Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon respond to RAW White Balance concerns

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:26:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

deryck lant wrote:

> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>
> Deryck

This lame PR outgassing fails to address the legal concerns about
ownership of the files except for "discussions propagated on the
internet suggesting otherwise are misinformed about the unique structure
of NEF." Yeah, blame the Internet. THAT'S THE TICKET. And it pompously
ends with this gem: "Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide
software developers." I guess it depends on what the meaning of "bona
fide" is. Positively Clintonesque.

Nikon is on thin ice in the Unclaimed Mystery household, FWIW.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:26:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:31303030313839354269883369@deryck.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>
> Deryck

If it is true that the unadulterated raw image is available to Adobe through
invoking the SDK, and they have not asked for it, then they are at fault. If
they have asked, and been refused, then Nikon is at fault.

Starting to feel like lots of testosterone to me.s
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:26:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

deryck lant wrote:

> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...

As a proprietary format, Nikon secures NEF's structure and
processing through various technologies. Securing this
structure is intended for the photographer's benefit, and
dedicated to ensuring faithful reproduction of the
photographer's creative intentions through consistent
performance and rendition of the images. Discussions propagated
on the internet suggesting otherwise are misinformed about
the unique structure of NEF.

http://www.nodata.biz/
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:26:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 4/22/05 5:26 PM, in article 31303030313839354269883369@deryck.com,
"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:

> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>
> Deryck

"Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide software developers."
I guess that Nikon does not want any dialog with the actual purchasers and
users of cameras like the D2X! Heaven forbid the users might actually like
it when third party software can read the 'as shot' white balance data!
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:ybfae.11039$sp3.10107@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> deryck lant wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>>
>> Deryck
>
> This lame PR outgassing fails to address the legal concerns about
> ownership of the files except for "discussions propagated on the internet
> suggesting otherwise are misinformed about the unique structure of NEF."
> Yeah, blame the Internet. THAT'S THE TICKET. And it pompously ends with
> this gem: "Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide software
> developers." I guess it depends on what the meaning of "bona fide" is.
> Positively Clintonesque.
>
> Nikon is on thin ice in the Unclaimed Mystery household, FWIW.


Yeah, god forbid those of us that actually own a D2X should be allowed to
express our opinion in a public forum. That should be ILLEGAL!
April 23, 2005 3:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

UrbanVoyeur wrote:

> deryck lant wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>>
>> Deryck
>
>
> So basically, you convert the NEF file using Nikon's methods or not all.
> Even if other methods can do it better and faster.
>
> Still stinks.
>
> Nikon is making an art of shooting themselves in the foot.


That was some round-about talking in the article. They imply that there
is something unique about the auto ISO setting which doesn't sound
right. Does this mean the free key they provide to developers locks them
into Nikon's method of Bayer interpolation, contrast adjustments,
sharpening, noise removal, lens corrections ect? That would basically
not leave much for the other developers to do and why would they give
that all away? One of those things is uniquely secretly designed to give
an edge with NEF files presumably but which? It doesn't make sense to me.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:s0fae.164$yc.163@trnddc04...
> deryck lant wrote:
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
> >
> > Deryck
>
> So basically, you convert the NEF file using Nikon's methods or not all.
> Even if other methods can do it better and faster.
>
> Still stinks.
>
> Nikon is making an art of shooting themselves in the foot.

Some of these posts sound like they should be in alt.conspiracy. I don't
know for a fact what Nikon's motives are for doing this, but I can say it is
far from unusual. If you want to code a plugin for an Adobe product, you
need to use Adobe's SDK. And you have to ask for it. Using a specified
method of coding benefits everyone involved. Resolving problems in
developer's code or within Nikon's API is much faster and easier if everyone
is playing the same game. And the customer doesn't get ping-ponged between
manufacturers, each of them blaming the other for an issue. If a bug arises,
it's a hell of a lot easier to address if programmers are using your API to
write their code instead of custom code done via reverse engineering of your
software, saving both sides time and money. Customer Support is NOT cheap.
Nikon, like nearly all other manufacturers, is giving the SDK away for free.
All they require is you ask for it. The encryption is probably a cheap,
simple means of enforcing their requirement that you use their SDK.

You can always buy a Canon (until they do something similar). If so, let me
know. I'm always looking for good used equipment :-)
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:55:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:s0fae.164$yc.163@trnddc04...
> deryck lant wrote:
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
> >
> > Deryck
>
> So basically, you convert the NEF file using Nikon's methods or not all.
> Even if other methods can do it better and faster.
>
> Still stinks.
>
> Nikon is making an art of shooting themselves in the foot.

i totally agree...

