Slashdot Mirror

Oh, and also, you can direct companies that us Word for creating large print documents other tools better suited to this task.

Why do people have to post endless complaints about an open format that has many programs supporting it, most of them open source? Me, I tend to assume that people who COMPLAIN about PDFs must be "windows hounds". Certainly Linux users don't mind invoking xpdf or its gnome/kde variants. If I had to use Acrobat, I might complain, but I haven't had Acrobat installed since I dumped Windows back in '98.

You send me a link to photoshop elements. Different product. May be the same except the "prepress output cabililty"(I dunno) but that difference will cost you $500 in price for the full version. If you want me to be exact I will then, photoshop cs2 will cost you $600, not $500.

Regardless I was just trying to illustrate a point that software isn't always affordable so how can you claim something as a loss if a person didn't plan on buying it anyways, regardless if the software was pirated or not.

Lets say someone pirates and use the $500 + Adobe Photoshop. Lets also say this person can't afford that price to begin with

Since when is Photoshop $500+? I see Photoshop (minus prepress output capability) for 100 USD. Or are you talking about another currency symbolized by '$'?

I guess I'm really not to surprised that so many people can't or won't get the whole "PDF" issue. PDFs are not web pages, plain and simple.

Neither are MPGs, JPGs, MOVs and myriad other files with links pointing to them.

The use of PDFs for other than for their intended purpose is, yes, less than professional.

The point of PDF is to allow people to view the same document in the same way on many different platforms. I suppose you have a different definition of "intended purpose", but that makes no difference: see what the vendor has to say about it.

Oh, and of course, the fact that it's a proprietary file format is just so totally irrelevant ... sure.

Yes, actually it is irrelevant, and will be as long as freely available and/or open source tools are available to use/create/etc. the format. Proprietary doesn't necessarily mean closed.

As well, what happened to your sense of humor? Perhaps that cubicle is really starting to get to you?

There is no cubicle here - just an office w/ multiple windows, but thanks. :-)

You're trolling right?

Why doesn't adobe make a pdf word processor?
Adobe's PDF Word Processor: Adobe Acrobat

not to be confused with:
Adobe's Free PDF Viewer: Adobe Acrobat Reader

You're trolling right?

Why doesn't adobe make a pdf word processor?
Adobe's PDF Word Processor: Adobe Acrobat

not to be confused with:
Adobe's Free PDF Viewer: Adobe Acrobat Reader

Your understanding is incorrect, the format is documented by Adobe right here.

Specification of which is at http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/ind ex_reference.html

You CAN get the PDF specifications directly from the Adobe, it has not been reverse engineered: http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/ind ex_reference.html

PDF is an open format. Here's the link, if you'd like to implement a reader: http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/ind ex_reference.html

PDF is an open format, anyone can write a PDF reader.

Yep... Just read the PDF Reference (1236 pages), and implement everything. Nothing hard, right?

By the way, every single Office app other than MS Office and every single OS other than Windows include some kind of free PDF printing capability. And, of course, there are free PDF making tools for Windows

the problem that svg has is that it's a pain to create anything that is semi usefull/good looking
useing the tools that are there now.

adobe has a few demo's http://www.adobe.com/svg/demos/main.html
not that great if you take in to acount that we are talking about adobe here.

make a good program that can create svg without scripting just like flash scripting should be an option for more advanced functionality

Lets just hope some webmasters don't start doing what some IE designers have done, blocked out an entire website because of not using the correct browser.

For what it's worth, Adobe's had an SVG plugin that works nicely in Windows/IE for at least three or four years, now, so hopefully nobody will see a need to lock out IE users. My own experience with trying to run the non-Windows builds of it in Firefox on Linux or NetBSD, even recently, has been adequate at best, but having Firefox natively support SVG on a wide range of operating systems finally offers an alternative.

The down-side for Internet Explorer users, as the slashdot summary mentioned, is that the plugin architecture means any SVG still needs to be restricted within a rectangular box. This means that it can't be interspersed in the rest of the page. It still allows for SVG-supporting website admins to make their content available to IE users, though.

