at risk currently, PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.
The fact that YOU regard this as FUD says much more about you than the issue at hand.

Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney are world-class authorities on matters photographic yet you have been telling them over and over for the last few days that they are talking CRAP (FUD).
Nothing that you have said gives anyone with even a smatter of knowledge on this subject of Digital Asset Management any confidence that you have the slightest idea what you are talking about yet you are dismissing individuals who do actually know their stuff.

In an earlier post on this thread you complained that you respect their point of view (not from my reading of your posts anyway) but no-one respects your point of view (could it be that you are the one talking crap?).
In fact Jeff Schewe in particular has been remarkably restrained in handling the faeces that you have been throwing at him. Not known as someone who tolerates fools lightly he has actually been very polite to you.

In the quote above you say that you have thought carefully about the issue and cannot see it as an acute problem.
I would suggest that you have not mainly because nothing in your contributions so far gives me any reason to believe that you have any grasp of the problem at hand.

As I said, it would be really nice not to concern oneself with issues of Digital Asset Management but we are NOT currently residing in that sort of universe.
Without a universal standardized open RAW format ALL digitalized RAW images are currently at risk.

Frankly, if you want to stick your head in the sand then, for you, the solution is easy - don't torture yourself by reading and replying to threads such as this.

Tony Jay
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2013, 11:28:03 PM »
ReplyReply

You are still not paying attention - every RAW image is at risk currently, PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.
The fact that YOU regard this as FUD says much more about you than the issue at hand.

Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney are world-class authorities on matters photographic yet you have been telling them over and over for the last few days that they are talking CRAP (FUD).
Nothing that you have said gives anyone with even a smatter of knowledge on this subject of Digital Asset Management any confidence that you have the slightest idea what you are talking about yet you are dismissing individuals who do actually know their stuff.

In an earlier post on this thread you complained that you respect their point of view (not from my reading of your posts anyway) but no-one respects your point of view (could it be that you are the one talking crap?).
In fact Jeff Schewe in particular has been remarkably restrained in handling the faeces that you have been throwing at him. Not known as someone who tolerates fools lightly he has actually been very polite to you.

In the quote above you say that you have thought carefully about the issue and cannot see it as an acute problem.
I would suggest that you have not mainly because nothing in your contributions so far gives me any reason to believe that you have any grasp of the problem at hand.

As I said, it would be really nice not to concern oneself with issues of Digital Asset Management but we are NOT currently residing in that sort of universe.
Without a universal standardized open RAW format ALL digitalized RAW images are currently at risk.

Frankly, if you want to stick your head in the sand then, for you, the solution is easy - don't torture yourself by reading and replying to threads such as this.

Tony Jay

Tony, it is not an acute problem, that is one which will stop us from successfully processing our images.  Nor is there imminent danger of not being able to process our images in the near term.  There is a potential future problem, which may be alleviated with an open RAW standard....but it still does not provide a guaranty of no future loss...those who care still need to be vigilent

I have stated that an open RAW standard would be nice and something that I would be glad to use.  (though I doubt it is the total solution and others have posted that it might even be a problem as other may not accept it or see the economic advantage of using it).

I have used the term FUD (not CRAP, which is your term).  FUD has been and still is an accepted term as one method for attempting to convince consumers/buyers to not buy a competitor's product/idea/concept using uncertainty and/or mistrust vs. using factual features and benefits. In this case, it is being used continually to rally the mass of photographers to be unhappy with the "selfishness", "stupidity", "pride", etc. of the camera manufacturers.

OK....let's assume you had 100% of the photographers agreeing that an open RAW standard was really wanted.  However, there is no suggestion that these photographers take any action as far as buying cameras or using the RAW formats currently being provided.  Also, at that point (this is still an assumption) there would still need to be work done to translate/convert native RAW to Open RAW.

So, the status is...camera manufacturers still producing native RAW.  Photographers still buying those cameras.  Open RAW available for use, but work needs to be to to prepare for use and then users need to convert if they want to use...and their only net gain is some potential archival potential....a lot of work for little gain.

