Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
So Hasselblad now has DNG support for their 22mpx camera/back! Expect more to follow. No?NO 😉
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:59:20 -0500, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:
So Hasselblad now has DNG support for their 22mpx camera/back! Expect more to follow. No?NO 😉
So Hasselblad now has DNG support for their 22mpx camera/back! Expect more to follow. No?
"Hecate" wrote in messageLOL! Actually, I think the rationale goes like this – smaller manufacturers who need every reason they can think of to get people to buy their cameras will eventually include it. Expect to see Leica, Olympus and Pentax on that list. Nikon and Canon who don’t need Adobe’s "validation" to sell cameras (look at how Nikon have closed off their White Balance to Adobe for ACR) will carry on regardless. They know that they produce the cameras most people want and so aren’t interested. For them, the more proprietary the better. Remember, profit is what counts and if they can make more money with proprietary solutions they will.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:59:20 -0500, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:
So Hasselblad now has DNG support for their 22mpx camera/back! Expect more to follow. No?NO 😉
Aw man, I have $60k of a grant to spend and you say No? Okay. Back to the Olympus Pen 1/2 frame.
Lorem Ipsum wrote:
So Hasselblad now has DNG support for their 22mpx camera/back! Expect more to follow. No?
Yes. But it will probably take years to convince the major manufacturers!
The Leica DMR back was the first case I know of to use DNG as its raw format, about 10 weeks ago:
http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/rsystem/digitalmodul/in dex_e.html
Hecate – The Real One writes …
Actually, I think the rationale goes like this – smaller manufacturers who need every reason they can think of to get people to buy their cameras will eventually include it. Expect to see Leica, Olympus and Pentax on that list
Nikon and Canon who don’t need Adobe’s "validation" to sell cameras … will carry on regardless. They know that they produce the cameras most people want and so aren’t interested.
That’s the way I feel, and as a Canon user with several high quality RAW converter options I don’t give a rat’s ass about DNG.
LOL! Actually, I think the rationale goes like this – smaller manufacturers who need every reason they can think of to get people to buy their cameras will eventually include it. Expect to see Leica, Olympus and Pentax on that list. Nikon and Canon who don’t need Adobe’s "validation" to sell cameras (look at how Nikon have closed off their White Balance to Adobe for ACR) will carry on regardless. They know that they produce the cameras most people want and so aren’t interested. For them, the more proprietary the better. Remember, profit is what counts and if they can make more money with proprietary solutions they will.
3. Some people think DNG will only become important when camera makers adopt it. In fact, they are probably the least important companies! After all, Adobe will keep updating the DNG Converter, so people can convert to DNG right off the memory card, as I do and probably many others do.
Barry Pearson wrote:
3. Some people think DNG will only become important when camera makers adopt it. In fact, they are probably the least important companies! After all, Adobe will keep updating the DNG Converter, so people can convert to DNG right off the memory card, as I do and probably many others do.
I don’t want to start the discussion all over again, but in this case I have to disagree. Camera makers ARE important, because they hold the key. If Nikon (or others) decide to encrypt the RAW data itself, rather than just the relatively unimportant WB data only, it’s over for DNG in conjunction with Nikon cameras. It’s not Adobe who decides that, it’s Nikon. It may be a bad move for Nikon to do so, but that’s another matter.
Does anyone you know make copies of commercial DVDs?
They are encrypted.
Some one developed a decrypter for DVDs and numerous versions are available for free.
If Raw encryption becomes a big issue some one, some where, will break the encryption and the issue will become moot.
I think the above is a reasonable analysis, at least for the next few years. Some qualifications:
1. "… if they can make more money with proprietary solutions …"
The main way (perhaps the only way?) they can make more money with proprietary solutions is to coerce their users into buying their own software.
Barry Pearson wrote:
3. Some people think DNG will only become important when camera makers adopt it. In fact, they are probably the least important companies! After all, Adobe will keep updating the DNG Converter, so people can convert to DNG right off the memory card, as I do and probably many others do.
I don’t want to start the discussion all over again, but in this case I have to disagree. Camera makers ARE important, because they hold the key. If Nikon (or others) decide to encrypt the RAW data itself, rather than just the relatively unimportant WB data only, it’s over for DNG in conjunction with Nikon cameras. It’s not Adobe who decides that, it’s Nikon. It may be a bad move for Nikon to do so, but that’s another matter.
