Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon's "virtually" perfect NEF response

Go to last post
actually looked as good or better then the ARC or C1 ones, but they don't.

If canon made everybody shooting canon use their DDP soft, they would soon be considered to be pretty worthless due to all the strange artefacts their soft introduces.

I think Nikon should've bundled the soft they want to sell, add a few bucks on the RSP and be over with all this guard the poor user BS... =)
--
Anders

http://www.teamexcalibur.se/iview/index.htm
 
.. Adobe tries to get an upper hand on their raw format,
for then to start charging for it :-)

No wonder Nikon and Canon among others have other ideas.
Just ask the simple question: Who started this game?
 
Are you talking about Nikon with something less than blind loyalty and praise? TROLL!!!

j/k

I don't think Nikon cleared up anyone's concerns. The only time I saw the word Adobe was when they mentioned the crappy Nikon plug-in for photoshop that's horrible (I've used it).

I just love these statements at the begining of the press release:

"The Nikon D2X professional Digital Single Lens Reflex camera has received widely positive acclaim for its overall performance and image processing quality." Really? wow Nikon I'm impressed. I'll be much more likely to take the rest of what I read seriously.

"Recently, speculative statements which appear to be based on misunderstandings and misinformation about the D2X camera’s “encryption” of certain white balance data have propagated on the internet."

What's the misunderstanding? The problem people have is that they are encrypting the white balance.

"The purpose of this advisory is to clarify this matter with facts and explanations." It didn't.
--
Photography Blog: http://www.tonyhall.name . Take a look and leave feedback.

Photographers in Southwest Ohio, join our digital photography group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thephotogs/

Tony
 
This is about "BIG" business. That is also why Adobe complained about Nikon's attitude in the first place. However with this advisory Nikon did nothing to prove Adobe wrong and this is IMO the biggest mistake.

Adobe made some rather clear statements but the Nikon defence is anything but clear and that worries me the most.
--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim
C P 8 8 0 0 - C P 8 4 0 0 - C P 4 5 0 0
P e n t a x MZ-S and MZ-3 SLR-gear (beats any digital)

 
Adobe never stated that they were using the latest SDK when dealing with the "encrypted" data, they simply said that it was encrypted and they didn't want to "break" the encryption for fear of being sued. Nikon has responded that they provide and SDK which allows for all of their file format to be read, specifically including white balance data, to any bonafide software company that requests it.

Until someone from Adobe (or Bibble or ....) states that they have been denied a request for the SDK OR that they have the latest SDK and they are still unable to deal with the white balance data it looks to me like Adobe was using some good old FUD; for whatever reason.

from a software development standpoint it's quite common for companies to provide an SDK for use by developers who need to integrate with their software packages or file formats....

Peter D.
--
http://www.dougenikphoto.com
 
It's not that simple. Canon, for instance, could support DNG AND CR2 on their cameras. If Adobe changes their tune and starts charging for DNG, Canon could disable DNG conversion with firmware updates.
Bob GB said:
.. Adobe tries to get an upper hand on their raw format,
for then to start charging for it :-)

No wonder Nikon and Canon among others have other ideas.
Just ask the simple question: Who started this game?
Click to expand...
--
-------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto
 
Peter Dougenik said:
Nikon has responded that they provide and SDK which allows
for all of their file format to be read, specifically including
white balance data, to any bonafide software company that requests
it.
Click to expand...
The Nikon SDK does not allow for the white balance data to be read, or parts of the RAW format to be read. In the press release Nikon specifically states that the SDK does ALL the RAW processing and outputs a TIFF or JPG file.
Peter Dougenik said:
Until someone from Adobe (or Bibble or ....) states that they have
been denied a request for the SDK OR that they have the latest SDK
and they are still unable to deal with the white balance data it
looks to me like Adobe was using some good old FUD; for whatever
reason.
Click to expand...
The whole reason for this argument is because they want to access the file itself and NOT USE THE SDK. They CANNOT do their own RAW processinf using the SDK as it would do it for them.

