Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 29, 2005, 6:45 AM   #31
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The issue of whether or not Adobe ACR is decrypting the White Balance information from the newer Powershot models was asked and answered already.

Adobe does not decrypt it. IOW, they do not support the "as shot" White Balance from Powershot Models.

It is my understanding that there are two separate blocks of data related to White Balance being encrypted in these models. If I can get clarification, I'll post it here.

Here is what Thomas Knoll (Adobe) said:

Quote:
"Camera Raw does not break in the encryption in these Canon PowerShot cameras because even if it did, it appears that the auto white balance parameters (which is what I'm most interested in) are not in that block of data anyway. If I did think the data was there, I would have requested permission from Canon, but since I don't think it is, I did not bother to pursue it any further.

Canon does not use any encryption in their new ".CR2" format that I'm aware of, and finding the white balance parameters has been getting progressively easier with recent camera models.

It appears that Canon is slowly moving in the direction of open raw formats. They have a long way to go, but the direction of movement seems to be correct. "
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[email protected]/152


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2005, 10:53 AM   #32
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2
Default

There is one key issue here which gets little mention, yet which I feel is the most important issue of the lot.

When we take a photograph with a digital camera, we expect the instrument to provide us with a digital end product in the form of a file on the CF card or other storage medium. We do not expect the file to have a padlock put on it to turn the camera into the first half of a proprietary camera-computer image delivery system.

Those of us who use open-source computer systems see the Nikon-WB problem particularly vividly as the tip of an extremely dangerous iceburg. Nikon's new policy is implicitly to acquire the photographer's computer for part of its image delivery. What next, you'll only be able to use closed Nikon drivers to render Nikon images to Nikon photo printers?

The camera manufacturers have no business tying specific computing solutions into their image capture system. Of course their marketting divisions would want to do so for extra revenue, but it's wrong. And the fact that this applies only to RAW is of no help, since RAW is becoming more and more the format of choice.

A camera should be a standalone instrument: click that shutter release and a fully-disclosed digital representation of the image (even if RAW) should be on the CF card, no other manufacturer tie-ins being required. How one chooses to process the RAW is one's own affair, and to encrypt RAW metadata is in effect to deny access to one's original shot.

We're being offered a camera in the D2X (and D50/D70s?), but we're being supplied a crippled camera to provide Nikon with a tied camera-computer solution.
Morgaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 9:11 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Morgaine wrote:
Quote:
we're being supplied a crippled camera to provide Nikon with a tied camera-computer solution
I have refrained from posting on this issue, but I must say that most who complain about it don't own a D2x to know better. I wouldn't say crippled, as the jpg's straight from the camera are as good as the nef's once converted to jpg. Ever since aquiring the D2x I have seen little need to shoot nef as the quality difference is no longer such a deciding factor.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 9:32 AM   #34
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

marokero wrote:
Quote:
Morgaine wrote:
Quote:
we're being supplied a crippled camera to provide Nikon with a tied camera-computer solution
I have refrained from posting on this issue, but I must say that most who complain about it don't own a D2x to know better. I wouldn't say crippled, as the jpg's straight from the camera are as good as the nef's once converted to jpg. Ever since aquiring the D2x I have seen little need to shoot nef as the quality difference is no longer such a deciding factor.
I think it's important for camera owners (or potential buyers) on both sides of this issue to voice their opinions.

Ditto for Manufacturers and Third Party Software Developers. We need to hear all sides of this controversy.

But, many camera owners don't share your choice to use only JPEG. Try recovering blown highlights from a JPEG file if you overexpose areas of an image. All photographers don't meter the scene perfectly every time, and you have dynamic range limitations that are easier to overcome shooting in RAW.

Also, a lot of advances in image processing have been made over the years, and I'd expect advances to continue. What you may think is very good processing of the images in the camera now (versus using software to interpret RAW), may not be very good compared to what we'll have in future generations of software.

Will all photographers need to extract the very best quality from their images? Perhaps not. But, there are those that want to take this approach (shoot in RAW, use third party software to extract the most they can from the images).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 10:00 AM   #35
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Yes, I agree. If Mr. Marokero is satisfied with JPEG's right out of the camera, why goood for him.

However, if he is selling images for a living, he would be surprised at how loud a photographer can scream over one blown shot that COULD have been saved...:-)

And why would someone spend 5K on a camera to be told; "live with it," the JPEG's look just fine to me..." (not a quote from Mr. Marokero)

With all due respect, I find his statement astonishing. Really.

And ultiimately it ignores the entire question, substituting for the reality of what Nikon is doing, the personal preference of someone who doesn't care about the issue.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 10:34 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Coming from the D100, the difference in quality from nef to jpg was really big. With the D2x it's no longer the case. I do on occasion shoot nef, I do know the benefits of added controls in developing the nef, but why should I bother fixing something that I could have gotten right from the begining? Nikon offers their software and there are several third party options already. Don't use Nikon's if you're so unhappy, to each his/her own. I'm not going to bother any longer with this issue, I'll leave it up to you.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 11:25 AM   #37
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

marokero wrote:
Quote:
Coming from the D100, the difference in quality from nef to jpg was really big. With the D2x it's no longer the case.
That's one of the points I'm making. As advances in image processing algorithms occur, you can go back and reprocess your RAW images using current technology to get better results.

Quote:
I do on occasion shoot nef, I do know the benefits of added controls in developing the nef, but why should I bother fixing something that I could have gotten right from the begining?
That's a perfectly valid opinion. I'm sure others agree with you. There is more than one side to this issue.

Quote:
Nikon offers their software and there are several third party options already.
Yes, you have alternatives based on decrypting of the metadata, because some developers have decided to stand their ground on this issue.

As of now, Adobe has decided not to support the "as shot" white balance from the new models with encrypted metadata, because they appear to be concerned with legal issues surrounding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Quote:
Don't use Nikon's if you're so unhappy, to each his/her own. I'm not going to bother any longer with this issue, I'll leave it up to you.
What if they want to use Adobe to process their images? They don't have as much choice then. What if other developers don't want to support these models because they're concerned about lawsuits?

IMO, encrypting data in RAW files stifles competition.

Again, I like to see others posting their opinions, and I'm glad you're posting yours.We don't have to agree. ;-) I think it's important to hear all sides ofthis dispute, and I'm glad you're giving yours.




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 1:25 PM   #38
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2
Default

marokero wrote:
Quote:
Nikon offers their software and there are several third party options already. Don't use Nikon's if you're so unhappy, to each his/her own. I'm not going to bother any longer with this issue, I'll leave it up to you.
But why not help us, marokero?

I do understand that this will not help you directly in this particular case, but can you not see merit in helping the photographic community in general on this issue?

After all, if Nikon gets away with this and leads the way in the industry, one day you may find that you require special processing on RAW data while your favourite camera generates RAW files that cannot be processed by specialist software that can do it. Your needs and preferences will change over time, and it's never good to ignore a dark cloud just because it is not currently over your own head.

It comes back to what I said earlier. If you're happy buying a combined proprietary camera-computer image delivery solution, that's great. But for everyone else, a RAW file with encrypted metadata makes the camera a crippled instrument for RAW photography.
Morgaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 10:53 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

I guess I've been blind to the possibilities, I apologise for that If Nikon would make a Capture version that was really kick @ss, maybe they could be excused for keeping their nef metadata hidden, but as it is third parties are sorting out through that mess and making their own converters that are in many respects better than Capture. I guess I just grew too accostumed to Capture's interface, and I'm not too fond of learning new software (Photoshop, ACDSee, iView Media Pro, Capture, and Noise Ninja are enough already) :?
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:32 AM.