"Nikon's preservation of its unique technology in the NEF file is employed
as an action that protects the uniqueness of the file." this is just
ridiculous... its a file format. thats it.

the only thing that i am not to worried about is that there will be - more
or less legal - workarounds sooner or later... its just sad that a company
encourages its customers to step into legal gray areas to use its products
in the manner they need to.

is there any indication that future firmware releases on other nikons (i.e.
the next d70 firmware) will change the nef format too?

rock on. sid
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 5:07:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

> UrbanVoyeur wrote:
> > deryck lant wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
> >
> > So basically, you convert the NEF file using Nikon's methods or not all.
> > Even if other methods can do it better and faster.
> >
> > Still stinks.
> >
> > Nikon is making an art of shooting themselves in the foot.
>
> That was some round-about talking in the article. They imply that there is
> something unique about the auto ISO setting which doesn't sound right.
> Does this mean the free key they provide to developers locks them into
> Nikon's method of Bayer interpolation, contrast adjustments, sharpening,
> noise removal, lens corrections ect? That would basically not leave much
> for the other developers to do and why would they give that all away? One
> of those things is uniquely secretly designed to give an edge with NEF
> files presumably but which? It doesn't make sense to me.

What it means is that if you want to write software to process NEF
files, you have to pay Nikon a licensing fee for the privilege.

Nikon seems to want to own your digital workflow. This is good enough
reason for me not to want to buy Nikon products, since it's almost as
bad as changing lens mounts.

Next, some Nikon user will hack the encrypted parts of NEF, and Nikon
will subsequently sue them for daring to use their products in an
unapproved way. There will be a basis for this in the DMCA. Think
Napster, but with Nikon as the bad guy.

Boingboing is covering this story:
<http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/20/space_shuttle_phot...;
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 9:07:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide software developers."

Are you a "good faith" software engineer? I did not know that Nikon demands
faith from its worshippers.

Nikon's press releases are getting better by the week!

Gregor


"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:31303030313839354269883369@deryck.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>
> Deryck
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 9:14:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Have faith! Blessed are those you have faith in the absolute truth! Amen.

Gregor

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:p mfae.16052$_t3.2716@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
> news:ybfae.11039$sp3.10107@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> deryck lant wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>>>
>>> Deryck
>>
>> This lame PR outgassing fails to address the legal concerns about
>> ownership of the files except for "discussions propagated on the internet
>> suggesting otherwise are misinformed about the unique structure of NEF."
>> Yeah, blame the Internet. THAT'S THE TICKET. And it pompously ends with
>> this gem: "Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide software
>> developers." I guess it depends on what the meaning of "bona fide" is.
>> Positively Clintonesque.
>>
>> Nikon is on thin ice in the Unclaimed Mystery household, FWIW.
>
>
> Yeah, god forbid those of us that actually own a D2X should be allowed to
> express our opinion in a public forum. That should be ILLEGAL!
>
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 10:33:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

>
>
> That was some round-about talking in the article. They imply that there
> is something unique about the auto ISO setting which doesn't sound
> right. Does this mean the free key they provide to developers locks them
> into Nikon's method of Bayer interpolation, contrast adjustments,
> sharpening, noise removal, lens corrections ect?

Yes


That would basically
> not leave much for the other developers to do and why would they give
> that all away?

Exactly.



--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 10:43:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:

>
> If it is true that the unadulterated raw image is available to Adobe through
> invoking the SDK, and they have not asked for it, then they are at fault. If
> they have asked, and been refused, then Nikon is at fault.
>

Not quite. The raw data from the sensor along with the camera settings
are in the NEF file. In order to convert it to a TIFF, PSD or other
format, several transformations have to be done, including combining the
output of adjacent R, G, & B pixels that are grouped in a "Bayer pattern".

There are many wasy to do these transformations and each produces
different results. That's why the output from some raw converters work
better and/or faster than others.

Without the unencrypted white balance data, doing an accurate
transformation is nearly impossible.

If you use the Nikon SDK, then you are locked into their
transformations. You present the raw NEF file on one side and out comes
your usable image on the other side.

As a developer, there is no opportunity for you to customize the conversion.

As a consumer, you have no real choice. No matter what software you use,
it will always be Nikon's transformations.

It's much more than a pissing contest here. Nikon is attempting to
control a great deal more than the file format.


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 10:58:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve Gavette wrote:

>
> Some of these posts sound like they should be in alt.conspiracy. I don't
> know for a fact what Nikon's motives are for doing this, but I can say it is
> far from unusual. If you want to code a plugin for an Adobe product, you
> need to use Adobe's SDK. And you have to ask for it. Using a specified
> method of coding benefits everyone involved. Resolving problems in
> developer's code or within Nikon's API is much faster and easier if everyone
> is playing the same game. And the customer doesn't get ping-ponged between
> manufacturers, each of them blaming the other for an issue. If a bug arises,
> it's a hell of a lot easier to address if programmers are using your API to
> write their code instead of custom code done via reverse engineering of your
> software, saving both sides time and money. Customer Support is NOT cheap.
> Nikon, like nearly all other manufacturers, is giving the SDK away for free.
> All they require is you ask for it. The encryption is probably a cheap,
> simple means of enforcing their requirement that you use their SDK.
>
> You can always buy a Canon (until they do something similar). If so, let me
> know. I'm always looking for good used equipment :-)
>

This is more than just an set of methods to access Nikon software.

