5 ms·

> Cameras absolutely could emit DNG instead, but that would require more development friction: coordination (with Adobe), [..] Technically speaking, implementi

> Cameras absolutely could emit DNG instead, but that would require more development friction: coordination (with Adobe), [..] Technically speaking, implementing DNG would be another development activity on top of a RAW export, because RAW also has a purpose in development and tuning of the camera and its firmware. It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in, just sufficiently standardized to be used in the camera-vendors' toolchain for development. It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch. Supporting DNG would mean adding an extra feature and then hiding the RAW-option again. I can imagine it's hard to make this a priority in a project plan, since most of the objectives are already achieved by saving in RAW

Narretz 2y ago
> It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch RAW (any format) is an essential requirement for many photographers. You just can't get the same results out of a jpeg.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  None of this is disputed (or relevant) in this conversation
  - mort96 2y ago
    I disagree. Bufferoverflow frames raw formats as something that's really only there for R&D purposes, and it's more or less just an afterthought that it's available to photographers. In reality, Narretz points out, getting access to the raw sensor data is a key feature to many photographers; it's an essential aspect of the product from a user perspective.
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      Since you disagree: where in this thread did anyone state the opposite of what you just wrote, who said that RAW is NOT a key feature to many photographers?
      - mort96 2y ago
        Here: > It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in, just sufficiently standardized to be used in the camera-vendors' toolchain for development. It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch.
        rickdeckard 2y ago
        Nothing here states that a RAW format is NOT a key feature to many photographers. This is a straw-man argument.
        mort96 2y ago
        It says that it "just happens" to be available to customers and the main reason it exists is for R&D. That's what I disagree with.
        rickdeckard 2y ago
        The whole post shapes the context, even the whole sentence helps already: It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch. Supporting DNG would mean adding an extra feature and then hiding the RAW-option again. --> Even if DNG-support would be adopted as a feature for the end-user, the proprietary RAW would still need to be maintained because it has a core-purpose during development of the product. The utilization AFTER that is the product-feature None of this negates the value of RAW for photographers, this is completely beside the topic
        mort96 2y ago
        That's not how I interpret it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        rickdeckard 2y ago
        Hence I, the person who wrote it (!), keeps clarifying the intended interpretation by (re)iterating that noone disputes the value of RAW for photographers. It is up to you now to ingest new information and adjust your interpretation, a process I'm afraid I can't help any further with. Good luck ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
7bit 2y ago
First of all, it does not "just happen" to be selectable. RAW contains information that is not available in a JPG or PNG , but which is crucial to a lot of serious photographers. Second, the native raw images do include a ton of adjustments in brightness, contrast and color correction. All of which gets lost when you open the image file with apps provided from other companies than the camera vendor. Eg. open a Nikon-raw in NC Software and then in Lightroom. Big difference. Adobe has some profiles that get near the original result, but the Nikon raw standards often are better. So DNG would absolutely be an advantage because then at least these color corrections could natively be implemented and not get lost in the process.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  Noone is disputing the advantage of RAW. I tried to provide the view from a pure development perspective, looking at a feature backlog. It "just happens" to be selectable because it is a byproduct of the internal development: The existing RAW format is used internally during development and tuning of the product, and is implemented to work with vendor-internal processes and tools. Supporting DNG would require a SEPARATE development, and it would still not replace a proprietary RAW-format in the internal toolchain. (because the DNG patent-license comes with rights for Adobe as well as an option to revoke the license)
- emkoemko 2y ago
  most people who shoot RAW don't care for the in camera picture adjustments so don't care if RAW shows up looking what it did in the camera because we apply our own edits anyways, if we need something like that we shot jpeg
- redeeman 2y ago
  just encoding to DNG wouldnt do that. nikons software has its own profiles and stuff that it applies, and they would need to publish how that works. But that is generic, you could(nikon permitting) apply their processing to a photo taken by a canon. it has nothing to do specifically with the NEF format
seba_dos1 2y ago
> It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in ...and what do you think DNG is?
- bobmcnamara 2y ago
  A file format containing a subset of the image sensor data needed for tuning an image sensor. It's user focused rather than camera developer focused.
  - seba_dos1 2y ago
    Neither DNG nor various vendor-specific raw formats are meant for tuning an image sensor. They can be used for that in some specific cases, but it's not what they are for. They're for taking photos and providing the user with less opinionated data so they can do the processing of their photos the way they want rather than rely on predefined processing pipeline implemented in the camera. Despite the name, this is rarely a pure raw stream of data coming from the sensor. It's usually close enough for practical photographic purposes though.
    - bobmcnamara 2y ago
      Our proprietary format was a header followed by a raw sensor dump. Despite this, people eventually used it for photographic purposes.
      - seba_dos1 2y ago
        So is DNG in the implementation I've worked on (data as outputted by the sensor wrapped in a TIFF structure), but whether what the sensor outputs is actually "raw" can be debatable and is sensor- and configuration-dependent.
        bobmcnamara 2y ago
        Absolutely true. Our sensors would dump their registers in the first few lines so at least you knew what settings were used for that frame.
naasking 2y ago
> It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in, just sufficiently standardized to be used in the camera-vendors' toolchain for development. This is what I was thinking, that there are potentially so many RAW formats because there are so many sensors with potentially different output data. There should be a way to standardize this though.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  Yeah, but it's not standardised because its output is so close to "bare metal", it's wrapped into a standardised format a few steps later when a JPG/HEIC/... is created. Supporting DNG means that those few steps later it should be standardised into ANOTHER RAW-equivalent. A format which happens to be patented and comes with a license and legal implications. Among them the right for Adobe to every method you used to make this conversion from your proprietary bare-metal sensor-data. This is not trivial, because if you're a vendor working on sensor-tech you wouldn't want to be required to share all your processing with Adobe for free...
  - naasking 2y ago
    I have no knowledge of DNG, what I was suggesting is that someone should devise a some kind of extensible, self-describing format that can be used in place of RAW without losing any sensor data as with JPEG/HEIC/etc.
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      Ah I see. Well, DNG ("Digital Negative") is such a format, defined and patented by Adobe, but with a license allowing free use under certain conditions. The conditions are somewhat required to make sure that Adobe remains in control of the format, but at the same time they create a commitment and legal implications for anyone adopting it.
bufferoverflow 2y ago
> Technically speaking, implementing DNG would be another development activity on top of a RAW export, What are you talking about? Canon could implement DNG instead of CR3. It's not that hard. Both of these formats are referred to as "RAW".
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  Just as I wrote. CR3 is used by Canon also during development and tuning of their sensors and cameras. DNG would not replace CR3, because CR3 would still be needed before launch, and Canon has no incentive to change their entire internal toolchain to comply to Adobes DNG specification. Especially not because the DNG format is patented and allows Adobe to revoke the license in case of dispute...
redeeman 2y ago
not really, RAW is NOT just a raw sensor dump straight from the hw into a file. its a full fledged format, that contains the extensive metadata already in the exif formats including vendor blocks etc, and then its the sensor readout, which is relatively similar between nearly all sensors, theres certainly not many types, considering you can express the bayer pattern. This can all be expressed in DNG, and would NOT need to be an "extra" on top of "raw". and indeed, some camera vendors do in fact do this.

Narretz 2y ago

> It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch RAW (any format) is an essential requirement for many photographers. You just can't get the same results out of a jpeg.

rickdeckard 2y ago
None of this is disputed (or relevant) in this conversation
- mort96 2y ago
  I disagree. Bufferoverflow frames raw formats as something that's really only there for R&D purposes, and it's more or less just an afterthought that it's available to photographers. In reality, Narretz points out, getting access to the raw sensor data is a key feature to many photographers; it's an essential aspect of the product from a user perspective.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    Since you disagree: where in this thread did anyone state the opposite of what you just wrote, who said that RAW is NOT a key feature to many photographers?
    - mort96 2y ago
      Here: > It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in, just sufficiently standardized to be used in the camera-vendors' toolchain for development. It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch.
      - rickdeckard 2y ago
        Nothing here states that a RAW format is NOT a key feature to many photographers. This is a straw-man argument.
        mort96 2y ago
        It says that it "just happens" to be available to customers and the main reason it exists is for R&D. That's what I disagree with.
        rickdeckard 2y ago
        The whole post shapes the context, even the whole sentence helps already: It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch. Supporting DNG would mean adding an extra feature and then hiding the RAW-option again. --> Even if DNG-support would be adopted as a feature for the end-user, the proprietary RAW would still need to be maintained because it has a core-purpose during development of the product. The utilization AFTER that is the product-feature None of this negates the value of RAW for photographers, this is completely beside the topic
        mort96 2y ago
        That's not how I interpret it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        rickdeckard 2y ago
        Hence I, the person who wrote it (!), keeps clarifying the intended interpretation by (re)iterating that noone disputes the value of RAW for photographers. It is up to you now to ingest new information and adjust your interpretation, a process I'm afraid I can't help any further with. Good luck ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

7bit 2y ago

First of all, it does not "just happen" to be selectable. RAW contains information that is not available in a JPG or PNG , but which is crucial to a lot of serious photographers. Second, the native raw images do include a ton of adjustments in brightness, contrast and color correction. All of which gets lost when you open the image file with apps provided from other companies than the camera vendor. Eg. open a Nikon-raw in NC Software and then in Lightroom. Big difference. Adobe has some profiles that get near the original result, but the Nikon raw standards often are better. So DNG would absolutely be an advantage because then at least these color corrections could natively be implemented and not get lost in the process.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rickdeckard 2y ago
Noone is disputing the advantage of RAW. I tried to provide the view from a pure development perspective, looking at a feature backlog. It "just happens" to be selectable because it is a byproduct of the internal development: The existing RAW format is used internally during development and tuning of the product, and is implemented to work with vendor-internal processes and tools. Supporting DNG would require a SEPARATE development, and it would still not replace a proprietary RAW-format in the internal toolchain. (because the DNG patent-license comes with rights for Adobe as well as an option to revoke the license)
emkoemko 2y ago
most people who shoot RAW don't care for the in camera picture adjustments so don't care if RAW shows up looking what it did in the camera because we apply our own edits anyways, if we need something like that we shot jpeg
redeeman 2y ago
just encoding to DNG wouldnt do that. nikons software has its own profiles and stuff that it applies, and they would need to publish how that works. But that is generic, you could(nikon permitting) apply their processing to a photo taken by a canon. it has nothing to do specifically with the NEF format

seba_dos1 2y ago

> It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in ...and what do you think DNG is?

bobmcnamara 2y ago
A file format containing a subset of the image sensor data needed for tuning an image sensor. It's user focused rather than camera developer focused.
- seba_dos1 2y ago
  Neither DNG nor various vendor-specific raw formats are meant for tuning an image sensor. They can be used for that in some specific cases, but it's not what they are for. They're for taking photos and providing the user with less opinionated data so they can do the processing of their photos the way they want rather than rely on predefined processing pipeline implemented in the camera. Despite the name, this is rarely a pure raw stream of data coming from the sensor. It's usually close enough for practical photographic purposes though.
  - bobmcnamara 2y ago
    Our proprietary format was a header followed by a raw sensor dump. Despite this, people eventually used it for photographic purposes.
    - seba_dos1 2y ago
      So is DNG in the implementation I've worked on (data as outputted by the sensor wrapped in a TIFF structure), but whether what the sensor outputs is actually "raw" can be debatable and is sensor- and configuration-dependent.
      - bobmcnamara 2y ago
        Absolutely true. Our sensors would dump their registers in the first few lines so at least you knew what settings were used for that frame.

naasking 2y ago

> It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in, just sufficiently standardized to be used in the camera-vendors' toolchain for development. This is what I was thinking, that there are potentially so many RAW formats because there are so many sensors with potentially different output data. There should be a way to standardize this though.

rickdeckard 2y ago
Yeah, but it's not standardised because its output is so close to "bare metal", it's wrapped into a standardised format a few steps later when a JPG/HEIC/... is created. Supporting DNG means that those few steps later it should be standardised into ANOTHER RAW-equivalent. A format which happens to be patented and comes with a license and legal implications. Among them the right for Adobe to every method you used to make this conversion from your proprietary bare-metal sensor-data. This is not trivial, because if you're a vendor working on sensor-tech you wouldn't want to be required to share all your processing with Adobe for free...
- naasking 2y ago
  I have no knowledge of DNG, what I was suggesting is that someone should devise a some kind of extensible, self-describing format that can be used in place of RAW without losing any sensor data as with JPEG/HEIC/etc.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    Ah I see. Well, DNG ("Digital Negative") is such a format, defined and patented by Adobe, but with a license allowing free use under certain conditions. The conditions are somewhat required to make sure that Adobe remains in control of the format, but at the same time they create a commitment and legal implications for anyone adopting it.

bufferoverflow 2y ago

> Technically speaking, implementing DNG would be another development activity on top of a RAW export, What are you talking about? Canon could implement DNG instead of CR3. It's not that hard. Both of these formats are referred to as "RAW".

rickdeckard 2y ago
Just as I wrote. CR3 is used by Canon also during development and tuning of their sensors and cameras. DNG would not replace CR3, because CR3 would still be needed before launch, and Canon has no incentive to change their entire internal toolchain to comply to Adobes DNG specification. Especially not because the DNG format is patented and allows Adobe to revoke the license in case of dispute...

redeeman 2y ago

not really, RAW is NOT just a raw sensor dump straight from the hw into a file. its a full fledged format, that contains the extensive metadata already in the exif formats including vendor blocks etc, and then its the sensor readout, which is relatively similar between nearly all sensors, theres certainly not many types, considering you can express the bayer pattern. This can all be expressed in DNG, and would NOT need to be an "extra" on top of "raw". and indeed, some camera vendors do in fact do this.