Nikon encrypts white balance data - locks raw format

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

UrbanVoyeur wrote:

>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/ [...] yptnef.asp
>
> I wonder what genius thought this one up. Why does Nikon care? They are
> a camera company, not a software company - they give their raw converter
> software away.

<clarification> This is the white balance metadata, not the raw data.

-don't they sell Nikon Capture? eg: it's not a giveaway.

(I'm _not_ endorsing the idea at all, BTW, I agree that the data
captured belongs to the photographer)

>
> Somehow, I don't think this will help Nikon capture any more market share.

More Nikon arrogance to chase away customers. (Ask PJ's about Nikon's
attitude towards pro photogs).

> I think Canon and the other camera makers should respond by adding DNG
> to their list of raw formats. Force Nikon's hand.

The last thing Canon would want is for Nikon to be less unappealing.
I suspect Canon will take full advantage of Nikon's stupidity.

It's not *that* bad for most of us here in usenet land, as, for now
anyway, it is limited to their pro cameras (which may or may not piss
off the pros). If they downflow this to the D70s and D50 ... then there
is a problem in Nikon land.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

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

UrbanVoyeur wrote:

> True white balance is metadata, but without it you cannot do a decent
> raw conversion. It effectively locks out 3rd party developers.

Your statement: "they give their raw converter software away." implied
(or seemed to imply) that it was the raw data being encrypted.

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:28:07 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> I wonder what genius thought this one up. Why does Nikon care? They are
>> a camera company, not a software company - they give their raw converter
>> software away.
>
>They sell Nikon Capture for money. Evidently they've realized that it's
>a worthless piece of garbage and are trying to sell more copies of it
>anyway.

I guess it's possible one of the development teams just decided to do
this without actually checking with anyone higher up, for the reason
you mention above - commercially trying to save their arse.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>True white balance is metadata, but without it you cannot do a decent
>>raw conversion.
>
>

Not if you manually white balance before you shoot. Even with auto white
balance, without knowing what value the camera chose, the best 3rd party
software can do is guess.


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:51:18 -0000, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
wrote:

>Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>> UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> True white balance is metadata, but without it you cannot do a decent
>>> raw conversion.
>
>> Well, sure you can. You just can't use "as shot" white balance in RAW
>> conversion because you don't have access to that information.
>
>Sure you can. The D2x stores its captured data in adjusted form, so
>to get "as shot" white balance all you have to do is not change
>anything.

Eh? It shouldn't do this.

It should store it in RAW format - no adjustments made but with
details about it's chosen white balance to allow the RAW importer to
apply that if the user wishes. Otherwise an incorrect white balance
setting would screw up the RAW data, and that's no good for anybody.

...and if it *has* applied the white balance to the RAW data prior to
saving it, how do you think a RAW importer is going to apply a fixed
white balance temperature of your own choice without having the
details of what it's converting *from*?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:20:28 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
> Evidently the D2x applies white balance *before* the a2d conversion,
> so it really is still RAW format.

That is a really interesting decision. On the one hand, it should
help with quantization noise, I'd think. On the other hand, it
makes it more important to get WB right at the scene, which takes
away one of the advantages of shooting RAW.

Overall, to me, the trade-off sounds worthwhile. But I imagine
some people are going to be upset, and I don't blame them.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:LD79e.20399$Zn3.7838@trnddc02...
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/ [...] yptnef.asp
>
> I wonder what genius thought this one up. Why does Nikon care? They are a
> camera company, not a software company - they give their raw converter
> software away.
>
> Somehow, I don't think this will help Nikon capture any more market share.
>
> I think Canon and the other camera makers should respond by adding DNG to
> their list of raw formats. Force Nikon's hand.
>

Excuse me, but don't you own the image once you've taken it? If I'm right,
you can do anything you want with it, and involve anybody you want to help
you work with it. If the public make some noise I doubt anyone cracking
this code will be in any trouble.

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

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
> Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> Sure you can. The D2x stores its captured data in adjusted form,
>>> so to get "as shot" white balance all you have to do is not change
>>> anything.
>>
>> Eh? It shouldn't do this.
>>
>> It should store it in RAW format - no adjustments made but with
>> details about it's chosen white balance to allow the RAW importer
>> to apply that if the user wishes. Otherwise an incorrect white
>> balance setting would screw up the RAW data, and that's no good for
>> anybody.

> Evidently the D2x applies white balance *before* the a2d conversion,
> so it really is still RAW format.

In order to speed up A/D conversion the D2x has four converters in
parallel. Once this decision was made, it was an obvious idea to
allocate them to RGGB and adjust the relative gain of the amplifiers.

Andrew.

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

In message <42652CC6.9040303@nospam.net>,
UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>True white balance is metadata, but without it you cannot do a decent
>raw conversion. It effectively locks out 3rd party developers.

