Anyone using DNG?

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

Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel
XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs. Adobe says the
compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether all info is
retained?

My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
will be safe.

Comments?

Thanks,
Greg
21 answers Last reply
More about anyone
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    G.T. wrote:

    > Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
    > last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel
    > XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs. Adobe says the
    > compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether all info is
    > retained?
    >
    > My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
    > switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
    > will be safe.

    I use it to reduce file size and make what I think will be a better
    supported archive for future use. My Nikon D70 files lose a few odd ends
    in the EXIF data, that is common for some of the shooting information to
    be in a non-standard format and no other program can recover it all
    either. I forget what exactly, do a comparison & check for yourself.


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net
    Triteleia Natives
    http://www.triteleia.com
    (415) 722-6037
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:20:42 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Jeremy
    Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

    >Not having to install Nikon's software just to get the libraries to be able
    >to preview in iView MediaPro (and whatever other software uses the Nikon SDK)
    >is a big bonus, considering that even installing and never running Nikon's
    >worthless excuse for bundled software silently does things to your system
    >configuration files and runs an invisible background process all the time
    >without even telling you. You can reverse the damage (if you know what
    >you're doing in the deep innards of system files), but I'd rather not
    >install software at all made by people with that kind of attitude toward
    >my system.

    Not sure what "library" you're talking about. Do you mean the PS plugin?
    You can extract that from the CD itself and "install" it if you want. No
    need to do the install routine from the cd.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <d4ydnZ4BVoe5c2XfRVn-oA@speakeasy.net>,
    Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
    >G.T. wrote:
    >
    >> Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
    >> last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel
    >> XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs. Adobe says the
    >> compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether all info is
    >> retained?
    >>
    >> My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
    >> switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
    >> will be safe.
    >
    >I use it to reduce file size and make what I think will be a better
    >supported archive for future use. My Nikon D70 files lose a few odd ends
    >in the EXIF data, that is common for some of the shooting information to
    >be in a non-standard format and no other program can recover it all
    >either. I forget what exactly, do a comparison & check for yourself.

    Actually, you lose information because it *isn't* in the EXIF data.
    That's because EXIF doesn't have tags for some of the data (such as
    exactly which lens you are using, for one example), so the camera
    manufacturers have to resort to other ways of storing this stuff.

    That said, DNG V3.x has the ability to store all this private
    MakerNote data in the DNG file for those manufacturers who use a
    private RAW file format that is basically an extension to TIFF/EP.
    This includes Canon, Nikon & Pentax, and possibly a few others.
    While no software I know of is capable, at present, of reading
    and displaying this manufacturer-specific private data from the
    saved copy of the MakerNote tag, it is at least theoretically
    possible. This makes switching to DNG even less risky.

    Despite that, though, I still recommend archiving the original
    RAW file. Maybe I'm over-cautious, but DVDs are cheap.

    I'm just about to switch to DNG myself, so my process will be:

    o Create 2nd copy of files to a removable HDD
    before deleting from CF cards/microdrives

    o Archive original camera RAW files to DVD or CD

    o Convert RAWs to DNG

    o Copy DNGs to removable HDD (and possibly to DVD)

    o Original RAW files can now be deleted from system
    (although I'll probably keep selected images online,
    just in case I want to use a different RAW converter)

    o All the usual image editing stuff.

    o Save processed files to removable HDD and to CD.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> writes:
    > Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried
    > it out last night and really like the fact that the files converted
    > from my Rebel XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs.
    > Adobe says the compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure
    > whether all info is retained?
    >
    > My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
    > switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my
    > images will be safe.

    Only downside I've found so far is that DNG-files cannot be opened
    by a number of RAW-converters I sometimes use. I.e. once they're
    converted they are out of bounds for Canon's EOS Viewer Utility,
    and RawShooter essentials - and I'm more or less stuck with ACR.
    (Haven't tried Bibble or C1, tho').

    Hopefully, other software houses will soon support the format.
    But for now, I'm keeping my CRWs along with the DNGs, just in case.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

    > Not sure what "library" you're talking about. Do you mean the PS plugin?

    No. When you use an application that calls Nikon's SDK to do things like
    preview NEF files, you need to have Nikon's libraries installed, which get
    installed with the bundled software. If you don't have that installed,
    iView, for example, can't display NEF files and will simply show an error
    message that it can't find the media importer.

    I don't know if any software that uses Nikon's SDK actually ships the
    Nikon libraries along with the software, which would make that unnecessary.
    But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have
    installed Nikon's software.

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:42:40 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Jeremy
    Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

    >Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Not sure what "library" you're talking about. Do you mean the PS plugin?
    >
    >No. When you use an application that calls Nikon's SDK to do things like
    >preview NEF files, you need to have Nikon's libraries installed, which get
    >installed with the bundled software. If you don't have that installed,
    >iView, for example, can't display NEF files and will simply show an error
    >message that it can't find the media importer.
    >
    >I don't know if any software that uses Nikon's SDK actually ships the
    >Nikon libraries along with the software, which would make that unnecessary.
    >But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have
    >installed Nikon's software.

    Still not clear, you mean what bundled software? NikonView, Picture
    project? Which?
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

    > Still not clear, you mean what bundled software? NikonView, Picture
    > project? Which?

    Either one. Bundled as opposed to Nikon Capture, which is nefarious in
    other ways.

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <11fib1qfvj66m60@corp.supernews.com>,
    Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    >
    >Not having to install Nikon's software just to get the libraries to be able
    >to preview in iView MediaPro (and whatever other software uses the Nikon SDK)
    >is a big bonus, considering that even installing and never running Nikon's
    >worthless excuse for bundled software silently does things to your system
    >configuration files and runs an invisible background process all the time
    >without even telling you. You can reverse the damage (if you know what
    >you're doing in the deep innards of system files), but I'd rather not
    >install software at all made by people with that kind of attitude toward
    >my system.

    Such as, say, Adobe? One of the things I really, *really* dislike about
    Photoshop Elements 3.0 is that it goes ahead and installs an alert listener
    that insists on popping up and looking at your compact flash cards when you
    plug one in to the system. No options during the install - it just does it.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:ddbdop$ebs$1@reader2.panix.com...
    > In article <11fib1qfvj66m60@corp.supernews.com>,
    > Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >Not having to install Nikon's software just to get the libraries to be
    able
    > >to preview in iView MediaPro (and whatever other software uses the Nikon
    SDK)
    > >is a big bonus, considering that even installing and never running
    Nikon's
    > >worthless excuse for bundled software silently does things to your system
    > >configuration files and runs an invisible background process all the time
    > >without even telling you. You can reverse the damage (if you know what
    > >you're doing in the deep innards of system files), but I'd rather not
    > >install software at all made by people with that kind of attitude toward
    > >my system.
    >
    > Such as, say, Adobe? One of the things I really, *really* dislike about
    > Photoshop Elements 3.0 is that it goes ahead and installs an alert
    listener
    > that insists on popping up and looking at your compact flash cards when
    you
    > plug one in to the system. No options during the install - it just does
    it.

    Doesn't do that on OS X.

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

    On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 23:20:57 +0000 (UTC), in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    johnf@panix.com (John Francis) wrote:

    >Such as, say, Adobe? One of the things I really, *really* dislike about
    >Photoshop Elements 3.0 is that it goes ahead and installs an alert listener
    >that insists on popping up and looking at your compact flash cards when you
    >plug one in to the system. No options during the install - it just does it.

    I'm running the PSE3 demo and after the install you can disable this. Yes
    it is frustrating. Even more I 've found no way to completely disable the
    add to organizer selection in the save dialogs. I don't wish to use this
    feature at all.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <11fif7odr1vnbca@corp.supernews.com>,
    G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
    >
    >"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
    >news:ddbdop$ebs$1@reader2.panix.com...
    >> In article <11fib1qfvj66m60@corp.supernews.com>,
    >> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >Not having to install Nikon's software just to get the libraries to be
    >able
    >> >to preview in iView MediaPro (and whatever other software uses the Nikon
    >SDK)
    >> >is a big bonus, considering that even installing and never running
    >Nikon's
    >> >worthless excuse for bundled software silently does things to your system
    >> >configuration files and runs an invisible background process all the time
    >> >without even telling you. You can reverse the damage (if you know what
    >> >you're doing in the deep innards of system files), but I'd rather not
    >> >install software at all made by people with that kind of attitude toward
    >> >my system.
    >>
    >> Such as, say, Adobe? One of the things I really, *really* dislike
    >> about >> Photoshop Elements 3.0 is that it goes ahead and installs
    >> an alert listener that insists on popping up and looking at your
    >> compact flash cards when you plug one in to the system. No options
    >> during the install - it just does it.

    >Doesn't do that on OS X.

    That's not really an option. For a start, it doesn't run on this hardware.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    G.T. wrote:
    > "Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
    > >
    [snip]
    >
    > So you're completely on-board with DNG. I was wondering who has enough
    > faith in the format to get rid of their originals. I definitely like the
    > idea of a standard RAW format and the smaller file size is a bonus. And it
    > looks like DNG is gaining at least a little traction with 3rd party RAW
    > converters.

    I convert directly from the card to the PC, so my original PEFs never
    get onto the PC. Once I have copied the DNGs to a second place, and
    have checked the 2nd copy in Bridge to ensure that the conversion has
    worked, I reformat the card in the camera.