I wonder if Nikon is encrypting in order to cover up some image-fudging they do in firmware, or just plain lieing to us about its native features? Wouldn’t anyone wonder what they are trying to hide?
I wonder if Nikon is encrypting in order to cover up some image-fudging they do in firmware, or just plain lieing to us about its native features? Wouldn’t anyone wonder what they are trying to hide?
Me too 😉Hecate – The Real One writes …
Actually, I think the rationale goes like this – smaller manufacturers who need every reason they can think of to get people to buy their cameras will eventually include it. Expect to see Leica, Olympus and Pentax on that list
I was thinking the same thing, and adding Minolta (with one 6 Mpixel dSLR) and Kodak with their recently discontinued full-frame Nikon and Canon mount dSLR’s as well … if I owned one of these cameras I’d be clamoring for DNG too and it seems most of the vocal advocates are using these slow selling models with uncertain futures.
Nikon and Canon who don’t need Adobe’s "validation" to sell cameras … will carry on regardless. They know that they produce the cameras most people want and so aren’t interested.
That’s the way I feel, and as a Canon user with several high quality RAW converter options I don’t give a rat’s ass about DNG. If I had bought the Kodak 14n and knew Kodak won’t continue supporting it with the next generation of operating systems I would be shaking the DNG pom-poms but I didn’t so I won’t 🙂
I wonder if Nikon is encrypting in order to cover up some image-fudging they do in firmware, or just plain lieing to us about its native features? Wouldn’t anyone wonder what they are trying to hide?
My cynical guess is they are encrypting the custom white balance to entice (force?) users to buy the $99 Nikon RAW converter instead of using ACR or RSE or Capture One.
Canon hasn’t encrypted anything but they also don’t make their RAW format info easy to decipher for RSE or Capture One … for example, neither one of these converters will recognize ISO 50 on the Canon Pro models I use so they always convert a stop over-exposed (Photoshop and the Canon converters get it right).
"Barry Pearson" wrote in messageThe question though, is whether the major makers, i.e. Canon and Nikon give a sh*t. I contend that they don’t and the day they support DNG will be the same day George W Bush converts to Islam.
I think the above is a reasonable analysis, at least for the next few years. Some qualifications:
1. "… if they can make more money with proprietary solutions …"
The main way (perhaps the only way?) they can make more money with proprietary solutions is to coerce their users into buying their own software.
We agree that Nikon is practicing just plain bad business. History show us that consumers despise such things. About the only thing Nikon could do worse is to put a friggin DONGLE on the camera. The consumer will eventually win, or some 12 year-old will hack Daddy’s Nikon and share it with the world.
"Barry Pearson" wrote in messageP.S. 😉
I think the above is a reasonable analysis, at least for the next few years. Some qualifications:
1. "… if they can make more money with proprietary solutions …"
The main way (perhaps the only way?) they can make more money with proprietary solutions is to coerce their users into buying their own software.
We agree that Nikon is practicing just plain bad business. History show us that consumers despise such things. About the only thing Nikon could do worse is to put a friggin DONGLE on the camera. The consumer will eventually win, or some 12 year-old will hack Daddy’s Nikon and share it with the world.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:39:02 -0500, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:
We agree that Nikon is practicing just plain bad business. History show us that consumers despise such things.
The current company roadmap for Nikon shows that they are aiming at cornering 40% of the digital camera market. The equivalent roadmap for Canon shows they are aiming for 60% of the market.
On 25 Aug 2005 15:33:56 -0700, "Bill Hilton"[snip]
wrote:
That’s the way I feel, and as a Canon user with several high quality RAW converter options I don’t give a rat’s ass about DNG. If I had bought the Kodak 14n and knew Kodak won’t continue supporting it with the next generation of operating systems I would be shaking the DNG pom-poms but I didn’t so I won’t 🙂Me too 😉
I don’t want to start the discussion all over again, but in this case I have to disagree. Camera makers ARE important, because they hold the key. If Nikon (or others) decide to encrypt the RAW data itself, rather than just the relatively unimportant WB data only, it’s over for DNG in conjunction with Nikon cameras. It’s not Adobe who decides that, it’s Nikon. It may be a bad move for Nikon to do so, but that’s another matter.