In many instances third party software provides superior RAW processing compared to the camera manufacturer, by using different algorithms. It is very important that third parties are able tocompete in this area, and Nikon is seeking to prevent this by encryption and forcing others to use their SDK.
Peter Dougenik said:
from a software development standpoint it's quite common for
companies to provide an SDK for use by developers who need to
integrate with their software packages or file formats....
Click to expand...
True, but it's a lot better to document the file format itself in order to allow other implementations.

This isn't just about the file format. It's about where the RAW processing happens.
 
I think tha main issue is the "encryption". It has nothing to do with their SDK, Adobe, or any other 3rd party developer.

Nikon does NOT own the the image file. It has no legal rights to "encrypt" someting they don't own. The photographer who took the image owns all rights to this file.

I think they have a right to use whatever file format they want. But whatever that comes OUT of the camera should NOT be encrypted.

The bottom line is they thought they can make money by charging the developers for a "key" to this encryption (maybe not now, but surely later). Now that have beed exposed by Adobe, they don't know what to say ;-)

Again, the big issue is that they don't own the image, and they don't have the rights to "encrypt" it.
Peter Dougenik said:
Until someone from Adobe (or Bibble or ....) states that they have
been denied a request for the SDK OR that they have the latest SDK
and they are still unable to deal with the white balance data it
looks to me like Adobe was using some good old FUD; for whatever
reason.

from a software development standpoint it's quite common for
companies to provide an SDK for use by developers who need to
integrate with their software packages or file formats....
Click to expand...
--
.Sam.
Agfa 1680 ~ G1 ~ *istDS ~ DPR addict 4 years & counting
 
If it only was a financial matter between Adobe and Nikon I could not care less. This happens all the time and normally the companies agree in the end because it is just a matter of profit. Even though Adobe had to raise the price one should pay for PS CS with a couple of $$ it would not matter to the customers at all, because the costs of switching to another software product than Adobe would be too high anyway.

However that was not what Adobe was complaining about at all. They where complaing about Nikon trying to encrypt essential data.
Nikon did not answer to that issue at all.

Adobe stated that Nikon is encrypting their NEF data (that rightfully belong to the photographer). This is a clear statement and a clear answer from Nikon could just have been "we are not encrypting NEF data the way Adobe claims". That would have been a clear answer to most people I guess. Nikon did not do that.

What could possible be the reason then? Well, after all Nikon is making most money by selling their products so if they could somehow prevent the users from switching to another brand too easily then that would have a much bigger impact than what they can get from Adobe.

I don't see Adobe as completely innocent in this matter, but if they are right about Nikon encrypting NEF data then I would only be buying Nikon binoculars in the future. Off course they might be encrypted too and I would have to pay extra to see the real colors.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim
C P 8 8 0 0 - C P 8 4 0 0 - C P 4 5 0 0
P e n t a x MZ-S and MZ-3 SLR-gear (beats any digital)

 
Andrew Booth said:
Member said:
Nikon has responded that they provide and SDK which allows
for all of their file format to be read, specifically including
white balance data, to any bonafide software company that requests
it.
Click to expand...
The Nikon SDK does not allow for the white balance data to be read,
or parts of the RAW format to be read. In the press release Nikon
specifically states that the SDK does ALL the RAW processing and
outputs a TIFF or JPG file.
Member said:
Until someone from Adobe (or Bibble or ....) states that they have
been denied a request for the SDK OR that they have the latest SDK
and they are still unable to deal with the white balance data it
looks to me like Adobe was using some good old FUD; for whatever
reason.
Click to expand...
The whole reason for this argument is because they want to access
the file itself and NOT USE THE SDK. They CANNOT do their own RAW
processinf using the SDK as it would do it for them.

In many instances third party software provides superior RAW
processing compared to the camera manufacturer, by using different
algorithms. It is very important that third parties are able
tocompete in this area, and Nikon is seeking to prevent this by
encryption and forcing others to use their SDK.
Click to expand...
They're behaving like kodak and film manufacturers by trying to enforce consistency across converters (kodak and fuji, have lab facility certification processes). raw conversion is just a starting point anyway, which I think is another one of the things nikon was trying to get across in their release.

