New plugin format for future JASC products?

Owen Ransen wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

If I develop for the old (PS) plugin format for
JASC products will that format still be valid for
the next few releases of PSP? I’d hate to start
a port only to find out it was out of date!

Nobody but JASC can give you the answer, but it would be stupid if JASC would change the plugin format IMHO. Why on earth would they do that?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

PSP and JASC were acquired by Corel.

Ask this question on one of the Corel-hosted newsgroups. See

http://support.corel.com/scripts/rightnow.cfg/php.exe/enduse r/std_adp.php?p _faqid=754345

or point your newsreader to
news:cnews.corel.com
and pick one of the PSP groups

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

If I develop for the old (PS) plugin format for
JASC products will that format still be valid for
the next few releases of PSP? I’d hate to start
a port only to find out it was out of date!

You can reply to supp(at)ransen.com if needed.

Owen Ransen wrote in
news::

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

You figured you’d ask on the usenet newsgroup of a different product.

Words fail me.

<snip>

Owen Ransen wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

If I develop for the old (PS) plugin format for
JASC products will that format still be valid for
the next few releases of PSP? I’d hate to start
a port only to find out it was out of date!

Even if they introduce a new one, it’s almost inconceivable that Jasc would cease to support the existing plugin interface, so I’d have little hesitation in starting your project on that basis.

–Toby

Free & open source plugins for Photoshop, Elements, Paint Shop Pro: http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

You can reply to supp(at)ransen.com if needed.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:20:50 -0500, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Owen Ransen wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

If I develop for the old (PS) plugin format for
JASC products will that format still be valid for
the next few releases of PSP? I’d hate to start
a port only to find out it was out of date!

Nobody but JASC can give you the answer,

I know and hope someone from JASC will reply.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:43:05 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

AAARGH! I’ve just realised I’ve posted to a photoshop
and not a PSP group…

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:50:04 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:20:50 -0500, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Owen Ransen wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

If I develop for the old (PS) plugin format for
JASC products will that format still be valid for
the next few releases of PSP? I’d hate to start
a port only to find out it was out of date!

Nobody but JASC can give you the answer,

I know and hope someone from JASC will reply.

And you think they’ll be reading an ADOBE newsgroup? Sheesh!

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:50:04 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:20:50 -0500, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Owen Ransen wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

If I develop for the old (PS) plugin format for
JASC products will that format still be valid for
the next few releases of PSP? I’d hate to start
a port only to find out it was out of date!

Nobody but JASC can give you the answer,

I know and hope someone from JASC will reply.

And you think they’ll be reading an ADOBE newsgroup? Sheesh!

Kris Zaklika has surfaced here, but I think it was just to get an education from Mr. Cox.

🙂

Uni

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:24:06 +0000, Hecate wrote:

I know and hope someone from JASC will reply.

And you think they’ll be reading an ADOBE newsgroup? Sheesh!

As I mentioned in an other post in this thread, it was
an error of mine posting here.

But I would not be surprised if JASC read ADOBE newsgroups and vice versa….

In article , says
….

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:43:05 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

AAARGH! I’ve just realised I’ve posted to a photoshop
and not a PSP group…

Don’t feel bad, Owen, the PSP group is in my list just above the two main PS NG’s. I sometimes click on PSP and am amazed at all the NEW posts! Then, I realize my mistake.

Good luck with your search though,
Hunt

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:43:05 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

AAARGH! I’ve just realised I’ve posted to a photoshop
and not a PSP group…

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the photo editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

Ron

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:35:08 GMT, "Ron Krebs" wrote:

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:43:05 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

AAARGH! I’ve just realised I’ve posted to a photoshop
and not a PSP group…

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the photo editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

You mean for plugins?

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:35:08 GMT, "Ron Krebs" wrote:

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:43:05 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

I was not able to find the answer to this
on the JASC site… so….

AAARGH! I’ve just realised I’ve posted to a photoshop
and not a PSP group…

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the photo editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

You mean for plugins?

Nope, my bad. My browser doesn’t show the original posts in this thread. I thought he was talking about a different RAW extension.

Ron

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:35:08 GMT, "Ron Krebs" wrote:

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the photo editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

LOL!

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Ron Krebs" wrote:

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the photo editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

Why would they want to do that?

"jjs" wrote in message

"Ron Krebs" wrote:

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the photo editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

Why would they want to do that?

Well, because it’s standardized and not proprietary.

Ron Krebs wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message

"Ron Krebs" wrote:

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the

photo

editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

Why would they want to do that?

(Let’s pretend this is on topic for moment longer.)

Well, because it’s standardized and not proprietary.

No more so than the PSP file format, which has always been publicly documented. By "standardised" do you mean "with wide acceptance"? Or do you mean, "will shortly be" widely accepted, as your first post predicted? Or do you mean "documented", in which case I may as well chuck a description of a format on my web site and immediately I’m as much of a standard as DNG.

