 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / September 2007ACR 4.2 Released!
I haven't seen this mentioned online anywhere, but Adobe has now released version 4.2 of Adobe Camera RAW. This update from ACR 4.1 includes support for the new Canon 40D as well as the following inferior cameras and digital backs: Fuji FinePix IS-1 Leaf Aptus 17 Leaf Aptus 54s Leaf Aptus 75s Olympus EVOLT E-510 Panasonic DMC-FZ18 Pentax K100D Super Phase One P 20 + Phase One P 21 + Phase One P 25 + Phase One P 30 + Phase One P 45 + Sony A700 The software can be downloaded from the Adobe website here: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html > I haven't seen this mentioned online anywhere, but Adobe has now > released version 4.2 of Adobe Camera RAW. This update from ACR 4.1 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The software can be downloaded from the Adobe website here: > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html Had it now for a few days what you have said, its only includes support for more cameras - no other changes that I'm aware. If you leave the auto updates on it comes through. >> I haven't seen this mentioned online anywhere, but Adobe has now >> released version 4.2 of Adobe Camera RAW. This update from ACR 4.1 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If you leave the auto updates on it comes through. it does have a minor tweak where it is not as aggressive in noise reduction straight out >> I haven't seen this mentioned online anywhere, but Adobe has now >> released version 4.2 of Adobe Camera RAW. This update from ACR 4.1 >> includes support for the new Canon 40D <SNIP> >> The software can be downloaded from the Adobe website here: >> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html > > Had it now for a few days what you have said, its only includes support > for more cameras - no other changes that I'm aware. As I understand it, ACR and LR use the same code, and thus ACR 4.2 should also have the following change that appeared moving from LR 1.1 to LR 1.2. LR 1.2 corrects a major problem in the demosaicing routines for at least Canon cameras. The noise reduction level _in demosaicing_ (and thus not user settable) was set way too high, messing up detail in (again, at least) Canon images. The report on the LR forums is that NR is still higher than in LR 1.0, but the experience here is that some 5D ISO 800 images that I was having nasty time sharpening now sharpen up nicely. > If you leave the auto updates on it comes through. Yep. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > annika1...@aol.com wrote: > > I haven't seen this mentioned online anywhere, but Adobe has now [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > If you leave the auto updates on it comes through. Rita is going to have a ball with this one! You don't need updates switched off, it's true. Provided you also don't mind some Adobe program you have installed, interrupting your editing... Or, you have a pirate copy of CS3! I'll be upfront here and say I have no idea if Bret actually shelled out the bucks for CS3 but... According to the man himself, he runs a pirate copy so not only would he have upgrades switched off but he'd have them disabled too! Anyone want to place a bet that a new version of Photoshop is close to release... Coinciding with the CMOS Nikon about to take the world by storm (maybe in a teacup)! Doug >> If you leave the auto updates on it comes through. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pirate copy so not only would he have upgrades switched off but he'd > have them disabled too! LOL! No, I'm not going to urinate on Bret's parade since this is the only way he is able to get free "bokeh" to compensate for lens deficiencies. His thievery will go full circle and bite him in the a.s one day. I just hope he put the savings towards a real camera. Rita On Sep 18, 6:12 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > >> If you leave the auto updates on it comes through. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Rita "His thievery will go full circle and bite him in the a.s one day." Rita........let it go. "I just hope he put the savings towards a real camera." It takes a REAL photographer to get the results he does. The camera is only secondary. BTW: While we're on the subject, I happen to know something about........ah, I'll let him tell ya. ;) Helen >> LOL! No, I'm not going to urinate on Bret's parade since this is >> the only way he is able to get free "bokeh" to compensate for lens [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rita........let it go. Let what go? My copy of CS3 is paid for. > "I just hope he put the savings towards a real camera." > > It takes a REAL photographer to get the results he does. The camera > is only secondary. Yep, and once he gets a real camera and learns how to use it he will be spending less time in Photoshop. > BTW: While we're on the subject, I happen to know something > about........ah, I'll let him tell ya. ;) It will be nice to finally see Bret get some decent gear. Rita On Sep 18, 5:53 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > Rita........let it go. > > Let what go? My copy of CS3 is paid for. Bullshit. You are a thief and a child molester. There, I said it so it must be so. So I guess it is now up to you to prove that you don't have a pirated copy of CS3. I think I'll just keep calling you a thief and a child molester until you prove you aren't. >>> Rita........let it go. >> >> Let what go? My copy of CS3 is paid for. > > Bullshit. You are a thief and a child molester. > There, I said it so it must be so. Hey, you were the one publicly bragging about using a "fixed" copy of CS3, not me. > So I guess it is now up to you to prove that you don't have a pirated > copy of CS3. I did. It is registered with Adobe. > I think I'll just keep calling you a thief and a child molester until > you prove you aren't. Have fun since I know it isn't true and it doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it is hilarious that you care so much about me. Rita >> I think I'll just keep calling you a thief and a child molester until >> you prove you aren't. > > Have fun since I know it isn't true and it doesn't bother me. In fact, I > think it is hilarious that you care so much about me. He'd have that knowledge if you abducted him and then molested him. Can you prove that you've never been near Bret? Would he be able to pick you out from a lineup? Does he or do you have any unusual physical characteristics that could be used to buttress <cough> <cough> further accusations or allegations? Was D_Mac involved, or does he have a convenient alibi? Have there been any recurring nightmares featuring Spike? On Sep 18, 6:12 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > LOL! No, I'm not going to urinate on Bret's parade since this is the only > way he is able to get free "bokeh" to compensate for lens deficiencies. His > thievery will go full circle and bite him in the a.s one day. I just hope > he put the savings towards a real camera. > > Rita Dude, you are just pissed cause you spent big money on Photoshop and an expensive new camera, and you still can't post a decent pic that you've taken. And where is that "Smooth Bokeh" filter in CS3 anyway? My copy didn't come with that. Oh well, you get what you pay for, right sweetie? >> LOL! No, I'm not going to urinate on Bret's parade since this is >> the only way he is