I have mixed emotions about it. But I expect nikon will work with adobe. I suspect this whole debacle was inspired by adobe to speed up the process since CS2 is coming out soon. Nikon's not one to move quickly :)
 
Canon could or can?
Anyway, Adobe is playing old tricks. We have seen this before.
It's interesting how many people take Adobe's bait, and put the blame on Nikon.
 
...you're talking absolute rubbish.

Nikon's RAW conversion algorithms are not leading-edge. Many of the third-party converters do very significantly better in very significant ways, e.g. edge and detail retention (Raw Shooter Essentials) and highlight recovery (Adobe Camera RAW and Bibble). In fact, as Joe Wisniewski points out in another post on this thread, it's been demonstrated that Nikon's data is actually broken.

And even if Daddy did know best, it would still be wrong -- because it's entirely possible that some bright kid somewhere could do even better, if given the chance. But in this case, Daddy doesn't know best.

This really stinks of a Sony move. Perhaps all the speculation that Sony's going to buy Nikon will turn out to be true after all...

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
nachos said:
They're behaving like kodak and film manufacturers by trying to
enforce consistency across converters (kodak and fuji, have lab
facility certification processes). raw conversion is just a
starting point anyway, which I think is another one of the things
nikon was trying to get across in their release.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting analogy - but the film labs were controlled using certification. If I thought that Fuji E6 processing and Crystal archive were the right process and paper for my Kodak film, then I was free to make that choice. Both Kodak and Fuji competed to process my film, and that competition led to better results.
nachos said:
I have mixed emotions about it. But I expect nikon will work with
adobe. I suspect this whole debacle was inspired by adobe to speed
up the process since CS2 is coming out soon. Nikon's not one to
move quickly :)
Click to expand...
CS2 is already shipping without the ability to decode these files.

I just can't see any justification at all for Nikon's action.
 
Member said:
It's an interesting analogy - but the film labs were controlled
using certification. If I thought that Fuji E6 processing and
Crystal archive were the right process and paper for my Kodak film,
then I was free to make that choice. Both Kodak and Fuji competed
to process my film, and that competition led to better results.
Click to expand...
Check out kodachrome sometime. One of the best color films ever, kodak has kept its processing to themselves or a very limited number of labs that license and follow its extensive procedures.
Member said:
CS2 is already shipping without the ability to decode these files.
Click to expand...
CS2 can decode the nef's, just not the auto-WB data.
 
Andrew Booth said:
Member said:
They're behaving like kodak and film manufacturers by trying to
enforce consistency across converters (kodak and fuji, have lab
facility certification processes). raw conversion is just a
starting point anyway, which I think is another one of the things
nikon was trying to get across in their release.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting analogy - but the film labs were controlled
using certification. If I thought that Fuji E6 processing and
Crystal archive were the right process and paper for my Kodak film,
then I was free to make that choice. Both Kodak and Fuji competed
to process my film, and that competition led to better results.
Click to expand...
Just imagine of Kodak didn't allow their (your) film to be processed in Fuji processing machinery, and Kodak fans jumped to Kodak's defense saying that they needed to do this to "ensure quality." What a pain that would be (especially if your favorite lab only used Fuji machines), and an infringement on consumer choice (you wouldn't be able to have your film developed anywhere you wanted).
 
nachos said:
Check out kodachrome sometime. One of the best color films ever,
kodak has kept its processing to themselves or a very limited
number of labs that license and follow its extensive procedures.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they stopped making it in 120 format years ago (I shoot 6x6 MF in film).

I always preferred the less blocked up reds of Provia. Choice is good.
 
...Fuji (and others) caught up with it using regular E-6 processing, and it got relegated to a small niche of nostalgics willing to put up with the inconvenience of having to send it to a Kodak lab for processing. You'd think that'd give Nikon pause.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top