Who cares about RAW file formats? I...
Who cares about RAW file formats?
I certainly don't.
I'm a photographer not a programmer. Knowing the format of my RAW files will not guarantee that I can open them in 10 years time. The only way to guarantee that my file will be readable in the future is for for camera manufactures to adopt a COMMON OPEN STANDARD for RAW data that contains all the data needed to decode the RAW image in the file header. In other words something very much like the DNG file format.
Asking only for documentation of RAW formats is simply shifting the problem from the camera industry to the software industry. You still have to rely on someone taking enough interest in your make and model of camera to write RAW data decoding software for it.
Using DNG format or something very much like DNG solves the problem. Since all the information needed to decode the file is in the DNG header, any DNG reader can decode a DNG file from any camera irrespective of make or model.
We need actions for existing cameras and for future cameras....
We need actions for existing cameras and for future cameras. They are likely to be different actions.
We need documentation of existing raw formats to be available to software developers. (They don't really need to be used by photographers, so they don't need to be "pretty"). This will both enable software products to access those existing formats more reliably, and enable high quality converters to a common raw format to be developed.
Then, as you say, we want all camera makers (and software products) to support a common raw format.
I believe we also need a good definition of what we mean by "common raw format", (or whatever we call it), so that camera makers don't claim to support one but fail to satisfy our needs as photographers. I have developed the following definition to satisfy the aims of OpenRAW:
Common Raw Format:
This is an informal, yet practical, definition of "common raw format" (CRF). It really expands on "common", "raw", and "format", avoiding arbitrary rules.
1. It is a file format capable of holding what camera makers consider to be raw sensor data. It is not some alternative to a file format, such as an application programming interface, or a software or hardware product, such as a software development kit.
2. It is openly specified and freely licensed, so that it can be read and/or written by lots of software and hardware products of various kinds from various makers. File writers may at least include digital cameras of various types, file converters, and raw converters. File readers may at least include raw converters, image viewers, and image management systems.
3. A file reader that has implemented the full specification is capable of processing files from various file writers without having to be designed for those specific writers. A file writer does not have to be designed for specific readers. So the format is self-contained, at least in the sense of not relying on things that are not themselves common file formats.
4. The specification of the file format can evolve to cater for new products with characteristics not previous supported. But a common raw file does not cease to be "common" when it does not conform to the latest version of the format. So the format has a version control scheme so that file readers, file writers, and the specification itself, can evolve at their own rates.
5. A raw file that contains data that is not openly specified may still be a common raw file if that data can safely be ignored. It is a common raw file if and only if the raw file would be a common raw file if that data were discarded, and the open specification is sufficient to enable that data to be ignored or discarded.