But the issue is moot, since PSP and DNG are designed to solve different problems. PSP image format is a receptacle for all forms of imagery that you can create with Paint Shop Pro – vectors, layers, adjustments, etc, much like Photoshop’s mostly undocumented native format; while DNG is Adobe’s "archival format for the raw files generated by digital cameras".

Adobe describes DNG as "non proprietary" but I can’t figure out what this means (perhaps I should ask http://www.groklaw.net !) Does it mean it’s not patented? Presumably it means "we won’t charge you to use it", but that applies equally to many others, including PSP, TIFF, and even the documented parts of PSD, so the qualifier seems meaningless.

"toby" wrote in message

Ron Krebs wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message

"Ron Krebs" wrote:

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in the

photo

editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format anyway.

Why would they want to do that?

(Let’s pretend this is on topic for moment longer.)

Well, because it’s standardized and not proprietary.

No more so than the PSP file format, which has always been publicly documented. By "standardised" do you mean "with wide acceptance"? Or do you mean, "will shortly be" widely accepted, as your first post predicted? Or do you mean "documented", in which case I may as well chuck a description of a format on my web site and immediately I’m as much of a standard as DNG.

But the issue is moot, since PSP and DNG are designed to solve different problems. PSP image format is a receptacle for all forms of imagery that you can create with Paint Shop Pro – vectors, layers, adjustments, etc, much like Photoshop’s mostly undocumented native format; while DNG is Adobe’s "archival format for the raw files generated by digital cameras".

Adobe describes DNG as "non proprietary" but I can’t figure out what this means (perhaps I should ask http://www.groklaw.net !) Does it mean it’s not patented? Presumably it means "we won’t charge you to use it", but that applies equally to many others, including PSP, TIFF, and even the documented parts of PSD, so the qualifier seems meaningless.

Probably in the sense that AVI is used in video( a container to hold other compressor formats). Supposedly, it will eliminate the need for sidecar files and take the metadata. It’s also smaller in size than Adobe RAW from what I’ve read( though that sounds like compression to me). But what I was hoping for, was a standardized pixel sensor recording format so that all future digicams will store their raw images in *.dng extensions which will eliminate the need for proprietary camera applications in order to open/view the images. We’ll see.

Ron

Ron Krebs wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

Ron Krebs wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message

"Ron Krebs" wrote:

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in

the

photo

editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format

anyway.

Why would they want to do that?

(Let’s pretend this is on topic for moment longer.)

Well, because it’s standardized and not proprietary.

…

Adobe describes DNG as "non proprietary" … the qualifier seems

meaningless.

Probably in the sense that AVI is used in video( a container to hold

other

compressor formats).

Or, more elegantly, QuickTime. But I don’t see what that has to do with "proprietariness". I notice that Adobe has a grand-sounding "patent license" on their DNG site but oddly no evidence of a patent.

Supposedly, it will eliminate the need for sidecar
files and take the metadata. … what I was
hoping for, was a standardized pixel sensor recording format so that

all

future digicams will store their raw images in *.dng extensions which

will

eliminate the need for proprietary camera applications in order to

open/view

the images.

Agreed, an open camera format is a worthy hope – and would give DNG a good reason for existing – but I question whether a new format was really needed. TIFF seems quite extensible enough. Anyhow, we already have DNG and the 500 pound gorilla behind it, so maybe it will catch on.

We’ll see.

Ron

"toby" wrote in message

Ron Krebs wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

Ron Krebs wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message

"Ron Krebs" wrote:

Doesn’t matter what PSP’s format is, everyone who’s anyone in

the

photo

editing SW business will shortly be going to DNG format

anyway.

Why would they want to do that?

(Let’s pretend this is on topic for moment longer.)

Well, because it’s standardized and not proprietary.

…

Adobe describes DNG as "non proprietary" … the qualifier seems

meaningless.

Probably in the sense that AVI is used in video( a container to hold

other

compressor formats).

Or, more elegantly, QuickTime. But I don’t see what that has to do with "proprietariness". I notice that Adobe has a grand-sounding "patent license" on their DNG site but oddly no evidence of a patent.

Supposedly, it will eliminate the need for sidecar
files and take the metadata. … what I was
hoping for, was a standardized pixel sensor recording format so that

all

future digicams will store their raw images in *.dng extensions which

will

eliminate the need for proprietary camera applications in order to

open/view

the images.

Agreed, an open camera format is a worthy hope – and would give DNG a good reason for existing – but I question whether a new format was really needed. TIFF seems quite extensible enough. Anyhow, we already have DNG and the 500 pound gorilla behind it, so maybe it will catch on.

Well put. Ironically(or perhaps not), DNG’s algorithms are based on TIFF. If the 500 pound gorilla you’re referring to is Adobe, then I’d say they certainly have that "weight" and then some to pull this off. Look what they did for text documents.

Ron

"toby" wrote in message

Adobe describes DNG as "non proprietary" but I can’t figure out what this means (perhaps I should ask http://www.groklaw.net !) Does it mean it’s not patented? Presumably it means "we won’t charge you to use it", but that applies equally to many others, including PSP, TIFF, and even the documented parts of PSD, so the qualifier seems meaningless.

