DNG open or not?

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Read the license. When you've read it see if you conclude it says
that Adobe may or may not have patents around DNG, but they license
them to anyone who wants support DNG (but not for any other
purpose.)

They have beem very open, they may have intellectual property
claims which relate to parts of DNG. They are not giving those
away,

If you look at Adobe's behaviour with PDF, where they have used all
kinds of threats to protect their near monopoly in authoring tools,
so I don't think they have a right to be automatically trusted.
In case people don't know I work for Microsoft: a company that a
lot of people don't trust. It's just as foolish to say a company
can NEVER be trusted as it is to automatically trust it - cases
should be taken on merit.

DNG is a different case from PDF; and Adobe's behaviour is different.

Just exactly how far would DNG get if adobe did charge for it...nowhere at all. So saying that one doesnt impress.

I dont buy that there is no commercial motivation on Adobe's part...it is a company...it aims to make money. This is why they bought out pixmantec, and Macromedia. Adobe has its sticky fingers on far too much in the AV world, and I for one am not going to support any further attempts at a monopoly.

I wouldnt even mind if DNG offered some amazing adbvantage..it doesnt..it isnt smaller that current RAW files...it adds to workflow (converting to DNG), has puny in camera support (ie makers using DNG as a native RAW format)....and people wonder why we get suspicious? Well let me see now...Adobe dont exactly have a history or encouraging competition..or giving software away.....

Thanks..but no thanks..Hell even Microsoft appear more open to things!
--

 

[geoffcole]

Read the license. When you've read it see if you conclude it says
that Adobe may or may not have patents around DNG, but they license
them to anyone who wants support DNG (but not for any other
purpose.)

They have beem very open, they may have intellectual property
claims which relate to parts of DNG. They are not giving those
away,

If you look at Adobe's behaviour with PDF, where they have used all
kinds of threats to protect their near monopoly in authoring tools,
so I don't think they have a right to be automatically trusted.
In case people don't know I work for Microsoft: a company that a
lot of people don't trust. It's just as foolish to say a company
can NEVER be trusted as it is to automatically trust it - cases
should be taken on merit.

DNG is a different case from PDF; and Adobe's behaviour is different.

Just exactly how far would DNG get if adobe did charge for
it...nowhere at all. So saying that one doesnt impress.

I dont buy that there is no commercial motivation on Adobe's
part...it is a company...it aims to make money. This is why they
bought out pixmantec, and Macromedia. Adobe has its sticky fingers
on far too much in the AV world, and I for one am not going to
support any further attempts at a monopoly.

I'd say 'prove it' but that would clearly spark a long, tedious debate/argument over what is basically your opinion. Mine is that there is no 'in-your-face evidence' to indicate Adobe have any more monopolistic tendencies than any other corporate entity.

I wouldnt even mind if DNG offered some amazing adbvantage..it
doesnt..it isnt smaller that current RAW files...it adds to
workflow (converting to DNG), has puny in camera support (ie makers
using DNG as a native RAW format)....and people wonder why we get
suspicious? Well let me see now...Adobe dont exactly have a history
or encouraging competition..or giving software away.....

Since you're taking that stance, name a company -- that is to say a commercial entity -- that does.

Thanks..but no thanks..Hell even Microsoft appear more open to things!

Oh Really** (heavy sarcasm)

In conclusion, all that can be drawn from this debate is that there are two opposing points of view: one which considers DNG an open format/specification, and another viewpoint that says it isn't. Given that each side has shown it is not convinced by the other's arguments, as the original poster, Gareth is just going to have to do what the rest of us have done: read the available sources including this and other threads and the DNG specification and make up his own mind.

Anything else is probably just wasting bandwidth from here on out.

--

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Oh Really** (heavy sarcasm)

In conclusion, all that can be drawn from this debate is that there
are two opposing points of view: one which considers DNG an open
format/specification, and another viewpoint that says it isn't.
Given that each side has shown it is not convinced by the other's
arguments, as the original poster, Gareth is just going to have to
do what the rest of us have done: read the available sources
including this and other threads and the DNG specification and make
up his own mind.

Anything else is probably just wasting bandwidth from here on out.

The conclusion that can be drawn is this:

Pretty much everyone thinks there should be a "standard" RAW format..aka just one...no problems there. It makes sense..

This is the area of the problem, and this alone:

Yes DNG is free, and royalty free. But it is not free from one companies control. Other file formats are (but not all)...Open document is one, as I have said, and it is likely to be the main format in the future. It is not controlled by Sun..or any other commercial company.