All raw files require a number of transformation before the data can be
used in editing programs as TIFF's, PSD's or JPG's.

Before the white balance was encrypted, anyone could write code that did
the transformations without relying on Nikon software.

The result has been a variety of raw decoding algorithms, some of which
work better than others. Some are faster. And some, like www.dxo.com, do
quite a number of other things with the raw info.

Now that the data is encoded, everyone is forced to use the Nikon SDK to
stay legal. That SDK applies the Nikon algorithms to the NEF.

Gone is the opportunity for innovation and choice. Any software using
the Nikon SDK will only be as good/fast/capable as the Nikon software
allows.

In this case, it's not about quality control in accessing Nikon
software, it's about controlling the the way a file format is treated in
the market place.

A good comparison is Adobe and the PSD (or PDF). A huge number of
software packages can read, edit and write PSD's and PDF's. Many of
them can do things Adobe software cannot, and people use them for those
features.

Many of them do not use *any* part of the Adobe SDK or the Adobe code.
They don't need it because no part of the file is encrypted. Adobe
merely defined the file standard. They are not attempting to regulate
how software uses that file.


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
April 23, 2005 12:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
> What it means is that if you want to write software to process NEF
> files, you have to pay Nikon a licensing fee for the privilege.


They say there is no liscensing fee.


>
> Nikon seems to want to own your digital workflow. This is good enough
> reason for me not to want to buy Nikon products, since it's almost as
> bad as changing lens mounts.
>
> Next, some Nikon user will hack the encrypted parts of NEF, and Nikon
> will subsequently sue them for daring to use their products in an
> unapproved way. There will be a basis for this in the DMCA. Think
> Napster, but with Nikon as the bad guy.
>
> Boingboing is covering this story:
> <http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/20/space_shuttle_phot...;


Hmm that says the PS ACR has auto WB mode which is better than the
in-camera version. If ACR can load the files this makes it a non-issue.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:31:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <qpfae.16074$_t3.4997@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
>news:31303030313839354269883369@deryck.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>>
>> Deryck
>
>If it is true that the unadulterated raw image is available to Adobe through
>invoking the SDK, and they have not asked for it, then they are at fault. If
>they have asked, and been refused, then Nikon is at fault.

The SDK is most likely just a library that consists of Nikon's convertor
stripped of its user interface. If so, that's a long way from getting an
"unadulterated raw image" through which you can do your own conversion.

So yes, they're still being dumb, and although they aren't saying it
explicitly, there's still the underlying threat about getting dumped on if
you dare to try and access your own intellectual property without paying
Nikon (or paying someone who has) for the privilege.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:11:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1gvg55a.jirzv0bxtghoN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
>Next, some Nikon user will hack the encrypted parts of NEF,

That has already happened. Google for dcram.

>and Nikon
>will subsequently sue them for daring to use their products in an
>unapproved way.

That is at this stage unlikely. It will give Nikon the serious PR
nightmare.

Of course, it does prevent Adobe from processing the WB information.
If Nikon sues Adobe, that may be able to give a positive spin to it.

At the end, the buyers of the D2X and D2Hs lose.

But Canon makes reasonable alternatives to the Nikon cameras. So, if Nikon
cares more about its own engineering tradition (we know best, customers
are supposed to use products as designed) than about the needs of their
professional customers, then they won't last much longer. (Which is pity).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:11:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
> At the end, the buyers of the D2X and D2Hs lose.

Is it both of these cameras, or just the D2x?

> But Canon makes reasonable alternatives to the Nikon cameras.

Is there some reason to expect Canon won't pull a similar stunt?

> So, if Nikon cares more about its own engineering tradition (we know
> best, customers are supposed to use products as designed) than about
> the needs of their professional customers, then they won't last much
> longer. (Which is pity).

I suspect there's something even more insidious going on, since
professionals tend to use programs like Photoshop, and Adobe is
certainly capable of paying Nikon's license fees. Really, Nikon is
trying to get some kind of lever against Adobe and the result will be
some type of cross-license agreement that gets some Photoshop features
into Nikon Capture, and restores NEF capability to Photoshop, but
locks out programs which actually open things to the photographer
(e.g. GIMP).
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:37:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

BTW. I just came across a D2X NEF file. Thumbs plus 2000 can open it
without any problem.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:55:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

>
>Now that the data is encoded, everyone is forced to use the Nikon SDK to
>stay legal. That SDK applies the Nikon algorithms to the NEF.
>
>Gone is the opportunity for innovation and choice. Any software using
>the Nikon SDK will only be as good/fast/capable as the Nikon software
>allows.
>
>In this case, it's not about quality control in accessing Nikon
>software, it's about controlling the the way a file format is treated in
>the market place.

