Article on Yahoo about new Raw from Adobe

Pretty sure I'm the first to post this..

http://story.news.yaho​o.com …i_te/adobe_digi​tal_photos

S

Good idea long term, but I doube it'll affect those of us who already have our cameras any time soon.

Unless canon finds some way to support it with a bios update, which seems unlikely to me.

I can't see a universal raw format being feasible for all different types/brands of cameras. Too many variables, like sensor type, size, etc.

The format is supposed to be extensible. Furthermore, the just released Camera Raw 2.3 supports it. Adobe also has a free converter.

I applaud Adobe for its effort. It provides a solution to long-term archival of RAW data.

I think that if Adobe can pull it off it'll be a great thing, but it'll take time and cooporation from the camera manufacturers...

If canon, nikon etc... don't think it's a priority then it'll never happen, if they do it will. Time will tell.

That Adobe has chosen to make it non-proprietary and has included it in Camera RAW means that distribution will be fast and widespread. If we end-users provide input to camera manufacturers that this is a desirable feature, then maybe they'll listen.

OTOH, manufacturers have an incentive to obsolete old RAW file formats, because it forces an upgrade. If I'm not mistaken, I believe some of Canon's newer RAW processors don't recognize D30 RAW files, for example.

Let's just hope that manufacturers realize that this is not an issue about upgrading but one of archival. Manufacturers can insure that people will upgrade their cameras by adding more bells and whistles. Manufacturers should also realize that just because the format is non-proprietary, they are not prevented from storing proprietary information in the files that only their software can interpret.

I think this is a great idea and applaud Adobe for taking steps to try and get it used. I hope that the camera manufacturers will heed their call and adopt this standard. I would think that regardless of sensor, a RAW image could be saved in this format, as all a RAW image is is a bunch of pixels with color information and intensity information pretty much.

slin100 wrote:
OTOH, manufacturers have an incentive to obsolete old RAW file formats, because it forces an upgrade. If I'm not mistaken, I believe some of Canon's newer RAW processors don't recognize D30 RAW files, for example.

I think the archival fitness of proprietary RAW formats is not such a big problem as it may seem - it will not be totally impossible to use your RAW files from today twenty years from now.

You can reach so many people via the internet that it would probably not be very hard to find someone who can convert your old RAW files ten years from now. There's also freely available computer source code available (see dcraw) which you will be able to compile and use on computers twenty years from now.

If the new Adobe format really becomes a standard format, you could also consider converting your old RAW files with their tool. That might be a lot of work if you have thousands of RAW files, but at least you'll have them in a futureproof format.

What is the advantage of the new DNG format over TIFF?

From what I read into it, you have to convert RAW to DNG in the first place and can then work with the new format.

Best regards,
Andy

Luminous Landscape has also writen an article on it, and he talks about how it is used.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​software/dng.shtml

It gives you a better understand of what adobe is trying to do.

Agreed. There has to be a "standard" at some point, otherwise - years from now - we'll come to access 'old' raw files and find that we have no way to convert them. That would be a shame.

Anyone remember the looseless jpeg2000 format that adobe made a few years ago, with hopes that all the camera manufactures would switch to it. I dont think Ive ever seen a jpg2000 file yet.

But I still think the DGN file is a good idea, im just not so sure that the camera makes will agree.

Sounds like a good idea. ALthough from a marketing stand point it doesn't make much sense for camera makers.

Ex: Try opening a Microsoft Word '95 file in Word XP. See? Can't. Time to upgrade...

On a more practical note, RAW (at least with Canon) has adapted as the technology changed. the CR2 for example has some things in it that CRW didn't have.

The question is that as RAW formats evolve, there will be a need for DNG to evolve as well. Possibly with different versions.

On a basic level, modern DSLRs capture 12 bits of data. 16-bit TIFF doesn't compress information and holds all 12 bits, stretched to fit 16 bit file format. With EXIF info imprinted inside the file, why not just use TIFF? A TIFF with lossless compression is comparable in size to RAW.

The only benefit RAW converters give over Photoshop is that conversion and basic adjustments (level, curves, color ballance, saturation, etc.) can be batch-applied... and with adobe catching up quick, i can foresee this functionality in photoshop 9.0

Just a though...

Once you convert your file to tiff though, you don't have the same processing power as you do with RAW. Some conversions done to RAW file are better data wise than if tried to do it using the normal PS functions. Of course, if you convert your RAW file the way you like it and never touch it again, then there isn't a reason not to just use TIFF.

i respectfully disagree. if 12 bits hold 12 bits of data (info), you don't loose it unless you start doing lossy compression - which TIFF is not.

if you set a curve, flatten a file and save as 16 bit tiff. then re-open it and apply an inverse curve to it, you will be back to the original file - no info lost.

the only concern is clipping, but that is inherent to RAW conversion as well. if you convert with clipped chanels, you can't recover them in PS later.