Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 22, 2007, 3:09 PM   #21
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
But Nikon, IMHO, has always had the right thinking as for as a "systematic approach" is concerned. They are one of the few manufacturers that have thought beyond just developing the camera by putting a concentrated effort in putting out a powerful piece of software called Capture NX. Yes, you must pay! But what you do get is a very capable software package developed by the same people who built the camera. A truly "non-destructive" approach.
Well, there is another point of view...

Nikon encrypts metadata related to White Balance in the .nef (raw) files from their newer DSLR models. They started that practice with the D2X.

From my perspective, the only reason that they would do that is to stifle competition, so that you'd have to buy Nikon Capture if you wanted the best results.

This was a new practice, beginning with the D2X (and it's still continuing with newer camera models).

It caused a lot of bad press for them, and I wasn't particularly happy about it either.

Eric Hyman (author of Bibble) was the first to crack the encryption. David Coffin (the author of dcraw.c) cracked it soon thereafter and included the decryption routines in dcraw.c (Nikon basically xor'd the rgb multipliers related to white balance, using part of the camera's serial number as part of the key to further confuse).

After a lot of bad press when Adobe decided that they were not going to support the as shot white balance information from Nikon models encrypting white balance, a compromise was made.
What happened is that Nikon decided to offer a mini SDK that allows Adobe to decrypt the as shot white balance information, without using Nikon's demosaic algorithms (so that Adobe could use it's own algorithms for the raw conversion piece).

But, the data is still encrypted. Just because Adobe and Nikon decide to "play nice", doesn't solve it from my perspective. I could care less if Adobe is happy with the arrangement.

What if some bright young teenager comes up with a revolutionary new way to process data from sensors, and he or she doesn't have Nikon's Software Developer's Kit?

Perhaps they don't want to agree to Nikon's terms to get the SDK, or don't qualify as a "bonafide developer" (a choice of words that didn't sit well with me when Nikon started defending it's practice).

Or, perhaps someone wants to develop a raw converter for a platform that Nikon doesn't have an SDK available for (think Linux, Solaris, etc.)

Then, what do they do?

Do they take the risk that they're not going to get into trouble over violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by decrypting the data (which was apparently Adobe's concern over this issue until they finallly reached a compromise with Nikon)?

Or, worse yet, do developers avoid working on converting the raw files entirely, stifling potential innovation and improvements with raw converters?

Yes, some developers have decided to risk decrypting it. But, I sure don't like it.

IMO, the only reason to encrypt metadata in raw files is to stifle competition and I'm sure they'd love to sell you Capture NX to try and solve that issue for you. ;-)

If Nikon thinks they've got a better solution with something like the optional Nikon Capture software, fine. But, let the product stand on it's own merits. Don't throw roadblocks in front of competitors by encrypting data.

We all end up spending more money for software, even if we don't own Nikon gear over this kind of thing (although I guess software manufacturers could decide to price raw converters based on what camera you own).

Developers have to spend time decrypting data, sorting through legal issues, etc., and that cost gets passed on to consumers.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 3:22 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
But Nikon, IMHO, has always had the right thinking as for as a "systematic approach" is concerned. They are one of the few manufacturers that have thought beyond just developing the camera by putting a concentrated effort in putting out a powerful piece of software called Capture NX. Yes, you must pay! But what you do get is a very capable software package developed by the same people who built the camera. A truly "non-destructive" approach.
Well, there is another point of view...

Nikon encrypts metadata related to White Balance in the .nef (raw) files from their newer DSLR models. They started that practice with the D2X.

From my perspective, the only reason that they would do that is to stifle competition, so that you'd have to buy Nikon Capture if you wanted the best results.

This was a new practice, beginning with the D2X (and it's still continuing with newer camera models).

It caused a lot of bad press for them, and I wasn't particularly happy about it either.

Eric Hyman (author of Bibble) was the first to crack the encryption. David Coffin (the author of dcraw.c) cracked it soon thereafter and included the decryption routines in dcraw.c (Nikon basically xor'd the rgb multipliers related to white balance, using part of the camera's serial number as part of the key to further confuse).