able to get free "bokeh" to compensate for lens [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My copy didn't come with that. Oh well, you get what you pay for, > right sweetie? LOL! On the contrary, I'm as happy as a blue tick on a Rhodesian ridgeback. The pics I post far exceed the requirement for the targeted audience. Now stop wasting valuable time in Photoshop trying to emulate something you'll never have, decent glass and the skill to use them. Rita On Sep 18, 5:54 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > Now stop wasting valuable time in Photoshop trying to emulate something you'll > never have, decent glass and the skill to use them. > > Rita If it were possible to do what you say I do then why would any fool spend more than a couple hundred bucks on any lens? I think you just called yourself a dumbass.... saving me the trouble. Hey, I wonder if Samsung wants to buy my Bokeh-Smoother Algorithm? >> Now stop wasting valuable time in Photoshop trying to emulate something you'll >>never have, decent glass and the skill to use them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hey, I wonder if Samsung wants to buy my Bokeh-Smoother Algorithm? Photoshop does have a Lens Blur filter btw... and you can even change the number of aperture blades! :-) But it takes a lot of work to clone & mask out the foreground and background to avoid weird halo effects.  SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > I'll be upfront here and say I have no idea if Bret actually shelled > out the bucks for CS3 ..... Exactly. So get off my a.s. Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> So, users of previous versions of CS now need to buy CS3 in order to use their (so called "new") camera RAW files with it? So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use DNG? Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? >I haven't seen this mentioned online anywhere, but Adobe has now > released version 4.2 of Adobe Camera RAW. This update from ACR 4.1 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The software can be downloaded from the Adobe website here: > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html > Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use DNG? > Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? There are other options. Hello Bret I'm guessing you have gone for a 40D? What do you think of it so far? >> Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use DNG? >> Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? > There are other options. > Hello Bret > > I'm guessing you have gone for a 40D? What do you think of it so far? I'm hoping he at least got the totally awesome 1D Mk III, but it would be really nice if he got on the wait list for the 1Ds Mk III. I'm scared to think he might have had a momentary lapse of reasoning and bought the totally crappy Mk II or 5D. Rita On Sep 18, 5:54 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > I'm hoping he at least got the totally awesome 1D Mk III, but it would be > really nice if he got on the wait list for the 1Ds Mk III. As a matter of fact, I am on a wait list for the 1Ds3. I'm waiting until I win the lottery. >> I'm hoping he at least got the totally awesome 1D Mk III, but it >> would be really nice if he got on the wait list for the 1Ds Mk III. > > As a matter of fact, I am on a wait list for the 1Ds3. > I'm waiting until I win the lottery. You need to cash that winning Powerball ticket in instead of holding on to it. Rita > >> I'm hoping he at least got the totally awesome 1D Mk III, but it > >> would be really nice if he got on the wait list for the 1Ds Mk III. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rita How bad is it when some dude claiming to be broke, wins a fuel guzzler but his ego won't let him part with it to pay for his habit? >From somewhere comes the money for all the taxes and stuff to get it home yet nowhere to be found is the cash for Photoshop. Down at the Advocacy service I contribute to, the credit councillors are told to warn people of the pitfalls of using credit cards to make mortgage payments. More importantly... They warn people about the pitfalls of re- financing house mortgages and spending the extra loan on projects unlikely to increase the value of the home or produce any additional income. Borrowing to buy cameras and stuff when you don't make any money from them and paying taxes to keep a fuel guzzler you could otherwise never afford are right in there with the chief elements driving the bankruptcy statistics through the roof... But each to their own, I guess... Says he as he packs to head home to Tangalooma for a few days of sand between the toes! Doug > > >> I'm hoping he at least got the totally awesome 1D Mk III, but it > > >> would be really nice if he got on the wait list for the 1Ds Mk III. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Doug "How bad is it when some dude claiming to be broke, wins a fuel guzzler but his ego won't let him part with it to pay for his habit?" Doug, you know absolutely nothing about the situation. Keeping that car was not up to him and him alone. It took many days of talking, reasoning and financial genious to finally decide on the right thing to do. "Borrowing to buy cameras and stuff when you don't make any money from them." Did he say he borrowed money? Did he say he was buying a camera? Helen On Sep 19, 10:52 am, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > >> I'm hoping he at least got the totally awesome 1D Mk III, but it > > > >> would be really nice if he got on the wait list for the 1Ds Mk III. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > reasoning and financial genious to finally decide on the right thing > to do. - Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text - You're wrong there lady... Anyone reading his bullshit from the past month or two could cut and paste the whole story. I'll do it if you like. Doug > You're wrong there lady... Anyone reading his bullshit from the past > month or two could cut and paste the whole story. I'll do it if you > like. No need. Here's the Reader's Digest version: I won a car. I decided to keep the car and will have to pay taxes on it. My wife and I agreed to refinance the house to pay the taxes and pay off a lot of CC debt. I wanted a new camera, but not as much as I wanted to get out of debt. I thought a lot about the difference between "want" and "need." Helen bought me a new camera. You are pissed. Did I miss anything? > On Sep 19, 10:52 am, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sep 18, 8:24 pm, D_Mac <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Doug Doug, anything you say to try to make me regret what I did for Bret won't work. It will not ruin the great feeling I have making Bret's dream come true. Instead of letting that green-eyed monster take over your soul, why not ask Margie for an early Christmas gift? Helen > Doug, anything you say to try to make me regret what I did for Bret > won't work. It will not ruin the great feeling I have making Bret's > dream come true. Instead of letting that green-eyed monster take over > your soul, why not ask Margie for an early Christmas gift? Helen, please don't feel you owe anyone an explanation. You did what you did for your own reasons and it really isn't anyone else's business. To be honest with you, I too felt like buying Bret a new camera since he seems to be one of the few people out here that enjoys photography enough to keep the theme of these groups alive. These groups should be fun and none of the bickering and antics should ever be taken seriously. I don't know Bret personally as you do, but I know I like Bret's photography and the way he plays with people in the groups. Who else can you give a hard time to and he will just laugh it off? Anyway, I'm glad you are a better person than any of us out here for being the one who cares enough about someone else to be so nice to them. Don't let negative people bring you down. Rita >> Doug, anything you say to try to make me regret what I did for Bret >> won't work. It will not ruin the great feeling I have making Bret's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to > be so nice to them. Don't let negative people bring you down. Yes. And there's no comparison between a car and a camera.....A camera is an artist's tool, and a car is just a car. (Unless you are a professional driver) I wouldn't compare one of my trumpets with any other piece of junk I've got....They are special possessions to me, like a brush to a painter, or a typewriter to a writer. They have a meaning that goes beyond their book value to the one who uses them. > >> Doug, anything you say to try to make me regret what I did for Bret > >> won't work. It will not ruin the great feeling I have making Bret's [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > or a typewriter to a writer. They have a meaning that goes beyond their book > value to the one who uses them. I agree with you Bill. Well said. Helen On Sep 19, 6:11 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Doug, anything you say to try to make me regret what I did for Bret [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Rita Thank you Rita. That was a very kind and generous thing to say. Helen > You did what you > did for your own reasons and it really isn't anyone else's business. Precisely. And PRECISELY because it isn't anyone else's business, can they keep their private life to themselves? Or at least not include aus.photo in it? Unless any of them plans to move over here, in which case they'll be given a nice reception. > These groups should be fun and none of the > bickering and antics should ever be taken seriously. Could have fooled anyone, with the constant bickering initiated by Bret and his groupies... On Sep 19, 6:11 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >To be > honest with you, I too felt like buying Bret a new camera since he seems to > be one of the few people out here that enjoys photography enough to keep the > theme of these groups alive. Oh sure, now you pipe up! Oh well, that 600 f/4L is still out there. I'll send ya my address. > Oh sure, now you pipe up! > Oh well, that 600 f/4L is still out there. I'll send ya my address. LOL! Hell, I wouldn't mind having one myself. Rita >> Oh sure, now you pipe up! >> Oh well, that 600 f/4L is still out there. I'll send ya my address. > > LOL! Hell, I wouldn't mind having one myself. Unnecessary. The anti-DSLR sock puppet trolls are aware of how much they can boost their cause by gaining Annika1980 as an ally. They're now pooling their pennies, and when they accumulate enough, a box containing a brand spanking new Oly SP-550UZ will be winging its way to Bret aboard a Fedex jet. It only boasts a 504mm focal length on the long end, but the superior image quality from its super 7mp 1/2.5" sensor should blow away anything he ever achieved with a Canon DSLR and L glass. . . . <and then I awakened from my dream> On Sep 18, 7:28 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > As a matter of fact, I am on a wait list for the 1Ds3. > > I'm waiting until I win the lottery. > > You need to cash that winning Powerball ticket in instead of holding on to > it. Ticket? You mean you gotta have a ticket? Well dip me in sh.t! On 9/18/07 5:56 PM, in article 1190156192.943831.319870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote: >> I'm hoping he at least got the totally awesome 1D Mk III, but it would be >> really nice if he got on the wait list for the 1Ds Mk III. > > As a matter of fact, I am on a wait list for the 1Ds3. > I'm waiting until I win the lottery. If you did (and you have a good track record about winning things), you most likely would bitch and moan about having to pay taxes and blame GWB for the "unfairness" of it all. <G> > Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use > DNG? Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? So don't go buying new cameras - just make sure there CS or CS2 compatible. I'm not sure how to take your post Rob. Please give more details, as it's pretty open ended. >> Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use DNG? >> Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? > So don't go buying new cameras - just make sure there CS or CS2 > compatible. > I'm not sure how to take your post Rob. > > Please give more details, as it's pretty open ended. Camera companies have moved on with with improvements making there old products redundant so why can't Adobe do the same with there products. Adobe are supporting new cameras with new products. You don't have to use Photoshop to process RAW images. In rec.photo.digital Rob <mesa@mine.com> wrote: >> Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use >> DNG? Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? >So don't go buying new cameras - just make sure there CS or CS2 compatible. Since the camera manufacturers include their own RAW software I don't think that they care very much what version of Photoshop you buy. On the other hand, the adoption of a universal RAW format wouldn't hurt anybody either. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> > > So, users of previous versions of CS now need to buy CS3 in order to use > their (so called "new") camera RAW files with it? > > So, what do you do? ACR is a freebie. First, you say thank you. > Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use DNG? Or put pressure on > Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? If you don't want to buy the software required to use it, you use a different raw converter (either the one that came with your camera, or some third party product) and continue using the older (or cheaper) version of PS (or other photo editor even) you always did. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > Standing ovation! Cheer... </ END SARCASM> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan This is the thing, isn't it David? No one is required to use Photoshop to process their images. So if you choose to use it - and it is a professional level program, you should recognize that there is a yearly cost of ownership you should factor into your budget. This is like my 1968 business plan which is still valid today. The concept part of it reads: *Costing*: A sufficient profit must be made that will allow a living to be derived and funds set aside for the timely replacement of equipment. You could add software to that now. How many in this group have a plan to fund their next piece of equipment or software? <RANT begins> I'm continually amazed at wannabe "Pro" Photographers who think they are going to "do it cheaper" than true professionals but never consider the cost of their gear in the pricing equation. All they do is lower the level of quality and drive an otherwise profitable business into the realm of "backyard cowboys". <RANT ends> Doug > How many in this group have a plan to fund their next piece of > equipment or software? ME! (raising hand wildly) > <RANT begins> > I'm continually amazed at wannabe "Pro" Photographers who think they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > business into the realm of "backyard cowboys". > <RANT ends> So which are you? > So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use > DNG? Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? Oh, please don't start this DNG crap! Nobody uses that third rate dieing format. Rita On Sep 18, 5:55 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > Oh, please don't start this DNG crap! Nobody uses that third rate dieing > format. > > Rita I'll be damn ... Rita and I finally agree on something! Somebody call Ripley. On Sep 18, 10:55 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > So, what do you do? Put pressure on your camera manufacturer to use > > DNG? Or put pressure on Adobe to stop being so ridiculous? > > Oh, please don't start this DNG crap! Nobody uses that third rate dieing > format. As I'm sure you know, lots of people use DNG, and support for it is still increasing month by month. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/xmp_dng.htm http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/respectability.htm http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/history.htm I suggest you live with the fact that it isn't going to go away! -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ > > Oh, please don't start this DNG crap! Nobody uses that third rate dieing > > format. > > As I'm sure you know, lots of people use DNG, and support for it is > still increasing month by month. Hey, I remember you. You are the DNGbat that keeps touting that silly format. Is it true that DNG is short for DYING? DNG might be a good idea on paper, but neither the manufacturers nor the public seem to give a rat's a.s about it. >> > Oh, please don't start this DNG crap! Nobody uses that third rate >> > dieing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > DNG might be a good idea on paper, but neither the manufacturers nor > the public seem to give a rat's a.s about it. On the contrary... Those who of the public who don't see the need to move to CS3 or engage in the use of pirate copies of it, find DNG a very helpful format. Had you not availed yourself of the ACR update and been using CS3, you too would have needed to use DNG to be able to edit your RAW files from the camera you don't yet have. How much of that did you understand? Barry Pearson and I have not always seen eye to eye about many aspects of DNG but it is people like him ...who are dedicated to future usability when the corporations have moved on, who you will one day thank for their dedication. DNG is a convenient means of editing unsupported RAW files in earlier versions of Photoshop. Not everyone has the $250 you claim not to have for software upgrades every year or so. I suppose Helen's "gift" has a boxed version of Photoshop CS3 extended with it and an insurance policy for all your new toys? Be a shame to lose them... Doug > Had you not availed yourself of the ACR update and been using CS3, you too > would have needed to use DNG to be able to edit your RAW files from the > camera you don't yet have. How much of that did you understand? None of it since it is bullshit. First off, genius, the camera comes with DPP, a software program to convert RAW files. Secondly, just how would I edit the RAW files using DNG? DNG supports the same cameras that ACR supports so before ACR 4.2 came out you couldn't convert the RAW 40D files to DNG. How much of that did you understand? >> Had you not availed yourself of the ACR update and been using CS3, you too >> would have needed to use DNG to be able to edit your RAW files from the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How much of that did you understand? Hahahaha Thanks Bret, that gave me a good laugh. I can picture Doug scratching his head going HUH. You should know that when someone replies to him he reads what he thinks is written and nothing that is actually written and then turns the thread around to being about him being a victim. > > Had you not availed yourself of the ACR update and been using CS3, you too > > would have needed to use DNG to be able to edit your RAW files from the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > First off, genius, the camera comes with DPP, a software program to > convert RAW files. DNG can be used by people who don't want to use the camera manufacturer's software. In the OpenRAW survey about a year and a half ago, only a minority of raw shooters used the camera manufacturers' software, and only a fraction of those used it all the time: http://www.openraw.org/2006rawsurvey/chapter3 > Secondly, just how would I edit the RAW files using DNG? DNG supports > the same cameras that ACR supports so before ACR 4.2 came out you > couldn't convert the RAW 40D files to DNG. [snip] DNG Converter 4.x supports the same native raw files as ACR 4.x. That is more than ACR 3.7, and even more than ACR 2.4. So: - Photoshop CS3 + ACR 4.2: about 165 cameras, including some recent ones. - Photoshop CS2 + ACR 3.7: about 135 cameras, all released before February 2007. Or 165 via the DNG route. - Photoshop CS + ACR 2.4: about 73 cameras, all released before January 2005. Or 165 via the DNG route. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ > > > Oh, please don't start this DNG crap! Nobody uses that third rate dieing > > > format. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > format. > Is it true that DNG is short for DYING? If you think it is dying, perhaps you could post your prediction for the date of its death, so that we can discuss your prediction then? > DNG might be a good idea on paper, but neither the manufacturers nor > the public seem to give a rat's a.s about it. In DPReview, DNG is becoming a mainstream file format in discussions. 2 years ago, it was little known and even less understood, and there was lots of misleading and even hostile information being posted about it. But since it was launched, there have been on average about 15 articles per day there that mention it, and many of those now just accept it and don't draw further comments. There is far less hostility than there was, and more people are able to provide corrections to misleading statements about it. Not surprising, the earliest manufacturers to use DNG have been niche and minority manufacturers. It is good for the industry and some manufacturers and photographers that these should have support from mainstream 3rd-party software products. Capture One will support it later this year (the v4 Beta already does); the latest ACDSee Pro has much better DNG support than the previous one. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm#manufacturers More than 190 products from more than 180 sources support DNG in some way, so more people than ever are able to adopt a partial or full DNG- based workflow. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ On Sep 21, 4:15 am, Barry Pearson <n...