Without restricting sites by web browser, I hope people do start using SVG more often. The format's been standardised for years -- if we don't use it, there's less motivation for application developers to fix bugs, write efficient code, and bother properly supporting it.

> Probably the best usage of SVG's would be simple images made for dramatically inbcreasing size (like icons in KDE) or other size-variation.

Adobe has an SVG Demo page with several examples how SVG can be used. My fav was the ticket ordering app but unfortunately it's not working now. Building search is also cool

If you're the average home user is there ever a chance of you actually buying a copy of Photoshop?

Given that a copy of Photoshop costs no more than a copy of Paint Shop Pro (each sells for 99 USD), yes. Every user who pirates Photoshop Elements is a user who doesn't buy Photoshop Elements. But then so is every user who uses GIMP instead of Photoshop Elements (such as myself).

Firefox 1.1 will have native SVG support (disabled by default).

But will Firefox 2.0 have SVG enabled by default (so that people who are afraid of Regedit don't have to hack their about:config), and will Firefox 2.0 come out before IE 7 with its integrated Metro viewer arrives?

And there are always plugins available

Not if you don't have permission to install plug-ins. And doesn't Adobe's SVG plug-in break Mozilla Suite and Firefox?

And from a web developer's perspective, is an <embed> element or an <object> element preferred? This document seems to contradict this one.

no major browser comes with a Flash viewer, but that hasn't been a problem for Flash.

Wasn't the Flash Player bundled with Windows (and therefore IE) for a while?

Oh, maybe I didn`t explain myself very well, so I`ll give it another try. Hear this.

It has been announced, on the Adobe site, that Adobe is buying Macromedia.

adobe site

And then I read that Microsoft is byting into the Adobe market, trying to outdo one of their major products. OK, Adobe may be more then PDF, but makes one wonder. What timing, eh? Is Microsoft doing this on purpose, what are they thinking, and if they should succeed (using their known tactics), what effect could that have on Micromedia..ups Macromedia;) ?

Eh, maybe I`m reading too much into this, dunno.

Let's also praise Adobe for its effort to get information to the public about the Photoshop file format and the Photoshop plug-in API out to the public.

Adobe's policy on the Photoshop SDK: Pay us $200 per year just to get the right to apply for a license to get the SDK. If we turn down your application, you're still out the $200. If we accept your application and let you see the SDK, we can still revoke this license at any time, for any arbitrary reason, and refuse to let you distribute Photoshop plug-ins.

Yes, that's open source heros for you!

"I don't want a standard RAW format; I want the camera to give its data unmodified."

That is essentially what you get with DNG, which is an extension of the TIFF 6.0 spec, to allow for the most common camera features and an extension mechanism (TIFF provides one, so there's nothing new here) for camera-specific data. Cameras can choose how to handle masked pixels, byte order, and a host of other parameters without having to craft their own metadata, and thus the vast majority of images will be readable by existing software as soon as a new camera comes out. Some cameras may actually have some unique feature that's worth crafting an extension to DNG, and they can do that.

It's like Adobe's saying "you must store all of your images in 24-bit pixels inside an XML document," here. They're kind of used to this image-manipulation thing, and odds are they got this one right.

Have you even looked at the PDF specification? If not, how can you make comments about the format?

What's clumsy and bloated is Acrobat Reader. My guess is that more free *nix users like PDF because the PDF tools available on *nix aren't bloated and crappy like Acrobat Reader is.

The DNG specification may be patented. Adobe grant a license to those wishing to implement DNG-compliant code, though the license (in particular, the revocation clause) may be GPL-incompatible. (Disclaimer: IANAL)

I know the story is about getting manufacturers to open up their RAW formats but I think the preferred goal is to have camera manufacturers standardize on ONE format.

Note that Adobe has already developed an open raw format called DNG (Digital Negative). They have a good track record with open formats with PDF files. You may or may not like them, but you they certainly can be generated by non-Adobe products and as far as I'm aware, nobody pays any license fee for that.

