I think the important point is to learn...
I think the important point is to learn about DNG.
PhotoshopNews put up a DNG info page:
http://photoshopnews.com/?p=262
I also think people should know what's really going on here. . .while Nikon is claiming that NEF is "proprietary" the ONLY thing REALLY proprietary is what data and where they store it. There is no secret valuable thing in NEF. It's just another of a wide variety of TIFF-EP formats that all the camera makers adopted. Some are better, some are worse.
Now, some of the "data" written in the files may contain "secrets" but there is simply nothing about the file format itself that SHOULD be proprietary. It's not like Nikon is the leading edge of file format technology. . .
The camera companies SHOULD be forced (if need be) to document how and where various metadata is stored in the file formats. That is what DNG is all about. DNG even allows, by definition, the ability for some data to remain "secret" (even encrypted) but what _IS_ required for DNG is to follow a proscribed and standard location and method for storing the data.
I honestly think the "secret" all these camera compainies are hiding is that there is no real secret. . .that NEF's CR2, OLF, and all the rest are so friggin close to each other that there is no real benefit to any of them.
When Thomas Knoll developed the approach for DNG, he chose to have DNG DIRECTLY derived from TIFF-EP. Primarily because in effect, all the undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are ALREADY so close to DNG that it would not be a major technical challenge to move to DNG complience for any of them.
As for stiffling innovation? Horsepucky. . .the innovation will come with the chips, the on-board microprocessors from processing the data and writting the file to disk. Remember, a compact flash card is a dumb DOS format. It's not like file formats hold any exotic breakthoughs in technology. . .particularly considering the format is DOS for heaven's sake.
The camera companies have you all bamboozled. . .the secret is in the data, not how it's written to disk. The file format is just a dumb carrier for the data. . .
If I were a conspiracy type (which sometimes I am) I really have to wonder exactly WHY these camera companies seem to want to hold on to their secret file formats so tightly. . .is there something they are hiding?
We just saw Forgent file a suit against Microsoft for violations of their JPEG patents. . .one wonders if the REAL reason these companies are trying so hard to hide behind their undocumented file formats is that they have some serious potential downside if what they are doing and how they are doing it becomes public knowledge. . .
Cause I just don't see why "they" think their file formats are really all that "special".
At this point I seriously doubt that DNG would stiffle or hinder innovation at all. Yes, it might make the camera companies slow down just a little bit to get better organized in their approach to file formats, not that THAT would be a bad thing. Canon has 3 separate live file formats out there right now. . .CRW, TIF & CR2. How many "flavors" of NEF is there. . .at least one for each major camera sensor type and now they will have to support both non-encrypted and encrypted file formats. . .anf why did Nikon use the NEF extension at all? They already have scannera that spit out NEF's.
At 100 raw file formats and counting from 14 or so camera companies, the problem will get worse for the industry and each of the camera companies themselves.
Canon has already orphaned the D30. DPP 1.6.6 will handle back to the D60 but no further. Canon's FVU has been end of lifed-the last software to support the D30. It's a 5 year old camera that officially will have no further development of software for it.
What about Nikon? Will they ALWAYS support ALL their cameras?
No, folks. . .this undocumented, proprietary crap has got to end-and the sooner the better.
Let the camera compaies compete on cameras, sensors, processing chips, lenses, that stuff. . .the stuff they are good at. Let's NOT let them compete on the backs of the file formats they write to our media. . .
Enough is enough, actually Nikon went too far. They encrypted a part of the photographer's file. They CLAIM it is to protect the "image" for the photographer. . .yeah, right. Anybody falling for that?
I posted this in the Camera Raw user to user forum but thought it would be useful to throw out here as well.
--
http://schewephoto.com
Companies should be FORCED to document their formats? No...
Companies should be FORCED to document their formats? No way. I will never agree to that, not in a million years. We still live in a free society, you know?
Well said, Jeff. Whether or not DNG is THE standard we...
Well said, Jeff.
Whether or not DNG is THE standard we need, it is a brilliant "proof of concept" that A standard can be devised.
(I personally see no reason why it shouldn't be THE standard. But if it isn't, I hope it will be possible to convert from DNG to whatever the standard eventually is).
And the DNG Converter will surely be seen to be evidence of Adobe's good intentions here. It even appears to be against their own commercial interests, because it makes it easier to compete with them, and it also means that you don't have to upgrade Photoshop to support your new camera!
I see no reason why camera manufacturers shouldn't compete with s/w too. But as a free choice for the photographer, not as a lock-in. And those who don't want to have their own s/w could do a deal to supply someone else's s/w instead in the box.
When camera manufacturers think about Adobe, is it as an enemy or a friend? If they don't see photo-editor suppliers as the best friends they will ever have, all of them trying to help photographers squeeze the last ounce of quality from their photographs, and hence making those cameras look even better, the manufacturers are pretty dumb!
In the early 1990s, we saw "browser wars" where people innovated web formats. This was brought under some control, which was necessary for the web to become the success it has. But that control hasn't inhibited innovation. Amazon.com is innovation within the standards, and there are many other examples. That early innovation created sufficient flexibility in the standards to permit this. You can make a fortune within the standards.
DNG is Thomas's "capture" of the flexibility resulting from years of innovation by the camera manufacturers. But I suspect that the rate at which the manufacturers actually need new features in the Raw formats has now slowed dramatically.
Camera Raw use of DNG, and Dave Coffin's revision of DCRAW to base it around DNG, suggests that DNG has probably just about arrived at the state that the web reached when people felt they could innovate within the web standards instead of forever generating new standards.
(And think about computing generally. Did open standards cause innovation to cease? It appears to have greatly accelerated it! Because it enabled anyone with a good idea to join in as a niche player, without having to build a total computer system. People don't have to start from scratch).
My only question about DNG is really whether the revision process is adequate for the camera manufacturers to work with. I just don't know how they would go about it.
amen jeff. open those puppies up, and keep up the great work...
amen jeff. open those puppies up, and keep up the great work at photoshopnews.com!
dave