That isn’t about DNG. That is about about non-Nikon raw converters for Nikon raw files.
I agree that if Nikon decide that no non-Nikon raw converters should be allowed, they can probably make it happen. It may be unwise! But that will affect far more than DNG.
But if a non-Nikon raw converter for Nikon raw files is possible, then a NEF to DNG Converter is possible. The data in a DNG file is the data needed to do a raw conversion.
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:39:02 -0500, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:
We agree that Nikon is practicing just plain bad business. History show us that consumers despise such things.
The current company roadmap for Nikon shows that they are aiming at cornering 40% of the digital camera market. The equivalent roadmap for Canon shows they are aiming for 60% of the market.
I’m glad I’m too old and independent to even f*cking care what happens to Digital anymore.
Barry Pearson wrote:[snip]
That isn’t about DNG. That is about about non-Nikon raw converters for Nikon raw files.
I agree that if Nikon decide that no non-Nikon raw converters should be allowed, they can probably make it happen. It may be unwise! But that will affect far more than DNG.
But if a non-Nikon raw converter for Nikon raw files is possible, then a NEF to DNG Converter is possible. The data in a DNG file is the data needed to do a raw conversion.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but -contrary to what you stated earlier- it does mean that the big manufacturers hold the key. If both Canon and Nikon would decide they don’t want third party converters, that means that also DNG will go into history as a footnote. Canon and Nikon do not have to actively *support* DNG, but they do have to *allow* it at the very least.
Lorem Ipsum wrote:
I’m glad I’m too old and independent to even f*cking care what happens to Digital anymore.
So what are you doing in a group about Photoshop? Took a wrong turn in ‘alt.photo.oldfashioned.film’?
Ira Solomon wrote:
Does anyone you know make copies of commercial DVDs?
They are encrypted.
Some one developed a decrypter for DVDs and numerous versions are available for free.
If Raw encryption becomes a big issue some one, some where, will break the encryption and the issue will become moot.
Not so. Decrypting is illegal, so Adobe will never do that without Nikon’s consent. I’m not saying that encryption cannot be broken, but only by individuals who do not care about the law. If Nikon would encrypt its NEF files, you may indeed find some decryption software on the web, but you won’t find a version of ACR that will do that.
Lorem Ipsum wrote:
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:39:02 -0500, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:
We agree that Nikon is practicing just plain bad business. History show us that consumers despise such things.
The current company roadmap for Nikon shows that they are aiming at cornering 40% of the digital camera market. The equivalent roadmap for Canon shows they are aiming for 60% of the market.
I’m glad I’m too old and independent to even f*cking care what happens to Digital anymore.
So what are you doing in a group about Photoshop? Took a wrong turn in ‘alt.photo.oldfashioned.film’?
Not so. Decrypting is illegal, so Adobe will never do that without Nikon’s consent. I’m not saying that encryption cannot be broken, but only by individuals who do not care about the law. If Nikon would encrypt its NEF files, you may indeed find some decryption software on the web, but you won’t find a version of ACR that will do that.
I agree, Adobe won’t do it.
Nero won’t decrypt DVDs.
But if you start up "DVD for Free" before you run Nero, it takes the feed from Nero and sends Nero a decrypted feed.
Someone will do a similar thing for encrypted raw.
Ira Solomon wrote:
Not so. Decrypting is illegal, so Adobe will never do that without Nikon’s consent. I’m not saying that encryption cannot be broken, but only by individuals who do not care about the law. If Nikon would encrypt its NEF files, you may indeed find some decryption software on the web, but you won’t find a version of ACR that will do that.
I agree, Adobe won’t do it.
Nero won’t decrypt DVDs.
But if you start up "DVD for Free" before you run Nero, it takes the feed from Nero and sends Nero a decrypted feed.
Someone will do a similar thing for encrypted raw.