Another plus for DNG is that Adobe has a free DNG converter which will convert RAW files from many popular cameras to the DNG format.

You can find more info here about DNG.

Note that Photoshop (the most common photo processor) supports RAW formats for over 80 cameras. You can See a complete list here

I know the story is about getting manufacturers to open up their RAW formats but I think the preferred goal is to have camera manufacturers standardize on ONE format.

Note that Adobe has already developed an open raw format called DNG (Digital Negative). They have a good track record with open formats with PDF files. You may or may not like them, but you they certainly can be generated by non-Adobe products and as far as I'm aware, nobody pays any license fee for that.

Another plus for DNG is that Adobe has a free DNG converter which will convert RAW files from many popular cameras to the DNG format.

You can find more info here about DNG.

Note that Photoshop (the most common photo processor) supports RAW formats for over 80 cameras. You can See a complete list here

NOTE: You should get this anyway, if you're using SVG at all. (Well, I guess you weren't, but in case you want to start ;-)

To combat this, Adobe has introduced a new open RAW format called DNG for digital negative. They provide a free converter to convert all of the closed proprietary formats to it and are willing to work with the camera comanies to make sure that the format contains the information they need.

The RAW converter that came with $2500 Minolta SLR I bought does a terrible job. They want me to pay an extra several hundred dollars for the Pro version that does the job decently. All that just to read the damn pictures I take!

Can you imagine if you bought a film camera and got consistently crappy prints from it unless you bought a pro-upgrade lab? At least Adobe takes the time to reverse engineer these proprietary formats and even provides a free tool to convert to an open format.

A new website has launched to advocate for the public documentation of the manufacturer's raw format spec's. From the website "We want camera manufacturers to publicly document their RAW image formats -- past, present, and future. The goal of OpenRAW is to encourage image preservation and give creative choice of how images are processed to the creators of the images. To this end, we advocate open documentation of information about the how the raw data is stored and the camera settings selected by the photographer."

At present, the only documented RAW format is Adobe's Digital Negative (DNG). The current problem is that I dont think it's ever actually been implemented in an actual camera. Adobe provides a free converter, which is great, but it's not the same thing.

Personally, I'd like adobe's solution. A single format is easier for developers to work with than the ever growing list of RAW formats (even if they are open). It's this thing called standards.

What PDF claims do they have? They publish the full spec of the PDF format - a massive 1300 page document - and as well as selling it in book form they give it away free on the Internet.

You can't reverse-engineer something that's so thoroughly documented!

Well... what's wrong with pdf ? Specs are available here and that's why there are lots of PDF readers out there...

Frame is a pretty high-maintenance path to converting XML files to print but a network of consultants support Adobe's marketing and I would be very surprised if Adobe intends to kill Frame off.

They already have for Mac users, which comprised a fair number of their customers. In InDesign CS they added the XML processing and authoring features. Now in CS2 Studio they have spun the XML features into a seperate product called InCopy.

I was advised by a former employee that if I wanted to choose a new layout application to avoid framemaker because it is dead there. Having seen what has happened over the last few years has pretty much confirmed this. Sorry, a lot of us know that InDesign does not cut it, and nothing really stacks up to the features in Framemaker for several markets, but I seriously doubt Adobe is going to magically pull their collective heads out of their butts and save it. Start looking for alternatives.

Framemaker was an acquisition so Adobe is slowly killing off Framemaker. They have not released a Mac OS X version, the Linux port was killed after releasing a working beta, and the Windows version has gained basically zero features in the last several years. They would cancel it today if not for the thousands of users who would migrate to Quark.

But if Quirk Xpress would die a slow and horrible public death, the whole prepress industry would be happily liberated from one of the worst user-support experiences ever...

The original article said Adobe only worries about Microsoft. Well, that's because Adobe apparently idolizes Microsoft & want's to be the next Microsoft, starting out first, of course by buying up great companies, sucking innovation of of them, and sticking DRM on the products & getting us all to report others who aren't doing things the Adobe Way.

