OpenRAW

Harman, many people appear to object to this extra step of converting from the proprietary format to the archival format. I would much prefer that my camera gave me DNG directly. (At the moment, I convert to DNG immediately after reading the images from the card, then browse the DNG folder to confirm conversion, then after making another copy, sooner or later, of the DNG, I delete the proprietary Raw).

I tried converting a number of Raw formats to DNG. All were smaller after the conversion, some just a little smaller, some less than half the size. So DNG can be quite an efficient format itself.

If some people didn't want DNG as the Raw format from their camera, the camera could provide an option - DNG or proprietary Raw. That would answer Nikon's (rather spurious) statement, while giving others just what they wanted all along.

DNG can still carry some camera manufacturer specific information in addition to the mandatory fields, so even with DNG there is the opportunity for the camera to pass extra information to the manufacturer's own s/w if necessary.

It is worth studying DNG, because it is so well thought out that it actually caters for many of the objections people have raised here to an open standard. That is why I have the confidence to work with and archive the DNG, not the proprietary Raw.

Barry,

You raise a good point. If all manufacturers could afford to do in camera DNG, that would be excellent (a la jpg + RAW option) but that would make them a slave to Adobe, would'nt it ? We all know how popular that will become - almost overnight it will be a huge hit with almost everyone, esp for archival purposes.

But consider this as well: the RAW is not just bits of information from the sensor, it is also how that information is to be processed to get a final image (sensor format, bayer or other pattern, optimizations for the sake of camera speed, hardware specic optimizations, in camera lossless compression et al).

My point is that camera specific RAW is neccessary for getting the best out of a particular body/camera, but yes camera manufacturers can, if they want to - provide in camera DNG or post processing DNG conversion (the latter is what I feel is most reasonable and achievable target). We can, for all intents and purposes, forget that we will ever have in-camera DNG + RAW

Harman, you say "but that would make them a slave to Adobe, would'nt it".

But most of these cameras, perhaps all of them, provide the option of outputting in TIFF 6.0 format. And that is an Adobe-owned standard! The precedent of using an Adobe-owned standard exists, and has worked successfully for many years. (I think Adobe acquired it over 10 years, and believe they have never charged for it).

Such things as sensor pattern are already in DNG. After all, it already supports normal Bayer patterns, Fulifilm offset patterns, Foveon 3-colour sensors as used in the Sigmas, and can support lots of others because the manner in which it is specified is flxeible.

It is worth remembering that many of these camera manufacturers based their Raw formats on the TIFF EP format, (an ISO standard), which in turn was based on TIFF 6.0. TIFF EP already has standards for the sensor (CFA) data, and I believe many of the manufacturers hold this in TIFF EP format. It is a pity that they then diverted from this standard, and didn't come to agreement about necessary enhancements to it.

http://tiki-lounge.com/~raf/tiff/fields.html

DNG is really a commentary on TIFF, rather than a self-contained standard. It identifies mandatory fields, constraints on fields, etc. Plus extra ones. Think of it as bring TIFF up to date and making it fit for purpose as a practical working and archival format.

I believe it would be as easy for a camera manufacturer to begin with DNG rather than their own format for a new camera. Perhaps not the first time they do it, because they couldn't use as many existing routines, either in-camera or in their extra s/w. But after the first time, it might be easier to use DNG than invent their format!

They could save time creating, proving, and documenting specifications internally, and if any of them didn't want to supply their own s/w for their camera, they could do a deal and supply Paint Shop Pro or Elements or one of the others that supports DNG. I'm sure there would be a number of photo-editor suppliers who would be happy to do a deal with camera manufacturers to get their product packed with the camera!