My take on it, Toby, is that Adobe offers the standards to the public domain hoping that hardware manufacturers will follow it. It is quite similar to TIFF but more robust than, say, PSP and TIFF.

jjs wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

Adobe describes DNG as "non proprietary" but I can’t figure out

what

this means (perhaps I should ask http://www.groklaw.net !) Does it

mean

it’s not patented? Presumably it means "we won’t charge you to use

it",

but that applies equally to many others, including PSP, TIFF, and

even

the documented parts of PSD, so the qualifier seems meaningless.

My take on it, Toby, is that Adobe offers the standards to the public

domain

hoping that hardware manufacturers will follow it. It is quite

similar to

TIFF but more robust than, say, PSP and TIFF.

Well, yes, that much is obvious. Except it’s certainly not public domain, it’s encumbered by their comprehensive "patent license": http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/license.html (I’m sure that contradicts the "non proprietary" claim somehow…)

jjs wrote:

…It is quite similar to
TIFF but more robust than, say, PSP and TIFF.

I’m not sure in what sense TIFF can be said to be "not robust". If you wish to clarify, please make reference to the spec.

As for PSP, I would tend to agree. It’s much harder to reliably extend. But as I said earlier, this is a red herring; PSP and DNG are in completely different spaces.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:06:45 GMT, "Ron Krebs" wrote:

Well put. Ironically(or perhaps not), DNG’s algorithms are based on TIFF. If the 500 pound gorilla you’re referring to is Adobe, then I’d say they certainly have that "weight" and then some to pull this off. Look what they did for text documents.

Amongst others, Canon and Nikon have "weight" as well. And they’re not going to lose money just to help out Adobe.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"toby" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

…It is quite similar to
TIFF but more robust than, say, PSP and TIFF.

I’m not sure in what sense TIFF can be said to be "not robust". If you wish to clarify, please make reference to the spec.

TIFF hasn’t the fields and metadata adequate to support digital cameras.

jjs wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

…It is quite similar to
TIFF but more robust than, say, PSP and TIFF.

I’m not sure in what sense TIFF can be said to be "not robust". If

you

wish to clarify, please make reference to the spec.

TIFF hasn’t the fields and metadata adequate to support digital

cameras.

Since it was designed to be extensible – have you read the spec? – this is no problem whatsoever. In fact similar extensions have often been used in the past.

On 25 Feb 2005 09:59:36 -0800, "toby"
wrote:

jjs wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

…It is quite similar to
TIFF but more robust than, say, PSP and TIFF.

I’m not sure in what sense TIFF can be said to be "not robust". If

you

wish to clarify, please make reference to the spec.

TIFF hasn’t the fields and metadata adequate to support digital

cameras.

Since it was designed to be extensible – have you read the spec? – this is no problem whatsoever. In fact similar extensions have often been used in the past.

Have to agree with Toby – the extensibility of tiff is one of the best reasons for it’s use.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On 25 Feb 2005 09:59:36 -0800, "toby"
wrote:

jjs wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

…It is quite similar to
TIFF but more robust than, say, PSP and TIFF.

I’m not sure in what sense TIFF can be said to be "not robust".

If

you

wish to clarify, please make reference to the spec.

TIFF hasn’t the fields and metadata adequate to support digital

cameras.

Since it was designed to be extensible – have you read the spec? –

this

is no problem whatsoever. In fact similar extensions have often been used in the past.

Have to agree with Toby – the extensibility of tiff is one of the

best

reasons for it’s use.

I can sort of see a non-technical rationale why Adobe rejected TIFF as a platform, though: to market a "new RAW" format as an "extended TIFF" might be confusing to the "marketplace", since people have been using TIFF for years in established workflows and have preconceptions about what it’s "good for". Even if DNG was just "TIFF underneath" (I haven’t read the spec yet) it is still easier to market under a new name for its specific role.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On 25 Feb 2005 17:55:40 -0800, "toby"
wrote:

Have to agree with Toby – the extensibility of tiff is one of the

best

reasons for it’s use.

I can sort of see a non-technical rationale why Adobe rejected TIFF as a platform, though: to market a "new RAW" format as an "extended TIFF" might be confusing to the "marketplace", since people have been using TIFF for years in established workflows and have preconceptions about what it’s "good for". Even if DNG was just "TIFF underneath" (I haven’t read the spec yet) it is still easier to market under a new name for its specific role.

Yeah – another new way of taking money from people or am I just being cynical? 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On 25 Feb 2005 17:55:40 -0800, "toby"
wrote:

Have to agree with Toby – the extensibility of tiff is one of the

best

reasons for it’s use.

I can sort of see a non-technical rationale why Adobe rejected TIFF

as

a platform, though: to market a "new RAW" format as an "extended

TIFF"

might be confusing to the "marketplace", …

Yeah – another new way of taking money from people or am I just being cynical? 🙂

I don’t think we’d have to scratch DNG too deeply to find opportunities for lock-in, yes – even apart from the brand ownership/glory play. TANSTAAFL.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:35:08 GMT, "Ron Krebs" wrote:
You mean for plugins?

Great