I'm hoping that you're wrong. Logically if only the white balance
information is encrypted, then that's all you should need the SDK to
give you. Once you have it you can use the information any way you
want to process the image. However, it may do other things to help
you. We'll just have to wait and see.

Scott Peterson

--
The Dalai Lama walks up to a hot dog
vendor and says, "Make me one with
everything."

267/611
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 4:18:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xy8b91lxo.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
>> At the end, the buyers of the D2X and D2Hs lose.
>
>Is it both of these cameras, or just the D2x?

Both cameras were mentioned.

The big question is what is going to happen with the D50, D70s, and the
new firmware for the D70.

>> But Canon makes reasonable alternatives to the Nikon cameras.
>
>Is there some reason to expect Canon won't pull a similar stunt?

It is not clear what Nikon has to gain by doing this. Nikon's biggest
competitor should be Canon. Fighting with Adobe does not help.

Now, it is possible that Nikon feels that they own NEF and that third party
raw converters should exist because they know best.

However, you would expect somebody within Nikon who is responsible for
strategic planning to recognize that the position of Photoshop is very strong,
and the and that many people like Adobe's raw converters.

So the question is: what does Canon have to gain by pulling a similar stunt?

Camera manufactures should find a natural interface between what they do
best (making hardware) and what lots of other people can do much better
(making software).

Unfortunately, jpeg and 8-bit/ch tiff do not cut it. 16-bit/ch might be
an option but is not supported. The choice of a raw conversion algorithm
is much more related to software than to hardware, so the camera should
deliver images in a well defined raw format.

Even though Nikon has a (in some areas) rather problematic raw converter,
they seem to think that nobody else should try to write a better raw
converter for their cameras.

>> So, if Nikon cares more about its own engineering tradition (we know
>> best, customers are supposed to use products as designed) than about
>> the needs of their professional customers, then they won't last much
>> longer. (Which is pity).
>
>I suspect there's something even more insidious going on, since
>professionals tend to use programs like Photoshop, and Adobe is
>certainly capable of paying Nikon's license fees. Really, Nikon is
>trying to get some kind of lever against Adobe and the result will be
>some type of cross-license agreement that gets some Photoshop features
>into Nikon Capture, and restores NEF capability to Photoshop, but
>locks out programs which actually open things to the photographer
>(e.g. GIMP).

I sort of doubt it. That would be stupid from Nikon's part, and assuming that
some party is stupid while other explanations are still possible is not a
good idea.

The thing is: every professional has to buy Photoshop anyhow, there is no
realistic alternative. So, if Adobe drops support for Nikon cameras, then
it is reviews of Nikon products that are going to list that as a
disadvantage. In a review of Photoshop that would be at most a footnote.
After all, every other camera will be supported, so the assumption is
that Nikon did something wrong.

My working assumption at this moment is that Nikon engineers want to keep
NEF proprietary. And Nikon management does not realize that this could a
major marketing problem.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 4:46:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
> The big question is what is going to happen with the D50, D70s, and the
> new firmware for the D70.

I notice that the D50 press release mentions that it only works with
Nikon Capture version 4.2 and later, or something like that. The D70S
press release doesn't make the same mention. So I'm guessing that the
D50 has the encryption but the D70S and the new D70 firmware don't.
However, if the D50 has it, it's a safe bet that any D70 follow-on
(D90 or whatever) will have it.

I currently own about 5 Nikon 35mm SLR's and about 10 Nikkor lenses.
I've had my credit card twitching for the past couple of weeks to get
a D70 so that I could use those lenses with it. But now I'm thinking
of selling it all and getting an EOS Rebel.

> It is not clear what Nikon has to gain by doing this. Nikon's biggest
> competitor should be Canon. Fighting with Adobe does not help.

I'm not convinced Nikon is fighting with Adobe. More like thumb
wrestling at most. They will come to an understanding and everything
will be business as usual.

> The thing is: every professional has to buy Photoshop anyhow, there
> is no realistic alternative.

GIMP?

> So, if Adobe drops support for Nikon cameras,

That won't happen, so trying to figure out the consequences is pointless.

> My working assumption at this moment is that Nikon engineers want to keep
> NEF proprietary. And Nikon management does not realize that this could a
> major marketing problem.

