Nikon encrypts RAW files??? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/19/2005 09:58:52 PM · #1

This news item was quite a shock. I can't believe Nikon would pull that. Have they been taking lessons from Sony?

moodville

Nikon D100

04/19/2005 10:13:06 PM · #2

On one hand I can understand why they did it, but on the other I would want to have the choice of which RAW converter to use. It can certainly turn off some people from buying, but the people who buy those cams usually already have an investment with Nikon glass.

ralph

Nikon Z9

04/19/2005 10:13:32 PM · #3

Originally posted by kirbic:

This news item was quite a shock. I can't believe Nikon would pull that. Have they been taking lessons from Sony?

more like microsoft ..

my guess is 'encrypted' might be pushing it, more likely 'I'm not going to tell you the structure' .. but due to some silly USA law (DMCA) you are notplaying fair if you figure it out on your own - in some ways it bites Adobe hard since they made that stink about Acrobat eBook Reader & Dmitry Sklyarov

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

04/19/2005 10:19:29 PM · #4

Another reason why Nikon is slowly getting beaten up by Canon...Pretty stupid move...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/20/2005 04:56:19 AM · #5

Giving this one a bump for Europe as I just saw it on slashdot.

Photoshop News Article
Slashdot discussion

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

04/20/2005 05:20:43 AM · #6

Perhaps Nikon will be selling decryption SDKs to 3rd parties? Makes sense from a revenue point of view.

colda

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/20/2005 05:43:16 AM · #7

I certainly don't like the idea of this and see no reason for it (apart from the obvious commercial/greed one).

Before getting upset about it I'm waiting to see what happens next, if Nikon are thinking about quality control and are going to back-up such a concept with free versions on Nikon Capture (including a Linux version) then that might be nice, but I think that this is a fantasy.

Nikon have recieved my money for the camera that I bought, they are not going to have money from the images that I take.

This is a little unfortunate as I'd dearly like to own a D2X but as my preference is for Linux would this mean that I cannot use RAW? It seems rather silly to be able to own such a camera without being able to use RAW.

Darren

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/20/2005 05:59:48 AM · #8

Originally posted by colda:

Before getting upset about it I'm waiting to see what happens next ...

It will be interesting to see if they go after Bibble for "cracking" the format.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

04/20/2005 06:19:42 AM · #9

Originally posted by ralphnev:

The story I read stated it clearly is encrypted, but weakly so. This protects that file format via the DCMA. If it was a simple, we aren't telling you the format, then there would be no problem with Adobe reverse engineering the file.

Once the file is encrypted though... The DMCA comes into play and can be used to do some serious damage to anyone that decrypts the encrypted White Balance information.

colda

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/20/2005 06:25:21 AM · #10

Originally posted by bod:

Originally posted by colda:
Before getting upset about it I'm waiting to see what happens next ...

It will be interesting to see if they go after Bibble for "cracking" the format.

Indeed, especially as Bibble uses dcraw (which supports the D2X), which is also used by a good many other RAW converters (including UFRaw that I use).

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

04/20/2005 08:58:18 AM · #11

i'm still miffed (over a year later) that i had to pay for nikon capture after i had just shelled out more for a camera than i'd paid for two of my past cars.

it will be interesting to see how this plays out...

cghubbell

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

04/20/2005 09:27:19 AM · #12

Bibble was founded on dcraw, but has gone *way* past it. Bibble cracking Nikon's encrypted format doesn't equate to dcraw doing the same thing. All the same, now's the time to buy your copy of BibblePro before Nikon's lawyers consider ruining the Linux party.

On the other hand, I'd imagine that if someone has the funding for a D2x it's not too much of a stretch for that person to buy a Mac workstation to go with it though. I'm going to need a lot more DPC Prints traffic before I can buy my dual G5 (or d2x!).

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/23/2005 06:59:07 PM · #13

Just wanted to update this thread with Nikon's response on the matter.
DPReview have chosen to sit on the fence, but the Slashdot response is fairly predictable.

Message edited by author 2005-04-23 19:01:09.

Travis99

Canon EOS-5D

04/23/2005 07:02:11 PM · #14

Seems like they are trying to make some extra money, at the expence of the little guy. I hate that.

Andelain

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/23/2005 07:04:52 PM · #15

Just another reason to go Canon

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

04/23/2005 07:07:24 PM · #16

I read over the response posted over on DPReview earlier today, and I have to say the language pretty much says it all. I may be a skeptic, but to me it clearly says:

"We, Nikon will decide whom may use our SDK. We may deny access to it completely at our discretion."

Seems maybe Adobe was denied access to the SDK, didn't like it and issued the original press release. If they were denied it, I wonder if it had something to do with their promotion of DNG?

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

04/23/2005 07:07:48 PM · #17

Originally posted by Andelain:

Just another reason to go Canon

I know my camera is not a D2X because of a software restriction. Another reason not to go Canon. :D

04/23/2005 07:12:17 PM · #18

Originally posted by kirbic:

"We, Nikon will decide whom may use our SDK. We may deny access to it completely at our discretion."

Seems maybe Adobe was denied access to the SDK, didn't like it and issued the original press release. If they were denied it, I wonder if it had something to do with their promotion of DNG?

Either that or Adobe saw licensing fees on the horizon and decided to call Nikon's bluff straight away.

04/23/2005 08:39:34 PM · #19

Originally posted by bod:

Either that or Adobe saw licensing fees on the horizon and decided to call Nikon's bluff straight away.

I would bet that something of that nature is what is at the root of this. The tone of both Adobe's and Nikon's releases seems to indicate they are not on speaking terms, LOL.

04/27/2005 10:30:27 PM · #20

Here is a very interesting interview that provides a lot of insight into this brouhaha...

Morgan

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/27/2005 10:55:16 PM · #21

This is par for the course folks; you better get use to it.

You should see what is coming for TV and radio. Has anyone read about MPEG-7 or MPEG-21 yet? What about the OMA DRM for mobile devices? IBM is developing a better alternative to digital rights management (DRM) in the form of Content Protection.

Last week at the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) convention, I saw a SD card with a downloaded feature film on it that used CP to secure the content. The movie was accessed over the web and transferred in just 18 seconds. There is some amazing stuff on the horizon and the day of the free ride for content and intellectual property is definitely over.

If the file was truly �encrypted� as suggested, then it would not be so easily cracked. From what I read this is light weight stuff meant to slow someone down and not stop them. Because, if they really wished to block hackers, it can be done rather easily.

Besides, if Nikon or Canon or anyone else for that matter creates intellectual property, then they have the right to protect it and gain income from it.

Check out the MPEG LA web site and then tell me we are not about to wake up in the "Brave New World". Very scary stuff...

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

04/27/2005 10:58:58 PM · #22

I read that earlier today. Seems like most cam makers are doing the same thing that Nikon is getting called out for, at least to some degree.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

04/27/2005 11:42:43 PM · #23

Here is one experts opinion (Tim Grey):

The recent controversy surrounding the "locking" of data in the Nikon NEF file format has raised a very important issue. I won't get into an argument of right or wrong here, but will present the sides to hopefully provide a better understanding. Nikon (and the other camera manufacturers) feel that the format and content of the RAW captures represents intellectual property that they alone should control. In fairness to them, a major part of this reasoning is the desire to have a consistent result when RAW captures are converted, regardless of the software used to convert the image. The problem is that the information provided by the camera manufacturers doesn't allow a significant amount of flexibility on the part of the developers, so they need to find their own solutions if they want to extend the capabilities available. For that reason, many developers (including Adobe) have opted to reverse-engineer the RAW file formats rather than work within the software development kit (SDK) provided by the camera manufacturers. By locking the white balance information in the latest NEF capture format, Nikon has essentially drawn a line in the sand. While they haven't said they will, the potential remains that companies could be sued for crossing that line (unlocking the white balance information in the NEF).

This issue has helped to shine a bright light on the potential problem here related to access to our images. Could Nikon discontinue support for the NEF file? Sure, that's possible. Fortunately, in this case, there are many other solutions available. But what about 20 years from now when the D2X is laughed at for having such a tiny resolution, for example? Perhaps software will slowly phase out support for the "outdated" format. Eventually you may find yourself in a situation where you don't have any software able to convert your archived NEF captures. And even if you do have software to convert them, it is probably stored on a CD that you can't read anymore because new technology has come along and the CD is so "turn of the millennium". The point is that computer hardware and software changes over time. Digital imaging adds the responsibility of actually staying on top of the changes. If things change in the industry that cause certain capture formats to be no longer supported (or minimally supported) you'll need to do some converting quickly. That doesn't mean you should archive every image in every possible file format and store it on every possible media type. It just means you need to maintain awareness of the changes that take place, and be sure that you are preserving your images for the long term in a file format and on media that continues to be supported. Over the course of 20 years you may need to convert your images across several file formats and many media formats, but that is one of the prices we pay for the advantages of digital.

Hopefully before too long there will be better standards for this industry in terms of file formats and media. This is part of the motivation for Adobe to create the Digital Negative (DNG) specification, which unfortunately I don't think is going to be adopted by too many camera manufacturers. We certainly need a solution to help minimize the negative impact of the constant (and often very fast) march forward of technology.

colda

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/28/2005 05:50:19 AM · #24

Sorry - was over enthusiastic in my post Kirbic beat me too it long ago

Message edited by author 2005-04-28 05:52:27.