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote: > > Is it true that DNG is short for DYING? > > If you think it is dying, perhaps you could post your prediction for > the date of its death, so that we can discuss your prediction then? Just because it is still around doesn't mean people are using it. > There is far less hostility > than there was, and more people are able to provide corrections to > misleading statements about it. I'm not really hostile to the idea of one RAW format. I think it would be nice if every manufacturer used the same format. But they don't. And it is unlikely that they ever will. So what's the point? I have never understood the so-called advantages of using DNG. It seems like one huge unnecessary step in my workflow. The argument as I understand it goes something like, "DNG will let you convert your files to a format that will be supported far into the future, thus preventing future obsolescence." Well it doesn't look like the manufacturers are clamoring to move to the DNG format. And it will be a very long time before my current RAW files cannot be read by the software of the day. So why should I waste my time and my hard drive space converting all my RAW files into a format that will probably never be widely embraced? > why should I waste my time and my hard drive space converting all > my RAW files into a format that will probably never be widely > embraced? I remove the embedded full size jpeg when converting so the dng files are about 10% smaller. You are probably noticing by now how huge 10MP files are. And I don't need the latest PS version. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >> why should I waste my time and my hard drive space converting all >> my RAW files into a format that will probably never be widely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about 10% smaller. You are probably noticing by now how huge 10MP files > are. And I don't need the latest PS version. No, but you still need the latest version of the DNG converter. My point was that even though you are stripping out some of the info, reducing the file size, you are still wasting lots of space (and time) by converting to the DNG format in the first place. When do you think you'll ever need to access those DNG files? >>Annika1980 wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > converting to the DNG format in the first place. When do you think you'll > ever need to access those DNG files? I delete the NEF files. Storage space is a problem. It takes half a day to run a backup at USB2/firewire speeds with my 3 year old Dell 'workstation' laptop. The laptop also has trouble running CS3 fast enough with those big files so I prefer CS1. I'll admit it's a problem not being able to use the Nikon raw converter but I found that software annoying so not a big loss, though it probably can do a little better conversion for the odd case, I don't like it messing up my workflow. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >>> why should I waste my time and my hard drive space converting all >>> my RAW files into a format that will probably never be widely [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > converting to the DNG format in the first place. When do you think you'll > ever need to access those DNG files? Both PS CS3 and Lightroom can convert to DNG, and if you keep those upto date, there's no other version you need to mess with. I tend to convert to dng when I am pretty much finished with a shoot or collection. Advantages are ca. 15% reduction in disk space, and no sidecars required. I lose absolutely no info at all, nor using up space, rather, gaining 15%. Time is simple: when ready to move to something else, just select the folder and hit 'convert to DNG'. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Both PS CS3 and Lightroom can convert to DNG, and if you keep those > upto date, there's no other version you need to mess with. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > space, rather, gaining 15%. Time is simple: when ready to move to > something else, just select the folder and hit 'convert to DNG'. Utter stupidity! I got my original NEF and CR2 files right at my disposal sitting on two servers in the basement. Storage space and network bandwidth isn't a problem since I'm running gigabit. That being said, it beyond moronic to convert to a dead format for the sake of converting. What do I gain? Only thing I waste is time, CPU usage, and storage. If DNG had a high compression ratio it might be worth it. DNG offers virtually nothing to the professional and amateur photographer. I'm with Bret on this one. Rita >> Both PS CS3 and Lightroom can convert to DNG, and if you keep those >> upto date, there's no other version you need to mess with. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > high compression ratio it might be worth it. DNG offers virtually nothing > to the professional and amateur photographer. I'm with Bret on this one. Get real. You have a laptop with unlimited storage? Unlimited budget for firewire pocket drives? Dead format? No way. What is assured is that one day our current .CR2 and .NEF files will one day be moribund, if not "dead". Clearly DNG is not for the Berkowitzes of this world, but many Pros use that format. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Dead format? No way. What is assured is that one day our current .CR2 > and .NEF files will one day be moribund, if not "dead". I don't know the stats, but I'd guess that the number of NEF and CR2 files outnumbers the number of DNG files by at least 10-to-1. Probably closer to 100-to-1 in reality. So which format do you think will get killed off the quickest? If and when the day comes that CR2 files will no longer be supported, I will convert my files to DNG on that day. Until then, it is a big waste of time. Makes no sense to convert them today. Five years from now there may be a better, more efficient DNG converter. >> Dead format? No way. What is assured is that one day our current .CR2 >> and .NEF files will one day be moribund, if not "dead". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Probably closer to 100-to-1 in reality. So which format do you think > will get killed off the quickest? The number of crap photos to very good one is 1,000-1. So what? DNG will be around longer than any proprietary RAW formats. > If and when the day comes that CR2 files will no longer be supported, > I will convert my files to DNG on that day. Until then, it is a big > waste of time. Makes no sense to convert them today. Five years from > now there may be a better, more efficient DNG converter. I'm not maintaining it makes sense for you, nor any one person or group. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > DNG will be around longer than any proprietary RAW formats. How do you know that? Does your crystal ball also predict football scores? >> DNG will be around longer than any proprietary RAW formats. > > How do you know that? Extra ordinary deductive powers! > Does your crystal ball also predict football scores? Yes. Melbourne over Sydney, 44-30. In the next 58 years. Signaturejohn mcwilliams [snip] > I don't know the stats, but I'd guess that the number of NEF and CR2 > files outnumbers the number of DNG files by at least 10-to-1. > Probably closer to 100-to-1 in reality. So which format do you think > will get killed off the quickest? Raw converters don't generically support "NEF" or "CR2". They support (say) "D200 NEF", "D40X NEF, "D300 NEF" (Oops! Not yet). They support "40D CR2", etc. Ditto for other formats (the world isn't just about Nikon and Canon). In contrast, it is possible to support generic DNG. Then the one implementation will support DNGs from all of those, plus DNGs for cameras that haven't even been released when the code was implemented. New versions of DNG appear rarely; new versions of NEF and CR2 appear, in effect, with every camera. So, if you are making comparisons of numbers, compare all DNGs with D200 NEFs, all DNGs with 40D CR2s, etc. That may give a better indication of whether your future tools and workflow will support today's cameras. It will certainly give a better view of whether DNGs are achieving critical mass. Once the world was accumulating lots of D1 and D100 NEFs, then D2H, etc. Presumably the rate from these has now dropped dramatically. At the moment, the world is accumulating D70, D50, D40, D200 (etc) NEFs. In future, these will gradually be superceded by D3, D300, etc. But ... there is one flavour of DNG covering all of these, and the number of such DNG files in the world accumulates day by day. Many of those belong to professional photographers. DNG won't be killed off. Adobe couldn't kill it if they wanted to - it is in the open and running! They are not the only company that creates DNG files. Over 180 companies have implementations that read DNG files. There is freely available source code for handling DNGs (reading, writing, processing). There are known to be motivated photographer/programmers with experience in handling DNG files. > If and when the day comes that CR2 files will no longer be supported, > I will convert my files to DNG on that day. Until then, it is a big > waste of time. Makes no sense to convert them today. Five years from > now there may be a better, more efficient DNG converter. There are various benefits of DNG, and support of particular cameras not otherwise supported is probably one of the lesser benefits. I've been using DNG for nearly 3 years, and that has never been one of my reasons for doing so. Whether particular photographers can get any benefit from DNG depends on their workflow and the tools they use. (The situation gradually improves over time). Not everyone can get immediate benefit yet, or enough benefit to counter any perceived disadvantages. So any photographer who sees no current personal benefit in using DNG, and assumes therefore that there are no benefits to any other photographers, is wrong! http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ >> Utter stupidity! I got my original NEF and CR2 files right at my >> disposal sitting on two servers in the basement. Storage space and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Get real. You have a laptop with unlimited storage? Unlimited budget > for firewire pocket drives? What kind of dumbass would even think about processing and/or storing RAW files from a shoot on a laptop? My laptop gets dumped to the old network. > Dead format? No way. What is assured is that one day our current .CR2 > and .NEF files will one day be moribund, if not "dead". And *IF* that day should ever materialize I will batch convert to whatever the latest super archival format that is the fad of that month. > Clearly DNG is not for the Berkowitzes of this world, but many Pros > use that format. Name one "pro" that uses DNG? I mean for anything other than a novelty. Rita On Sep 22, 10:40 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: [snip] > Name one "pro" that uses DNG? I mean for anything other than a novelty. There is probably no point in answering, because you have provided yourself with room to choose your own definitions of "pro" and "novelty" post-hoc. In other words, you may be employing the "no true scotsman" fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman When I've answered similar questions in the past with the names of photographer/writers who use DNG, the response has tended to be "those aren't true professionals". (But if the photographers weren't also writers, how would we know what they used?) Perhaps this (an article in The Picture Professional of ASPP) will help. (It has names). http://www.aspp.com/picprof/2007_1/salwen.pdf In April 2006, the following was posted to PhotoshopNews: "According to a recent InfoTrends study with 1,754 professional photographers, over 18 percent of photographers use DNG as part of their imaging workflow". I think this is the survey, conducted towards the end of 2005: http://store.infotrendsresearch.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=NAProPhotoMC0 5&Click=537 If you don't accept that "over 18 percent", please cite your evidence to the contrary. (I've noticed that people with an anti-DNG stance rarely cite evidence to support their assertions). -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ On Sep 22, 10:40 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: [snip] > Name one "pro" that uses DNG? I mean for anything other than a novelty. Just after posting my other response, I spotted this in a Phase One forum: "Phase One, I have a client and the advertising agency is now requesting DNG files". http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=4010&sid=9eef927a12e1ea8cd1ceaaedc213150a I suggest you seek more information about this topic in other forums; DPReview is useful for this purpose. There are "regions of hostility", sometimes in Nikon forums. But in many cases DNG has become a mainstream file format that often doesn't generate surprise or "fear, uncertainty, doubt", even when the writer says someting like "I delete my original raws files after converting to DNG". (Since DNG was launched - it will be 3 years old on 27 September - there have been an average of about 15 articles a day posted to DPReview that mention DNG. This appears to be an order of magnitude greater than those posted to newsgroups. And of course there are lots of posts elsewhere too, as a Google Blog search will show. Anyone mainly reading newsgroups is likely to have a misleading impression of the degree of interest in DNG). -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ >> Name one "pro" that uses DNG? I mean for anything other than a >> novelty. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > requesting DNG files". > http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=4010&sid=9eef927a12e1ea8cd1ceaaedc213150a This means nothing of any importance. Phase One is using this as a typical market strategy to get bottom feeders and other third rate photographers to buy equipment that they would otherwise not be able to afford. Phase One is betting the house that theses chumps won't be able to afford CS3 after they purchase the hardware. That being said, sRAW as useless as it is seems to be a much better solution than DNG. DNG is equivalent to "food stamps" in the photography industry. Rita On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: [snip] > > Just after posting my other response, I spotted this in a Phase One > > forum: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > market strategy to get bottom feeders and other third rate photographers to > buy equipment that they would otherwise not be able to afford. What has that statement got to do with what I posted and what eavesphoto posted? Did you actually read what eavesphoto posted? How do you respond to what appears to be a requirement from an advertising agency to use DNG? > Phase One is > betting the house that theses chumps won't be able to afford CS3 after they > purchase the hardware. Why should Phase One do that? What has CS3 got to do with this topic? > That being said, sRAW as useless as it is seems to > be a much better solution than DNG. What has sRAW got to do this topic? > DNG is equivalent to "food stamps" in > the photography industry. Chuckle! Elsewhere in this thread, in response to your "I don't want that garbage in any of my cameras. If Nikon and Canon start offering it as a choice I will wash my hands of them", I asked "Why would you do that? What harm could happen if Canon and/or Nikon used DNG in-camera? Be specific - what harm?" You don't appear to have answered. What is fuelling your incoherent hostility towards DNG? It is a file format! -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ On Sep 22, 10:37 am, Barry Pearson > Elsewhere in this thread, in response to your "I don't want that > garbage in any of my cameras. If Nikon and Canon start offering it as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What is fuelling your incoherent hostility towards DNG? It is a file > format! I disagree with Rita on that point. If Canon adopts the DNG format then great, I'll use it. But I don't see that happening. You might have the time to scour the internet every day and count the number of references to DNG, but it doesn't change the fact that there is very little forward progress being made by DNG as a viable all-in-one format down the road. So my view is that it might be a great idea, but if the general public doesn't care about it and the major manufacturers don't embrace it then it will just be DyiNG on the vine. Here's a question for you, Barry since you seem to be the world's expert on DNG. Why haven't the Major manufacturers all embraced the DNG format? >> What is fuelling your incoherent hostility towards DNG? It is a file >> format! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > little forward progress being made by DNG as a viable all-in-one > format down the road. The god-like D3 will feature TIFF as an option. Will I use TIFF? Hell no. Native RAW is far superior to any of these fly-by-night-wannabe formats. Rita On 2007-09-22 08:46:55 -0700, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?= <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> said: >>> What is fuelling your incoherent hostility towards DNG? It is a file >>> format! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rita Tagged Image File Format is the granddaddy of all. You aren't really lumping it in with proprietary types. are you? Because in that case, I would draw a conclusion from this short list: either you're making outrageous statements just to wind people up, or you're very misinformed. Advantages of TIFF: (1) it's robust--when have you ever heard of a corrupted TIFF? and (2) you can open & save w/o loss, if you don't use compression and (3) it preserves layers and channels and (4) it's the original all-platform file type SignatureCease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address yourselves instead to the safety of the republic > On 2007-09-22 08:46:55 -0700, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?= > <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Hell no. >> Native RAW is far superior to any of these fly-by-night-wannabe formats. > Tagged Image File Format is the granddaddy of all. You aren't really > lumping it in with proprietary types. are you? Because in that case, I > would draw a conclusion from this short list: either you're making > outrageous statements just to wind people up, or you're very > misinformed. "Rita" does mostly the former, is occasionally misinformed, and never admits when "she" is wrong. Advantages of TIFF: > (1) it's robust--when have you ever heard of a corrupted TIFF? and > (2) you can open & save w/o loss, if you don't use compression and > (3) it preserves layers and channels and > (4) it's the original all-platform file type TIFF is great for all those reasons. Someone stated that Adobe owns the format, tho. Is this true? But in terms of capture, RAW is way superior to TIFF. You have all the options to convert to TIFF, PSD, JPEG, etc. with more options/latitude than any other. SignatureJohn McWilliams [snip] > TIFF is great for all those reasons. Someone stated that Adobe owns the > format, tho. Is this true? Yes, for a long time: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/msg/9099da544e4ad151 http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000022.shtml -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ > > The god-like D3 will feature TIFF as an option. Will I use TIFF? Hell no. > > Native RAW is far superior to any of these fly-by-night-wannabe formats. TIFF fly by night :-) It precedes all DSLR's and RAW formats! I can't see any point in using it though, it's file size efficiency is not very good. MrT. >> > Native RAW is far superior to any of these fly-by-night-wannabe >> > formats. > > TIFF fly by night :-) > It precedes all DSLR's and RAW formats! But it's still an Adobe-owned proprietary format!!! > I can't see any point in using it though, it's file size efficiency is not > very good. If it's got lossless compression, then it's good for Nikon shooters, who don't. Personally, it looks like DNG simply doubles my backup storage requirements. In the long term, I simply don't know if it'll last and in the short term, as long as there are raw converters that don't support it, I need the original files since different raw converters have different strengths. But the point that one's camera's raw format might become unsupported in the long term is well taken. So one should save something along with each raw file. I'd think an unsharpened but exposure and color corrected highest quality jpeg would be a better choice than DNG. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> > Native RAW is far superior to any of these fly-by-night-wannabe > >> > formats. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But it's still an Adobe-owned proprietary format!!! How does that make it "fly by night"? And since it is free to use, the point is irrelevant for end users anyway. > But the point that one's camera's raw format might become unsupported in the > long term is well taken. So one should save something along with each raw > file. I'd think an unsharpened but exposure and color corrected highest > quality jpeg would be a better choice than DNG. Easier to save a means of converting the file formats. In fact if the need ever arose, I would simply write my own file conversion program. (it wouldn't be the first time) It is hardly rocket science! I'd be far more worried about what storage media types to use, if I still wanted to be able to read them 20+ years from now. MrT. [snip] > I'd be far more worried about what storage media types to use, if I still > wanted to be able to read them 20+ years from now. That is one important factor. But I would also be worried about whether I could find what I'm looking for, and know enough about it when I found it. (My own summary is: "For photographs to be "future proof", you will need to be able to find the images, understand their ownership and subject matter, and present them, using your future choice of workflow and tools.") In other words, I think the whole topic of rights management metadata and asset management metadata tends to be under-played. The standards for this are less contentious than for raw file formats: XMP is becoming increasingly well-accepted, by ISO, Microsoft, and lots of DAM products; I recently read that Nikon are using it too, although I haven't seen separate confirmation. (As well as Adobe, of course; I consider XMP-within-DNG to be an important combination). This sort of metadata isn't really something that can safely be left until the problem arises; it needs to be done ongoing. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ > Why haven't the Major manufacturers all embraced the > DNG format? Because they want to lock you into buying their crappy software. :-) SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > > Why haven't the Major manufacturers all embraced the > > DNG format? > > Because they want to lock you into buying their crappy software. Why do most (other than Nikon) give it away free then? MrT. >>>Why haven't the Major manufacturers all embraced the >>>DNG format? >> >>Because they want to lock you into buying their crappy software. > > Why do most (other than Nikon) give it away free then? I don't know, ego? I've always been annoyed with the camera manufacturer's software and wish they'd focus on making cameras. I suppose they have a better understanding of the raw data but when the software is clunky, I don't care. Why don't they share the details of how to make the best of the images with the software people? I remember my olympus had a panorama stitching mode that only worked with their software and only Olympus brand memory cards carried the information to stitch the panoramas... argh! What happens when you want to convert old raw files and their old software doesn't run on your new operating system? SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > >>>Why haven't the Major manufacturers all embraced the > >>>DNG format? > >>Because they want to lock you into buying their crappy software. > > Why do most (other than Nikon) give it away free then? > > I don't know, ego? Seems to me like some are trying at least. >I've always been annoyed with the camera > manufacturer's software and wish they'd focus on making cameras. I don't use mine either, BUT I can't stand manufacturers that don't give you any means of conversion, or expect you to pay for inferior software, AND refuse to provide rights to third party software companies. Makes *their* RAW formats useless AFAIC. > I suppose they have a better understanding of the raw data but when the > software is clunky, I don't care. Why don't they share the details of > how to make the best of the images with the software people? That would be simply because of greed IMO. >I remember > my olympus had a panorama stitching mode that only worked with their > software and only Olympus brand memory cards carried the information to > stitch the panoramas... argh! Agreed, however it was probably licensed cheaply from a software company on that basis. They don't WANT you to be able to use it with any other images. Consider it is provided free, and worth as much. Fortunately there is other *free* software considerably better anyway. > What happens when you want to convert old raw files and their old > software doesn't run on your new operating system? Agreed, especially when some refuse to provide file format details. However it's not hard to install an old operating system on a spare hard drive for the purpose of conversion. Worry about what media types you are going to store them on instead, and whether it will still be readable. MrT. > > What happens when you want to convert old raw files and their old > > software doesn't run on your new operating system? > > Agreed, especially when some refuse to provide file format details. However > it's not hard to install an old operating system on a spare hard drive for > the purpose of conversion. That assumes that the old operating system understands how to talk to the new hardware on which it's running, if it can run at all. There are three places where the chain of compatibility can be broken, and people who rely on being able to understand an unpublished format at any time in the future are setting themselves up for an unpleasant surprise. What can you do if the manufacturer no longer supports their ancient raw format, the old converter they published won't run on anything more recent than Vista, and Vista lacks drivers for the hardware of 2025 (assuming that i586 binaries will run on the chips of 2025)? If your files are in a published format someone can write a converter for them, but if the files are in an unpublished raw format you'll have no choice but to pay through the nose to get someone to do the conversion for you, running the ancient software on ancient hardware expensively kept alive for just that purpose. SignatureMatthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] > What can you do if the manufacturer no longer supports their ancient > raw format, the old converter they published won't run on anything > more recent than Vista, and Vista lacks drivers for the hardware of > 2025 (assuming that i586 binaries will run on the chips of 2025)? Sometimes it's amazing how long code can last. When I got my first 386 running DOS (very early 90s), I wrote a (Conway's) Life program in assember that computed 28 cells in parallel in a 32-bit word and display routines for a VGA display. Since DOS is 16-bits, it needed a "DOS extender". A 100 line program that needs it's own private operating system to run. Seriously perverse. Somewhere over the years the white dots on a black background turned into blue dots on a black background, but it still runs under XP. I haven't tried it under Vista yet, though. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > What can you do if the manufacturer no longer supports their ancient > raw format, the old converter they published won't run on anything [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > conversion for you, running the ancient software on ancient hardware > expensively kept alive for just that purpose. Well there is one big advantage of using any big selling camera. You can be sure there are lots of others needing similar conversion software, and probably lots of people willing to write it. However I agree it is not wise to rely on anything. MrT. [snip] > Here's a question for you, Barry since you seem to be the world's > expert on DNG. I've probably published far more on the web than any other independent person, but the real experts are within Adobe. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/ > Why haven't the Major manufacturers all embraced the > DNG format? Time, effort, and business objectives. Certainly not technical capability. Time: When DNG was launched nearly 3 years ago, no camera manufacturers used it. Then gradually niche and minority manufacturers started to use it. I expect these to increase over time. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm#manufacturers Effort: Major camera manufacturers have a lot invested in their existing raw file formats. Hardware, firmware, software, expertise, etc. This isn't a stopper - Pentax also had such investment, yet began to support DNG last year. But Canon and Nikon can get away with making other companies, and photographers themselves, put in the effort. Business objectives: This is obviously a factor where the camera manufacturer sells their own software. The more obstacles they can put in the way of their own users who want to use 3rd-party products, the more likely they are to buy their own products. But when they don't sell their own products, the reason is probably "because they can"! They know their users will blame Adobe and others instead of themselves. They expect their users are locked in to their system b |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message