OpenRAW

Yves: I think it is an excellent idea to have some freely available software, running on any operating system, that can convert to an openly documented Raw format, for archiving and other purposes.

For over 7 months, many people have been converting their Raw formats to DNG, using a free converter, for just the reasons you identify. I guess that many millions of DNG files get archived each day, worldwide.

But the DNG Converter only runs on Windows and Mac. Having alternative source, openly available, that can be made to run anywhere, and perhaps be tweaked by individuals for special purposes, would be useful, and give extra confidence.

What is the point of having raw files when you have to convert them to make them usable. The only reason for archiving original raw files is in the hope that better converters will become available later.
Is the solution for camera manufacturers to allow us to choose better ways of storing processed images on the camera. I'm afraid I have to quote some figures of my own recent tests.
I am a computer man and photographic amateur. Sony 828 came with a useless raw converter which produces marginally worse pictures than the best onboard JPG, about 3.5MB. This site yesterday renewed interest, and I downloaded a free converter (mootools) that will produce a JPG around 10MB, or a bitmap 23.668MB from the 17MB raw .SRF files.
If Sony would let me store JPG around 10 to 12MB this would surely be acceptable. The manufacturers have not allowed for the advances in onboard storage capacity.
But if we could just load the raw file straight into PS, this would appear to be the best way forward, but how can we tell what reprocessing would be needed for this to happen?
Archiving: the current best media appear to be best quality writable CD's, with millions of PC's in the world I would expect to be able to find one working in 10 years time, we will have different storage then, so convert to the next level.

Keith, you ask: "What is the point of having raw files when you have to convert them to make them usable?"

Yes, it is irritating! But conversion doesn't have to mean losing essential information. A good conversion should preserve all of the sensor data, so that better processors can be used later.

Nearly all the differences we see between Raw formats are unnecessary. They exist simply because no one had the responsibility of ensuring that there were no unnecessary differences between formats. Differences will continue to proliferate, and things will just get worse, until people do have this responsibility.

Merely causing manufacturers to publish their formats won't automatically get the proliferation under control. It may just build a mountain of documents! (Although I hope that would eventually cause them to wonder if there was another way). In fact, it is hard to think of any force that would make manufacturers rationalise their formats. Even having a formal standard wouldn't necessarily do it. Why should anyone conform to the standard?

What we probably have to rely on is "market forces", or customer and industry pressure. In an environment where most people use a particular format, those who don't will feel the pressure to come into line. Perhaps, if the manufacturers are kept aware that a lot of their customers convert their Raw formats into something else, the lesson will be learned. I believe the people devising these Raw formats probably haven't appreciated that the world won't just adapt to their constraints, but instead they themselves need to conform to workflows that apply to lots of different cameras.