What is need?  Get the camera manufacturers to produce Open RAW.  Great idea..!!  What is the value proposition for them to do it?  The 100% of photographers that would like Open RAW, but are still buying there products that do not have it?  As I said to Jeff and Andrew in the other thread, this needs to be accomplished in the back rooms and board rooms of the camera industry...both hardware and software.

Brad said earlier in this thread, what I have been saying all along, "...I think people have a too romantic view of commercial manufacturing companies. They are not in this world to secure the future of our Kodak moments, they are here to make money. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is what it is. They will only adopt something universal, if it brings a lot of clear (competitive) benefits, and no downsides..."

Yes, Data Asset Management is a concern.  I have never claimed to be a expert in it.  I am concerned about it and attempt to be vigilent in my actions, directions, and buying patterns relative to it.  However,  I do not go about daily worrying about items I can not have any effect on any more than I can personally have any effect on world peace.  If this forum were continually pushing me and being filled with assorted post about believing in world peace (with out any action statement), I would react quite similar as I have to the believe in Open RAW (with no action statement).

BTW....this forum is entitled "Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques".  It is not a place for world peace.    It is a place to discuss "making beautiful pictures".  I question if it is a place for statements like, "...it would be nice if all we had to think about was how to make beautiful photos rather than how to guarantee the survival of our digital negatives."  But you have the right to make that....I have the right to ignore it or comment that your statement is "...FUD about the end of the world..."
« Last Edit: April 20, 2013, 11:34:18 PM by jrsforums » Logged

John
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2013, 12:12:39 AM »
ReplyReply

If you believe that the issue is not acute then you blithely disregarding obvious facts.
Andrew Rodney himself told you how he lost RAW images from first-generation digital cameras.

You believe that your RAW images are safe - for how long: five years, ten, fifty years?
You may not care - that is your perogative.

For the industry and the photographic community as a whole with an eye to the future the lack of a standardized open RAW format makes it highly unlikely that any RAW images captured now will be accessible in fifty years, or even twenty years given the casualty rate amongst businesses involved in computing/software/digital/photographic genres.

You do have your head in the sand - simply put.

I was wondering when Jeff would lose patience with you - I guess he feels calling his contributions FUD did it.
It must feel great getting one of the world's most influential authorities on matters photography so thoroughly pissed off with you.

BTW as a relative newbie to this forum I am not sure you have any place suggesting what should or shouldn't be discussed on any particular subforum. Personally, if I had started this thread I would have put it in a different subforum but I feel sure that the moderators will shift it, if, and when, they feel so inclined. So, none of your business.

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding in almost every mini-paragraph of your latest post.
There is curently no need for camera makers to produce an open RAW format: one actually exists - DNG.
DNG has already been adopted by certain camera-makers.
You can buy cameras today in your local camera store that use DNG.

The DNG format has been available freely for any camera maker or software company to incorporate into their products.
Contrary to your continual mantra there are no massive technical barriers to overcome.
What is needed is consensus.
Will that process require certain changes to made? Almost certainly!
Since those changes will likely only involve issues of metadata and not the bulk of recorded information since DNG files as well as most proprietary RAW formats base their format on a particular iteration of the TIFF standard once consensus is reached engineering the final first standardized DNG format would be in the order of days.
Does that mean that DNG would then be cast in stone never to change again - no.
Any useful format is continually updated with due regard to backward compatibility (read the histroy of the TIFF and JPEG formats, gee haven't I mentioned that before?)

Consumer pressure in the past has been the only way many manufacturers of diverse products have made important changes to their products.
Leaving the directors of companies involved in photographic products to their own devices will not work - remember Kodak and the spectacular strategic bungles that their board made that led to the demise of one of the biggest, and formally most profitable, enterprises in our history.
Kodak developed the digital sensor and yet, inexplicably, failed to see the future, preferring instead to pursue their established analog products.
Come to think about it their approach and yours are eerily similar.

I am aware that none of what I am saying will benefit you, apparently, but it may help others who need a little bit of perspective.
Ultimately, DNG may never be adopted as the universal RAW format but it is likely that it will be a derivative of the DNG.

