[shuttertalk]

I found this site today - OpenRAW - where they're advocating for manufacturers to make their RAW formats openly documented.

Many have suggested (and Adobe has created) a common, open file format for RAW image files for all camera makers to use as a solution to the RAW problem. A common, openly documented RAW format would fulfill many of the goals of OpenRAW, but is likely to face significant resistance from manufacturers who feel their "creativity" and ability to innovate would be constrained. Open documentation of all RAW file formats by manufacturers is the quickest and most satisfactory way for OpenRAW's goals to be reached.

The Adobe format they're alluding to is no other than DNG, and it's already available today, with converters available for most of the manufacturer's proprietary formats. Uptake by manfacturers though, is sitll to be seen.


I was wondering though - what is your ideal world? A myriad of different RAW formats used by different manufacturers, albeit open and documented, OR one standard format, with the possibility of it being "restrictive"?

[EnglishBob]

My Honda has to be diagnosed and decoded by a Honda DNS console, I have no problem with my canon raw files having to be converted by a canon raw converter.

[matthew]

I was wondering though - what is your ideal world? A myriad of different RAW formats used by different manufacturers, albeit open and documented, OR one standard format, with the possibility of it being "restrictive"?

My initial approach is to think of this as a computer issue, but really, it's a camera issue. There may be hundreds of raw formats, but I only use two of them: Olympus .ORF and Sony's .SRF. I have the ability to convert both into a third, common format - .DNG - but haven't felt the need to do it. Since the two formats that I use have third-party support, I have little fear that it will evaporate in the future.

A more pressing issue, to me, is that different raw converters interpret the data differently. I've seen comparisons made between different converters, which create different colour and tonal mixes. Without a "correct" (in the sense of consistent results between software engines) version, I'm not sure that the variety of different formats are that important except for the questions regarding encryption and data access, which are beyond the scope of your initial question.

I'll use Element's implementation of Camera RAW for its ease; or Olympus' RAW software for certain colour emphasis functions. It becomes a matter of personal taste, not accuracy. For the most part, I simply shoot in JPG mode as I like the in-camera conversion that's built right in.

[Petographer]

A more pressing issue, to me, is that different raw converters interpret the data differently. I've seen comparisons made between different converters, which create different colour and tonal mixes. Without a "correct" (in the sense of consistent results between software engines) version, I'm not sure that the variety of different formats are that important except for the questions regarding encryption and data access, which are beyond the scope of your initial question.

My thought also. Although you have a knack of putting it into words much better than I.

[shuttertalk]

I think with an open standardised format, it allows third party developers to produce compatible software. The alternative is to license the SDK from the manufacturers (might not be feasible because of costs), or try and reverse engineer proprietary formats (leading to lawsuits)...

[matthew]

A standardized format is good from a computer point of view; there's a lot of elegance and efficiency to a standardized architecture. The drawback is that it may not be optimal for any specific use, may be poorly implemented, and WILL outlive its time with the inertia of a legacy system. (cough-35mmfilmlensesonapsdigitalsensors-cough.) I have to assume that there's a valid, legitimate reason why raw data formats shift slightly with each new camera...

A manufacturer discontinuing support for one of its own file formats is certainly possible, as is very old formats being dropped from third-party applications. (I don't know of it happening, but digital photography is still in its infancy.) Having a format like DNG reassures me that there'll always be a way to access my files, should I choose to use it. There's also the advantage that a small company, or even individual programmer, can write an engine to do a superb job of converting only .DNG files without ever having to look at another format. I would happily add the DNG conversion to my workflow -- I should probably be doing it anyway.

I think there's a lot less danger of manufacturers trying to cripple third-party software developers. I certainly wouldn't have bought a Nikon during the time that they were locking people out of the .NEF files, but how quickly they relented is a testament to just how seriously the marketplace takes universal access.

[EnglishBob]

I remember in the 80's a wave of MSX ( I think) computers that all used compatible operating systems and languages. They were terrible... the standar5d OS was too restrictive on the different manufacturers hardware.