Adobe's turning into the most fu***d up company ever.

The original article said Adobe only worries about Microsoft. Well, that's because Adobe apparently idolizes Microsoft & want's to be the next Microsoft, starting out first, of course by buying up great companies, sucking innovation of of them, and sticking DRM on the products & getting us all to report others who aren't doing things the Adobe Way.

Adobe's turning into the most fu***d up company ever.

Punched a monkey in his eye and mad the web real phony.

bought a company out of fear and called it MacrAdobe!

It's called Abobe Livemotion and it was Adobes stillborn entry into the Flash-Creation market. They took it all the way to v2.0 then dropped it like a rock. The uproar was great because it really was a far superior tool for creating flash animations (although the action script support was a little lacking).
Well maybe now they own flash they can try and put some of the great features in Livemotion into Flash.. I live in hope

Just because the standard is open doesn't mean the tools are free (as in beer). Adobe is already making a few bucks selling tools that utilize that open standard.

The mobile market needs tools too. I'm sure they do want to cash in on that. Perhaps they see a way to make better SVG Tiny support in Flash Lite. That gets them two platforms at once (which is also a feature they can sell developers on). Playing in two of the big mobile development arenas will make them better prepared for when Microsoft moves Avalon (and therefore XAML) to high-end cell phones.

This way Adobe will have more hold in more of the existing platforms. When Microsoft enters a market like that they (MS) tend to have to adapt to the current players before taking over. This move buys Adobe a couple more versions or a couple more years once that happens.

Just because the standard is open doesn't mean the tools are free (as in beer). Adobe is already making a few bucks selling tools that utilize that open standard.

The mobile market needs tools too. I'm sure they do want to cash in on that. Perhaps they see a way to make better SVG Tiny support in Flash Lite. That gets them two platforms at once (which is also a feature they can sell developers on). Playing in two of the big mobile development arenas will make them better prepared for when Microsoft moves Avalon (and therefore XAML) to high-end cell phones.

This way Adobe will have more hold in more of the existing platforms. When Microsoft enters a market like that they (MS) tend to have to adapt to the current players before taking over. This move buys Adobe a couple more versions or a couple more years once that happens.

No, it hasn't, but the companies it was formed out of were around, and were making Macintosh software as early as 1984. Adobe started making Macintosh software in 1987.

Adobe Timeline [PDF]
Macromedia History

The drm however isn't, or at least wasn't, published, it was necessary to reverse-engineer that, but normal pdfs are fine.

You must be joking. Raw is a universal standard. Pixels are uncompressed and encoded from bottom-left upwards.

There isn't a universal standard for cameras' raw file format:

The Pros and Cons of Raw Data

Seeking a greater degree of flexibility and artistic control, professional photographers increasingly opt to manipulate raw data from their digital cameras. Unlike JPEG and TIFF formats which store images that have been processed by the camera, camera raw files capture unprocessed or minimally processed data directly from the camera sensor. Because they are analogous to film negatives in a photographer's workflow, camera raw formats are often referred to as "digital negatives."

Camera raw formats offer both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is increased artistic control for the end user. The user can precisely adjust a range of parameters, including white balance, tone mapping, noise reduction, sharpening and others, to achieve a desired look.

One disadvantage is that unlike JPEG and TIFF files which are ready for immediate use, camera raw files must be processed before they can be used, typically through software provided by the camera manufacturer or through a converter like the Adobe® Camera Raw plug-in for Adobe Photoshop® software.

The challenge for end users and camera vendors alike is that there is no publicly-documented and supported format for storing raw camera data. Every camera manufacturer that supports raw data must create their own proprietary format, along with software for converting the proprietary format into the standard JPEG and/or TIFF formats.

Well, more and more people are switching over to Canon. Nikon is starting to fall behind. Though their bodies are a bit cheaper, Canon has a better line up of lenses. (I hope Nikon steps it up a bit. Competition is good for all of us.)

