This is commerce
This is the world in which we live
Let the battle commence and may the best provider win!
But there again, the first computer ever constructed (a Brit invention) cracked secret war time codes.
It was a big computer and the story is that the term "bug" in a computer originates from those days in the 1940’s when a spider fried by being cooked on high voltage amongst the thermionic tubes used to power the computer. The computer was big – it filled a room. It was a single purpose computer and guess what? Not many computers can beat it at what it does. Why? Because today’s computers are mutipurpose things with multitasking and multifunctions. The wartime computer was built for one thing – to crack codes. It did that well, very well.
Now why should this have any bearing on the topic?
Easy! I’ll explain.
Building a bit of didgital equipment to do as few jobs as possible is simple. Heck, it may even use a purpose built chip or even a small section of a multi-purpose chip. It is a dawdle designing hardware to do simple limited instruction set tasks. On the other hand there is PSCS.
Know what I mean Harry? It’s like comparing chalk and cheese, tube amps and tranny amps, Beatles with Shostakovich. No comparision mate. One is kit and IMHO the other is a toy. Play the toy and see what I mean?
Arty
"very_simple" wrote in message
So here’s the twist… Japanese style.
Canon’s ‘new’ (as in not quite) RAW file format debut in the 20D. has an excellent (if a little slow) file browser that IMHO is miles in front of Adobe’s file browser and doesn’t slow your super fast PC to a crawl while it’s open.
You can’t save a file with it but you can "transfer it" to Photoshop via a menu bar button. Neat, huh? So basically this means you don’t need Photoshop
CS to edit Canon’s camera RAW files.
I hacked into it last night and now it "transfers" the image to Corel Photopaint! Brilliant stuff, Canon! With no effort at all it could transfer
the 16 bit Tiff’s it creates to any graphic application supporting 16 bit Tiff files.
Adobe zealots claimed a while back that Adobe’s RAW converter was the only way to modify an RAW image ‘before’ converting it to an editable format. They (quite wrongly) claimed then that any other solution (like Irfanview) was simply not good enough and …
Along comes Canon with a totally different intent. For Canon, the widespread
adoption of their cameras is the primary goal and it has absolutely nothing
to do with Adobe’s goal of world domination of image storage. Now if Canon would just provide a choice to transfer the decoded image to other programs,
Adobe’s current strangle hold on Photo editing software will loosen real fast!
Am I just a suspicious old fart or is the Adobe announcement just on the release of Canon’s stuff just a coincidence?
—
_____________
Simple? You bet!
"Artie" wrote in message
DiNG! DO?
DuNG DO?
heh heh heh
Arty
ps – Adobe have commercial acumen, it is a commercial world, if they exercise the initiative well … it seems reasonable they should make a
buck
out of it.
I like the idea of backward compatibility – then when that really new sooper-dooper camera spec comes out that supercedes all previous camera specs I imagine DNG (DiNG! DuNG DO?) selling like the often mentioned hotcakes.
Why TIFF it when you can DiNG DuNG DO it?
(C) Arty 🙂
"Toby Thain" wrote in message
Drifter wrote in message
news:…
For anyone who doesn’t know already, Adobe has proposed a new "standard" for digital photography files, the "Digital Negative" or "DNG" format. …
Still I like the push for open standards so I can have increased confidence that I’ll be able to access my "digital negatives" in 50 years!
It’s only useful if it is indeed 100% open, preferably with a decent open source reference implementation. If they keep parts of the spec private for their buddies (like they do with SDKs these days), then it’s just Adobe playing their customary tiresome lock-in game. (The way they try to sell CS as the only way to access Raw files.) No thanks.
(Aside: the word "negative" seems anachronistic and irrelevant. Why not "film" – anachronistic, but not as jarring – or "original"? .DOG, that’s catchy 🙂 or just "Digital Original" says it all, doesn’t it?)
–Toby
What do you think?
Drifter
"I’ve been here, I’ve been there…"
