OpenRAW

I don't agree. You can't unbundle the RAW format and the hardware. The image,whether raw or jpeg needs to be written in the fastest cleanest possible method that the DSP's in the camera can manage. if the camera manufacturers had to bring in all the in-camera software from an outside source they would a lot more production and quality issues.

There are two questions to be answered though.

1. should be whether they pushlish enough information for others to be able to decode the file, not if they should be allowed to create them.

2. should camera manufacturers produce their own conversion software than runs on your computer or not. I think this is completely irrelevant. If they want to produce it, good luck to them, so long as they don't stop someone else doing it as well. Whether this is an SDK or an open formar, I don't really care.

David, the proposal is for a common raw format. It doesn't mean that camera manufacturers have to bring in all the in-camera software from an outside source. They can write it themselves if they choose.

There can be any number of implementations of code that read and write DNG - that is up to individual product suppliers. And remember that 3 camera and 4 digital backs already write DNG as their native raw format.

Barry,

I know what the proposal is, I just don't agree with it. Any open format, by definition must be limiting and if we limit what the camera manufacturers can do, we'll limit innovation and ultimately, we, the consumer, will suffer.

Provided the camera manufacturers produce an open (and hopefully consistent with each other) SDK I don't think there is a need to force them to open the actual format.

Yes, I am assuming that this SDK will be able to read a raw file for all eternity. This should not be hard to do. There are already numerous precedents in the software industry for allowing multiple versions of media format readers. A version of the SDK today should not affect a version released tomorrow if you put a little bit of effort into it and allow the two versions to sit side by side. (I used to work in the software industry, this is a pretty basic request).

David, I'm fascinated by the theory that an open format must be limiting, but an open consistent SDK won't be!

What is the difference, in principle, between an open file format and an open API to an SDK? Why can you do something with the latter that you can't do with the former?

They are both interfaces. I suspect that either can be transformed mechanistically into the other, if the API is primarily a "read" API, which it surely needs to be to enable a raw conversion to take place in the calling code. After all, the raw converter has to assemble all relevant data in its own working area.

I think the difference between the two approaches is that with the SDK, the transformation takes place on the photographer's system, while with a common raw format, it takes place in the camera. And if you ship it in the camera, you don't have to provide upgrades to the photographer's system.

Barry.

To answer your question, if you have an open file format, you have to stick to the exact format for all time. Lets say that a lot of clever-long haired mathematians come up with a better way of storing the data than Boysian, (yeah, I know, it's not spelt right), if the open format calls for the data to be in a specific format, then you're locked into it. If there is a translation via an SDK then the data can be presented to the applications in a consistent manner.

Bear in mind that this change in the data might have nothing to do with image quality, but, for example, size and speed in camera, and not knowing about this change will have no effect on the quality of the images produced.

As to providing updates, that has to happen regardless of where the software sits. If as much interpretation as is possible is done on my workstation, (a) I have more flexibility and (b) it's far easier to install the inevitable bug fixes that if I have to upgrade my camera firmware.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a consistent manner of ensuring that I'll be able to read my D30 files tomorrow and my 1Ds mk II files in the next decade. I think that *something* needs to be done, but I just don't think any one open format will do it, and certainly not Adobe DNG. It's not yet a standard, and by the time it is, I'm pretty much willing to bet that there will be cameras producing more than 16-bits per channel.

Let me ask you a related question. Do you own an iPod? A WMP based player? I'm not seeing any interest in opening those formats up and forcing Apple, Microsoft, etc to standardise on their formats, AND on their players AND on their DRM. You bought the music, why don't you care if you own the bits and can play them anywhere and for all time? In my opinion people care far less about this because, unlike imaging media, there are more mature and robust systems out there, you can get what you want and it works. Therefore you are happy.

My REAL point in all this is that I feel the same way about my images. I use Capture One. Provided Phase One have the ability to always be able to read all my images and can continue to innovate, I don't care as much how it happens. I do care that if we try to put too manay limitations in the way of Canon, they will have less incentive to innovate and in the end, I'll lose out.