    I use ACR so I am not inconvenienced by Raw converters that don't
    accept DNGs, but obviously I want to see all Raw-handling software
    catering for DNG as well. At the moment there are about 35 or more
    non-Adobe products that handle DNG, of which most are viewers and image
    managers rather than Raw converters. The process of adoption by all
    products is slow (but steady), and will take years, so some people
    still need to retain their original files, or not use DNG at all.

    My original main motivation was the smaller sizes. (I started using DNG
    about 2 weeks after it was launched, in fact 10 months ago today!) Now,
    the fact that ACR 3.1 can store its settings in the DNG file is another
    advantage, because it keeps everything together.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> spake:

    >Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
    >last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel

    Yes, exclusively. My workflow will often have me backup the RAWs right
    after dumping my flash cards (my "you made a backup, right?" copy), and
    then convert to DNG. I tried out Nikon Capture during the trial period and
    simply don't need to waste money or precious heartbeats on that level of
    tweaking. Adobe's plugin is quite streamlined, and with the sidecar files
    I feel quite comfortable sitting down to plow through 400 images, each one
    getting the custom treatment.

    >Adobe says the compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether
    >all info is retained?

    1) The original RAW can be embedded if you are really paranoid.
    2) The compression is lossless. (The very nature of RAW data means you
    can't cut corners.)
    3) They have already established that NEF (and likely other formats,
    because hey, why not?) has encrypted data, and they are quite content to
    leave said data encrypted. Essentially Nikon software will handle Nikon
    RAW the best, that's a given. Standard stuff like IPTC and EXIF should be
    free and clear and preserved properly. Adobe is keeping to its mission
    statement and extending the olive branch to all companies, AFAIK.

    >My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
    >switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
    >will be safe.

    They are safe in the sense that as long as Photoshop is available you
    should be able to open them. And indeed, other programs can happily
    support the format. I have done enough batch converting that I don't even
    verify the files anymore (unless I update to a new version or something.)
    But hey, one bad hard drive crash and your images are toast no matter what
    the format. So make a RAW backup and a DNG backup and keep your working
    copies mirrored. ;-)

    "The only winners in the computer age are those that sell bandwidth and
    storage."
    -Lucas
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <og20g1100q73jkhv2qhigkio6bhn37lgig@4ax.com>,
    L. Sather <reply@here.com> wrote:
    >"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> spake:
    >
    >Essentially Nikon software will handle Nikon
    >RAW the best, that's a given.

    Not so, by any means.

    With any fixed choice of RAW converter you're restricted to the
    choice of reconstruction algorithm (or algorithms) offered by
    that converter. There's no one-size-fits-all 'best' converter
    for all RAW images; there are always going to be some images
    that just don't work too well with any fixed converter choice.

    That's the one thing that has kept me from a 100% DNG workflow;
    I've found a handful of images (maybe 1% of my RAW conversions)
    where a different converter gives me a better starting point.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    I have a Pentax istDS.
    Before I convert the Pentax raw files to DNG files I use the Pentax Browser
    to rename the raw files, after discarding the bad ones, AND then saving all
    the EXIF data on a spread sheet. That way all the EXIF data is preserved,
    although it is all not on the individual file.

    AE


    "John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:ddaufb$idi$1@reader2.panix.com...
    > In article <d4ydnZ4BVoe5c2XfRVn-oA@speakeasy.net>,
    > Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
    >>G.T. wrote:
    >>
    >>> Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it
    >>> out
    >>> last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my
    >>> Rebel
    >>> XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs. Adobe says the
    >>> compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether all info is
    >>> retained?
    >>>
    >>> My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
    >>> switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
    >>> will be safe.
    >>
    >>I use it to reduce file size and make what I think will be a better
    >>supported archive for future use. My Nikon D70 files lose a few odd ends
    >>in the EXIF data, that is common for some of the shooting information to
    >>be in a non-standard format and no other program can recover it all
    >>either. I forget what exactly, do a comparison & check for yourself.
    >
    > Actually, you lose information because it *isn't* in the EXIF data.
    > That's because EXIF doesn't have tags for some of the data (such as
    > exactly which lens you are using, for one example), so the camera
    > manufacturers have to resort to other ways of storing this stuff.
    >
    > That said, DNG V3.x has the ability to store all this private
    > MakerNote data in the DNG file for those manufacturers who use a
    > private RAW file format that is basically an extension to TIFF/EP.
    > This includes Canon, Nikon & Pentax, and possibly a few others.
    > While no software I know of is capable, at present, of reading
    > and displaying this manufacturer-specific private data from the
    > saved copy of the MakerNote tag, it is at least theoretically
    > possible. This makes switching to DNG even less risky.
    >
    > Despite that, though, I still recommend archiving the original
    > RAW file. Maybe I'm over-cautious, but DVDs are cheap.
    >
    > I'm just about to switch to DNG myself, so my process will be:
    >
    > o Create 2nd copy of files to a removable HDD
    > before deleting from CF cards/microdrives
    >
    > o Archive original camera RAW files to DVD or CD
    >
    > o Convert RAWs to DNG
    >
    > o Copy DNGs to removable HDD (and possibly to DVD)
    >
    > o Original RAW files can now be deleted from system
    > (although I'll probably keep selected images online,
    > just in case I want to use a different RAW converter)
    >
    > o All the usual image editing stuff.
    >
    > o Save processed files to removable HDD and to CD.
    >
    >
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    >
    > No. When you use an application that calls Nikon's SDK to do things like
    > preview NEF files, you need to have Nikon's libraries installed, which get
    > installed with the bundled software. If you don't have that installed,
    > iView, for example, can't display NEF files and will simply show an error
    > message that it can't find the media importer.
    >