As an engineer who's seen many engineer-vs-management disputes about
keeping stuff proprietary, I can assure you that it's usually the
engineers who want to make it public and management who wants to keep
it proprietary.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 4:47:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> writes:
> >In this case, it's not about quality control in accessing Nikon
> >software, it's about controlling the the way a file format is treated in
> >the market place.
>
> I'm hoping that you're wrong. Logically if only the white balance
> information is encrypted, then that's all you should need the SDK to
> give you. Once you have it you can use the information any way you
> want to process the image.

But that still cedes control to Nikon. As a Linux user, I want to
know what happens if you want to convert your raw files under an OS
that the Nikon SDK doesn't support?
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:48:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>
>But that still cedes control to Nikon.

Someone always has control... and the raw format is Nikon's
intellectual property.

>As a Linux user, I want to
>know what happens if you want to convert your raw files under an OS
>that the Nikon SDK doesn't support?

That's certainly a concern. My only answer is that it's a marketing
rather than a technical decision. I would note that currently Nikon
only distributes software to support its cameras in PC and Mac
versions.

Even if you conceded the point and decided to use Nikon Capture, you'd
have to switch to a supported OS.



Scott Peterson

--
Aim Low,
Reach Your Goals,
Avoid Disappointment.

420/611
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:59:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> writes:
> >But that still cedes control to Nikon.
>
> Someone always has control...

Nonsense. Most popular file formats are not under the control of
anyone, in the sense of needing a proprietary SDK to use them. Almost
all digicams use FAT16 and FAT32 and the specs for those formats are
completely public. The same goes for JPEG, TIFF, and so forth.

> and the raw format is Nikon's intellectual property.

That's not at all clear, and even if it's true, it's not necessarily a
good thing. (To be more specific, IMO it's bad).
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:59:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xwtqssjl7.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>> The thing is: every professional has to buy Photoshop anyhow, there
>> is no realistic alternative.
>
>GIMP?

For one thing, Gimp doesn't do 16-bit/ch. The next step is color management.
Last time I looked, it was slow. The user interface is even worse than
Photoshop, etc.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:59:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
> For one thing, Gimp doesn't do 16-bit/ch.

I thought that was fixed now. If not, it's on the to do list.

> The next step is color management.

This I don't know.

> Last time I looked, it was slow. The user interface is even worse than
> Photoshop, etc.

I haven't noticed it as being slower than Photoshop, though I haven't
used Photoshop much. The UI is different from Photoshop. Better or
worse is subjective.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:22:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
> >But that still cedes control to Nikon.
>
> Someone always has control... and the raw format is Nikon's intellectual
> property.

They've made it so that your white balance settings are essentially
their intellectual property, as well.

> >As a Linux user, I want to know what happens if you want to convert your
> >raw files under an OS that the Nikon SDK doesn't support?
>
> That's certainly a concern. My only answer is that it's a marketing rather
> than a technical decision. I would note that currently Nikon only
> distributes software to support its cameras in PC and Mac versions.
>
> Even if you conceded the point and decided to use Nikon Capture, you'd
> have to switch to a supported OS.

A really stupid move for Nikon.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:31:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> writes:
> Even if you conceded the point and decided to use Nikon Capture, you'd
> have to switch to a supported OS.

You're the one missing the point. As a Linux use I don't want to use
Nikon Capture. I want to use independently written programs that are
distributed with source code and don't depend on Nikon Capture or
Nikon SDK's. That means that the file formats have to be published.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:26:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>Nonsense. Most popular file formats are not under the control of
>anyone, in the sense of needing a proprietary SDK to use them. Almost
>all digicams use FAT16 and FAT32 and the specs for those formats are
>completely public. The same goes for JPEG, TIFF, and so forth.
>

On the contrary. All of the specifications for the file types you
mention are under someone's control. For example, if you read the
papers, you'd have read that Microsoft is having issues with the use
of the FAT format on digital cards and has talked about requiring a
license. Hopefully that won't go any further.

Or check out www.jpeg.com . I'm sure they'd be quite shocked to find
out they don't have control over the spec.

TIFF was picked up by Adobe when they absorbed Aldus. and on and on.

>> and the raw format is Nikon's intellectual property.
>
>That's not at all clear, and even if it's true, it's not necessarily a
>good thing. (To be more specific, IMO it's bad).

Tell you what. Try doing something that infringes and see if they
object.

Scott Peterson

--
If love is blind, why is lingerie
so popular?

170/611
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:30:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>
>You're the one missing the point. As a Linux use I don't want to use
>Nikon Capture. I want to use independently written programs that are
>distributed with source code and don't depend on Nikon Capture or
>Nikon SDK's. That means that the file formats have to be published.

I agree with you. I use Linux occasionally and would like everything
to be available when I working there.

But no company is under an obligation to provide that information if
they don't want to. Whether you like it or not the DMCA made it very
easy to restrict access to this information or to prevent reverse
engineering, which was Adobe's original point. If you don't like
that, don't complain here, talk to your congressman....and be prepared
to outbid the digital "rights" people who are currently spending
millions to keep these restrictions in place.

Scott Peterson

--
Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead.
Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow.
Do not walk beside me either; just leave me alone.

370/611
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 2:44:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:s0fae.164$yc.163@trnddc04...
> deryck lant wrote:
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
> >
> > Deryck
>
> So basically, you convert the NEF file using Nikon's methods or not all.
> Even if other methods can do it better and faster.
>
> Still stinks.
>
> Nikon is making an art of shooting themselves in the foot.



I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I love the Lord Nikon and
have sworn to take photos using only camera settings which He, in His
Infinite Wisdom, chooses for me to use. Once you set aside your doubts and
false pride and submit to the Lord Nikon in all His Glory, you'll become the
Great Photographer He meant for you to be, for so it is written in the Canon
of Lord Nikon!

Besides, all this heretical talk only invites Lord Nikon's wrath, all praise
His Name!
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:29:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <116nn0baca1cq0e@news.supernews.com>,
Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
>>
>>But that still cedes control to Nikon.
>
>Someone always has control... and the raw format is Nikon's
>intellectual property.

Exactly which part of "my photograph" is causing difficulty?
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:37:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> writes:
> >Nonsense. Most popular file formats are not under the control of
> >anyone, in the sense of needing a proprietary SDK to use them. Almost
> >all digicams use FAT16 and FAT32 and the specs for those formats are
> >completely public. The same goes for JPEG, TIFF, and so forth.
>
> On the contrary. All of the specifications for the file types you
> mention are under someone's control.

They are not under anyone's control in the sense that you need to use
any specific software to handle the formats. There are independently
written toolkits for FAT16, FAT32, JPEG, TIFF, and so forth. There
will be (if Nikon gets its way) no independently written toolkits for
NEF.

> For example, if you read the papers, you'd have read that Microsoft
> is having issues with the use of the FAT format on digital cards and
> has talked about requiring a license.

They got nowhere with this and impressed nobody. There may be an
issue with NTFS but nobody uses NTFS on digicams.

> Or check out www.jpeg.com . I'm sure they'd be quite shocked to find
> out they don't have control over the spec.

They don't have control over who writes implementations of the spec.
That's what's at issue here.

> TIFF was picked up by Adobe when they absorbed Aldus. and on and on.

See JPEG. TIFF is publicly specified and anyone can implement it and
many people have, unlike the "new" NEF.

> >> and the raw format is Nikon's intellectual property.
> >
> >That's not at all clear, and even if it's true, it's not necessarily a
> >good thing. (To be more specific, IMO it's bad).
>
> Tell you what. Try doing something that infringes and see if they object.

Um, they might object to an independent implementation of NEF, but
your word "infringe" presumes that the objection is legally valid,
which it might or might not be. And even if the courts support them,
all that means is that the courts have incorrectly interpreted the law.

Both of those things happen all the time. Lots of people have claimed
things to be their property when it wasn't, and courts have made many
wrong decisions. There is nothing new about corporations scamming,
and the political battles that sometimes happen over judicial
appointments show that court opinions are precisely that--opinions,
which can be wrong and which are even expected to be wrong if the
wrong people get appointed.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:41:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> writes:
> But no company is under an obligation to provide that information if
> they don't want to.

That's true, as a privacy activist I highly support the right of
anyone to keep things secret if they can find suitable technical means
of doing so. But just as they have the right to not provide the
information if they don't want to, I have the right to not buy their
product if they don't provide the info. At present, avoiding the
D2X's NEF secrecy is very simple: buy Canon instead.

> Whether you like it or not the DMCA made it very easy to restrict
> access to this information or to prevent reverse engineering, which
> was Adobe's original point.

Adobe has been one of the worst abusers of the DMCA and so when they
cry these crocodile tears about how it might be used against them if
they support NEF, I have to look further into what their real
motivation might be.

> If you don't like that, don't complain here, talk to your congressman....

I'm fairly active in this issue, thanks.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 4:07:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2005-04-24, Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:
> That's certainly a concern. My only answer is that it's a marketing
> rather than a technical decision. I would note that currently Nikon
> only distributes software to support its cameras in PC and Mac
> versions.

Does anyone have a Nikon Japan email address where we can express our
concerns?


/Allan
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 4:07:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <116nn0baca1cq0e@news.supernews.com>,
> Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But that still cedes control to Nikon.
>>
>>Someone always has control... and the raw format is Nikon's
>>intellectual property.
>
>
> Exactly which part of "my photograph" is causing difficulty?


You should be grateful we let you push the button without a clickthrough
license agreement before every shot, you commie.

Sincerely,
Nikon

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:38:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:00:37 GMT, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net>
wrote:

>
>"Unclaimed Mysteries"
><theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
>news:ybfae.11039$sp3.10107@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> deryck lant wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>>>
>>> Deryck
>>
>> This lame PR outgassing fails to address the legal concerns about
>> ownership of the files except for "discussions propagated on the internet
>> suggesting otherwise are misinformed about the unique structure of NEF."
>> Yeah, blame the Internet. THAT'S THE TICKET. And it pompously ends with
>> this gem: "Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide software
>> developers." I guess it depends on what the meaning of "bona fide" is.
>> Positively Clintonesque.
>>
>> Nikon is on thin ice in the Unclaimed Mystery household, FWIW.
>
>
>Yeah, god forbid those of us that actually own a D2X should be allowed to
>express our opinion in a public forum. That should be ILLEGAL!
>

How about the Oracle (I believe) EULA that forbids publishing
the results of benchmarking against other products without written
permission from the vendor?

How about the terms (which I admit I have not looked for
myself), which I, understand, which forbids use of any of the MS
Office components to be used to publish documents which disparage MS?
Anyone actually know if such prohibitions exist?

It doesn't have to be legal, as long as you're willing to
accept the license saying it's an actionable violation of the EULA.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:41:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Apr 2005 16:16:42 -0700, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

>deryck lant wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefrespo...
>
> As a proprietary format, Nikon secures NEF's structure and
> processing through various technologies. Securing this
> structure is intended for the photographer's benefit, and
> dedicated to ensuring faithful reproduction of the
> photographer's creative intentions through consistent
> performance and rendition of the images. Discussions propagated
> on the internet suggesting otherwise are misinformed about
> the unique structure of NEF.
>
>http://www.nodata.biz/


I hope they're planning to issue a lot more of the above. I'm
planning to go into mushroom farming and will take all I can get for
free.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 6:20:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Allan Wind" <allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com> wrote:
> On 2005-04-24, Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> > That's certainly a concern. My only answer is that it's a marketing
> > rather than a technical decision. I would note that currently Nikon
> > only distributes software to support its cameras in PC and Mac
> > versions.
>
> Does anyone have a Nikon Japan email address where we can express our
> concerns?

And good enough Japanese to express it...

David J. Littleboy
Whose Japanese is good enough, but who doesn't own a Nikon. (Actually, all
my camera straps are Nikon, because the best straps at the local camera
store are Nikon<g>. (And I own a Nikon film scanner.))
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:27:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:29:43 GMT, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>In article <116nn0baca1cq0e@news.supernews.com>,
>Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>But that still cedes control to Nikon.
>>
>>Someone always has control... and the raw format is Nikon's
>>intellectual property.
>
>Exactly which part of "my photograph" is causing difficulty?

The part where you assume you have a right to the RAW mage
data at all. There's no legal prohibition against their providing the
information any way they want to.

If auto manufacturers don't want to provide you with the specs
on how and what is stored in their black boxes, will you assert a
claim to the information because they don't understand some part of
"my driving"?

Your sole option is to buy their equipment or another
vendor's.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:28:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:07:22 -0400, Allan Wind
<allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com> wrote:

>On 2005-04-24, Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> That's certainly a concern. My only answer is that it's a marketing
>> rather than a technical decision. I would note that currently Nikon
>> only distributes software to support its cameras in PC and Mac
>> versions.
>
>Does anyone have a Nikon Japan email address where we can express our
>concerns?

Google probably does. Would you also like Google to compose
the letter for you?
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:28:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <qqnq61luejhhd2ghltljrass206h4nhoke@4ax.com>,
<kashe@sonic.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:29:43 GMT, Chris Brown
><cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <116nn0baca1cq0e@news.supernews.com>,
>>Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>the raw format is Nikon's intellectual property.
>>
>>Exactly which part of "my photograph" is causing difficulty?
>
> The part where you assume you have a right to the RAW mage
>data at all.

I took the damned photo - the data is mine. I find it difficult to
understand how Nikon can talk about their intellectual property rights with
a straight face whilst simultaneously showing a total disrespect towards
mine.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:33:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <374p61tmh37humfq0ra197s5qvcihd40ld@4ax.com>,
kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>I'm
>planning to go into m
>u
qwe
>s
rty
>h
uio
>r
pas
>o
dfg
>o
hjk
>m farming

Careful; the "deeee eeee aaaay" monitors the internet.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:40:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>They are not under anyone's control in the sense that you need to use
>any specific software to handle the formats. There are independently
>written toolkits for FAT16, FAT32, JPEG, TIFF, and so forth. There
>will be (if Nikon gets its way) no independently written toolkits for
>NEF.

That's because the developers of the standard to allow them to be
written.

Nikon's file format is a private, internally developed format.

>> Or check out www.jpeg.com . I'm sure they'd be quite shocked to find
>> out they don't have control over the spec.
>
>They don't have control over who writes implementations of the spec.
>That's what's at issue here.

That's because it's intended to be available. Nikon's was not and they
are apparently moving to assert their rights. The format exists for
one reason. To store images created on Nikon cameras.

>
>> TIFF was picked up by Adobe when they absorbed Aldus. and on and on.
>
>See JPEG. TIFF is publicly specified and anyone can implement it and
>many people have, unlike the "new" NEF.

....and you hit the nail on the head.

>
>Um, they might object to an independent implementation of NEF, but
>your word "infringe" presumes that the objection is legally valid,
>which it might or might not be. And even if the courts support them,
>all that means is that the courts have incorrectly interpreted the law.
>

Sorry, whistful thinking on your part. As pointed out elsewhere, the
DMCA was written to handle exactly that situation. The law in is
place and enforcible whether you like it or not. .


Scott Peterson

--
It is said that if you line up all the cars
in the world end to end, someone would be
stupid enough to try and pass them.

404/611
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:42:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <116rojblul2e2e4@news.supernews.com>,
Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> wrote:
>That's because it's intended to be available. Nikon's was not and they
>are apparently moving to assert their rights. The format exists for
>one reason. To store images created on Nikon cameras.

And given that there is no way of making sure that you can run NikonCapture
50 years from now, this approach is useless for archiving images (in practice,
you can just archive a copy of dcraw.c along with your images).

The only way forward is documented RAW formats.

That documentation process can happen in three different ways. One is an
actual standard raw format. The second is that the details are published by
the manufacturer. The third way is that the details are reverse engineered
and that the manufacturer does not care (the current situation for most
models).

Nikon is the odd one out. They want to make sure that archived RAW images
are useless in the distant future.

For the near future, people look at NikonCapture as part of Nikon cameras,
find that it is a very program compared to other raw converters, does not
integrate well in a work flow where images from different camera
manufacturers are mixed. So the best decision is to drop Nikon for those
reasons.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:23:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Peterson <scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com> writes:
> >They don't have control over who writes implementations of the spec.
> >That's what's at issue here.
>
> That's because it's intended to be available. Nikon's was not and they
> are apparently moving to assert their rights. The format exists for
> one reason. To store images created on Nikon cameras.

You can't keep your story straight. First you say NEF is under the same
level of control as JPEG and then you say how it's different.

> Sorry, whistful thinking on your part. As pointed out elsewhere, the
> DMCA was written to handle exactly that situation.

That's incorrect, the DMCA wasn't intended for anything of the sort.
It was intended to prevent people from bypassing access controls to
copyrighted content (e.g. like movies) without the copyright holder's
permission. A camera's white balance settings are not copyrighted
content in any traditional sense and the DMCA would likely not apply
to them. Even if they're copyrightable, they're derived from the
image recorded on the CCD, which means the copyright belongs to the
photographer, not to Nikon, and the photographer can certainly give
himself permission to bypass any controls.

The closest DMCA case to this NEF stuff that I can think of was
Chamberlain v. Skylink Technologies, where Chamberlain was a garage
door opener manufacturer and sued a competitor (Skylink) under the
DMCA to (IIRC) stop Skylink from selling a gadget that let consumers
clone their own Chamberlain garage door openers. Chamberlain lost the
suit and (as I remember) lost an appeal. Nikon's case, it seems to
me, would be even weaker than Chamberlain's.

> The law in is place and enforcible whether you like it or not. .

That's just same old, same old. The DMCA for stuff like this is
almost certainly invalid and has not been upheld by any courts for it,
and even if the courts do uphold it, it's just an error on their part.
Bad stuff happens on account of errors all the time (we had a whole
war over Iraq WMD that were never found, and tens of thousands of
people got killed because of the error). It's just part of life.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:31:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <imhs69migd77gvp6vds5iqb2l0@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:

>For the near future, people look at NikonCapture as part of Nikon cameras,
>find that it is a very program compared to other raw converters, does not
>integrate well in a work flow where images from different camera
>manufacturers are mixed. So the best decision is to drop Nikon for those
>reasons.

This is the nub. Nikon have a choice about whether they should spend their
effort making features that make people want to buy their camera gear, or
spend them making features that the end user doesn't want.

Were I in the market for a new DSLR (the one I have at the moment works
fine, but let's say I want to change in a few years), here are some of the
features that would make me want to buy the camera:

- A good, high resolution sensor with low noise.

- A good metering system, with a spot meter.

- Fast and accurate autofocus.

Here are some features that would make me want to take my business elsewhere:

- The camera not working properly with Photoshop

- Restrictions aimed at making me buy stuff that don't really want in order
to access my images.

- Restricted OS and 3rd party software support.

It's not rocket science - spending money on making things that people want
is a clever idea. Spending money on making things that people don't want is
money down the drain.

As a potential customer, I'm being asked to spend money on features that
Nikon want, and I don't. Er, thanks Nikon, but no thanks.
!