30D and new RAW format?

I believe the 30D has a new RAW file format - anyone got any idea why - and will it be openable in the various versions of Photoshop? What was so wrong with the old format?
All questions I'm afraid.

Regards

As far as I know, the only difference is in the coding for the model number of the camera: 20D vs 30D. That's why PS can't open the 30D files yet.
However, if you have PSCS2 there's a nifty hack available:
http://akhater.wordpre​ss.com …op-cs2-for-canon-30d-raw/
Look for the link to download the actual script. Put the script in the scripts folder for Photoshop. Open Photoshop, run the script, and you're done.
I did it here and it works great.
One note: for some reason a lot of people have the camera raw plugin in the wrong folder.
Here's where it should be in PSCS2:
C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-Ins\CS2\File Formats
Make sure you have the latest version of the plugin, and make sure it's in the above location.

Jack

If it really is just the difference in the coding for the number of the camera (20D vs 30D) it is RIDICULOUS that adobe hasn't come out with an update or patch for this yet. I am amazed they haven't come out with it yet considering it's photodorks like us who pony up and pay all that money for their lovely photoshop.

The new format apparently also contains info on the new picture styles and probably other info as well - probably a good idea to make a copy of the original before using the hack.

Thanks for reply Jack - it just seems so ridiculous that Canon can't standardise a file format. If I wish to transport my RAW files do I have to convert them to JPG or TIFF etc: because some other computer cannot read them. Perhaps we need to carry Canon's RAW software around when we go travelling - just in case! Hence: obviously, the reason to shoot RAW+Large JPG. Regarding Hemuni's comment on picture styles - I was under the impression that RAW didn't contain any information of this sort.
Ray

I find it ridiculous with all the extensible formats available (e.g. via XML) that RAW is still such a pain. Very 1980's.

BTW Apple's Aperture 1.1 supports the 30D and has reduced in price. Some competition for Adobe to get their act together at least.

Malcolm

RAW isn't a pain. It really is very simple. Open up DPP, delete the junk images and transfer TIFF to PS. Even easier when the RawShooter Premium upgrade comes out to support 30D format. The beta .exe for that works fine at the moment.

RAW is RAW. If you want a common format that's fine, add one as well, but I think RAW should stay as what comes off the sensor, in whatever format it's in. By messing with the data you're losing information.

The hack creates a copy of the original raw plugin. After running the script, if you check the folder where the plugin is located, you'll now see two. The new one is called Camera Raw Unofficial Canon 30D.8bi. It's this one that has the modifications, not the original.
When (if) Adobe finally gets around to updating, and you want to uninstall the hacked plugin, run the script again. You be asked if you want to remove Unofficial 30D support. Click yes, done.

Jack

Not sure, but I don't think it does either. DPP will apply Picture Styles settings to the RAW files, but it seems to be a processing thing, not something that's in the RAW file itself.
But, in the meantime, I'm using the hack in Photoshop and it's working fine.
However, I've been using DPP for the most part because it's much faster at displaying thumbnails than ACR, the colors are more accurate (especially reds-will Adobe EVER get red right?).
I also noticed that DPP seems to be doing a better job with noise. I converted a few shots from the 30D using both DPP and ACR, useing default settings in both. When I compared the two, the DPP conversions were cleaner.

Jack

You should take a copy of the original RAW file before applying the hacked version of ACR.

The RAW file remembers the camera settings, including picture styles and displays them in DPP or RIT.

I don't know if it helps anyone, but here's a hack which will allow iPhoto on Mac OS X to read 30D RAW files.

http://www.macosxhints​.com …p?story=2006030​8183835653

I didn't mean working with supported RAW files was a pain, I think it is a pain the way RAW formats must be individually supported even if they only have minor changes (e.g. ID change from 20D to 30D).

The data from the sensor goes through at least 1 processor which then write the data to the memory buffer. Today it would be trivial to have a more self-describing format so RAW formats would be easier to support. Adobe's DNG format is along these lines I think.

The format is independent of the data. It's not that hard for manufacturers to improve RAW compatibility if they wanted to.

You guys don't seem to get it - RAW is what comes off the sensor, with a tiny bit of exif added. If they messed with it, it wouldn't be RAW any more. That's why RAW formats have to be added each time a new camera's released. So a "common raw" format isn't RAW - it's another file format that's lost data. Like I said above, add another RAW-like file format, but don't ditch the RAW, it's valuable.

Your argument is like saying the more computers you copy a file to the worse the quality gets!

The data from the sensor does go through on-chip processing, e.g. to reduce fixed pattern noise. This is one of the techniques that makes the Canon images so much cleaner than competitors. The data from the sensor can get reformatted without losing any data integrity - it's just a format.

You can add metadata without losing data integrity. It happens all the time in other areas of signal processing, data capture, etc. My company does a lot of this stuff all the time.

Malcolm