    That is not true. I am able to view .NEF files from within Adobe
    Photoshop CS2 and Photoshop Elements 3.0 (with updated plugin from
    Adobe's site). I never installed the Nikon software on my latest
    machine until lately, when I desired a friendlier picture organizer than
    what is in Elements 3.0 (CPU hog ... doesn't play well with my machine),
    so I installed Picture Perfect. In short, the ONLY thing you need is
    the Adobe supplied RAW plugin to view .NEF files. Microsoft's RAW
    download also works with no Nikon software installed.

    > I don't know if any software that uses Nikon's SDK actually ships the
    > Nikon libraries along with the software, which would make that unnecessary.
    > But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have
    > installed Nikon's software.

    It is probably capable of using the Adobe RAW plugin. Many software
    products are Adobe plugin compatible, including Paint Shop Pro.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
    Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    >
    >> No. When you use an application that calls Nikon's SDK to do things like
    >> preview NEF files, you need to have Nikon's libraries installed, which get
    >> installed with the bundled software. If you don't have that installed,
    >> iView, for example, can't display NEF files and will simply show an error
    >> message that it can't find the media importer.
    >
    > That is not true. I am able to view .NEF files from within Adobe
    > Photoshop CS2 and Photoshop Elements 3.0 (with updated plugin from
    > Adobe's site).

    Right. I said "an application that calls Nikon's SDK", which Adobe stuff
    does not. They have their own code to read NEF files.

    >> But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have
    >> installed Nikon's software.
    >
    > It is probably capable of using the Adobe RAW plugin.

    It isn't.

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    >
    > Right. I said "an application that calls Nikon's SDK", which Adobe stuff
    > does not. They have their own code to read NEF files.
    >

    Ah .. I see. In that case, any software that requires one to install
    another vendors software before you can use theirs, just for access to
    its basic libraries, is likely not worth the cost of its shrinkwrapping.
    You may as well use the Nikon software directly. Seems like iView
    didn't want to or couldn't pay for licensing to distribute the SDK with
    their software. Again, why bother to use iView then?

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
    Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Ah .. I see. In that case, any software that requires one to install
    > another vendors software before you can use theirs, just for access to
    > its basic libraries, is likely not worth the cost of its shrinkwrapping.

    I don't know -- does anyone include the camera libraries? Are they even
    allowed to?

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    > Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Ah .. I see. In that case, any software that requires one to install
    >> another vendors software before you can use theirs, just for access to
    >> its basic libraries, is likely not worth the cost of its shrinkwrapping.
    >
    > I don't know -- does anyone include the camera libraries? Are they even
    > allowed to?
    >

    I am quite sure that they can be licensed. Nikon likes money like
    everybody else.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
    Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    > Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
    [snip]
    > > I don't know -- does anyone include the camera libraries? Are they even
    > > allowed to?
    >
    > I am quite sure that they can be licensed. Nikon likes money like
    > everybody else.

    The Nikon advisory that responded to criticism of their encryption of
    the WB for the D2X said:

    "With each introduction of a new Nikon digital Single Lens Reflex
    model, Nikon updates the available SDK selection to provide new
    information; this is the situation with the D2X, D2Hs and D50 models.
    As stated above, application for the Nikon SDK is possible for bona
    fide software companies that send Nikon a written application for the
    SDK. Once approved, the SDK is provided to the developer at no charge
    and they are authorized to use it".

    I don't know whether they are authorised to distribute it. I believe
    the developer has to sign an NDA. And the SDK doesn't provide access to
    the raw data, just to de-mosaiced data.

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefresponse.asp

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Ask a new question

Read More

SLR Cameras