Canon Digital Rebel XT, RAW files, and Photoshop

Alan Browne wrote:

I have nothing against DNG, I have the converter, but for the time being
I do not see any need or advantage to using it at all.

Well, then there's no reason for you to use it. But, DNG is the only way
I can get my camera's raw files into Photoshop CS, so I, for one, am a
few hundred dollars thankful that it exists.

Sure, I'll upgrade. But DNG makes it so I don't need to immediately.

It also cuts the size of my raw files in half, with lossless compression,
so that's pretty nice too. And once I do upgrade, CS will save the
Camera Raw settings right in the DNG file itself, which is a nice thing
as well.

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
G.T. wrote:

Standardized formats end up being supported on far more hardware/OS/software
combos than propietary formats. I have much more confidence that I will
easily be able to find an app that will read DNG files in 20 years than one
that the reads the RAW files of my Rebel XT. I sincerely hope that camera
manufacturers adopt a standard format whether it be DNG or not.

I don't agree with the notion that my MRW's (RAW) won't be readable in
20 or 40 or 100 years.

This is one of the reasons for Dave Coffey's "dcraw" program's
existence. While even Windows machines may not be in use by then, at
least something capable of running a C compiler should still be around,
and the algorithms are documented in the C code. (The minor fact that
it gives unix boxen the ability to convert RAW files is a nice benefit
to people like me.)

However, I just did a test of 22 files in a directory. The DNG's are
26% to 41% (33% avg) smaller than the K-M RAW files. So, I'll be giving
this a re-think respecting backup/archive logistics.

Hmm ... something to consider, indeed. Perhaps I should see
what happens to the .NEF files from the D70.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
G.T. wrote:

Standardized formats end up being supported on far more hardware/OS/software
combos than propietary formats. I have much more confidence that I will
easily be able to find an app that will read DNG files in 20 years than one
that the reads the RAW files of my Rebel XT. I sincerely hope that camera
manufacturers adopt a standard format whether it be DNG or not.

I don't agree with the notion that my MRW's (RAW) won't be readable in
20 or 40 or 100 years.

This is one of the reasons for Dave Coffey's "dcraw" program's
existence. While even Windows machines may not be in use by then, at
least something capable of running a C compiler should still be around,
and the algorithms are documented in the C code. (The minor fact that
it gives unix boxen the ability to convert RAW files is a nice benefit
to people like me.)

I'm pretty sure that the state of the art for Bayer reconstruction, etc.,
will have progressed way beyond what we have today by that time. That
means that using a program with an embedded raw converter, such as dcraw,
will be less attractive.

What we need isn't an open source raw converter - it's an open source
converter from proprietary raw file formats to a publicly documented
raw format. At present DNG looks pretty good for the format, although
the only available converter at present isn't open source, and only
runs on Windows and Mac platforms.

I suppose I should set up a sourceforge project - there's plenty of
pretty good documentation of most of the proprietary raw formats
available if you look hard enough.

[A few minutes later] OK - I've done that. More details later.

McLeod wrote:
[snip]
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Adobe Camera Raw
fully supports NEF. What do I have to do to convince you of this?
It's you who seems to be baffled.
[snip]

Except that ACR 3.1 doesn't decrypt the "as shot" white balance of the
D2X, of course! For reasons stated here at length.

It is worth reading the whole original thread (URL below), to put what
Nikon are doing into perspective. Most camera manufacturers are less
than satisfactory, but Nikon crossed an important line. (I believe
Canon do not encrypt important stuff, while Sony gave Adobe permission
to decrypt. Nikon didn't). It was an attempt to coerce Nikon users to
buy software that they may not want.

http://tinyurl.com/az7pc

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

McLeod wrote:
On 22 May 2005 07:02:00 -0700, "Barry Pearson"
wrote:
[snip]
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? (I have already posted
that URL in reply to one of your posts).

I am disagreeing with you. I was pointing out that Canon also
encrypts and compresses their raw files and to read the XT files with
camera raw you also have to either convert to DNG or buy the
upgrade...exactly the same thing you have to do to use the new NEF.

"Compresses" is irrelevant. It has no DMCA implications. Thomas Knoll
said in that thread that Canon were not encrypting important stuff in
the same way as Nikon. But, even if they were, then BOTH Canon and
Nikon would be at fault. Nikon are no less at fault if another
manufacturer is also at fault.

The need to use DNG or to upgrade is nothing whatsoever to do with the
encryption issue. It would even apply if the camera manufacturers
didn't encrypt, and openly published their formats. It is to do with
the fact that processing the cameras' Raw files requires
camera-specific information that ACR 2.x doesn't have for certain
cameras. DNG is "self contained", and that information is held within
each file. That is why it promises to be a better archival format. ACR
3.1 knows that information. The 3.1 DNG Converter also knows it, and
puts it into the DNG. ACR 2.x then gets it from the DNG, without
needing separate knowledge of it.

