- #SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER VS ADOBE DNG CONVERTER UPDATE#
- #SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER VS ADOBE DNG CONVERTER SOFTWARE#
- #SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER VS ADOBE DNG CONVERTER ISO#
And because Adobe, I'd imagine, got fed up with having to reverse engineer every new format and decided to do something about it. It's an Adobe effort and it's come about because the manufacturers have made a god awful mess of RAW by basically defining their own format every ten minutes, refusing to release documentation when they do and wrapping their formats with non-reverse engineering clauses in their TOS.
#SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER VS ADOBE DNG CONVERTER SOFTWARE#
Why is this important? Well, standards are important because they future proof data, make software that works with the data easier and faster to develop and maintain and make for a consistency across programmes that make it easier to choose how and with what programmes you work on your data with. Yes, it is, more or less, TIFF but the image part of RAW is also TIFF and most non-lossy image data is just run length encoded data, so it's not likely to be much else.
#SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER VS ADOBE DNG CONVERTER ISO#
BUT that type of problem is one those of us who use niche software see every day)ĭNG is basically RAW but standardised and, as someone has already mentioned, heading for ISO approval. (Note: the second example is not a great example, as Adobe would just add a conditional argument to the usage of Softdust, and base it on your camera type. That's why you ditch old, semi proprietary formats ASAP. Suddenly the 5Dmiv is using the "Softdust" parameter- but in a completely different- incompatible way- Adobe can no longer support the old Softdust usage and has to recode to support the new one. Canon dropped this parameter by the XDS900 though. The second example- in the RAW for the XDR450, Canon had a parameter called "Softdust" that got written to the RAW. LR isn't that niche, but it's no MS Office. The more niche your software is, the more weird bugs you see, the longer those bugs stay around. 1% of their users.Īdobe PROBABLY runs all their releases through a test suite to check for this kind of accidents, but this stuff still happens all the time. Because it's a niche issue likely to affect less than. You call Adobe, and it gets added to a growing list of bugs in LR5. And all the color temps on those 15,000 shots are wrong and stuck wrong.
#SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER VS ADOBE DNG CONVERTER UPDATE#
You update LR to 5, and everything seems fine after the upgrade- no need to go back to 4!Ī month later, a client calls, they need a sunset you shot 8 years ago. Then, there you are, with your 15,000 archival photos shot with the XDR450. It's unlikely this gets noticed by anyone, and it gets into the next release. In the former example, an intern is working on Lightroom and accidentally breaks support for the Canon XDR450- a 9 year old DSLR, one of the first RAW cameras.
The issue is not that Adobe would drop that on purpose, the issue is when Adobe drops it by accident or is forced to drop it by a camera maker being an idiot. " I don't see Adobe dropping any older cameras." People who are living the high life now saying that all their cameras are supported and will be until the heat death of the universe are in for a nasty surprise sooner rather than later. Yes, I do- because "bit rot" is inevitable. Here's my reply to the same question last week.
0 kommentar(er)