The question is, do the Nikons do any color-balancing when reading the
Sensor? If they don't, then what does it matter? The color channel
sensitivities are fixed. If they aren't, then color balance can still
be tuned by hand. I tune all my Canon shots in the RAW converter, and
always have the camera set to daylight, as the white balance setting has
*ZERO* effect upon the RAW image data.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

In message <116ao4k735eida0@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>Not necessarily. You could "simulate" the old method by just setting
>the camera to daylight balance and adjusting in RAW as before.

Are you sure? I seriously doubt that *any* of the white-balance presets
represent the same balance as the RAW sensor capture. No digital camera
has native color balance that is white; none that I have ever heard of.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:34:37 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <42652CC6.9040303@nospam.net>,
>UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>True white balance is metadata, but without it you cannot do a decent
>>raw conversion. It effectively locks out 3rd party developers.
>
>The question is, do the Nikons do any color-balancing when reading the
>Sensor?

The question is, what does this *model* of Nikon do with
color-balancing. It's not a brand-level thing.

> If they don't, then what does it matter?

It appears that the D2x applies color balance before the RAW file is
stored.

>The color channel
>sensitivities are fixed. If they aren't, then color balance can still
>be tuned by hand.

You can't tune it by hand (other than by looking at the screen) if you
don't know what the camera's auto-white balance choice was. (Assuming
you use that mode, of course) This data is encrypted, and if Adobe
ignore it when reading the RAW file for legal reasons, they have no
way of applying a fixed color temperature to that file, because they
don't know the color temperature that's already been applied.

> I tune all my Canon shots in the RAW converter,

As do I, but I like to leave the camera at Auto because it usually
gets me in the ball park. And on my Nikon D70, it doesn't affect the
RAW data itself - other than storing the details about the white
balance chosen by the camera.

>and
>always have the camera set to daylight, as the white balance setting has
>*ZERO* effect upon the RAW image data.

So, I presume your Canon also applies white balance before writing the
RAW data, otherwise the requirement to keep it set to daylight
wouldn't exist.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

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

In article <116cu4eknicso0f@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>> Are you sure?
>
>No, not at all. Roughly daylight seems to be where the color channels
>aren't skewed in favor of one or the other to achieve balance, but that's
>my only observation in support of my guess. I have no idea how to figure
>the "native" balance of the sensor.

Overexpose a grayscale ramp. Convert the data using a raw convertor and
find the channel that is saturated first.

Adjust the color of the light source to make sure that all channels
saturate at the same time. The should be the native white balance.

If that white balance is independent of the white balance setting on the
camera then you have some sort of native hardware white balance. Otherwise,
you would have to repeat the procedure for different settings.


--
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

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

In article <xfednS0ZMLi8ZvvfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>If I'm not mistaken, the guy who figured out how to crack the code on the
>copy protected DVD's just went back to the law that states you have a right
>to make backup copies of your software. In his case he didn't have the
>equipment to view DVD's he had purchased, so he cracked them to get them on
>his computer's hard drive.

That's a different situation. In any case, more recent legislation
(such as the DMCA) overrides earlier statute and precedents, unless
(in the USA) the new law is found to be unconstitutional.

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

In message <gh7ftcikuniii2qhf69jhes7c5@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:

>In article <116cu4eknicso0f@corp.supernews.com>,
>Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>>> Are you sure?
>>
>>No, not at all. Roughly daylight seems to be where the color channels
>>aren't skewed in favor of one or the other to achieve balance, but that's
>>my only observation in support of my guess. I have no idea how to figure
>>the "native" balance of the sensor.
>
>Overexpose a grayscale ramp. Convert the data using a raw convertor and
>find the channel that is saturated first.
>
>Adjust the color of the light source to make sure that all channels
>saturate at the same time. The should be the native white balance.
>
>If that white balance is independent of the white balance setting on the
>camera then you have some sort of native hardware white balance. Otherwise,
>you would have to repeat the procedure for different settings.

All that this will tell you is how different the white-balance used is
different from the actual light color the photograph was taken in;
nothing about the camera's native capabilities.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

In article <gf3e61d7emb8its027vdeqq6phjsuo1168@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>In message <gh7ftcikuniii2qhf69jhes7c5@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
>philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>>If that white balance is independent of the white balance setting on the
>>camera then you have some sort of native hardware white balance. Otherwise,
>>you would have to repeat the procedure for different settings.
>
>All that this will tell you is how different the white-balance used is
>different from the actual light color the photograph was taken in;
>nothing about the camera's native capabilities.

No, it tells where the system (sensor, A/D convertor, or representation)
saturates. In a good design, the A/D convertor can accept any output
from the sensor, so you can look for non-linearity in the output.

Traditional sensors have one gain for all colors so the saturations of the
sensor and of the A/D convertor should be independent of the camera
white balanse settings.


--
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

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

In article <4KGdnTH9ivazJvrfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Traditional sensors have one gain for all colors so the saturations of the
>> sensor and of the A/D convertor should be independent of the camera
>> white balanse settings.
>
>What are you reffering to as A/D converter?

The output of the sensor is a series of analog voltages. After that
generally comes an amplifier (which may be variable to provide higher ISO
sensitivity), and then comes the A/D converter which converts the analog
signal to a digital one.


--
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