Call for DNG support from camera manufacturers Locked

Started Nov 8, 2008 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
OP ted w dillard Regular Member • Posts: 194
Re: DNG doesn't solve that problem

C Vermillion wrote:

ted w dillard wrote:

No, not directly, of course. I used it as an example of Nikon being
irresponsible in developing a non-backwards compatible new software
package.

Um, sorry but as a software developer I can assure that very few
products are ever going to be backward compatible with all previous
versions. It's just not sensible. If you need that level of archive
(and there are lots of situations where it's necessary), you need to
save the application that created the results along with the results.
If all you need is the result and you don't have to demonstrate how
you got the result for scientific or legal purposes, then just
archive the result.

There's no point to backward compatibility further back than one
version. If you're truly concerned about your archive, then you
either freshen your data when you transition to the new version, or
you archive the old version.

However, had my friend used Adobe from that era, either saving the
DNG after rendering, or the maker RAW file with the XMP, he'd be fine.

No, he'd be in the same boat. Back in version 4.3 of ACR the change
log stated "Prior to Camera Raw 4.3 there was the possibility that
artifacts in edge transitions could be introduced through the Bayer
demosaic and luminance noise reductions algorithms. This has been
corrected." So you will not get exactly the same image out of 4.3+
that you got from prior versions. You will get a better version, but
you do see my point I hope.

Software has bugs that get corrected, and minor/major adjustments to
improve the quality. Software evolves and it's unrealistic to expect
that saving all your edits in whatever format will make it any more
likely that you will be able to get the same result from newer
versions of a program that you got from older versions.

-Colleen

What could be a better testament to an open, documented RAW format than a software developer saying what you've said? I do get the (very fine) point that there would be subtle differences between versions, but your position, especially as a developer, is exactly the problem. I'd suggest you never work in sales... I've sold $30K systems to photographers who've been shooting Leaf since the DCB "brick", and own several systems. You're going to go to them and say that it's unreasonable to expect the the MOS files they shot way back when, and even last year, are unsupported now?

If I have a TIFF or a DOC or a JPEG, PDF, HTML, file from 10 years ago it opens as it did back then. I'm not sure we're even understanding each other.

(Sorry again, my frustration is spilling over from other threads, and maybe we're not really addressing the same thing, but saying backwards compatibility is unreasonable seems callous at best. It's making me wonder if I'm even using the term correctly...)

The whole point of DNG is to be able to archive a version and have it available. You said:

either freshen your data when you transition to the new version, or
you archive the old version.

That is the point of using DNG.

And, if the camera shot DNG, it would remove this onus from the camera makers, too.
--
Ted Dillard

Smart Object Evangelist and digital photo support- http://www.teddillard.com

Join the Shoot RAW Smart! forum on Yahoo - dedicated to the Smart Object RAW workflow.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/shootrawsmart/

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