Apparently, despite Thomas Knoll's rant, it only took Adobe about two
weeks to decode the "encryption" since they were provided with the
software developer kit from Nikon.

The SDK is irrelevant. It doesn't give access to all the sensor data,
so doesn't enable ACR to be a proper Raw processor. Using SDKs is
anyway the wrong way to go. Here is an article about the problems of
SDKs and other things, from the point of view of someone writing a
package (IMatch) that handles Raw files from lots of cameras:

http://www.openraw.org/comments/?id=1

That article suggests that the camera manufacturers actually can't
comprehend the problems they are causing. Perhaps they are so narrowly
focused on supporting their next camera for a few years per
photographer, that they haven't considered the long term, or
photographers who use more than one make and want a consistent
workflow, or packages that hold photographs from many photographers and
many cameras.

My understanding is that, while Adobe knows how to decrypt the Nikon
WB, they don't do so, because Nikon haven't assured Adobe that they
won't sue under DMCA.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Paul Furman wrote:
McLeod wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:34:28 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

No, they merely need to let the spec (that they've already written)

out and not encrypt the data. Then Adobe will hapilly add the
plugin to the PS software.

They did. That was the software developer kit. And Adobe has.
You are repeating an urban legend over and over and can't seem
to shake it.

Oh, so CS2 uses Nikon's free 'plugin' and still retains the ACR
interface? I had not heard that.

I can't see the smiley there, even though I'm sure it is there!

Adobe don't use either the Nikon SDK or the Nikon plug-in, of course.
The SDK would prevent ACR's own Raw processing, while the plug-in would
restrict the processing interface.

If we focus on what we, as photographers want, instead of acting as
apologists for camera manufacturers:

- in the short term we want publication of Raw formats so that the Raw
processors of our choice can do what we want, and so that asset
management packages can hold our photographs;

- and in the medium term we want cameras to output DNG, (or another
openly published, free to use, common Raw format), either as an option
or as their normal Raw format.

(But developing an alternative to DNG at this stage would need a better
reason than "not invented here"! And I doubt if that reason exists).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[snip]
However, I just did a test of 22 files in a directory. The DNG's
are
26% to 41% (33% avg) smaller than the K-M RAW files. So, I'll be
giving
this a re-think respecting backup/archive logistics.

Watch out for lost EXIF data though.
: - (

Yes, that is a problem. My experience is that the DNG Converter handles
all the EXIF stuff in the same way that ACR does. For example, for my
camera, I believe both ACR and the DNG Converter don't copy across the
lens model. (Just the focal length). This appears to mean that anyone
who is happy with ACR should also be happy with DNG.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Alan Browne wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:

snip
I do NOT want Adobe putting development effort into releases that I
will never use because I have upgraded from them! (Because of the
considerable enhancements in ACR 3.x compared with ACR 2.x,
including
the plug-in interface, it would take extra effort to back-fit
support
for the new cameras).

Fine for you, but a not-upgraded CS owner would of course not agree.
And if Adobe did upgrade it (hardly rocket science) it wouldn't hurt
you
in the least.
[snip]

I worked for many years on a large complex software product, and
maintaining and supporting changes to old versions DID hurt those on
the latest versions. Development and support effort is always limited.
And it can be galling to fix problems in old versions that have already
been fixed in the latest version!

I understand the frustration of those who want to stay on older
versions. We used to withdraw support except for the last 2 versions.
That appears to be 1 more than Adobe - but people paid a lot more for
our product (a mainframe operating system) than they do for Photoshop!

And, as has been said many times here, there is a way out! It is
pushing things to say "I want new cameras supported in my old vesion,
but don't tell me the answer is DNG".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

McLeod wrote:

No, only pointing out that most of the camera manufacturers do it.
According to the article and interview by dpreview of Dave Coffin of
dcraw Canon also encrypts and compresses their raw files and it seems
to change with every new camera they release as well. For some reason
Nikon has become the focal point of hostility, the only reason being
that Thomas Knoll singled them out on the internet and found enough
gullible people to buy into it.

If you read the article again you'll find that most do not encrypt.

What has spooked people is that Nikon have begun encrypting something
they never encrypted before.

So, please tell me what the logic is in that? They allow qualified
developers to have access to the algo, so they're not hiding any IP.

It is simply a stick in the photographers wheels. The image belongs to
you, not Nikon.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

McLeod wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:25:28 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


DCRaw is free. But they "broke the code" which is something Adobe seem
reluctant to do as it might open them up for a lawsuit.


Adobe Camera Raw fully supports the new NEF including the "encrypted"
white balance as I pointed out at the start of the discussion. You
bought into an internet myth and can't seem to let it go.

No, I simply cannot accept that Nikon (or others) would feel the need to
encrypt anything in the data output. It is unnecessary, so why do they
do it? Please answer that question alone.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.