Andrew--again, with respect--you're missing my key points, and being just a little bit needlessly dismissive. Not exactly fair, to my mind. However...
Hasselblad to my knowledge does not make a digital back. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong... but it certainly doesn't account for much volume. I understand their *software* guys like DNG. That's not surprising.
Phase One Capture One in the list you posted is NOT the hardware side of Phase. I've never seen Phase say their digital back will produce a DNG file.
Leica will be lucky to be making cameras--any cameras--given their recent financials. I didn't count them because it's a crapshoot whether their DNG compatible camera will see the light of day at all... ever.
OK, but let's count Leica--give them the benefit of the doubt.
So that's a total of ONE camera manufacturer...so I'll be particular and take you up on your statement then that camera manufacturers (plural) are getting on board. Hmm. Not yet. Not visibly. Hardly, to my mind, an impressive adoption. (But maybe you are privy to plans that I'm not.)
So I don't think it's fair to say I'm "making up rules" (whatever that means!--we're talking opinion and analysis here... not prescription in any case!).
(not to mention a host of others nearly gone or already gone, like Contax and Bronica etc...)
They don't support DNG--to my knowledge.
As for TIFF / JPEG... I'm not saying the Camera companies are "good guys" here. Just that they have a position. They don't mind doing in-camera JPEGs because, as I pointed out, it's a convenience factor--not a high quality issue. If you don't like the in-camera JPEG, well, Canon will say shoot with our RAW workflow and use our tools. A lot don't do TIFF anymore at all.
FWIW, I'm not anti-DNG, and I don't know why you can't follow this logic of company's self-interest. I personally think an open standard for RAW is a good idea, at least in terms of documentation-->NOT prescription.
And maybe Adobe isn't the most credible leader here. I am personally an Adobe customer, and in my own systems, I certainly own more of their software (and pay them more per year) than anyone else's. I'm also a long-time fan of theirs, and of John Warnock when it comes to that.
But their corporate track record on open-ness isn't exactly stellar (rather the opposite), and they definitely have something to gain in terms of DNG--and the camera companies have something (control and ability to bring forward new tech. without Adobe's blessing) to lose. So let's just say their rhetorical stance is, uh, flawed at best.
That's all I'm saying. Not who is "good" and who is "bad." And, as a consumer of way too many digicams in the last 5 or 6 years, what balances the proprietary "badness" of the format (not all proprietary formats are "bad!") for consumers is the ability of a hardware manufacturer to express their intellectual property and bring new technology to bear quickly. I want that more than I want a new version of Photoshop, IMO, because that's still where there's the most room for improvement.
BTW--I'm not saying that's the current case with RAW file--that Canon or Nikon or Phase are expressing a lot of unique intellectual property. As David Coffin says, the RAW files are easy to decode / reverse engineer, and as others have pointed out, they're *mostly* just image data (and the photographer owns that anyway, again, IMO).
But I can imagine lawyers inside the innovator's companies (not Leica, for heavens' sake) saying "if you open this up now, forget about trying to close it later".
So I wish the open RAW consortium the best of luck. I still think Adobe's posturing on this issue is a no-lose press for them to gain more control of their own costs. Does that have benefit for us? Certainly--PS should be cheaper [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Does it have a risk? Yes... I think it does... we may only see the best the hardware manufacturers can express in a fully DRM and very strongly encrypted file.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
-->Hasselblad to my knowledge does not make a digital back. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong...
Yes you are. Hasselblad owns Imacon who’s made digital backs for years!
Also, DNG is only a bit over a year old. The list is growing, albeit slowly which is frustrating.
-->But their corporate track record on open-ness isn't exactly stellar (rather the opposite),
It what way?
-->As David Coffin says, the RAW files are easy to decode / reverse engineer, and as others have pointed out, they're *mostly* just image data (and the photographer owns that anyway, again, IMO).
Why the need to decode them anyway? What’s the advantage to the customer? None. What are the risks? Potentially many.
-->Does that have benefit for us? Certainly
That’s the bottom line!
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
To keep this short, I'm just going to say that though Adobe publishes all their format specifications (TIFF, PDF, PSD, PS, AI, IDD etc...)--which in and of itself is better than what many RAW manufacturers do--they still assert strong ownership and licencing of those formats. In other words, while public, they're still proprietary.
The camera manufacturers should do the same thing. In a sense, that's all Thomas Knoll was saying... "Nikon--give me the rights to decrypt your WB information". Publish it...
But that's the problem. While Nikon's encryption of this data is--from my perspective--unfathomable... I'm sure someone in Nikon had their reasons for doing it.
And by Adobe's pushing the issue, they're just goint to back the hw manufacturers into a wall. Or maybe into a licence agreement--which I think is more likely in the long run.
But that's another strike against DNG. As Adobe knows, licensing proprietary formats can be lucrative.
In the meantime, if Adobe doesn't play along or if Nikon doesn't realize this the right thing to do, well, if we have to use something like DPP (I'm not a Nikon guy anymore) to get the very best images somewhere down the road--I'm there. They'll still get to PS eventually anyway, 6 times out of 10.
(PS--I was also joking about Photoshop becoming cheaper [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]...
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
" Hasselblad to my knowledge does not make a digital back".
Hasselblad owns Imacon who make several of the very best digital backs out there. There are several new Hasselblad (branded) digital backs out now...too (based on Imacon models).
As to Leica not being around in a year..don't count on it. Leica will turn out to be a major player in the very high end digital arena..just as they always have been with their film cameras. I'm eagerly awaiting the first real rangefinder digital "M" body.
"I still think Adobe's posturing on this issue is a no-lose press for them to gain more control of their own costs. Does that have benefit for us? Certainly--PS should be cheaper Does it have a risk? Yes... I think it does... we may only see the best the hardware manufacturers can express in a fully DRM and very strongly encrypted file."
Adobe is certainly posturing..(and Nikon is being unnecessariarly blockheaded, too). But any gain that Adobe may end up with this posturning will not be passed on to us. The cost of PS going down? comeon..Adobe is completely revamping it's whole line of imaging products into a more cohesive uniform working set-up accross the board...but they aren't going to lower prices. why should they? Nikon is (finally) trying to get it's software act moving to drag in consumer level business.
The very fact the the best capture/scanning software out there (FlexColor) is poised to support the DNG format speaks volumes as to the direction that professional imaging is going. Nikon, Canon, etal make most of their bread from consumer sales...so their move towards proprietary formats is consistent with giving their consumer customers their "better imaging experience" marketing hustle (which translates to a lock on the market for them..natch). The Professional market for Nikon/Canometal is secondary..always has been. Pros who use smaller format cameras will just continue to work around this BS ..until Nikon and Adobe start to smarten up..if they do.
Nikon's not making any plans to sue C1 or Bibble labs or Dave Coffin are they??
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
