PS CS3?

And in order to output DNG even if they wanted to, cetain manufactueres would be forced to output data that isn't part of their normal image processing pipeline, making more work for them, and potentially enabling what they consider "inferior" results, which isn't something japanese companies like to do.

DNG should have been a two tiered specification. Tier 1 being the file format and wrapper (The part you are most excited about) and Tier 2 being optional including the Adobe/ACR specific rendering tags. IMHO had this been done, DNG would already have gained much more acceptance than it has today, and from much more important comaniee (Read as hardware companies with statisticly signifigant market share)

Eric

Eric said:

And in order to output DNG even if they wanted to, cetain
manufactueres would be forced to output data that isn't part of
their normal image processing pipeline, making more work for them,
and potentially enabling what they consider "inferior" results,
which isn't something japanese companies like to do.

Click to expand...

Compared with all the other things they do, that would be relatively small. (After all, DNG files are smaller than many corresponding raw files, and it is only recently that Canon and Nikon have achieved comparable file sizes).

Eric28757 said:

DNG should have been a two tiered specification. Tier 1 being the
file format and wrapper (The part you are most excited about) and
Tier 2 being optional including the Adobe/ACR specific rendering
tags. IMHO had this been done, DNG would already have gained much
more acceptance than it has today, and from much more important
comaniee (Read as hardware companies with statisticly signifigant
market share)

Click to expand...

I disagree. For archival puposes, and to enable cameras to be supported by raw converters on camera-launch instead of needing software updates, and to enable the camera manufacturer to establish the colour profile instead of having software companies build their own from (possibly untypical) their own cameras, that extra data is needed. It is at least as important as the wrapping format.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread;
DNG images don't become toast.

Barry Pearson said:

Eric said:

And in order to output DNG even if they wanted to, cetain
manufactueres would be forced to output data that isn't part of
their normal image processing pipeline, making more work for them,
and potentially enabling what they consider "inferior" results,
which isn't something japanese companies like to do.

Click to expand...

Compared with all the other things they do, that would be
relatively small. (After all, DNG files are smaller than many
corresponding raw files, and it is only recently that Canon and
Nikon have achieved comparable file sizes).

Click to expand...

You miss my point Barry, if a manfuactere isn't doign their image pipeline similary to adobes, then adding those extra fields is more work, and also might not yield the same quality their own methods do. If in their eyes it doesn't yield the same quality, they aren't going to do it. You and I debating doesn't change the fact that they haven't adopted yet, and IMHO this is one of the major reason they haven't.

Barry Pearson said:

I disagree. For archival puposes, and to enable cameras to be
supported by raw converters on camera-launch instead of needing
software updates, and to enable the camera manufacturer to
establish the colour profile instead of having software companies
build their own from (possibly untypical) their own cameras, that
extra data is needed. It is at least as important as the wrapping
format.

Click to expand...

Exactly, some mfgrs beleive their color profiles/pipelines are best and right now ACR doesn't fit the bill.....Even with the recent addition of some "optional" tags realting to alternate pipelines, they really can't be used as the DNG spec says they can be ignored by 3rd parties, and most liklye will by ACR as well.

Having the big 2 (or 3 depending on your bent), embedding/writing meta data, settings and previews in a common fashion would be a lot more useful then then nothing. I'd happily take 90% market share doing > 50% of what I want then 0% doing 100% any day of the week.

Eric

Eric wrote:
[snip]

Eric28757 said:

You miss my point Barry, if a manfuactere isn't doign their image
pipeline similary to adobes, then adding those extra fields is more
work, and also might not yield the same quality their own methods
do. If in their eyes it doesn't yield the same quality, they
aren't going to do it. You and I debating doesn't change the fact
that they haven't adopted yet, and IMHO this is one of the major
reason they haven't.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that DNG would make a significant difference to the pipeline. Part of the change to DNG would be the wrapping, (which you appear to accept), and the rest is largely constant data. After all, that extra data is equivalent to the camera-model data that raw converters add to their products to support a new camera model.

The most performace critical part of the pipeline is surely the generation and storage of the sensor data, and that should be similar.

I believe the main reason that most camera manufacturers haven't adopted DNG yet is "not invented here", probably combined with the learning curve which would probably make their first camera to use DNG cost a bit extra to develop. (Nikon may have an extra motive - use of DNG would inhibit their restrictive practices).

[snip]

Eric28757 said:

Exactly, some mfgrs beleive their color profiles/pipelines are best
and right now ACR doesn't fit the bill.....Even with the recent
addition of some "optional" tags realting to alternate pipelines,
they really can't be used as the DNG spec says they can be ignored
by 3rd parties, and most liklye will by ACR as well.

Click to expand...

Silkypix has its own profile data, but when provided with a DNG file offers an option of which to use. ACR only uses the DNG version in that case, because it is actually the same as its own anyway. Rawshooter uses its own and ignores the DNG version, so, in effect, it treats DNG as your "Tier 1" anway. All of these are options, with differing merit.

Eric28757 said:

Having the big 2 (or 3 depending on your bent), embedding/writing
meta data, settings and previews in a common fashion would be a lot
more useful then then nothing.

Click to expand...

[snip]

There is discussion in the Pixmantec forums about support for XMP metadata within DNG files. The users there realise that it is a separate development from support of the profile data in a DNG file - which it is, of course.

If Bibble wanted to treat a DNG file simply as a different way of wrapping the data, but continue to use its own profile, allowing users to adopt a DNG-based workflow yet still use Bibble, what would be the problem?

--
DNG is better than sliced bread;
DNG images don't become toast.

Barry Pearson said:

I don't believe that DNG would make a significant difference to the
pipeline. Part of the change to DNG would be the wrapping, (which
you appear to accept), and the rest is largely constant data. After
all, that extra data is equivalent to the camera-model data that
raw converters add to their products to support a new camera model.

Click to expand...

Barry, this is where you are just wrong, it is a farily differnet pipeline in some instances. It never ceases to amuse me how folks such as your self like to throw out statements like this. How many raw pipelines have your reverse engineered or designed in the last six years. I somehow doubt its as many as I have and I stand by my statement.

Barry Pearson said:

The most performace critical part of the pipeline is surely the
generation and storage of the sensor data, and that should be
similar.

Click to expand...

Performance from a speed standpoint or image quality standpoint? And if you ask canon what their public answer for No DNG it is just that....The claim that compressing the data differently will negativly effect their performance.

Barry Pearson said:

I believe the main reason that most camera manufacturers haven't
adopted DNG yet is "not invented here", probably combined with the
learning curve which would probably make their first camera to use
DNG cost a bit extra to develop. (Nikon may have an extra motive -
use of DNG would inhibit their restrictive practices).

Click to expand...

You can believe what you wish. I choose to believe what my own historical conversations with camera manufactereus has actually told me.

Barry Pearson said:

If Bibble wanted to treat a DNG file simply as a different way of
wrapping the data, but continue to use its own profile, allowing
users to adopt a DNG-based workflow yet still use Bibble, what
would be the problem?

Click to expand...

The problem is I can't create DNG files myself without signifigant investment in technogloy I don't consider as good as the technology I currently use. As I've told you (And adobe) many times. If they provided and SDK to create DNG files I would add support tommorow as then the benfits would nudge ahead of the problems. They have choosen not to do so. I'll let the consipracry theorists have fun with the fact that soon Adobe is in an inetersting position then of being the only folks who can do DNG conversion and thus the only company to be able to provide an End to End workflow for folks wanting to go the DNG route.....

Eric

Eric wrote:
[snip]

Eric28757 said:

Barry, this is where you are just wrong, it is a farily differnet
pipeline in some instances. It never ceases to amuse me how folks
such as your self like to throw out statements like this. How many
raw pipelines have your reverse engineered or designed in the last
six years. I somehow doubt its as many as I have and I stand by my
statement.

Click to expand...

I am talking about the pipeline within the camera, not in software. Are you? (And I am influenced by the fact that a few cameras and digital backs use DNG as their native raw format).

CR2 and DNG (and NEF) are based on TIFF. What are the differences between them that cause such problems in the camera?

[snip]

Eric28757 said:

Performance from a speed standpoint or image quality standpoint?
And if you ask canon what their public answer for No DNG it is just
that....The claim that compressing the data differently will
negativly effect their performance.

Click to expand...

Don't Canon now use JPEG lossless compression, like DNG?

[snip]

Eric28757 said:

Eric28757 said:

If Bibble wanted to treat a DNG file simply as a different way of
wrapping the data, but continue to use its own profile, allowing
users to adopt a DNG-based workflow yet still use Bibble, what
would be the problem?

Click to expand...

The problem is I can't create DNG files myself without signifigant
investment in technogloy I don't consider as good as the technology
I currently use.

Click to expand...

The discussion is about software products reading DNG files, not creating them. Why couldn't Bibble read DNG files to get the sensor data, then apply its own profile information, in the way that Pixmantec do?

[snip]

Eric28757 said:

I'll let the consipracry theorists have fun
with the fact that soon Adobe is in an inetersting position then of
being the only folks who can do DNG conversion and thus the only
company to be able to provide an End to End workflow for folks
wanting to go the DNG route.....

Click to expand...

Why are they the only ones who can do a DNG conversion? They are certainly currently one of the few who do, but that is because few others have bothered. (Hasselblad-Imacon provide a DNG Converter for certain of their raw formats, and some private individuals have written DNG Converters for specialised purposes. That is apart from those cameras and digital backs that output DNG).

And why is Bibble concerned with end-to-end workflow being done by one software provider? If there are suitable published interfaces between the various components, such as DNG, TIFF, JPEG, etc, then photographers can choose from various components without getting locked into a single supplier.

Many photographers get advantages from DNG-based workflows that they couldn't get other ways. It is open to anyone to offer the tools they need within those workflows.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread;
DNG images don't become toast.