Am I the only one P*ssed *ff with Pentax and the K20D firware upgrade?

Model Mike said:

Model Mike said:

Pentax is not responsible what-so-ever. Its like saying Microsoft is
responsible for all new hardware to work properly by Vista or XP.
That would be impractical.

Click to expand...

The K20D update is a minor version release, akin to a hotfix or a
service pack in Windows. Hardly akin to a brand new operating
system...

In any case, altering a field in the EXIF header so gratuitously
seems to be asking for trouble - as there was no change in the RAW
format, Pentax programmers should have taken a defensive line and not
made any changes at all.

Click to expand...

I say you're wrong, relying on the maker tag in the exif to identify the camera is asking for trouble. That's what the camera model field is for. Also maybe checking for the just the name pentax contained in the maker field would have done it as well. The Pentax programmers probably didn't even have a choice, I'd guess they were probably told by the legal team they have to change it.

J

cycoj said:

I say you're wrong, relying on the maker tag in the exif to identify
the camera is asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the EXIF spect in great detail, but even if there is a grey area as regards the use of this tag, a more pragmatic approach by Pentax would have been advisable surely.

Mike

No its not Pentax's fault in any way at all.
Its sloppy programming by Bibble etc.

Its like saying a webpage doesn't display properly in firefox so firefox is at fault.
no its the person who designed the webpage and didn't do it properly.

Bibble make money by selling software to manipulate files from another maker. Its up to them to make sure its programmed properly to keep its customers happy. Not Pentax. Pentax would have no idea what bibble or any other RAW/Photo editing software does. Its not something they would care about, they release their own software which works and what they test against.

Model Mike said:

Whatever you think of the tone of the OP's post, the balance of blame
has to lie with Pentax - in the same way that Microsoft would be
crucified if software ceased to work after minor hotfixes to Windows
XP.

Where Pentax slipped up is in not performing regression with 3rd
party converters after the update. Had they done so, would surely
have alerted them to the inadvisability of altering the EXIF header
on an existing camera model.

Whether or not Bibble uses a non-standard way to uniquely identify
the RAW format is irrelevent in this case, and in any case without
detailed knowledge of the EXIF spec any comment is just speculation.

If Pentax want to serve their customers correctly, they should (a)
either release a further update or (b) warn users of the problem on
their web site. In the meantime, the exiftool option sounds like a
good workaround.

Mike

Click to expand...

--
Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
The Blind Pig
http://www.jeber.com/Members/Justin/Gallery/
Photobucket
http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/justin-23/

Model Mike said:

Model Mike said:

I say you're wrong, relying on the maker tag in the exif to identify
the camera is asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

Why?

Click to expand...

Because makers can change, see Minolta-> Sony. The camera model does not. Why would you use the maker tag to identify the camera model, if there is actually a model tag which tells you this exactly. And why rely on the exact wording? It would actually be even better if camera makers would agree on an identifying tag, which would only change if the RAW file changes. But considering that they can't even agree on one RAW format, good luck.

J

.. it is appearing in the top end of the most active threads and really doesn't deserve that much attention, despite Douglas's frustration, which (at least IMO) should be squarely aimed at the RC software companies rather than Pentax Hoya.

Hopefully they will update their programs to accomodate the change fairly quickly, but they may well wait until they are ready with a new revison with other fixes before doing it just for Pentax, so it could be some time.

In the meantime, just make the header edits that very helpful fellow forum members have suggested.
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

gaddigad said:

I don't find it particularly clever to change a Maker / Model tag in
0.1 version update.

Click to expand...

It is not a matter about being clever or not.

The fact is that Pentax Corporation no longer exist, and because of this Hoya can't issue a firmware update from a non-existent corporation!

Hoya did not change the model tag, it is still intact. They changed the "maker" tag because the firmware does no longer comes from Pentax Corp, it comes from the brand Pentax which is used by the Hoya group.

gaddigad said:

You normally update these tags only once on a
whole new version (X.0) update and you'd better make sure your third
party providers know about it in advance.

Click to expand...

Come on now, the "killing" of Pentax Corporation the 31th of March 2008 was official and has been in the news since more than half a year back!

If the third party software makers has completely missed this, then they obviously never reads press releases.

--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

Model Mike said:

Model Mike said:

Pentax altered the "maker" from "Pentax Corporation" to "Pentax".
This reflects that Pentax Corporation no longer exist, it ceased to
exist the 31th of March 2008. Since 1st of April 2008, the "Pentax"
is a brand name within the Hoya group.

Click to expand...

Totally irrrelevent. The Pentax engineers should have programmed
defensively by not making any unecessary changes to the file
format. Period.

Click to expand...

No, it is not irrevelevant because this is what happened - Pentax Corporation ceased to exist the end of March. This means that Pentax Corporation can't issue new firmwares, because Pentax Corporation does not exist.
Only Hoya, from the brand name Pentax, can issue new firmwares.

Model Mike said:

Model Mike said:

If Hoya kept "Pentax Corporation" then they would actually lie [...]
Surely you can't mean that

Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

Click to expand...

Ok, you want companies to lie to their customers.