We need this for RAW..else DNG is just a photo version of WMA, or ATRAC....ie a format pushed by a company and supported by that company, with a view to getting other vendors to support it. Note no problem with WMA/ATRAC in so far as it is better than MP3..but you get the idea...OGG is open source..no company controls that either. IT is in the consumers interest in the long run.

If adobe do have good intentions, fine. Maybe they are 100% trustworthy..but let them "show" us that they are by offering it to a neutral 3rd party to ensure that there can be not even a hint of creepy tactics.

You really cant argue with that...its the right way to do things.

--

 

[geoffcole]

Oh Really** (heavy sarcasm)

In conclusion, all that can be drawn from this debate is that there
are two opposing points of view: one which considers DNG an open
format/specification, and another viewpoint that says it isn't.
Given that each side has shown it is not convinced by the other's
arguments, as the original poster, Gareth is just going to have to
do what the rest of us have done: read the available sources
including this and other threads and the DNG specification and make
up his own mind.

Anything else is probably just wasting bandwidth from here on out.

The conclusion that can be drawn is this:

Pretty much everyone thinks there should be a "standard" RAW
format..aka just one...no problems there. It makes sense..

This is the area of the problem, and this alone:

Yes DNG is free, and royalty free. But it is not free from one
companies control. Other file formats are (but not all)...Open
document is one, as I have said, and it is likely to be the main
format in the future. It is not controlled by Sun..or any other
commercial company.

We need this for RAW..else DNG is just a photo version of WMA, or
ATRAC....ie a format pushed by a company and supported by that
company, with a view to getting other vendors to support it. Note
no problem with WMA/ATRAC in so far as it is better than MP3..but
you get the idea...OGG is open source..no company controls that
either. IT is in the consumers interest in the long run.

If adobe do have good intentions, fine. Maybe they are 100%
trustworthy..but let them "show" us that they are by offering it to
a neutral 3rd party to ensure that there can be not even a hint of
creepy tactics.

You really cant argue with that...its the right way to do things.

While it might be the right way to do things as you assert, from a pragmatic standpoint Adobe is the only organisation that have taken the lead on this and done something positive rather than trying to stop the tide and protect their turf. The end result is that momentum is building for DNG -- which means that unless other organisations or standards bodies get off their @$$ and propose an alternative specification for an industry-standard Raw file-format then get it accepted by hardware and software vendors, DNG will become too entrenched to be challenged in any meaningful way. At that point mainstream users will have to decide between DNG or the camera makers proprietary un-published formats -- and since Adobe is the only one offering an open, royalty-free licence to use the DNG specification, I know which I'd use: DNG.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

While it might be the right way to do things as you assert, from a
pragmatic standpoint Adobe is the only organisation that have taken
the lead on this and done something positive rather than trying to
stop the tide and protect their turf.

Lets be honest here...it is most def in Adobe's interest to promote this. And it may reduce costs for supporting makers native RAW formats in their own software...great..but it is partly self motivated.

The end result is that

momentum is building for DNG -- which means that unless other
organisations or standards bodies get off their @$$ and propose an
alternative specification for an industry-standard Raw file-format
then get it accepted by hardware and software vendors, DNG will
become too entrenched to be challenged in any meaningful way.

You may be right..I dont have a problem with the format...seems logical enough.

At

that point mainstream users will have to decide between DNG or the
camera makers proprietary un-published formats -- and since Adobe
is the only one offering an open, royalty-free licence to use the
DNG specification, I know which I'd use: DNG.

Well that is up to you, it is a free choice. But make no mistake that Adobe are getting something out of it. If DNG is the dominant format in the future..who has the most comprehensive software to take advantage of it? No shocker here...Adobe.

Have adobe offered to release it to a neutral party? No the have not. Will they..probably not. Does it matter..maybe it doesnt...but maybe just a small maybe it could matter down the road. Better safe than sorry.

Adobe are also using subtle "scare tactics"..ie "will your raw format be supported in the future?"....convert to DNG now!......pretty much like that.

It would be nice if Barry Pearson made a bit of web space to push for what many want..a non commercialy controlled format...ie say it should be released to a 3rd party..rather than telling us how great DNG is...and the spindoctor stuff.....

In the same way as Microsoft is pushing its Office Open XML...(and saying it will support open document)..it is preferable to me anyhow to prefer the opendoc idea....same for DNG..

get to it adobe...and Barry Pearson! lol

--

 

[jeffkrol]

Well, this is the true meat of the matter isn't it? And unfortunately is also the whole "moral divide". You trust them, others don't. All sorts of pen wagging isn't going to change this. Earlier threads of mine asked for examples where Adobe exhibited "warm and fuzzy" behavior. I for one see none, as stated a bazillion times. Plug-ins are a classic example, and there are plenty of "rumors" showing adobe muscled developers to do it "their way" for the sake of making Adobe more money and stifling competition. Code exclusively for us or we won't let you code for us at all. Inflated prices of software, bad methods of copyguards, even PDF. The free format. Up until recently what was the cost and options to actually do more than just read? Adobe Acrobate is NO different than MS Word in terms of inflated costs.... As an example MS Office suite sells for like $30(top of my head figure, could be 10-20dollars more) (as reported in PC Mag I believe) in China and is still profitable. Profits were cut to the attempt to decrease piracy. But reports are profits are still good.. I, on the other hand, not being Chinese would have to pay ohh.. somewhere around $300 for the same product. Wear your rose colored glasses all you like.........and dig deeper into the corporate philosophy.

since Adobe seems, at least to me, to emulate Microsoft in it's mannerisms (and why not, last time I looked MS made a few bucks) , I see very little difference. What part of Corporate don't you see. I can see the boardroom now, "Ladies and gentleman, we are now bleeding 250,000 a year to support and promote DNG. Projected payback on this project is 0 dollars. Please pat yourself on the back for a job well done,ad to know you have supported the cause of open and source and increased competition". Matter of fact I think we should give DNG to ms
:O
And to add a small bit of bad humor.......
"All hail the Adobi (Ori) for they bring you "origin" .........
Sorry, just waking up.

Adobe said they wouldn't ask for fees and that it would remain
free. Should they fall back and start charging it would do more
damage to Adobe's reputation and how companies and consumers trust
them. I seriously doubt that Adobe would do that.

Now if we were talking Microsoft, well I would just tell everyone
to bend over now, something unpleasant is coming.

Robert

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

 

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
[snip]

I wouldnt even mind if DNG offered some amazing adbvantage..it
doesnt..it isnt smaller that current RAW files...it adds to
workflow (converting to DNG), has puny in camera support (ie makers
using DNG as a native RAW format)....and people wonder why we get
suspicious? Well let me see now...Adobe dont exactly have a history
or encouraging competition..or giving software away.....

[snip]

One of the problems in this thread and elsewhere is that some people with antipathy towards DNG believe their are own lack of benefits from DNG is the case for other people too. It isn't - many users of DNG would see how wrong your statements above are - FOR THEM.

DNG versus other file sizes:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm#filesize

Workflow steps:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/safety.htm#workflow

Support by camera manufacturers, including in-camera support:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/products.htm#manufacturers

Another problem here and elsewhere is that some people are not aware of the trends towards ever-wider adoption of DNG. See the bottom of this page:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/products.htm#historical

Trends like that, together with the clear evidence that many people are using DNG, show how relatively unimportant in-camera support is. It is a bonus, but not essential. There were probably about 35 non-Adobe software products supporting DNG by the time of the first in-camera support, and that was a minority camera (Leica DMR) that hardly made any difference to the trends. Possibly NONE of the advocates of DNG in this thread use DNG in-camera, but they still get benefits from it! Certainly, books that advocate DNG tend to be written by people who use Canon or Nikon.

 

[geoffcole]

While it might be the right way to do things as you assert, from a
pragmatic standpoint Adobe is the only organisation that have taken
the lead on this and done something positive rather than trying to
stop the tide and protect their turf.

Lets be honest here...it is most def in Adobe's interest to promote
this. And it may reduce costs for supporting makers native RAW
formats in their own software...great..but it is partly self
motivated.

I don't have any problem with that; every other company is the same.

[...snip...]

At
that point mainstream users will have to decide between DNG or the
camera makers proprietary un-published formats -- and since Adobe
is the only one offering an open, royalty-free licence to use the
DNG specification, I know which I'd use: DNG.

Well that is up to you, it is a free choice. But make no mistake
that Adobe are getting something out of it. If DNG is the dominant
format in the future..who has the most comprehensive software to
take advantage of it? No shocker here...Adobe.

Have adobe offered to release it to a neutral party? No the have
not. Will they..probably not. Does it matter..maybe it doesnt...but
maybe just a small maybe it could matter down the road. Better safe
than sorry.

'Better safe than sorry' only works if there is an alternative -- and discounting camera manufacturers proprietary formats which IMO is a far worse choice, there isn't any alternative with the same or greater level of maturity and industry acceptance. As far as I'm concerned, the OpenRaw lobbyists are pushing up a dead-end alley -- asking makers to publish their proprietary raw-file specifications rather than putting effort into suggesting improvements to or defining alternative(s) to DNG.

[...snip...]