Your quip about saving the world shows both your contempt and stupidity.
Perhaps Jeff is right.

Tony Jay
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 12:17:39 AM by Tony Jay » Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2013, 12:28:02 AM »
ReplyReply

If you believe that the issue is not acute then you blithely disregarding obvious facts.
Andrew Rodney himself told you how he lost RAW images from first-generation digital cameras.



This was not from digital cameras, but Photo CDs  He did not totally lose them, as there are means to recover them...he has to make decision if the effort is worth it.  With 20/20 hind sight it might have been avoided.

Please get your facts correct.

In any of the threads I have read, I do not believe that proprietary RAW format has yet be documented as a reason for image loss.  That does not diminish the risk...from a number of factors, only one of which is format.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2013, 12:34:24 AM »
ReplyReply


You believe that your RAW images are safe - for how long: five years, ten, fifty years?
You may not care - that is your perogative.


Frankly, fifty years out, without someone around to be concerned about the other aspects of DAM, I think there is more to worry about than RAW format.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2013, 12:41:02 AM »
ReplyReply

For the industry and the photographic community as a whole with an eye to the future the lack of a standardized open RAW format makes it highly unlikely that any RAW images captured now will be accessible in fifty years, or even twenty years given the casualty rate amongst businesses involved in computing/software/digital/photographic genres.



That is what makes the issue much bigger than just the RAW format. 

If we are going to get "glory-eyed" about saving the world of images, let us not be myopic about the proprietary nature of the RAW format.  How about the RAW converter software?  If we are not worried about that, then the only thing we should worry about preserving is the finished product...TIFF or JPEG.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2013, 12:47:16 AM »
ReplyReply


You are demonstrating your lack of understanding in almost every mini-paragraph of your latest post.
There is curently no need for camera makers to produce an open RAW format: one actually exists - DNG.
DNG has already been adopted by certain camera-makers.
You can buy cameras today in your local camera store that use DNG.

So are you saying that the solution is to only buy these cameras...I don't think you are.

DNG is NOT an industry standard.  While it is offered as one, it is currently an Adobe product.....and while I am sure their ideal is to benefit the market, they are the main benficiaries...at least currently...of it's expanded use.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2013, 12:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply


The DNG format has been available freely for any camera maker or software company to incorporate into their products.
Contrary to your continual mantra there are no massive technical barriers to overcome.
What is needed is consensus.


OK....so DNG has been made freely available....but not accepted by the majors.  You surmise no MASSIVE technical barriers...not sure what you mean or what experience you have in this area....but what is most important, are you aware of a detailed technical analysis and cost analysis by any major camera mfgr?  (and don't blame them if they have not shared it with you.it is the way business works).

You say that all is need is consensus (I am assuming here the community of photographers).  Have you ever done a business/financial plan for a major product from conception through launch?
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2013, 01:07:32 AM »
ReplyReply


Consumer pressure in the past has been the only way many manufacturers of diverse products have made important changes to their products.
Leaving the directors of companies involved in photographic products to their own devices will not work - remember Kodak and the spectacular strategic bungles that their board made that led to the demise of one of the biggest, and formally most profitable, enterprises in our history.
Kodak developed the digital sensor and yet, inexplicably, failed to see the future, preferring instead to pursue their established analog products.


Consumer pressure is not "consensus" pressure, but buying pressure.  Kodak's death (probably a Harvard study by now) was most likely the result of poor insight into the market changes and consumer buying power....and the ability to "eat your children before someone else eats them".  That is, if your main source of income is film, you cannot protect that market by not developing digital products if others are going to develop them and have the market shift from film to digital.

If an open RAW standard has the ability to create such a market shift, then some majors may fall the way of Kodak as a result.  The way to get them to accept open RAW is to present them with the value proposition of these facts.  Consumer "consensus" without consumer buying change does not close the equation.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2013, 01:12:20 AM »
ReplyReply



Your quip about saving the world shows both your contempt and stupidity.


It is not contempt. My view is a pragmatic one.   The statement was an attempt to display your statements as impracticable idealism.

Calling someone stupid is for the school playground.
Logged

John
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad