The future of the M line ?

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't say anything bad about DNG in my Color Blog Post about Lightroom. Except that nobody is using it to the extent that Lightroom is actually marketed as a tool for reading diverse files !!!

Exactly ... Edmund, And that's what I agreed upon.

 

Several Japanese magazines and digital photography websites interviewed both Canon and Nikon on this very sbuject matter and clearly they have their own thought - one can not say they're wrong just because they won't accept an "open" standard, which is not ... now Adobe has made a DNG converter available to the whole world, anyone who likes please then use it and I'm glad there's a choice but ... without the support from the world's two biggest camera makers, the file format is bound to fail.

 

As of Lightroom ... why I would have bothered to comment on it ... just not my cup of tea, does that bother anyone? I don't think anybody cares.

[Guest stnami]

Except that nobody is using it to the extent that Lightroom is actually marketed as a tool for reading diverse files !!!

....ah I remember a while ago all those who said they will never go digital... things change with time ......................

[ustein]

>If Adobe really cared they would place DNG with one of the international bodies and let everybody work with it.

 

I think if other parties (e.g. Nikon and Canon) wanted this it would happen.

 

Uwe

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I have to agree with UWE on this , if Nikon and canon wanted to let there code not be a closed loop than DNG would be a perfect avenue to take. But they don't want to give up there control and make it open source . I think that is more the issue than anything else is some OEM"S don't want anything to do with it because Adobe actually does compete with there own raw converters. I know this has been a huge debate for the last year or so and it continues today. I'm actually glad leica chose this route, it gives us options with raw converters for there files

[eronald]

I have to agree with UWE on this , if Nikon and canon wanted to let there code not be a closed loop than DNG would be a perfect avenue to take. But they don't want to give up there control and make it open source . I think that is more the issue than anything else is some OEM"S don't want anything to do with it because Adobe actually does compete with there own raw converters. I know this has been a huge debate for the last year or so and it continues today. I'm actually glad leica chose this route, it gives us options with raw converters for there files

 

Why especially DNG ? Its one thing to have an open format and another to have it be DNG.

 

If I may make a comparison, assume engineers working in the camera field being invited to a conference by Adobe,and Nikon and Canon saying "no you cannot share !". Then a few years later there should be another conference, this time the engineers are allowed to go - but that doesn't mean the conference has to be in Mountain View, Tokyo or Solms or even Hawaii would do quite as well.

 

Edmund

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Edmund was it not the only full open source file format that was presented?

 

Don't know the full story on it but seems that was what was offered from Adobe and N and C did not bite.

 

But the problem was more coming from N and C not wanting to give up there secret ingredients in a open source format. I could be wrong but i remember that being the biggest issue was opening up the pearly gates on the file

[eronald]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy, anybody can read the pixels in a file,The Dave Coffin program dcraw will convert any Raw quite well and it is FREE.

 

The problem is with the salt and pepper - ways to estimate white balance, ways to compensate for lens designs eg. formulas for vignetting, CA, and distorsion, ways to compensate for the anti-alias filter in front of the sensor. Proprietary lens calibration and sensor information can be written into a file to achieve corrections.

 

These are processing steps which improve images considerably, and in this electronic age constitute a competitive advantage - look at the the lousy white balance of the M8 with C1 to see what I mean. The information is there, but figuring out what white balance to use is not obvious at all.

 

Hasselblad provide another example of this. They have a cheap to build 28mm lens which is specifically designed to be corrected in software by their Raw processor. They publicize this to be an advantage over Mamiya and Rollei who need to use expensive fully corrected designs. Would you expect Hasselblad to give away the key to its breakthrough ?

 

These issues will not go away. We are now in an electronic age, and you cannot expect the guys who make cameras to say - ok we will continue to innovate with mechanics, Adobe will do the processing! Be happy that as they are Japanese at least they are not locking down every little feature with a patent or the DMCA.

 

On the converse side, I think it's going to be very entertaining watching people with Raw files converted with Lightroom try to edit their settings in 20 years time, because the algorithms Adobe uses are totally non-standard. If you cannot run the software, you still have your Raw files, but I'not sure you can ever recreate the rendering. If you use Lightroom you better never let that license lapse.

 

Edmund

 

 

Edmund was it not the only full open source file format that was presented?

 

Don't know the full story on it but seems that was what was offered from Adobe and N and C did not bite.

 

But the problem was more coming from N and C not wanting to give up there secret ingredients in a open source format. I could be wrong but i remember that being the biggest issue was opening up the pearly gates on the file

[sdai]

The problem is with the salt and pepper - ways to estimate white balance, ways to compensate for lens designs eg. formulas for vignetting, CA, and distorsion, ways to compensate for the anti-alias filter in front of the sensor. Proprietary lens calibration and sensor information can be written into a file to achieve corrections.

 

You've really hit the nail on the head, Edmund. I have yet to know ANY company in the world who was/is willing to share their trade secret to gain ... what? Give me a break.

[ustein]

>They publicize this to be an advantage over Mamiya and Rollei who need to use expensive fully corrected designs. Would you expect Hasselblad to give away the key to its breakthrough ?

 

If there would be high demand in the market (speak also volume) there would be alternative correction software in the market that would do the same job.

 

Actually DNG has even places to put propriatary information.

 

Uwe

[Riley]

i dont know about Canon, but Nikon charge for their software

the D40 comes without a RAW software suite, which you can trial, but must buy, its like US$100 >$150

[mjh]

Hasselblad provide another example of this. They have a cheap to build 28mm lens which is specifically designed to be corrected in software by their Raw processor. They publicize this to be an advantage over Mamiya and Rollei who need to use expensive fully corrected designs. Would you expect Hasselblad to give away the key to its breakthrough ?

Hasselblad’s HCD 4/28 isn’t cheaper than the lenses by Mamiya or Rollei (Franke & Heidecke), if only because there are no 28 mm lenses from Mamiya or Rollei.

 

It is true that a 28 mm lens with less distortion would be bigger, heavier, and more costly to produce, so correcting distortion in software has its advantages. There is nothing magical about Hasselblad’s approach, though; anybody could do the same.

[eronald]

Hasselblad’s HCD 4/28 isn’t cheaper than the lenses by Mamiya or Rollei (Franke & Heidecke), if only because there are no 28 mm lenses from Mamiya or Rollei.

 

It is true that a 28 mm lens with less distortion would be bigger, heavier, and more costly to produce, so correcting distortion in software has its advantages. There is nothing magical about Hasselblad’s approach, though; anybody could do the same.

 

It must have been an illusion I saw at Photokina, then. Luckily, I found a link to reassure me that the Mamiya lens exists:

 

http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/Mamiya_New_AF_Lenses_PR.pdf

 

As for the rest - exactly, making a less distorting lens is more expensive, so the software to correct the distorsion directly on the Raw file, while taking into account the focal distance of the lens and the aperture confers a competitive advantage.

 

Edmund

 

 

PS. I wish somebody would sell Leica some method for estimating white balance because it sure would improve my M8 workflow.

[mwalker649]

On the converse side, I think it's going to be very entertaining watching people with Raw files converted with Lightroom try to edit their settings in 20 years time, because the algorithms Adobe uses are totally non-standard. If you cannot run the software, you still have your Raw files, but I'not sure you can ever recreate the rendering. If you use Lightroom you better never let that license lapse.

 

Edmund

 

You guys are a bit above my head but wow Edmund, thats a pretty good argument against Lightroom, I guess that goes for Photoshop too? So your saying we should stick to the RAW converter that is issued with the manufacture, in Leicas case C1 for long term post processing?

[mjh]

Luckily, I found a link to reassure me that the Mamiya lens exists

Yes, the lens has been announced, but does it exist? Can you buy it anywhere? It’s not even listed on the Mamiya website.

 

As for the rest - exactly, making a less distorting lens is more expensive, so the software to correct the distorsion directly on the Raw file, while taking into account the focal distance of the lens and the aperture confers a competitive advantage.

As I said: anybody could do the same. There are no secrets, no patents etc..

[mjh]

thats a pretty good argument against Lightroom, I guess that goes for Photoshop too? So your saying we should stick to the RAW converter that is issued with the manufacture, in Leicas case C1 for long term post processing?

It is not an argument against any raw converter in particular. Every raw converter has its own settings format, so if you believe you need access to previously used settings in 20 years time, you may get a problem, regardless of the converter you use – C1, Lightroom, ACR, RAW Developer, Bibble, whatever. But as long as the raw file itself can still be decoded, you are fine. With DNG I see less reason to worry than with proprietary raw file formats.

[eronald]

It is not an argument against any raw converter in particular. Every raw converter has its own settings format, so if you believe you need access to previously used settings in 20 years time, you may get a problem, regardless of the converter you use – C1, Lightroom, ACR, RAW Developer, Bibble, whatever. But as long as the raw file itself can still be decoded, you are fine. With DNG I see less reason to worry than with proprietary raw file formats.

 

 

Not quite. There are converters and there are pseudo-converters.

- Capture One which is used by us Leica crowd, and Canon's DPP, and Adobe's Adobe Raw Converter Plugin for instance are simple converters. In a typical workflow they are used to generate TIFF images which are totally frozen, with known color references. These TIFF files can be used by zillions of different programs, they are perfectly documented.

- Aperture on the other hand, and I believe Lightroom too is more of a Raw database, viewer and editing program. it is used to work and style images in various versions (Aperture) or virtual copies (Lightroom).

 

Lightroom vs. Aperture: Versions and Stacking - O'Reilly Digital Media Blog

 

These virtual copies are never spooled out, and intricately linked to the workings of each individual program, so they may be considered lost when the original software stops working.

 

In case you disagree with me, show me where the Raw converter used by Lightroom and by Aperture are documented. As far as I know, the settings alone here are useless, because the software itself contains trade secrets in both cases.

 

The only way the user can escape from this situation is by meticulously exporting each valuable version of a file to a TIFF.

 

Edmund

[Guest stnami]

All this hoo haa concern about the future of this and that format, get out there and stuck into it. Not much you can do about it when you become maggot food.

I wanna leave a legacy for ever and ever

..... AHHHHH don't think so, images swamp us already and the come amd go. That reminds me time to weed the vegie patch

[sdai]

All this hoo haa concern about the future of this and that format, get out there and stuck into it. Not much you can do about it when you become maggot food.

 

That sums it up nicely ... a hundred years later, who cares?

[Guest sirvine]

So, you're giving the advantage to programs that generate TIFFs from RAW, when LR and Aperture are both fully capable of exporting TIFFs at any time, even as a routine batch operation? Makes no sense to me to favor this kind of "destructive" adjustment.

 

Plus, who says TIFF is going to be readable at that magical time in the future?

[eronald]

So, you're giving the advantage to programs that generate TIFFs from RAW, when LR and Aperture are both fully capable of exporting TIFFs at any time, even as a routine batch operation? Makes no sense to me to favor this kind of "destructive" adjustment.

 

Plus, who says TIFF is going to be readable at that magical time in the future?

 

How about 10 years from now ? In 10 years, TIFF will still be readable by every single open source and commercial program on the planet. DCRAW will still be able to read every current Raw format at that point. But a user who makes his mistake of not having paid for updates on Lightroom and who cannot make the current software run on new hardware may suddenly find he cannot get at his old "virtual" files, because the code necessary to create those color renderings and tone curves is a trade secret and the old software doesn't run. Of course the Raws and TIFFs will still be there.

 

Of course, you are right that TIFFs can be exported - but the whole point about Lightroom is that it presents as a tool which makes Tiff exports unnecessary, and saves you disk space.

 

I think Lightroom is a wonderful idea, like Aperture. Non-destructive editing, and the ability to create variations at almost zero-cost in disk space are wonderful indeed. But the virtual files are now objects in their own right. I find it interesting that after complaining so hard that Nikon and Canon haven't opened their file format, Adobe seems to be in no hurry to open-source the colour renderings, tone curves, sharpening filters, noise reduction and other algorithms in its own "virtual file" decoder.

 

Edmund

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear