SPP Reverse Compatibility

richard stone wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

G Radford wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

With the advent of the Quattro and SPP6, we learned that Merrill files opened and saved from SPP6 could no longer be opened in SPP5.

Today, with all my Merrills sold, I decided to go from SPP 5.5.3 back to SPP 4.2 ... but recently I've been using 5.5.3 for everything. And so it is that ALL my SD15 X3Fs crash SPP 4.2. On the other hand, a much older DP1s shots did not.

Elementary, my dear Watson:

SPP5 and previous versions come with a text file 'english.txt' in the root folder for each version. In the one for SPP5, I discovered this little jewel:

"If you use this feature, this X3F file cannot be opened by SIGMA Photo Pro 5.4.1 or earlier version. Do you want continue?"

So, I'm stuck with 5.5.3 for my recently used but older cameras. BTW, I never saw that warning when editing recent SD15 files in SPP5 - so thanks for that, Sigma.

The only faintly bright light is that 5.5.3 has a folder 'lens profiles' and 4.2 does not. One lives in hope that those profiles are used for pre-Merrill shot. I'd bet a pound to a pinch of you-know-what that they are not ...

... but I got you fooled, Sigma, because RawTherapee can access them all.

Glad to hear that RawTherapee works !

In my world, RT roolz OK for serious work.

I can understand that struggling with all the hurdles that Sigma/Foveon place in our path causes some people to sell up and take a hard right or left into CaNikon or Sonji territory!

I've never saved new, updated data to my X3F files, simply because I don't trust any software that alters the original file.

Good point.

I only use raw editors to get an image somewhere in the ballpark, then save as a 16 bit TIFF, for final editing. Updating software can be full of surprises, and am sure this is true for Windows, Mac or Linux systems. -Gary

Definitely agreed.

Ted

I don't exactly understand the issues you are having ...

So it would appear, Richard.

... either your dislike for SPP 6

Can't be dislike for SPP6, I've never used or needed it and ...

or the problem with the files

... I posted my experience today simply for this Forums's information. This kind of response was neither expected nor desired.

but I would never intentionally alter the original X3F file.

Nobody said you would.

My assumption is that Sigma is not deliberately making the processing of SPP worse, although that could happen inadvertently, and it is certainly possible that a user, meaning you, or any one of us, could legitimately prefer the output of one version of SPP output over another.

My ONLY issue with SPP is the evident or possible "linkage" of the different aspects of the "processing" so that a lot of what is going on in SPP is in two areas at once... Or so it seems. This is the exact opposite, as I see it, compared to Raw Therapee. But that is only an argument for getting to a tif and into RT as soon as possible.

I think Sigma is trying to do the right thing, but it has several different types of users, many of whom just create a tif file and never look back, and some of whom, like me, for the moment, who may go back at some point to the X3F file and attempt to create a new and better (Maybe? We hope?) tif from the original file. Other users may, on occasion, simply desire to get it all done in SPP, regardless of its limitations.

I tend to think the past is greatly over-rated. "Progress" is not a given, and should not be assumed, and one has to watch out for the pernicious and harmful; but assuming that things were better before is equally invalid. We just coped with different issues.

In any event, my few very good images from the SD10 are almost as good as most of the images from the sdQ. The sdQ is also a lot easier to use. I'm curious to see how the SD10 works with the new 30mm and the latest version of SPP and RT. The SD10 has its own charm.

So, best wishes,

Richard

Ted

You said this to me, after I responded to your post regarding Sigma's SPP changes:

I posted my experience today simply for this Forums's information. This kind of response was neither expected nor desired...

Here is the "official" description of the Forum: Welcome to the Sigma Camera Talk Forum, the place to discuss Sigma digital cameras (and Foveon X3 technology).

Your idea that you can post a rant (perilously close to bashing) on the forum and somehow dictate the type of response you want (including no response) is clearly incompatible with the Forum description and purpose. And I would say that is the case even if your post makes no specific entreaty for help or assistance, or discussion. You certainly did not say, "Please no comments, I am only posting a rant about my latest issue regarding SPP." Because if you had that would be a violation of the Forum rules, by definition.

AND: What exactly is "This kind of response...??? How should anyone know what kind of response, including no response, was what you desired? And you did not do that: you did not specify anything as a serious issue, except what I think most people would understand to be an issue possibly (?) about which SPP version you liked the most. And you did not even explain why you even preferred some older version of SPP.

And to me you say you didn't want the kind of response I posted?

The way I read your post it seemed like you actually had altered the original files, which apparently you had, inadvertently? Usually the message I receive on closing a file is that the changes will be made unless you say to leave the file in its original condition. You apparently received such a message but somehow missed the significance of whatever message you received? Or not?

In any event the entire concept of the Forum is that people are to discuss posts and information which, if you will excuse my presumption, pretty much allows for any kind of a response (hopefully not rude) so long as related by topic.

It is true that many of your posts on the Forum are quite helpful. However, your post on this topic was not, in my view, clear about what your problem was, or why you thought it was a problem. For example: Why would you (or anyone?) prefer 4 over 5? Why would you not want to use 6? Why the general tone of anger and dismay?

I hope you will understand my citing of the Forum purpose and rules in this context. I am reasonably sure you would do the same.

Richard

Your response above was posted five minutes ago.

I deleted "This kind of response was neither expected nor desired" hours ago, (yesterday here) thinking better of it.

Please see here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60923791