If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Ok, then, "OpenRAW has no point if the file formats can be cracked easily". You admit the file formats can be cracked easily, therefore ... Since it is all but impossible to encrypt the data in the first place, there is no need to do so. Again, that is something for the manufacturers to decide. (Personally, I agree with you and likely the guy who wrote the firmware for the D70, D2x, etc is also in violent agreement. It's the dingbats in marketing, etc, who are ignorant.) Or I suppose the OEM's could begin keying the encryption on a case by case basis. Yeah, uh huh. As you know, it wouldn't matter. www.google.com: softice debugger (and so forth). Nikon can also change their lens mount. What are you going to do, sue them? After OpenRAW has passed their legislation mandating The File Format, is the next step to mandate interoperable optics? A good point that misses the point. Nikon have made big marketing hooey over backward comaptible lens mounts. So in revenge they're making part of their files unreadable? Yeah, okay. People will buy that. Sure. Nikon is free to make fools of themselves in the market. Who are we to complain? You consented to it by pressing the shutter button. Nobody considers this when they maintain Nikon lens collections or purcahse a Nikon camera. Or other OEM's for that matter. We all make mistakes. Sometimes big ones. End of thread for me. Hasta luego! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
infrastructures from roadways to airways. If we were to design "World 2.0" do you think we would have LA, Mexico and Cairo (to name very few). oops. Meant "Mexico City". -- -- 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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:33:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: Owamanga wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml Chicken liken twaddle. Open RAW is best for everyone in the long term. There's no excuse for any data in the image created by the camera you own to be obfuscated or encrypted. With that I agree, my complaint is with stupidity such as this: "What happens when your new Quatum Cube based computer no longer can read CDs, or DVDs, or its operating system can't deal with something as old and arcane as Windows XP or Mac OSX? Far fetched you say? We'll, how many of you have a stack of 3.5" floppies somewhere in your desk drawer, and when was the last time you had a floppy disk drive attached to your computer? Still do you say? OK. How about 5.25" floppies? Bet you don't have one of these sitting around anymore, except maybe moldering away in the basement somewhere." Now tell me Alan, how does Open RAW suddenly enable a 3.5" floppy disk to fit into a DVD drive? The article overall, is garbage. "What happens if you've lost your software disk? What happens if you change computers and can't find the CD any longer? What happens if the Megaflex Company (the makers of your camera) goes out of business, and no longer has a copy of the software on their web site for you to download?" "What happens if we run out of electricity? What happens if your dog goes crazy and sucks out your eyeballs one night? What happens if the CEO of Fox Television decides to kill all our children? What happens if Michael Jackson turns out to be a girl?" (Competition: which piece did I make up?) Honestly, they have gone way over the top. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I have had to help computer users who changed computers and suddenly
couldn't open their old files any more. It isn't pretty. Those who pooh-pooh these kinds of problems have probably never had to deal with them. Or maybe the whole concept of planning for the long term is alien to some people. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Backward compatibilty is not compromised by forward progress where data formats are concerned. Then you must agree that OpenRAW is without a legitimate function. What's good for the goose, etc. I don't follow that one. Hey, you made the claim. If your statement is true, then the camera makers are free to invent whatever new file formats they like ("forward progress") since "backward compatibility is not compromised". And with such freedom, what is OpenRAW's purpose? What makes sense is that what gets recorded onto the memory card is the property of the photographer or employer, not the camera OEM. Sounds like you need an IP attorney, not an OpenRAW standard. As I said, this will in many instances necessarily reveal trade secrets or other facets of the technology that the manufacturers would likely be unwilling to disclose. And if part of the OpenRAW is the signing of an NDA, then can we honestly call it "open"? Since these trade secrets have a half life in the wild of about 3 days, they are no more useful to the OEM's than encryption has been for the DVD