Yes, Canon RAW is supported in Photoshop with the Camera RAW plugin. Photoshop CS2 is coming out very soon and should have some major improvements over PS CS.

Very few people use GIMP professionally I've found. Photography is the sole reason I've switched back from Linux. Try as it might, digikam and GIMP just can't keep up with professional grade RAW Converters such as Capture One Pro. GIMP supports RAW with the appropriate plugin, but sorry, it's just not Photoshop.

Well, more and more people are switching over to Canon. Nikon is starting to fall behind. Though their bodies are a bit cheaper, Canon has a better line up of lenses. (I hope Nikon steps it up a bit. Competition is good for all of us.)

Yes, Canon RAW is supported in Photoshop with the Camera RAW plugin. Photoshop CS2 is coming out very soon and should have some major improvements over PS CS.

Very few people use GIMP professionally I've found. Photography is the sole reason I've switched back from Linux. Try as it might, digikam and GIMP just can't keep up with professional grade RAW Converters such as Capture One Pro. GIMP supports RAW with the appropriate plugin, but sorry, it's just not Photoshop.

As Adobe themselves state, they expect to have preliminary support for the D2X in May ( http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw. html )

As the article itself mentions, it's not really that big a deal. It is the white balance parameters as set on the camera when the image was shot that is encrypted. The RAW data isn't directly affected by this, and picking a white-balance preset or performing manual/auto whitebalacing on the RAW data gives you the same/similar/better results (that's partly the point of shooting RAW, no?)

What could be worse is if they encrypted the data as well. This is what SONY does on the F828 and V3, for example.
However, both are supported by Photoshop's RAW support, so I take it they simply licensed or SONY gave them a thumbs up for supporting it. No idea why they encrypt it, though.
Regardless.. that's what would have to happen with any future encrypted formats.. I doubt we've seen the last of them anyway.

If all else fails, get the dcraw utils ( http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ ) and convert from one raw to another. That's where the SONY decryptor is also hosted.

Speaking of dcraw... has Adobe given the author credit yet ?

Something tells me they won't be supporting the new, open, raw-replacing Digital Negative format either.

It can already be done.

See section 9.3 of the Adobe PDF Reference, Fifth Edition.

Hmm. I wonder if this means we'll be seeing SVG support in Macromedia's Flash Player any time soon?

That alone would be worth the ridiculous amount of money Adobe coughed up...

What happens to the Macromedia brand?

Adobe recognizes the strong equity of the Macromedia brand. That said, it makes great business sense for a company the size of the combined company to align behind a single corporate brand. Over time, Macromedia products will transition to the Adobe brand. Adobe expects to keep and continue investing in key Macromedia product brands.

Also of interest:

Do you expect to integrate the FlashPlayer and the Adobe Reader?

The complementary functionality of FlashPlayer and Adobe Reader will enable the deployment of a more robust cross-media, rich-client technology platform. The combined company will continue to be committed to the needs of both the FlashPlayer and Adobe Reader users.

hmm...I started to submit this story, but I guess taco beat me. So I'll just post the story I submitted ;)

As reported here and even on Adobe and Macromedia, Adobe will be aquiring Macromedia for $3.4Billion. From the Macromedia site: "The two companies are developing integration plans that build on the cultural similarities and the best business and product development practices from each company. The companies will make additional details and information about the acquisition available at http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adobe andmacromedia.html."
With Adobe recently putting out reader 7 for linux, what should our hopes be that linux apps will be kept reasonably up to date in the integration plans?

hmm...I started to submit this story, but I guess taco beat me. So I'll just post the story I submitted ;)

As reported here and even on Adobe and Macromedia, Adobe will be aquiring Macromedia for $3.4Billion. From the Macromedia site: "The two companies are developing integration plans that build on the cultural similarities and the best business and product development practices from each company. The companies will make additional details and information about the acquisition available at http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adobe andmacromedia.html."
With Adobe recently putting out reader 7 for linux, what should our hopes be that linux apps will be kept reasonably up to date in the integration plans?