OpenRAW

Carol,

I worked for some years on standards (C++) and can tell you that this is a very serious and full time job at times.

Uwe

Carol,

It's a great idea - but has some serious issues too?

Like Uwe I've been involved in (lesser) standards working groups - and it needs a really well respected chair for it to work (and it is really really hard work, too).

The group composition is critical too - they too need to be respected by many/most folks and able to work together - a surprisingly rare combination!!

Finally, the main concern I have with your idea - although initially very attractive - is Adobe would hand over the DNG to OpenRAW, but with a precondition that they chair the group, or otherwise have a very strong influence on the proceedings.

That would then kill the whole thing for many (most?) folks and companies.

Or have I missed a subtlety in your cunning plan?

cheers, Paul Ed.

Carol, although I don't believe your suggestion could work, for the reason Uwe mentioned, your comment was thought-provoking! It raised an important point that needed addressing:

"Camera manufacturers are wary about handing over control of their RAW formats to Adobe".

They wouldn't be handing over control to Adobe. Here is why:

Each DNG specification has a version number. The current version is 1.1.0.0. (I think it is the 2nd version, so I guess the 1st version was 1.0.0.0). There is a field in each image file that contains the version number of the specification used for that file. So my recently converted photographs say 1.1.0.0.

Adobe can't change version 1.1.0.0! The specification has been widely downloaded. Even I have a copy. If they want to change DNG, they have to bring out a new specification, with a new version, such as 1.2.0.0. (It will identify what has changed, of course).

Suppose a camera manufacturer decides to use version 1.1.0.0. Their image files will say so. Then Adobe brings out version 1.2.0.0. Adove can't force the camera manufacturer to upgrade to 1.2.0.0, if the manufacturer is happy with 1.1.0.0. The manufacturer could continue to use version 1.1.0.0 for years.

Adobe can't say "you must upgrade to 1.2.0.0, because the next version of Photoshop will cease accepting images files of version 1.1.0.0". They would be withdrawing support for MY photographs taken in April 2005! Guess what that would do to Adobe's credibility, Photoshop upgrades, and sales of competing products that didn't withdraw support!

There are other reasons:

DNG has lots of mandatory and tightly specified fields, to ensure that any compliant image file can be accessed by any software to obtain the image. But it also has an optional field that the camera manufacturer can use for whatever they like. So those cameras can still transmit optional EXTRA information to the manufacturer's own software, which may give the latter software an advantage. An example might be (I'm guessing) calibration information for that particular camera and/or lens that would enable the manufacturer's software to squeeze a little bit extra out of the image automatically.

Now suppose that a camera manufacturer wanted Adobe to bring out a new DNG version with extra fields to suit their new camera model. Could Adobe refuse? And if they did, what would happen?

One thing that might happen is that camera manufacturer simply stops using DNG for that new camera! And they would say why in the launch information. It would make Adobe look bad.

Another thing that might happen is that the new camera puts only a degraded image in the mandatory parts, and puts the extra stuff in their own private field. This would put Adobe and other software suppliers at a considerable disadvantage, and also make Adobe look bad. (Imagine what the recent news would be like if Nikon had done what they did because Adobe had forced them to do it!)

Although Adobe own DNG, they can no longer anything they like with it. And they will have to respond to sensible requests for enhancement, or else look like part of the problem, not part of the solution. They now have responsibilities as well as rights.

This forum can be vehicle for the learger thing. For example it can bring all the party like adobe, Nikon, Canon, Pentex etc to create open forum and each member send their permanent rep. for the forum.

So we as a customer(Photographers) can have Open RAW (Linux) available.

I downloaded DNG long ago. I convert NEFs so they'll be compatible in the future.

But, forcing manufacturers to use the same RAW format is self-defeating. Why box them in a corner right now when things are changing so fast? Would it be any different than the miriad of TIFF formats we have now? Manufacturers just need to maketheir ACCESSIBLE to all.

Things are changing way too fast in digital --to the end-user's benefit-- to box them in right now.

Seth: WHAT is changing so fast?

You appear to assume that all the changes to digital cameras that we see month by month, or even faster, need extensions to Raw formats. But do they?

"Anonymous" made similar assertions in:
http://www.openraw.org/comments/?id=373

I responded, saying that I believe that the rate of change to a common Raw format would be quite low, perhaps only 1 or 2 changes per year.

For example, suppose that DNG had existed in 2000, just suitable for the digital cameras available then. What changes to DNG would have been needed since then? A simple change for Fujifilm sensors? Perhaps a change for Foveon sensors? Perhaps another for Sony?

Remember that, in fact, camera manufacturers typically base their Raw formats on TIFF EP, which is years old. They add some bits, and that is what we are talking about here. But DNG has already had those bits added for 70+ cameras, which is why DNG can support those cameras.

Many of the camera changes we see don't need changes to DNG. Numbers of pixels, numbers of bits per channel, etc, certainly don't. Other variations in Raw formats are unnecessary differences, which camera manufacturers could have done the same way if they had chosen to, and had a common specification to work to.

Finally, DNG already has a field for camera manufacturer's own data, as a stop-gap. The image must be accessible without it, but it could be used to convey extra features to the camera's own software package.

One of the themes of this website is long-term preservation of Raw images. Have a look at what professional archivists have to say about their requirements. Manufacturers' Raw formats CERTAINLY don't qualify!