After a lot of bad press when Adobe decided that they were not going to support the as shot white balance information from Nikon models encrypting white balance, a compromise was made. What happened is that Nikon decided to offer a mini SDK that allows Adobe to decrypt the as shot white balance information, without using Nikon's demosaic algorithms (so that Adobe could use it's own algorithms for the raw conversion piece).

But, the data is still encrypted. Just because Adobe and Nikon decide to "play nice", doesn't solve it from my perspective. I could care less if Adobe is happy with the arrangement.

What if some bright young teenager comes up with a revolutionary new way to process data from sensors, and he or she doesn't have Nikon's Software Developer's Kit?

Perhaps they don't want to agree to Nikon's terms to get the SDK, or don't qualify as a "bonafide developer" (a choice of words that didn't sit well with me when Nikon started defending it's practice).

Or, perhaps someone wants to develop a raw converter for a platform that Nikon doesn't have an SDK available for (think Linux, Solaris, etc.)

Then, what do they do?

Do they take the risk that they're not going to get into trouble over violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by decrypting the data (which was apparently Adobe's concern over this issue until they finallly reached a compromise with Nikon)?

Or, worse yet, do developers avoid working on converting the raw files entirely, stifling potential innovation and improvements with raw converters?

Yes, some developers have decided to risk decrypting it. But, I sure don't like it.

IMO, the only reason to encrypt metadata in raw files is to stifle competition and I'm sure they'd love to sell you Capture NX to try and solve that issue for you. ;-)

If Nikon thinks they've got a better solution with something like the optional Nikon Capture software, fine. But, let the product stand on it's own merits. Don't throw roadblocks in front of competitors by encrypting data.

We all end up spending more money for software, even if we don't own Nikon gear over this kind of thing (although I guess software manufacturers could decide to price raw converters based on what camera you own).

Developers have to spend time decrypting data, sorting through legal issues, etc., and that cost gets passed on to consumers.

That's very true too.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"But really, unless you're a working photographer ("professinal" sounds so pretentious to me), the amount of "destruction" that goes on when you use third-party software isn't really important. So in the end I think we should buy the software that best suits our own needs and that we feel the most comfortable using. Capture NX or not (assuming you're a Nikon shooter).

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"That being said, if you are a future D300/D3 owner, why not buy Capture NX? For a near seemless shot to PP to print (assuming you've properly calibrated your monitor and your printer...assuming you do your own prints).


DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 3:32 PM   #23
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Nikon Capture NX is an option.

But, there are many alternatives and a number photographers may prefer a faster raw converter and/or one that offers a better workflow for their needs, and/or one that has more features for editing and/or one that runs on a different platform (for example, I use Linux more than Windows) and/or one that offers more detail based on more advanced algorithms and/or [insert your favorite reason for using a different raw converter here]

I believe in the user having a choice. Competition on the software side of it is a good thing from my perspective.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 5:39 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
nickphoto123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,356
Default

The D3 and the D300 ar the very first things I will look at at PhotoPlus Expo in New York this October.

Nicholas
nickphoto123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 6:52 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Nikon Capture NX is an option.

But, there are many alternatives and a number photographers may prefer a faster raw converter and/or one that offers a better workflow for their needs, and/or one that has more features for editing and/or one that runs on a different platform (for example, I use Linux more than Windows) and/or one that offers more detail based on more advanced algorithms and/or [insert your favorite reason for using a different raw converter here]

I believe in the user having a choice. Competition on the software side of it is a good thing from my perspective.
I totally agree. And I'm sure many photographers, amateur or pro, will be using different photo workflow mangement and editing softwares. I'm also sure there are many that might own Nikons and not use Capture NX. "To each his/her own". What ever works for you.

Any how on with the wait. Heh!

