New RAW Format

MDowdey · Sep 27, 2004

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20040927/ap_on_hi_te/adobe_digital_photos

Interesting read on how Adobe is trying to create a more common RAW file format...

md

PrimaryCanary · Sep 27, 2004

Yeah I caught that story from slashdot. The Torronto Star http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...120&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851 raised an important point that with future versions of proprietary RAW software, previous versions of a particular RAW format may become obsolete and cause the loss of images.

bshearer · Sep 27, 2004

RAW is losless correct?
So there should not be a problem with them becoming obsolete.

Big Mike · Sep 27, 2004

bshearer said:
RAW is losless correct?
So there should not be a problem with them becoming obsolete.

You may not loose any information when the camera saves the files in RAW format...but you still need software to read that RAW file. If they change the RAW format the software will follow and eventually it may be hard to find software to read the files created in the "older" RAW format.

Right now, I think, there are different RAW formats. ie:Canon RAW, Nikon RAW...etc.

I guess people could avoid a problem if they always keep the soft ware that is compatible with their store of RAW files.

voodoocat · Sep 27, 2004

You could always go back and get the software that can read the proprietary RAW file and convert it.

PrimaryCanary · Sep 27, 2004

When I wrote

previous versions of a particular RAW format may become obsolete and cause the loss of images.

I meant that you would lose the ability to view the image or convert it or work on it. Much like you can't use software that was made for a windows 3.1 on windows XP (difference between a 16-bit and 32-bit executable) Maybe a better example would be how Apple has made the floppy drive obsolete by not including it with their new desktops and laptops. If you had a floppy disc with some images on it, you'd have to find either an external floppy drive (which do exist and aren't hard to find) or lose the images. Let's say next year Canon decided to make a completely new RAW format and stopped distributing it's old RAW software, and by chance I lost my copy of my RAW conversion software. Now all my RAW images based on the old format would be useless. Now that's an extreme case, but it illustrates the point I was trying to get across...I think

bshearer · Sep 27, 2004

voodoocat,
exactly. I think if a universal RAW format was ever adopted, the major players (Cannon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, etc...) would come out with a conversion utility.

But doesnt each manafacture taylor thier Raw utilities to work best with their own stuff? Like Pentax's utility for adjusting whiteballance, is tuned to work best with images that come straight from pentax cameras. If it were universal, then I see a polification of software compents that work best on adjusting certin aspects of images coming from specific manafactures, so why should they even bother conforming to a universal RAW when they can keep you locked into their software.

voodoocat · Sep 27, 2004

I just don't think it's that big of a problem to even be an issue. I can still go find astroids, which was programmed in the 70's for an arcade console and play it on my pc. Compatibility is a non-issue in this case.

Geronimo · Sep 27, 2004

Adobe has a converter alreadly for most RAW formats

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

Daniel · Sep 30, 2004

bshearer said:
But doesnt each manafacture taylor thier Raw utilities to work best with their own stuff? Like Pentax's utility for adjusting whiteballance, is tuned to work best with images that come straight from pentax cameras. If it were universal, then I see a polification of software compents that work best on adjusting certin aspects of images coming from specific manafactures, so why should they even bother conforming to a universal RAW when they can keep you locked into their software.

It's more like someone speaks Russian and you skeak English. You might say the same, but using a different language. The information is the same, but you still don't know what they are talking about. If you agree on a same language, everyone understands each other.

The problem with becoming obsolete is not the RAW format, but the software to read that format. As stated by someone earlier, try to run software that was made for Windows 3.1 on Windows XP.

jadin · Sep 30, 2004

It's no different than gif files, bmp files. Sure they're old, but can you still find software that reads them? You bet. Are they industry standard right now? Not exactly.

As far as the windows 3.1 analogy goes.. true, but that doesn't mean you can't find copies of windows 3.1 to open those programs.

Standards will change, ability to access old standards won't.

voodoocat · Sep 30, 2004

Name one program that was written for windows 3.11 that wont run on XP? I could still play DOS games on my machine. Did you ever look at your options for "save as" in microsoft word? Word will read pretty much any word processor file.

Daniel · Sep 30, 2004

Just check that long list from MS, which software won't run with SP2 and needs to be updated by the publisher, so don't think that any program runs on XP. There is no point in having 10 different RAW formats, it's just plain silly. It's the same with the lenses, if you wanna change your system, you have to buy them all over again.

PrimaryCanary · Sep 30, 2004

Name one program that was written for windows 3.11 that wont run on XP? I could still play DOS games on my machine. Did you ever look at your options for "save as" in microsoft word? Word will read pretty much any word processor file.

I can name a lot. Print Artist for Windows 3.11 does not work on XP,
Corel Draw for Windows 95 doesn't work on XP or ME, (installs but when you run it, it seg faults)

Any 16 bit executable will not run on a 32 bit windows platform unless it is recompiled to use new 32-bit libraries that are a core to the windows platform.

You may find software to run these programs and astroids from the 70s works but only because someone has rewritten or recompiled the software to work on the new platform. The same problem is being experienced now. Intel released there new 64 bit chips and windows came out with a 64 bit OS, but if you install it you lose a lot of things. Macromedia Flash didn't work as was the case with a lot of browser plug-ins, they were meant for a 32-bit machine and had to be recompiled/rewritten for the new 64-bit chipset.