In the same way as Microsoft is pushing its Office Open XML...(and
saying it will support open document)..it is preferable to me
anyhow to prefer the opendoc idea....same for DNG..

Personally I've got grave doubts about anything M$oft has a hand in. Their history is among the worst I've seen where they only 'open' things up when they're compelled to by court order, and even then they've had a history of trying to twist out of their obligations. The leopard doesn't change its spots...

 

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
[snip]

It would be nice if Barry Pearson made a bit of web space to push
for what many want..a non commercialy controlled format...ie say it
should be released to a 3rd party..rather than telling us how great
DNG is...and the spindoctor stuff.....

[snip]

You haven't provided evidence that it would be good for us if Adobe did so. I don't know of another company or organisation that could be trusted with it, either to keep it open or to be able to evolve it effectively. (Adobe acted while the rest didn't).

If you publish an argument in a suitable place, (not just as responses in forums), I'll link to it. But ....

A problem you will face attempting to develop the argument is that other potential companies, organisations, consortia, etc, are tainted where raw files are concerned. Camera manufacturers and some major raw converter suppliers like Bibble and Capture One were part of the problem, and mostly still are. ISO has a standard raw file format, drafted in 1998, accepted in 2001, to be reviewed in 2006, so is too slow.

Who else ...?

 

[Dave Oddie]

The argument that it's just another proprietary raw format is
spurious; proprietary to who? Adobe?

Of course it is proprietary to Adobe. If it is not propriety what is it? It certainly isn't an open standard as is for example the ODF format used by Open Office.

DNG belongs to adobe and is therefore proprietary to Adobe by definition.

The same (false) argument
could be applied to the whole TIFF family rather just DNG, but in
the case of TIFF I don't see many people coming out with the same
nonsense conspiracy theories. With TIFF Adobe has demonstrated its
intentions by its behaviour over the years, and I see no reason to
doubt their openness about DNG either.

Just because TIFF has been bastardised over the years does not some how make DNG a non-propriety format.

Also saying DNG is propriety is not a conspiracy theory, it is simply stating an obvious fact.

Dave

 

[John Bean (UK)]

The argument that it's just another proprietary raw format is
spurious; proprietary to who? Adobe?

Of course it is proprietary to Adobe. If it is not propriety what
is it? It certainly isn't an open standard as is for example the
ODF format used by Open Office.

"Proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises private ownership, control or use over an item of property, usually to the exclusion of other parties. " quote from The Free Dictionary.

My use of "proprietary" was in the sense quoted, that is that it is private, to the exclusion of others. This isn't the case with DNG, in fact quite the reverse.

--
John Bean

PAW Week 41:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/102365782/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

 

[Dave Oddie]

The argument that it's just another proprietary raw format is
spurious; proprietary to who? Adobe?

Of course it is proprietary to Adobe. If it is not propriety what
is it? It certainly isn't an open standard as is for example the
ODF format used by Open Office.

"Proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises
private ownership, control or use over an item of property, usually
to the exclusion of other parties. " quote from The Free Dictionary.

My use of "proprietary" was in the sense quoted, that is that it is
private, to the exclusion of others. This isn't the case with DNG,
in fact quite the reverse.

Well funnilly enough I looked up the word at dictionary.com before posting.

The first definition is this:

1. belonging to a proprietor.

DNG belongs to a proprietor (Adobe). It is therefore propriety.

Q.E.D.

Dave

--
John Bean

PAW Week 41:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/102365782/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Q.E.D.

Whatever makes you happy Dave. I know what I meant and I explained it using a dictionary reference.

Play all the word games you want, I'll leave you to them since they prove absolutely nothing - I guess your "QED" was "quod ego dico" rather than the more usual "quod erat demonstrandum".

--
John Bean

PAW Week 41:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/102365782/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

 

[Godfrey]

You are correct on this Godrey. However, it would have only taken
a couple of lines of code to enable ACR 3 to load into CS without
enabling the relevant features. Microsoft said IE was imbedded in
the Windows operating system until, with enough complaints,
suddenly it wasn't.

Maybe, maybe not. I know a bit about the Adobe development process (I worked with them, and with the Microsoft folks, for several years) but not enough to make that judgement. It may have taken far more effort than you think. Adobe and Microsoft's product development teams are organized in almost totally different ways, the division between OS development and application development at MS is quite different from how Adobe's products are organized.

DNG is not some ridiculous conspiracy to lock people into Adobe
products. It's an attempt by the market leader in image processing
software to define a standard RAW format as standard which will
ease working with RAW data for their customers.