Have a good weekend JimC!
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 7:11 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Yes, many photographers seem to really like the newer versions of Capture (much better than some of the older Nikon software for sure). But, many users are fond of Adobe and other solutions for image processing. So, I'd rather Nikon didn't use tactics like encryption of some metadata.

They're not the only ones that do that kind of thing, though. They just got more bad press than most others.

Nikon will probably have more hits on their hands with these models. The higher ISO samples I've seen from the D3 are pretty sweet.

I'd rather the manufacturers didn't try to cram that many pixels into an APS-C size sensor though (Nikon D300, Sony DSLR-A700 and whatever else that comes out using a 12MP APS-C size sensor). Of course, we're starting to see manufacturers announcing non-DSLR models with that many pixels stuffed into a much smaller sensor, too. So, I guess we should be thankful it's not 24MP by now (without keeping the noise as low as they're managing to do).

I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. I'd rather have a lower resolution sensor with lower noise levels like the larger D3 sensor produces myself (but, at a much lower price tag). If they'd spend more time improving the sensors and processing, without increasing the resolution with each new generation of cameras, we'd probably have much higher ISO speeds available with improved Dynamic Range. Heck, I'd settle for 3 or 4 Megapixels if they'd give me a reasonably clean ISO 19,200 in an APS-C size sensor (without an overprocessed look from noise reduction). lol

But, many people will want the higher resolution. So, the manufacturers are going to try and accomodate them. This megapixel war never seems to end.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 11:26 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Yes, many photographers seem to really like the newer versions of Capture (much better than some of the older Nikon software for sure). But, many users are fond of Adobe and other solutions for image processing. So, I'd rather Nikon didn't use tactics like encryption of some metadata.

I'd rather the manufacturers didn't try to cram that many pixels into an APS-C size sensor though (Nikon D300, Sony DSLR-A700 and whatever else that comes out using a 12MP APS-C size sensor). Of course, we're starting to see manufacturers announcing non-DSLR models with that many pixels stuffed into a much smaller sensor, too. So, I guess we should be thankful it's not 24MP by now (without keeping the noise as low as they're managing to do).

I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. I'd rather have a lower resolution sensor with lower noise levels like the larger D3 sensor produces myself (but, at a much lower price tag). If they'd spend more time improving the sensors and processing, without increasing the resolution with each new generation of cameras, we'd probably have much higher ISO speeds available with improved Dynamic Range. Heck, I'd settle for 3 or 4 Megapixels if they'd give me a reasonably clean ISO 19,200 in an APS-C size sensor (without an overprocessed look from noise reduction). lol

But, many people will want the higher resolution. So, the manufacturers are going to try and accomodate them. This megapixel war never seems to end.

As a hobbyist, I too am not for the MP wars. I'd rather the manufacturers stick to a good lunber like 12.3 and just work on giving us cleaner pics throughout the entire ISO range. Meanshile extending the useable ISO range. Which is what Nikon has done.

Have you guys seen the 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO D300/D3 pics? They are amazing!

Any how, I'm outta here for a while. Probably till I get my D300. Cya then folks!
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2007, 2:56 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
musket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,782
Default

Some sample photo's from the D300 are now on the Nikon site

http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ...300/sample.htm

:|......................musket
musket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2007, 3:28 PM   #29
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

musket wrote:
Quote:
Some sample photo's from the D300 are now on the Nikon site

http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ...300/sample.htm
Yes. But, they are low ISO speed, low dynamic range subjects (very little range from dark to bright).

I want to see the tougher lighting conditions at higher ISO speeds.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2007, 5:44 PM   #30
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Well guess what - Am I the only one here to shoot @ low ISO? :blah:

I totally understand why some folks need ISO3200 (now 6400), but 95% of the population never go above ISO400! How did everyone survived in the film days then?

-> Also one of the nice feature of the D2X was to shoot @ 2x crop, now we have a D300 @ 12Mp at 1/2 the price and no one want the higher resolution? Come on this is great for as long as they can maintain the IQ the more resolution the better IMO
Great for lowering the cost of tele that's what I think...
NHL 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 7:35 PM.