| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/23/2005 10:21:49 PM · #1 |
Thought provoking article on Luminous landscape:
the raw flaw
I, for one, want to be able to read my rawfiles in a few years time. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 10:30:04 PM · #2 |
The behavior of the camera manufacturers in this regard is at best self-serving. Nikon has recently taken heat for this, but they are not alone, nor any worse (or better) than Canon or others. I certainly hope that enough consumer pressure is exerted to get them to wake up and realize they should support an open standard such as DNG.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 12:13:28 AM · #3 |
if it's data - it's binary? no - so it should always be able to be read...
?
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 12:47:08 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The behavior of the camera manufacturers in this regard is at best self-serving. Nikon has recently taken heat for this, but they are not alone, nor any worse (or better) than Canon or others. I certainly hope that enough consumer pressure is exerted to get them to wake up and realize they should support an open standard such as DNG. |
Is DNG really an open standard, like Linux? Is Adobe's preformance any better than the camera makers? I could feel a lot better about a standard that came from another source.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:07:15 AM · #5 |
Adobe had a pretty good record with other file formats, such as pdf. I'd rather have them create the standard than a camera company.
Originally posted by coolhar:
Is DNG really an open standard, like Linux? Is Adobe's preformance any better than the camera makers? I could feel a lot better about a standard that came from another source. |
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 02:15:23 AM · #6 |
I feel comfortable knowing that I have an open source program (dcraw) which reads my RAW files. I have the source code, and I can see how it works. Which means it will be possible to read RAW files on any future computer. The beauty of open source.
Of course open standards would be great, and I hope we see them, but the NEF / CRW / etc. raw files are well defined and this open source program reads them. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 07:49:27 AM · #7 |
I've been wondering about RAW. Is there more information in a RAW than in a 16bit Tiff? 32-bit Tiff? Would DNG be as good as the native RAW format of each camera, or does each RAW format differ greatly from camera to camera?
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 08:55:02 AM · #8 |
I see this issue as rather similar to cine film. It may be more difficult to get it transfered to VHS, but it's still possible.
In 20 years time computing issues such as this will seem rather small, I think.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 11:02:14 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
I've been wondering about RAW. Is there more information in a RAW than in a 16bit Tiff? 32-bit Tiff? Would DNG be as good as the native RAW format of each camera, or does each RAW format differ greatly from camera to camera? |
Taking these questions in order...
- There is less information in a RAW file (today) than is possible in a 16-bit TIFF. RAW images typically contain about 12 bits of information, though they may be stored as 16-bit values. This will change as sensor technology improves, but it may be a while before we see true 16-bit-per-channel data from DSLRs.
- The DNG format essentially embeds the RAW file within a wrapper that defines how to read the RAW data. Because the camera manufacturer would provide these "instructions" for reading the RAW data, any program constructed to read DNG would immediately be able to recognize and interpret the files from new cameras. Also, any program written in the future would be able to read the formats of all past cameras.
All in all, DNG is a pretty darn nice idea.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 09:41:47 PM EDT.