I don't think it is legal to say that a firmware upgrade comes from a corporation that no longer exist. I believe this is against the law.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

My point is that I don't think it is legal to issue firmware upgrades from a company that no longer exist. Hoya had to change "Pentax Corporation" to "Pentax" to reflect that Pentax Corp as of end of March 2008 no longer exist. Since the Pentax Corporation no longer exist, Hoya can't release firmware upgardes from Pentax Corporation.

Pentax exist as a brand name, so Hoya can still release firmware upgrades from Pentax.
But not from the Pentax Corporation.

This is why Hoya had to change "Pentax Corporation" to "Pentax" in the firmware upgrade, regardless of if some likes it or not.

--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

I thought asking Apple to fix this mess up would be the way to go for me, as it only affects this part of my life:

Pentax have issued an update to the K20D dSLR which breaks preview/quick view support which was introduced in the RAW 2.1 update you so kindly provided. This is due to the Maker changing from "PENTAX Corporation" (in the K20D original firmware) to "PENTAX" in the latest firmware. This change reflects the merger of Pentax with Hoya late March 2008 so that "Pentax corp." no longer exists.

This issue is discussed here:

http://www DOT pentaxforums DOT com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/30136-k20d-1-01-firmware-update-broke-iphoto-08-pef-support.html

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28452225

This is likely to affect all Pentax cameras with any future updates, and any new cameras they produce. It can be fixed, by ONLY requiring the word PENTAX in the exif maker note. Which I have demonstrated by editing the exif of some new files so that "PENTAX Corporation" appears in the maker note - these work fine.

This issue does not affect Adobe Photoshop/Bridge, SilkyPix as they presumably have taken a long sighted view and only require PENTAX in the exif maker note.

Regards,

David
--
GMT +9:30
http://dave.colourpixels.net/

jonathan68 said:

Douglas Film said:

Silkypix is great software but for all its faults I prefer the Bibble
work flow and like the fact that it is an American company.

Click to expand...

Does software from American companies work better with RAW data from
Japanese cameras?

Click to expand...

To be fair it was probably coded in India.

Through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning

If there are any American companies left, they must be very tiny. Look at the stock ownership of most companies and you will see the light......light you will see with a Chinese bulb, in a house built with Canadian lumber, and furnished with fittings and decorations from most everywhere but America. And your automobile? Food? Clothes? Computer? And that Pentax wasn't made in Atlanta, my friend!

I suspect this also applies to most other countries, so it does not concern me too much, since there is nothing any of us can do about it, even if we wanted to, and I personally don't want to. What I do want is for more American products to be made and to reach more foreign shores. Bill Gates did pretty good at it, maybe others will too.
--
'This is more serious than I thought.....but it is still fun!
http://www.pbase.com/rupertdog Take a look- It's Free!

Being an "old timer" myself I can understand your angst regarding the files. If you look at what the person did on pentaxforums you will see he worked w/ a copy of the RAW (leaving one unchanged RAW). Then he just modified the copies. In a sense it is just like taking a word document and changing 1 word. Only on many documents all at once. Wish I could write you the line myself but it's, like you, not my forte. But it really isn't as hard nor as scarey (especially w/ a copy kept) as it seems.
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

'The exposure meter is calibrated to some clearly defined standards and the user needs to adjust his working method and his subject matter to these values. It does not help to suppose all kinds of assumptions that do not exist.'
Erwin Puts

Actually from edvinas's post
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28454362

it looks like Apple uses both make and model fields to identify a file type. Model field would be enough I guess. On the surface the change looks easy BUT I don't think it is. A simple text change will break the old files. So it must be a larger change to the program unless it uses some sort of wildcard for Pentax make as Pentax type stuff.

Ignoring the make field would change the whole premise and it might be that some things need both fields to be identified (just a guess).

I'm curious to see what they do. Funny how such a simple thing can cause such a mess.

--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

'The exposure meter is calibrated to some clearly defined standards and the user needs to adjust his working method and his subject matter to these values. It does not help to suppose all kinds of assumptions that do not exist.'
Erwin Puts

Rupert60 said:

If there are any American companies left, they must be very tiny.
Look at the stock ownership of most companies and you will see the
light......light you will see with a Chinese bulb, in a house built
with Canadian lumber, and furnished with fittings and decorations
from most everywhere but America. And your automobile? Food? Clothes?
Computer? And that Pentax wasn't made in Atlanta, my friend!
I suspect this also applies to most other countries, so it does not
concern me too much, since there is nothing any of us can do about
it, even if we wanted to, and I personally don't want to. What I do
want is for more American products to be made and to reach more
foreign shores. Bill Gates did pretty good at it, maybe others will
too.

Click to expand...

Ouch, please spare us anymore windows-like products. Have pity with the rest of the world.

Rupert60 said:

--
'This is more serious than I thought.....but it is still fun!
http://www.pbase.com/rupertdog Take a look- It's Free!

Click to expand...

