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 ...

Barry Pearson wrote:

echelon2004 wrote:

Ah, but counting you, Ted and A couple more in this thread, that's
the total number of persons I know of that use, or at least favor,
DNG (I know nothing about you as a photographer).

Here are a couple of searches that will introduce you to the wider
popularity of DNG:
http://search.dpreview.com/index.php?q=DNG&sort=Date
http://www.google.co.uk/blogsearch?as_q=DNG+RAW

I have been using searches like these for years, and I have seen a
gradual change in the "DNG climate". When I joined DPReview in
September 2005, relatively few people (here or elsewhere) had heard
of DNG, and a significant proportion of those spread misinformation
or "fear, uncertainty, doubt" about it.

Gradually more people learned about it, and many started to use it
for various reasons. Some forums here became "pro-DNG", and treated
it as part of the world of digital photography to be used as
required. Others, including Canon and Nikon forums, especially Nikon,
remained mostly anti-DNG.

So your information is pretty much based on google searches and Dpreview text?

In parallel with this, more and more products supported DNG in some
way. Nearly all significant 3rd-party raw converters accept DNG files
(Bibble being one exception although it accepts out-of-camera DNGs).
It is pretty well a tick-list item - to be credible, a 3rd-party
software product will typically support DNG.

Ok, so let's have a look at the four brands most common in here. Canon, nope. Nikon, nope. Hasselblad, out put only. PhaseOne, yes. Evidently not that needed to be credible I'd say

Nowadays, even in Canon and Nikon forums there are people being
positive about DNG. There are only a handful of people who are
systematically opposed to DNG, and they find it harder all the time
to identify plausible reasons for opposing it.

Which doesn't mean anything at all.

Many people decide it isn't for them without being opposed to it in
principle. That is a reasonable position - a significant proportion
of photographers still use products that don't accept DNG, such as
camera makers' software, and others have a workflow that DNG doesn't
easily fit into. What matters is that many of those people accept
that other photographers are different and can benefit from DNG, so
they don't adopt an attitude that other people shouldn't use it.

Yet, doing exactly that and running petitions in order to force the manufacturers to include DNG is ok?

If the manufacturers think that adding DNG support will improve their sales, they'll add it. If not it's up to them.

You're welcome to use DNG. Or any other format you like. But as soon as you or someone else is pushing for DNG as the standard format used by the camera manufacturers you try to mess with my workflow and forcing me to adobt an inadequate standard. What makes you think that that is ok?

Just leave my NEFs and CR2s alone...

The trend is inexorable. There is no sinister Adobe conspiracy -
common interfaces and standards open up industries and benefit the
consumers, and people know that. People like to be able
to-mix-n-match their system components without being dictated to by
companies that would prefer to sell packages (eg. camera + software).
This helps the industry expand, and the competition drives prices
down. It helps innovation - some innovative camera makers use DNG
from the start to give their users access to vast amounts of
3rd-party products. It is an easy starting point for innovative
software products.

I don't have anything against Adobe, I tend to use their other formats quite a lot.

And DNG is the ONLY raw file format at the moment that is suitable
for true archiving.

Is it? According to whom?

I didn't even know we had a media sustainavble enough to be suitable for digital archiving, no matter which format the files are in.

That gives confidence to many people who are
suspicious of camera makers who prefer to use undocumented raw file
formats that are not self-contained and so need to be supplemented by
camera details learned the hard way.

So, how well is DNG suited to be adopted for foveon and RGB sensors?

What's up with storing data for lens controll and corrections?

I'm like you totally convinced that we some day will have a standard for handling digitized sensor data. But I will fight any attempt to create that standard based on todays technology because that is totally inadequate.

Besides, who's responsible for my DNGs when things goes bad? Should I go to Adobe? Canon? You? Maybe google?

If anything happens with my NEFs or CR2s, Nikon and Canon can and will sort it out, as they've done in the past.

-- 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