As a business owner I understand what...
As a business owner I understand what these companies are trying to do, but to build into their systems the fact that in a few years many images will be as good as non-existant is very short sighted.
Support for a standardized RAW format is by far the best way to go, whether it be the one put forth by Adobe, or someother standard, one needs to be adopted by the industry
David, SDKs are a bad attempt at a solution. See the first...
David, SDKs are a bad attempt at a solution. See the first post to OpenRAW called "My Name Is Mario Westphal And ...".
The typical SDK doesn't provide the information needed for a raw conversion. It does the raw conversion itself.
An SDK that doesn't do a raw conversion, but provides the information needed to do a raw conversion, has no sustainable advantage over a common raw format. A common raw format can have a single code library that everyone can use and that doesn't change for each new camea - if people want that. Or they can read the file directly.
We have a common raw format. It is called DNG. Alternative proposals are a distraction.
Barry, That might be true today, but that's simply...
Barry,
That might be true today, but that's simply because that is the way they have currently been implemented. An SDK can open up as much or as little information as the manufacturers choose. For example, Nikon could decide to encrypt EVERYTHING, not just the white balance, and then give back all information, even the bayer data, provided you obtain a licence and get the SDK from them and not reverse engineer the file.
My biggest concern is still that the common raw format you talk about, where it might be perfect for today, might be limiting tomorrow. Whether that limitaion is a technical one or a blockage to innovation I don't know, but I don't want limitations when they come.
Various people have made the comment that the file belongs to ME once the image is made. Yes it does and yes it must, but provided I can get at all the information, I don't really feel a need to force every camera manufacturer into some open format that by the definition of open will end up being a compromise on someone's part.
I shoot Canon. I want Canon to produce the best images they possibly can. I want Canon to allow me to use Capture One (my current favorite) to get all the information that is in there. Provided that is true, I don't yet see a reason why I care if the spec for their raw formats are open or not.
David
David, you say "An SDK can open up as much or as little...
David, you say "An SDK can open up as much or as little information as the manufacturers choose. For example, Nikon could decide to encrypt EVERYTHING, not just the white balance, and then give back all information, even the bayer data, provided you obtain a licence and get the SDK from them and not reverse engineer the file".
That is one of the reasons that the SDK approach is unacceptable. That isn't how archival formats work. (For example, there is a proposed archival form of PDF, called PDF/A, which is a subset of PDF with encryption removed).
My years of experience in the design of complex multi-supplier computer systems tells me that DNG won't be the sort of limitation that you mention. You may have contradictory experience.
So here is one area we are simply going ot have to...
So here is one area we are simply going ot have to respectfully agree to disagree. I think it's perfectly acceptable for the camera manufacturers to charge for the use of data they have invented. No company is altruistic, if they can't make a profit they won't innovate, if they have to give away their IP they won't innovate. Provided they don't set themselves up in a such as way that you can ONLY use their software, but 3rd parties can also produce conversion software, I think they have to have that right.
FYI: Yes I do have contradictory experience. I used to write codecs for a living. In this field, every file format is different, and you often have to license information from the device manufacturers, but the data presented to the computer OS and to applications is then consistent.
Actually we had a compromise position from what you and I are talking about. You could license the "sdk" (actually docs and samples) and use it to write converters/codecs, but you could not release the source or publish how it was done. If someone else wanted to write a codec they had to also license the sdk. This to me is fine, it's a accessible standard, but one that allows the cameras manufacturers flexibility and protection too.
BTW: I do not, and have never worked for any such company!
David, yes, we will have to disagree. And meanwhile, DNG is...
David, yes, we will have to disagree. And meanwhile, DNG is becoming the de facto standard raw format.
DNG is supported by about 100 products from about 50 companies. By 3 cameras and 4 digital backs. By software from at least two camera manufacturers.
And how many raw converters currently use SDKs to access raw files?
Another way to do this is if every manufacturer ensures a...
Another way to do this is if every manufacturer ensures a good quality SDK that delivers the information. An application needs to be able to convert RAW files, and have enough information available to do so. They don't need to be able to read the actual file data.