Roland Mabo said:

Putting "Corporation" back in the header is not a good thing to do,
because the new firmware isn't issued by Pentax corporation. Pentax
corporation does not exist! They can't say "corporation" when it is
no longer in existence. It died 31th of March 2008.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that PEFs taken before 31 March (which have Pentax Corporation) also do not exist, or are not a good thing? All the photographs I have taken (and all the photos I will take in the future because Pentax have not released a FW update for my camera) have Pentax Corporation as the maker tag. Are they all wrong?

All it means is that you are pretending that the file is pre-FW update. There's nothing wrong with that.

Roland Mabo said:

It is not Pentax fault that RAW converters doesn't work with only
"Pentax", that they also read "Corporation". Stupid programmers of
the RAW converter software.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The point is that Pentax do not issue a spec about the tags in the PEF file. They have been deduced by reverse engineering. Since these third party applications exist through reverse engineering they should make the effort to keep up to date with Pentax, which means that they should be prompt in reverse engineering PEFs.

If software distributed by Pentax stops working then you have a legitimate complaint against Pentax. I have never seen a declaration from Pentax guaranteeing that third party software will continue to work, so if third party software stops working the complaint should be directed towards them, not Pentax.

As a software developer I recognise that small changes can have a large effect, but to mitigate against this, as developers, we specifically say what is public (and will continue to work the same way). Everything else is private, and may change. Software publishers have a responsibility to make sure that the stuff that is public continues to work as described (I can tell you, often that involves a lot of effort). But private details can and do change, and the term "at your own risk" comes to mind here. Bibble and the like have strayed into the "at your own risk" area. So it is their responsibiloity to fix the issue, not Pentax.

Richard
--

Pentax K100D, DA18-55/3.5-5.6, A50/1.7, A28/2.8, A70-210/4 M50/1.4, M35/2.8, CZJ 135/3.5, CZJ 35/2.4,

Pentax isn't the issue. Shouldn't the makers of those editors need to provide an update to their applications to support the new Pentax capability?
--
Roger

My point is that Hoya can't release firmware upgrades from "Pentax Corporation" when "Pentax Corporation" does no longer exist. They can release firmware upgrades from "Pentax" because "Pentax" is a brand name used by Hoya Corporation.
And this is exactly what they have done now.

This also means that if they releases new firmware upgrades for other Pentax DSLR's, they too will have "Pentax Corporation" changed to "Pentax" because the maker of the firmware upgrade is "Pentax" and not "Pentax Corporation".

The old firmwares was issued by "Pentax Corporation" and there is no reason to change this in old firmware, because when those firmware was released - the maker of those firmwares was "Pentax Corporation". The error comes when new firmwares are released, or upgrades to old firmwares are released. Since "Pentax Corporation" no longer exist, they can't release firmware upgrades with "Pentax Corporation" as the maker of the firmware upgrade, because "Pentax Corporation" is no longer the maker of the new firmwares or upgrades.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

rogerstpierre said:

Pentax isn't the issue. Shouldn't the makers of those editors need
to provide an update to their applications to support the new Pentax
capability?
--
Roger

Click to expand...

I think Pentax users are kind of upset with first having to wait for the software makers (Bibble, C1, Adobe etc) to make their products work with the K20D PEF files. Then Pentax releases a new firmware and all software vendors have to go back to the drawing board and us users have to wait for their updates. And... Will the update be able to handle firmware version 1.0 PEF files as well as version 1.0.1+?

Personally I'll wait for a software upgrade before going to f/w 1.0.1, can't really stand PhotoLab...

Matts

--
Self-announced LBA member #42 (Pentax Chapter) @ GMT+1 hours / UTC+2 hours

'He's not stupid, he's just got bad luck thinking'
Unknown

Roland Mabo said:

It is not Pentax fault that RAW converters doesn't work with only
"Pentax", that they also read "Corporation". Stupid programmers of
the RAW converter software.

Click to expand...

If the firmware changes the format slightly, as some firmware updates have in the past, and we don't use the exact strings then we risk our programs crashing or displaying corrupt images. So, I would rather the program not attempt to read a file format that may or may not work so that we can check out files written by the new firmware instead of having the program crashing inexplicably.

Your way makes so much more sense, and the only reason that most third party raw converters don't work that way is because all of the people that develop them are stupid. Obviously the raw converter you wrote is far superior.

-Colleen
Bibble Labs

At least, they'll know there IS a need for a software update. It might not be available tomorrow, but they should start working on it (if not already the case).

None of these two companies is interested in losing Pentax DSLRs users, small market or not.

Sure, the Canon and Nikon DSLRs users represent a bigger fraction of their potential buyers, but if they didn't support Pentax, they wouldn't support Olympus, Panasonic, Leica or Sony either (did I forgot a brand?). In the end all these little marketshares amount to a rather important one.

I use Bibble and CaptureOne (and Lightroom from time to time) and both companies answered my previous inquiries very quickly in the past, either through the forums or by sending emails.

Give them the chance to acknowledge the problem and come up with a solution. If they don't care, then you'll know for sure.

Still a bummer, though. I understand your frustration.

--
Once you've mastered the technique and the equipment, you can concentrate on
the more important aspects of photography: originality, atmosphere, emotion
and — ultimately — soul.
— Jeff