producers. NDA's don't protect anything of this nature. Yes, yes, the manufacturers can make idiots of themselves. Why are you so concerned about this? "Trade Secret"? Why hasn't the dcraw author been sued into homelessness? He hasn't published anything particularly sensitive yet? But even if he did, trade secrets, in the absence of a contract, have basically no legal protections at all. If he can do it, the folks at competing OEM's can do it just as quick. Reverse engineering is an honoured tradition. What better compliment can you offer the manufacturer? If some djinn were to remove the need to work against the crazy POTS nonsense, many communications engineers would be profoundly thankful. But that's not engineering. Of course it is. There are many situations, particularly in software, where one invents brand new stuff all the time. No legacy constraints. It is a most refreshing experience. The same could be said about many infrastructures from roadways to airways. Your point? If we were to design "World 2.0" do you think we would have LA, Mexico and Cairo (to name very few). I honestly couldn't say. And really, is this relevant? Indeed, they must be: look at where all the innovation is occuring today telephony. I can cite similar software and hardware examples. _NO ONE_ likes to deal with legacy systems. If it is economically sensible to do so, it is done. That is engineering in large part. "Like" has little to with it. "Like" has everything to do with it, since if nobody likes it, it won't get done. More importantly, though, if physical reality says "no", it doesn't matter what you think. This backward compatibilty 'tax' is far cheaper than "ripping the entire mess out of the ground..." You are forgetting or ignoring the cost of innovations that are simply unimplementable within the legacy framework. It is for this and other reasons that the sensible person does not want camera manufacturers constrained by some Adobe or OpenRAW or otherwise committee drafted multi-volume 2356 page standard written in dense legalese. See above, World 2.0. Ok, then, send Canon a check to cover their costs of abiding by the Official OpenRAW Standard, or to make up for lost revenue to products or services which they would like to produce, but which can not fit into this standard. If that's so, why are they all committe members, participants and signatories to various other standards? Oh, I could rant about this at some length. But why should I entertain your distractions? Feel free to have the last word ... this is it for me. Thanks! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ryadia@Home wrote:
RichA wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml I'll offer a more realistic, less dramatic scenario. You shoot RAW as most do. Then you convert that RAW data - because that's all it is at that time - to an image format. In the case of a Canon the best choice is TIFF but there are others. [snip] But you still need to keep the Raw files, in case you want to process it differently in the years to come. (Which may be a matter of your own skills, or a matter of better Raw-processing software, or both). Then the problems identified in "The Raw Flaw" arise. Will you still be able to process it again later? I'm finding that I am gradually spending a higher proportion of my time at the Raw processing stage, and less at the photo-editing stage. I believe I am getting higher quality pictures as a result. [snip] Bloody sensationalist bull **** is all that comes out of that site. Ar first, that site didn't go far enough. They simply wanted publication of proprietary Raw formats. But, of course, proliferation of Raw formats is an unacceptable situation to live with, even if they are published. Now the site is starting to recognise the importance of a common Raw format, such as DNG. My view is that the original objective of the site, publication of proprietary formats, is a stop-gap until we get proper support for a common Raw format. I've been using DNG for over 7 months, but I would still like to get access to the Makernote in the original Raw format. The 3.1 DNG Converter now preserves the Makernote for my camera in the DNG file, I'm told, but can't do anything with it. Perhaps, if it were published, I may be able to make use of it. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Owamanga wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:33:51 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: Owamanga wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml Chicken liken twaddle. Open RAW is best for everyone in the long term. There's no excuse for any data in the image created by the camera you own to be obfuscated or encrypted. With that I agree, my complaint is with stupidity such as this: "What happens when your new Quatum Cube based computer no longer can read CDs, or DVDs, or its operating system can't deal with something as old and arcane as Windows XP or Mac OSX? Far fetched you say? We'll, how many of you have a stack of 3.5" floppies somewhere in your desk drawer, and when was the last time you had a floppy disk drive attached to your computer? Still do you say? Yep. Even test it every 6 mo. or so. I have floppies, but the data has long since been migrated via Zip and CD-ROM. My PGP private keys are backed up on floppy as well, but I suppose a CD-ROM transition wouldn't be a bad idea. OK. How about 5.25" floppies? Bet you don't have one of these sitting around anymore, except maybe moldering away in the basement somewhere." Trashed. Now tell me Alan, how does Open RAW suddenly enable a 3.5" floppy disk to fit into a DVD drive? Irrelevant to the RAW issue. I have backups from early 80's 5.25" floppies ... on CD-ROM. As the storage technology has moved forward, so has my backup set as we do tend to have the recent and newest storage devices in our system at the same time. Sounds like a pain, but as none of the media to data have proven able to backup for more than about 5 years, the updating of Now I'm in the unhurried process of moving backups to DVD. After DVD there will be something else. In between I've used 3.5" as backup and Zip. So I will, in time, have DVD backups with 1980's COSMAC 1802, Motorola 6800 and other micro assembler code, FORTRAN (IV, WATFOR, 77), PASCAL, Modula, Ada and others on them to entertain me in my old age... For my Maxxum 7D, I've been backing up the camera RAW, and I have little doubt that it will be decodable in 100 years under "Microtosh WindOSnix FarFetched Episode Seven Patch 19, for 8192 bit processors on n-web-processor-distributed threads, Release 12.98.34", should anyone choose to do so. Won't be me barring miracles. Hence my big yawn over DNG ... until I discovered the other day in an actual experiment with real files that DNG takes 26 to 41% less space than .MRW. So I'm mulling the transition to DNG solely to reduce the DVD count by 1 for every 3 or 4 DVD's. I haven't committed to the decision yet. But prior to that, my DNG 'objection' was: when the OEM's adopt it, I'll adopt it. 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
"Ryadia@Home" wrote: RichA wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml I'll offer a more realistic, less dramatic scenario. You shoot RAW as most do. Then you convert that RAW data - because that's all it is at that time - to an image format. In the case of a Canon the best choice is TIFF but there are others. Now you have an editable "image" file with all the detail of the original image in it and capable of being processed further in just about any image editor know to man at this time. No, you don't. The only way a TIFF can carry all of the original RAW data is if the TIFF has the RAW values, non-demosaiced, non-white-balanced, and the black pixels as well, at their original values, or multiplied by an integer. Bloody sensationalist bull **** is all that comes out of that site. Douglas -- John P Sheehy |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
[snip] Ok, then, send Canon a check to cover their costs of abiding by the Official OpenRAW Standard, or to make up for lost revenue to products or services which they would like to produce, but which can not fit into this standard. [snip] The cost of abiding by a common Raw format would probably be small. There would probably be a start-up cost - "climbing the learning curve". (If I were a manager in a camera-making company, I would prefer to manage the second camera in the company to use it, not the first!) After that, it would probably be cheaper. There might be cost-savings such as common bits of firmware that could be bought, re-used, etc. And savings in learning about the format. There has been a lot of "wheel re-inventing" up to now, with must surely add to cost, and perhaps reduce quality. No camera launched in the last year and a half would have needed a change to a well-engineered common Raw format. The vast majority of changes, such as more pixels, greater bit depth, etc, don't need changes. So there may not be any such products and services that they couldn't produce. The one restriction that camera manufacturers would face is that they could not then use encryption to coerce their customers to buy their software. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon A510 question about file type & sise | Gene | Digital Photography | 6 | March 16th 05 06:39 PM |
Digital Photo Image File Renaming | Vladimir Veytsel | Digital Photography | 0 | February 5th 05 11:30 PM |
Digital Photo Image File Renaming | Vladimir Veytsel | Digital Photography | 0 | January 9th 05 07:30 PM |
File size saving for web | paul | Digital Photography | 0 | January 7th 05 12:12 AM |
Question about RAW file and image size | Anynomus | Digital Photography | 9 | November 7th 04 10:51 PM |