If that is their real intention then why don't Adobe release the
source code to the open source community, as people have asked for.
This would go a very long way to establishing their stated goal.
Kudos to Adobe, it releases them from any further development
costs; absolutely no disadvantages for them - except perhaps their
future business plans for DNG and related future developments,
which only Adobe know about.

I don't agree with that at all. Having been there through Apple's Open Source efforts with Darwin, I will tell you that Open Source is a (legally) very complex way to go. I don't think it guarantees success at all, and it is certainly not cost free.

I cannot think of one thing that Open Source has made a standard. Can you? What makes things a standard is an standards body accreditation, like ISO or IEEE (eg: look at the ISO sensitivity rating standards, 802.11 protocol family, 1394 hardware interface specifications, etc.)

Godfrey

 

[Dave Oddie]

The argument that it's just another proprietary raw format is
spurious; proprietary to who? Adobe?

Of course it is proprietary to Adobe. If it is not propriety what
is it? It certainly isn't an open standard as is for example the
ODF format used by Open Office.

"Proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises
private ownership, control or use over an item of property, usually
to the exclusion of other parties. " quote from The Free Dictionary.

My use of "proprietary" was in the sense quoted, that is that it is
private, to the exclusion of others. This isn't the case with DNG,
in fact quite the reverse.

A further thought on this. You are cherry picking the bit from the above definition.

The bit that says:

"Proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises
private ownership, control or use over an item of property, "

Is obviously true as far as DNG goes because Adobe does exercises
private ownership, does control it and does decide who gets to use it.

The next part that says:

"usually to the exclusion of other parties. "

Does not imply that if other parties are not excluded from its USE then it is not propriety. Note the word usually.

Abobe has complete control over DNG inclding its use.

Dave

 

[Dave Oddie]

Q.E.D.

Whatever makes you happy Dave.

You obviously know. Given the context and your comment below.

I know what I meant and I

explained it using a dictionary reference.

So did I and as in my other post even your use of the dictionary reference does not stand up to scrutiny.

Play all the word games you want, I'll leave you to them since they
prove absolutely nothing

Well I can't see how you have proved or argued the contrary. DNG is propriety - isn't it !!

? - I guess your "QED" was "quod ego dico"

rather than the more usual "quod erat demonstrandum".

If you are arguing the naunces of whether something is proprietary or not you need to be precise.

No point getting in a huff about it.

Dave

 

[Barry Pearson]

Dave Oddie wrote:
[snip]

It certainly isn't an open standard as is for example the
ODF format used by Open Office.

[snip]

It is an open specification by some definitions. For example:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=20055362

This is an authoritative view:
"Open Standards - Principles and Practice" (Bruce Perens)
http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html

This identifies 6 principles (see link):
1. Availability
2. Maximize End-User Choice
3. No Royalty
4. No Discrimination
5. Extension or Subset
6. Predatory Practices

Whether DNG is yet a standard, specifically a de facto standard, is a matter of debate. But this thread is about whether it is open, not whether it is also a standard.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

It would be nice if Barry Pearson made a bit of web space to push
for what many want..a non commercialy controlled format...ie say it
should be released to a 3rd party..rather than telling us how great
DNG is...and the spindoctor stuff.....

[snip]

You haven't provided evidence that it would be good for us if Adobe
did so. I don't know of another company or organisation that could
be trusted with it, either to keep it open or to be able to evolve
it effectively. (Adobe acted while the rest didn't).

What more do you need? Surely people will be more comfortable with a neutral party heading things..do you not think?

If you publish an argument in a suitable place, (not just as
responses in forums), I'll link to it. But ....

A problem you will face attempting to develop the argument is that
other potential companies, organisations, consortia, etc, are
tainted where raw files are concerned. Camera manufacturers and
some major raw converter suppliers like Bibble and Capture One were
part of the problem, and mostly still are. ISO has a standard raw
file format, drafted in 1998, accepted in 2001, to be reviewed in
2006, so is too slow.

Who else ...?

--

 

[jeffkrol]

funny you mentioned that, Just wrote to ISO (Actually ANSI as member) regarding this issue. lot of good that will do. Now too slow for whom...
I'll wait thank you. You had better arguements before......
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Dave Oddie wrote:
[snip]

Abobe has complete control over DNG inclding its use.

Not any more. They haven't much clue who is using it. That is because they published a world-wide royalty-free license enabling anyone to use it, and they don't even require notification. (One Adobe page linked to my relevant pages, because my information was more up to date than their's!)

They control much of its specification. (Since DNG exploits 6 or more standards owned by other organisations, and in fact is based on an ISO standard, it can't be considered to be a wholly-owned specification). They own the copyright to the specification, and the trademark.

But DNG is now out in the open and running free!