Technically there would be no problem if you are prepared to use illegal software. But that we be far from ideal and not the kind of workflow I’m looking forward to using. If only because I don’t know what ‘NEF for free’ would do aprt from decrypting NEF files. Those kind of programs are ideal for spyware and other kind of malware. If you live by the sword…
—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:[snip]
That isn’t about DNG. That is about about non-Nikon raw converters for Nikon raw files.
I agree that if Nikon decide that no non-Nikon raw converters should be allowed, they can probably make it happen. It may be unwise! But that will affect far more than DNG.
But if a non-Nikon raw converter for Nikon raw files is possible, then a NEF to DNG Converter is possible. The data in a DNG file is the data needed to do a raw conversion.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but -contrary to what you stated earlier- it does mean that the big manufacturers hold the key. If both Canon and Nikon would decide they don’t want third party converters, that means that also DNG will go into history as a footnote. Canon and Nikon do not have to actively *support* DNG, but they do have to *allow* it at the very least.
I think we agree about that. In effect, the ability for 3rd parties to do Raw conversion, and the ability for Adobe to convert the cameras’ Raw files to DNG, are similar. The camera makers can allow both or prevent both. But not just one of them.
The reason I said that the camera makers were the least important part of the value chain is that I assumed (perhaps unwisely!) that the camera makers would NOT prevent these. In fact, I think if ONE of them tried it, the other would capitalise on that decision and open up, just to take a bigger share of the top-end market.
Therefore, what I expect to see are more and more photographers and users of photographs asking for open specifications, and expecting immediate support by 3rd party converters for new camera models. If/when camera makers find themselves releasing new models into a world of raw converters, photo-editors, viewers, image manement systems, and publishing houses, that accept DNG, then they may wonder whether it is time to move. (I remember IBM holding out against open systems for a long time. They thought they were safe).
I would expect Nikon to be last! But wouldn’t it be interesting if others tested the water by allowing DNG as an OPTION, like they provide TIFF. (Or instead of TIFF! I can’t think why I need TIFF taking up space in my camera’s firmware). If there was a way for them to monitor the use of this option somehow, it would be valuable market research.
I also wonder whether the people inside those companies all have similar views? There are body-makers, lens-makers, firmware-developers, software-developers, marketers, etc. My own experience of big companies is that departments sometimes compete more against one-another than against the external competition!
It’s early days. DNG is only 11 months old (today). I think most open specifications take a lot longer than a year to become established. And the ones that go faster were often well known in advance of the official product launch (such as music CDs).
(Meanwhile, I’m looking out for some samples of DNGs from the new Hassleblad to have a look at! But even one of those wouldn’t make me the sort of photographer I would like to be! And I would have to sell my house and live in a cardboard box).
—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
To "weigh-in" on the issue, I would speculate that it is more a matter of the "big 2" just not wishing to take the time to update Adobe on their R&D. Each bundles free (free, as in NO extra charge, as I’m sure that they calculate the cost into the price of the camera body) software with the cameras. Only Nikon (correct me if I’m wrong here) even offers an extra program Capture, which does much more than just decode RAW.
To "weigh-in" on the issue, I would speculate that it is more a matter of the "big 2" just not wishing to take the time to update Adobe on their R&D.
Each
bundles free (free, as in NO extra charge, as I’m sure that they calculate the cost into the price of the camera body) software with the cameras. Only Nikon (correct me if I’m wrong here) even offers an extra program Capture, which does much more than just decode RAW. It is in their (camera mfgrs) best interest to work with Adobe (the leader in image processing) more closely, than they seem to be doing. They actually bundle some Adobe products in many cases. We, as consumers, and as users of their, and Adobe products, need to make the need clear, so that Adobe is "in-the-loop."
Hunt wrote:
To "weigh-in" on the issue, I would speculate that it is more a matter of the "big 2" just not wishing to take the time to update Adobe on their R&D. Each bundles free (free, as in NO extra charge, as I’m sure that they calculate the cost into the price of the camera body) software with the cameras. Only Nikon (correct me if I’m wrong here) even offers an extra program Capture, which does much more than just decode RAW.
Canon includes Digital Photo Professional for free. DPP is a powerfull RAW converter with many features, some even unique (such as cloning in the RAW file). DPP can be compared to Capture, but unlike Nikon, Canon doesn’t charge for it.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
