On 20 Feb 2008, at 20:16, Moose wrote:
> Paul Shields wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but the problem is that *no* RAW format is supported by any
>> image editing software apart from those supplied by the camera
>> manufacturer.
>>
> This is simply not true. Many manufacturer RAW formats are supported
> by
> many image editor/RAW converters
They are not! They are 100% not supported. You've misunderstood what I
am saying. Many RAW converters may support various RAW formats, but
they are ALL reverse engineered. None of the DSLR manufacturers
publish how their RAW formats are compiled, so all of the third party
editors have to start from first principles and hack the files to make
it work with their editors. The only editors that don't do this are
those provided by the originating DSLR manufacturer (often at cost).
>> It's fine so long as you continue to use say Studio/Master etc.
>> Personally I've never liked those pieces of software so always use
>> RAW editors that have to reverse engineer the RAW data as the
>> manufacturers keep it a closely guarded secret.
> Just because Oly makes odd software doesn't mean others do or don't.
> Sounds like over generalization to me. The Canon RAW software is
> perfectly competent and easy enough to use. And I believe the Nikon
> versions are considered excellent.
>
> I know the big boys used to provide SDKs for converter/editor
> makers, so
> they wouldn't have to reverse engineer or mess with low level
> details if
> they don't want to. I assume they still do.
>
> Of course that solution doesn't allow them to improve on the
> manufacturer's work.
>
> As to reverse engineering, what's wrong with that? Dave Coffin, whose
> dcraw is the engine underneath the majority of independent RAW
> conversion/reader software doesn't try to reverse engineer the various
> software, like Studio/Master. He works directly from the RAW format
> files to do his own demosaicing, highlight recovery, etc.
>
> Adding new RAW formats to dcraw is generally a matter of a handful of
> lines of parameters. I know 'cause I just added his patch to support
> the
> A650. I sent him sample shots of RAW files from the CHDK add-on
> software
> within a couple of days of its availability and he had a dcraw patch
> done in another day. That's FAST.
If you're happy with reverse engineering then fine, though it's not a
solution - it's a workaround of the fundamental problem. I recall that
Nikon did some radical changes to their NEF format a while ago that
screwed up a lot of third party RAW editors for quite a while. An open
and supported digital negative format would prevent such re-occurrences.
>
>> That's the whole point of DNG (and OpenRAW - though they seem to
>> have given up). It's already proved its usefulness recently when
>> Aperture 2 came out without any native support for E-3 ORF files.
>> Thankfully Aperture 2 handles DNG version 2 files perfectly well.
>>
> I like the IDEA of DNG, but have never found any particular reason to
> use it in practice. I believe like CH that support for all RAW formats
> will go on for a long, long time. Once the code is written and in a
> product like dcraw or ACR, why bother to take it out as you add new
> formats? And if it does happen in the future, there will be plenty of
> opportunity to deal with it. using existing software to make the
> conversions.
>
Support may go on for 'a long, long time' - though historical support
is really not the issue. The issue is how quickly various RAW editors
can react to new DSLR releases. Ask anyone shooting with an E-3 and
using Aperture - they'll be waiting a while before they have any
native support. The same will be true for future releases across
various editors and platforms. It's been like this from day one.
> dcraw added E-3 support quite promptly. I assume Aperture will read
> TIFFs? dcraw itself is command line only, but very good quality and
> very
> flexible, and does batches well. And many of the GUI apps built on it
> are very good. Of those I've tried, I like RAW Therapee. Irfanview and
> BreezeBrowser, which several folks here like, also depend on dcraw for
> RAW file handling.
Great for you. Lots of low level editors used by 0.1% of the userbase.
>
> Personally, I think the format likely to last the longest is
> ADOBE .PSD,
> the format in which billions of professional/commercial image files
> exist in their final forms. My image backup is in RAW for all images I
> keep plus PSD for those I've processed.
>
>> I'd safely put my money into Adobe rather than Olympus when it
>> comes to handling my RAW files. Ironically you mention that TIFF
>> was once one option and of course that format is under the control
>> of Adobe already.
>>
> Huh? TIFF is (was?) an independent standard (Tagged Image File
> Format).
> I won't use it except as an intermediate format from VueScan, dcraw,
> et.
> al. to PSD because PS reads and writes it so sloooowly. Multi-level
> is
> just impossible. And lossless compression is a joke. When I was trying
> that with VueScan output, the "compressed" files were as big or bigger
> than without compression.
TIFF is controlled by Adobe. Like DNG, the specification is well known
and so anyone can support or use it. This is the point I'm trying to
make. A supported open standard is great! ALL RAW formats are not -
they are 100% proprietorial and that is a fundamental problem for both
users (ref: Aperture 2/E-3 issues) and developers (having to reverse
engineer every new RAW format).
>
>>> In case my RAW images get no support in the future, I can always
>>> convert them to the new format before it happen
>> I'd rather have them in a format that I know will still be around
>> rather than relying on anticipation ;).
>>
> I'm not so sure of DNG in that regard. Existing conversion options and
> camera output will last a long time - for the same reason existing RAW
> formats will - the code is written and will live on. If DNG languishes
> as a major player, Adobe could stop adding new RAW formats to its
> conversion software and let it die a quiet death.
>
It's already starting to become an issue with new RAW formats. There
are lots and lots of RAW editors out there, and some of them either
don't have the resource or the willingness to keep their software up
to date with every variant of RAW format that gets released. I have
paid-for licenses for Silkypix (as an example) who took many months to
support E-400 ORF files (their excuse was that Olympus would not
release a camera to them for testing). I can skip such issues by
using the Adobe DNG converter and loading the files without issue. The
same goes for many other RAW editors that now support DNG. In fact,
can you currently load E-3 ORF files in Silkypix?
I really don't think DNG will die a quiet death. There are a few
cameras that produce DNG natively (the Leica M8 comes to mind). Leica
never had any reason to produce their own version of RAW (they
obviously make enough money from hardware sales alone ;)).
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm provides a
list of software that natively support DNG. Compare that list to those
editors that (after reverse engineering) support your RAW format of
choice. It's really not much different.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|