Call for DNG support from camera manufacturers Locked

Started Nov 8, 2008 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
echelon2004 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,128
Re: Won't matter ...

Jeff Schewe wrote:

echelon2004 wrote:

First of all I'm afraid that DNG will slow down the progress in the
raw converters. Now we have a situation where they need to add
support for new cameras and while they're at it they fix other
things. Being fast with adding new cameras is a competitive edge, and
I want them to compete fiercly.

Then you misunderstand what having a native DNG format would offer.
If a camera shot a DNG format, and a raw converter supported DNG,
then the raw converter would support a new camera that shot DNG
without any work on the part of the raw converter. Ya see, that's the
purpose of a standardized raw file format...less of the drama about
new camera support.

Yes, which is something I think would be harmful . You see, the thing you write as if I didn't understand it is exactly the things I am against. I do not want a standard. It would be much easier if all cars were the same as well. But it wouldn't be good. If anything I would have fewer "do it all" solutions and more of "this only works with that product, but d*mn it's good solutions"

Second, adding a new step in the workflow costs money, and there's
nothing that suggests that DNG files will be more future-safe than
native formats.

Yes, one thing...DNG is fully documented where as the proprietary raw
file formats are not. In terms of archive standards, that's like the
difference between nite and day. The fact that DNG is open and fully
documented means that long term conservation and preservation is MUCH
more likely. The other main factor in conservation is that the more
supported a file format is, the greater likelihood that format will
survive. At the moment, DNG supports over 200 DIFFERENT raw file
formats. As new cameras come along the new file formats propagate
like rabbits.

you write "The other main factor in conservation is that the more
supported a file format is, the greater likelihood that format will survive."

Which to me is a pretty lame reason for a format to "survive". If it can't survive on it's own, it's not good enough.

If the digital photo industry started adopting a standardized raw
file format that was documented, then long term conservation and
preservation would be greatly enhanced. With more an more new
undocumented formats coming along, the likelihood that future support
will be eliminated grows–so the more undocumented formats, the
greater the risk to the industry.

For some of the lesser brands maybe. But they already support DNG ...

Now, native raw files in the camera will not be as good as the native
ones, simply because that will hurt the major manufacturers. So
they'll cripple the DNG versions some. They have to.

No, they don't. You really don't understand raw file formats if you
think this. Current CR2 and NEF raw file formats, based on TIFF-EP
(the ISO "standard") are already so close to being DNG that the
camera makers would lose nothing by taking their raw data and putting
it into a DNG wrapper instead of the undocumented, proprietary
wrapper. DNG supports private maker notes that can contain
proprietary metadata so if there was "secret sauce" it can be saved
as such. The camera makers would not loose anything by adopting DNG
with the possible exception of being free to create technically poor
formats.

Sorry, when I talk about DNG I always think of it as an open non-proprietary format. You are of course right.

Last, and this one I'm not that proud of ...
I hate petitions in forums, especially if they are off topic to begin
with.

If you are a digital photographer, then the topic of undocumented and
proprietary raw file formats is indeed on topic. There is NOTHING in
the current situation of hundreds of undocumented, proprietary raw
file formats that is the least bit good for photographers. The
current situation simply sucks for everybody except for the camera
makers. Having built-in DNG support in new cameras would benefit
everybody (and actually benefit the camera makers as well) because
new cameras would have built in compatibility with existing software.

OR they would have to be limited to a standard with a one size fits all mentality.

Now, had I thought that things were good now I might agree with you, but we are so far from a single decent raw converter as it is, starting to standardize the data and how the data is handled at this stage would be awful.

It's interesting, most of the reasons you use to support DNG is exactly the reasons why I don't like it

In fact, DNG cameras would actually HELP the raw processing community
because individual raw processors would not need to decode each and
every format and allow small specialty companies to compete against
Adobe and Camera Raw easier. Even Nikon and Canon software could
process each other's raw files. Adopting DNG would actually HELP
those people who seem predisposed to hate Adobe because it would
provide opportunities to use NON-Adobe software.

If you are a photographer, it would behoove you to actually know and
understand what the issues are. The industry, as it stands today is
NOT in the best interests of photographers...a standardized and fully
documented raw file format is–regardless of what you may think of
Adobe.

I have absolutely nothing against Adobe. I use Adobe products everyday and I gladly pay the monthly upgrade fee

Now, I don't agree with how you think things are in the industry. I know that much more can be done. A standard is not going to help that. It will only slow things down. We need to speed them up.

-- hide signature --

Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow