Slashdot Mirror
Nikon Responds to Encryption Claims
ader writes "In a rare response to public complaints, Nikon has released a statement clarifying the use of encrypted white balance information in the NEF raw data from its digital cameras. They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application. In other words: open source coders can butt out."
An OS project coder could be a bona - fide developer - nothing says Nikon wouldn't provide one to an OS project.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Why are they doing the proprietary bit in the first place? Wouldn't they want their product to be as widely useable as possible?
but, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this originally brought up on /. because of adobe not being able to access this?
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
"open source coders can butt out"
I am sure this can be trivially reverse-engineered.
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
I guess adobe photoshop isn't nikon's choice for professional image processing then, or the license was too much for adobe to invest in.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Pictures can be saved as TIFF or JPEG as well as the NEF format.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Didn't Adobe not include a NEF importer in Photoshop CS3 because they were worried about copyright infringement?
"This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
Why provide a log in only link? Hard to believe you when I am met with a login screen besides a download prompt.
This has been / is being discussed quite a lot on various Nikon-related boards. Unfortunately, Nikon is one of the least consumer-responsive companies I've ever come acrosss, to the point where even "Nikon Pros" - pros who exclusively use Nikon gear and evangelize for the company for free - are often not heard by the company leadership.
Unfortunately, this would seem to suggest that Nikon will be even less willing to listen to open source developers...unless they're loud enough to raise a stink in the mainstream media to some extent. Nikon's announcement about this issue is proof that bad publicity gets their attention...let's hope that there's enough volume to the (well reasoned, intelligent) complaints from the open source community.
I know I'd rather have some options when it comes to software. I use Nikon's commercial software, Nikon Capture, and it's very, very good...but competition is always a good thing.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
Instead of encryption, it'd be useful to have the camera digitally sign images, so you can have traceability from an image back to the camera that made it, "proving" that no photoshop magic happened inbetween.
You take a photograph, you think its yours, taken with a camera you bought, of a subject you chose, with all permissions sorted.
However you then find there's an extra little catch.
You can only access your picture with software that your camera maker has decided to approve.
You didn't agree to any of this, it didn't warn you on the box, nobody told you that the pictures are only your subject to some extra pre-conditions and you had reasonable expectation that the camera would not raise artificial obstacles to you getting at your picture.
And this situation is somehow supposed to be acceptable?
In other words: open source coders can butt out."
In other words, "Would all the tech-saavy people in the audience please discourage everyone they know from buying our products".
We geeks may not have the sort of numbers big companies specifically target, but we do have something they dream of having on their side - Our positive word of mouth when the vast majority of friends and relatives ask us for recommendations on buying a new product; in this case, a digital camera.
Guess which product line just got added to my "Whatever you do, do NOT buy this one" list?
Thanks for the help, Nikon, but we'd rather deal with whichever of your competitors actually wants geeks on their side.
The first episode was aired after the Super Bowl earlier this year.
So login with: asdfqwerty1 / asdfqwerty1
I didn't know if I was going to buy a Nikon D70 or Canon Rebel. I was looking at the specs and both were pretty good.
I guess Nikon made my choice fairly easy.
No, you idiot. The first episode of the first season aired after a Super Bowl years back. These are new episodes. The show was cancelled, now it's back. And it doesn't start until May 1.
I haven't been able to access the link to this article. Has it already been /.ed? If so, does anyone have another link so that I can read the article before I comment on it.
Java has no friends.
Why are they doing the proprietary bit in the first place? Wouldn't they want their product to be as widely useable as possible?
Widely used by photographers and graphic artists, but not widely used by Kodak and other competing camera manufacturers.
Sorry, but can't resist the use of the B word...
I thought this prelease said that sdk allows conversion to image formats rather than just straight raw extraction, which is what adobe is after. I also like the fact that companies have acknowledged the fact that I am always shopping at any single moment in my life, and they pursue appropriate efforts to sell to me. It makes me all tingly inside.
"They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application."
Pardon me, but Fuck' Em with a spoon. They shouldn't receive the support of the open source community, nor should they receive the support of the non-Nikon software community. If they like the bed they're making, then we shouldn't deny them the long-term pleasure of lying in it.
www.torrentreactor.net (no login required)
Grabbed it yesterday. Great quality, great episode.
Nikon makes good hardware, and they were first on my list for when the time comes to buy a professional-quality SLR.
But it won't be the first time I've had to choose inferior hardware due to the crappy attitude of the manufacturer of the better stuff.
Canon makes better gear anyway.
It is interesting with companies like AMD, Nvidia or HP Printers etc who have made competitive advantage out of catering (to some extent at least) to GNU/Linux/BSD and other ubergeeks. I suspect the average person who supports Free Software buys way more than the average amount of hardware and gadgets. We also read things like this and vote with our feet. At some point the balance will swing enough to make a real difference to the profit line - if we are not at that point already. The days of begging for drivers are past; the time of punishment for lazy manufacturers has begun. Seems no-one told Nikon to flee from the coming wrath..
My little Linux and tech blog
With an attitude towards the community like yours I won't consider even purchasing a Nikon camera
;-)
As if a typical open source zealot could afford a Nikon anyway.
Someone correct me on this, but I would think that there would be work arounds for this, e.g. recording reference colors. Also, this is not unique to Nikon. From what I understand Canon is equally hard to deal with, although their formats are not encripted, just undocumented.
" Nikon continues to welcome dialogue with bona fide software developers. "
If Nikon was smart they would have added something about the Pro's that buy their cameras.
oh... wrong Nikon, sorry.
So, somebody explain this to me. What am I missing here?
DMCA prevents the creation or distribution of a tool that defeats access control measures for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to protected content.
Or something like that.
The white balance information is part of the image data. It's unique to each photo. It's the data that's created when the photographer takes the photo.
The person who will be gain access via a white balance plugin is the person who has the raw image data--typically the photographer, unless he gives the file to someone else.
The photographer can hardly be accused of using such a tool to gain access outside of his rights.
Further, since the tool is freely available to any "bona fide software developer" for the asking, it can hardly be described as an access control measure.
In short, it's the photographer's freakin' creation. Who the hell is Nikon or anybody else to say what he can or cannot do what he produced?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Fewer than 1/100th of slashdotters who would have gone to that link from the main article will use this one, so it's kinda pointless, but here is is anyway...
How to get a Nikon Software Developers Kit (SDK)
We geeks ...
Most geeks don't care about OSS. Most Linux users don't really care, they just want an inexpensive generic Unix box. Don't confuse OSS users with OSS zealots.
I'd wager that most geeks will care more about picture quality than who wrote their software.
Then there is the pesky little detail that Gimp users could simply have the camera save the image in a different format. OSS users do have access to images from their Nikons.
But consider the alternative. If you buy a camera to use with OSS, then first do the due diligence to make sure it works. If it doesn't then don't go piss about rights. Buy one that does.
Voting with your dollars is something that companies understand.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I'd like to see Canon, Olympus, and Sony's open source support.. oh wait.. is there any?
I have yet to find any open source graphics products that can even hold a candle to the closed source graphics products. When GIMP has more features and a better interface than photoshop I might maybe consider using linux for something besides a webserver.
In other words, they are NOT doing this for their own benefit or to create lock-in or control of how images taken on their cameras may be used, but are doing it for camera owners, or so they say. Seems a bit bogus here...
A nikon owner myself. Get to make some recommendations at work about a camera, and a chance to move some dollars in a different direction. Actually think enough technical people making recommendations could make a difference.
agreed. most linux zealots work lousy jobs and live in the basement of their parents' house.
I am a firm believer in consumer reviews. Meaning, when I am about to buy something I attempt to find people who own it, eavesdrop on people talking about the item in retail stores, read the online boards, etc.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been in Fry's Electronics (or some other store) talking to a customer about something and they left with a different (better) product than they came in for. The reason is that I don't work for Fry's and have nothing tangible to gain no matter what they buy. I simply like seeing "good tech" survive, and so I thoroughly evangelize companies that treat me well. I do the opposite for compoanies that treat me badly. I can say for sure that IWILL has lost more than 10 sales because of me. IWILL XA-100 had a 40% failure rate (at the local Fry's), and they did not step up to the plate and recall the damned things. I got stuck with one, which was traded out for two others in unopened boxes with no success.
I have a feeling Nikon is going to lose sales, because now I can use the "I" word that scares Joe Sixpack so much. "Incompatible"... I'll also use another word that is designed to scare Mr. Sixpack, "Proprietary".... I can then go on about how my Olympus takes wonderful pictures, and is "compatible" and "not proprietary" and will work with all kinds of software. Heck, I didn't install the Olympus software, and even lost the disk with the software on it and can still get my pictures. And then mention that most other vendors are open and just work, and express puzzlement at why Nikon hates it's customers...
This generally works. While I am aware that I may only stop 5 or ten sales, if 10 people did this, it would be 50 to 100 sales, etc, etc. Furthermore people buying the non-proprietary item who are happy with it, will warn their friends away from that vendor. This is viral in nature. It does work, however it is dependant on how many people take part.
This vendor screw consumer atitude really bends me out of shape...
Oh BTW, my sister in law's purchased new Ford Focus has transmission problems at 38,000 miles. It also has had the brake system recalled, twice. Currently it eats brakes every 10,000 miles. This is just the beginning of the list. Since Ford has been very little help, they are seriously considering painting the car yellow, and writing the word "lemon" on it.
Unfortunately, while this is trivially reverse-engineered, it's illegal in the US to reverse engineer anything that can "bypass protections" -- which is so vauge that it basically boils down to "it's illegal to reverse engineer anything".
If someone did reverse engineer this, Nikon could have that entire project shut down for violating the DMCA.
Lord Nikon must be spinning in his grave!
Are digital pictures admissible in legal proceedings? If so, why?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
According to the link: "The SDKs are not available to the general public but are open to bona-fide software development companies or individuals" I find that statement interesting due to the lack of sense. What is the difference between a bona-fide software development individual and a member of the general public? Before you laugh it me, think about it a minute. No one is going to bother to download it unless they are able to understand it therefore they program to some extent. Bona fide - in good faith, does not actually reduce the group at all or mean a lot in this context. There is a strong possibility that other conditions are applied later. However I do dislike how with multi-national big-business, words lose any sense of meaning at all.
My little Linux and tech blog
I am sure this can be trivially reverse-engineered.
I'm sure Lord Nikon could figure out how to do this...
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Good thinking.
How do problems and confusion like this get started? They start because marketing people in technical companies are generally amazingly ignorant about what they are marketing. Marketing people can do sink-the-company things without having any idea of their destructiveness.
"In other words: open source coders can butt out." No! Wrong! It would be more correct to say, open source coders can butt out of the US or other countries with the DMCA. Nikon's opinion on this subject only has force of law in DMCA-equivalent countries. Everywhere else, it's just an opinion. Opinions are like root chakras, everyone has one. Open source coders, go ahead, have fun, distribute your products freely, etc. Those of us in DMCA-land, we must work to get the DMCA thrown out by the courts, or we need to elect some better representatives, or we need civil disobedience to end this thing.
outlaw those damn calculators and computers.
Normal teens should drink and smoke pot instead of messing with the products of respectable corporations.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Looking on dabs.copm I see they have only one over 1000 pounds, the D2X dSLR 12.4MP. Which, by a massive coincidence, is the one we're talking about.
So that makes you right, I wouldn't have bought it anyway (hell I don't even have a camera).
Where you're wrong is that, from the time being, nobody in my family is buying Nikon stuff (HP's on my black list as well).
And when I say family, that's uncles aunties, cousins, the whole shebang.
Like some other poster said, geeks may not be your customers - even if they have the money - but they tend to be listened to when it comes to geeky purchases...
There is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING. Most of the pros you see are GIVEN Nikon equipment. That's why.
While Canon and Nikon best each other in different arenas, show me a pro who yaks loudly enough about either, and I'll show you someone who gets free equipment. Why? Because they're both very, very good- and as long as you buy the model intended for what you're trying to do (ie, you don't buy the 1DS if you're a sports or news photographer, you probably buy the 1D, because the 1DS is mainly aimed at studios).
Nikon isn't alone- Canon has a "professional" "club" which gets you expedited repairs (ie, 1-2, maybe 3-4 days instead of 3-4 weeks), loaners while stuff is getting repaired...or just if you ask for it. Want a lens that costs more than two G5's put together, like one of the big, fast prime telephotos with image stabilization like the 400/2.8 L IS? Why, just ring 'em up and say "hey, I'd like to borrow one next week". "Yes sir!"
If you think the people who talk loud enough for you to hear get service or support that even approaches what you will get as a consumer (or even a professional, just not at their level), you're absolutely, 100% fooling yourself. These companies are in it purely for the people who are highly visible, or for major corporate customers. For years, Canon and Nikon have been releasing models in time for the olymics, for example.
Oh- and while we're on the subject of customer serivce...if the Nikon camera, flash, or lens you're holding in your hand wasn't imported by Nikon into your country and sold to you by a Nikon dealer- instead of say, you buying it from a grey-market importer or buying it while on vacation...Nikon won't service it.
Let me be absolutely clear about that. Nikon won't just charge you for servicing it, they flat out will not service it period; you'll get the camera back in the mail, still broken. Worse, if you're buying a camera used, you can't call Nikon to check if the serial number is grey market or official USA import. This is why used Nikon gear is almost worthless, and new Nikon gear costs a fortune. Canon will not only service a grey-market import as long as it has an international warranty (some do, some don't)...they'll service it free as long as it's under warranty!
Last but not least, Nikon warranties are not transferrable- Canon's, and most other camera companies, are. If I turn around and sell my Nikon D2H the second I bought it, it's still sealed, warranty card not filled out- too bad. Why? Because the original sales reciept with your name and address has to be sent in to Nikon with the warranty card. God help you if it wasn't sold to you by an authorized Nikon dealer.
Please help metamoderate.
Knew a guy who started a print shop. Didn't work at his dad's print shop. He accepted a small cast-off press from his dad and started his own small time. It was just standard operating business procedure for the supplies salesmen to treat him like crap for his small orders. When he was doing great and the same salesmen were courting him, the shoe was on the other foot.
Beyond hardware compatibility, I hope somebody is keeping a list of companies that have actively given linux the rush. Unless linux gets effectively illegalized out of interoperability, it is certain to succeed sure as dandelions covering a field. Then which camera interface will be worked on _last_?
As if the typical open source zealot had a girlfriend to shoot pictures off with that camera anyway ;)
Linux is not Windows
The press release notes that if you use the SDK:
"a NEF file can be opened, edited in either TIFF or JPEG format, and then saved in formats available in the developers' software."
This seems to mean that you aren't allowed to edit the NEF file directly, which is the whole point of a raw format. This press release really doesn't clear anything up or give a reasonable explanation of why Nikon saw fit to encrypt the white balance data anyways. Surely the white balance data is derivative of the photographer's image and not the other way around.
Nikon should allow photographers to access their own images anyway they want. Nikon shouldn't try and limit how a photographer can work, especially one who has shelled out big bucks for a high-end camera.
"Not good" when you consider privacy issues. This would be one of those things that would discourage buyers from registering cameras.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So software developers are terrified that Nikon will wield the DMCA scythe at them if they reverse engineer the white balance encryption algorithm? How would Nikon have any case when the content in question is owned by the creator, not Nikon?
To my thinking this is another clear application of interoptibility, so I don't see how the DMCA could apply especially given the ownership of the "protected content".
Honestly I feel like this is complaining about needing a CD player after you buy a CD.
No. This is like complaining about coding a CD in a way which make it illegal to play in a custom built CD player.
Quite a difference.
Actually, the NEF format is not for highly specialized applications.
.jpg output. When you get the color balance and exposure right with the camera, a Canon .jpg is virtually indistinguishable from a .jpg developed from the corresponding Canon raw file.
.jpg images do not have the same resolution as images that can be developed from .nef files by Nikon Capture, Capture One, or Adobe Camera Raw.
Canon provides raw output *and*
This is not the case with Nikon. Nikon
Many amateurs use NEF, for good reason.
It's interesting that this furor at slashdot is talking about open-source. Nikon's comment was in direct response to a comment from Thomas Knoll at Adobe, concerning Adobe Photoshop, which is far from being open source. While it uses some components from DCRAW, an open-source raw converter, it is an expensive commercial package.
This is no biggie, why? A simple concept we in IT may understandably be unfamiliar with: competition. Nikon has some very serious, capable, and well funded competitors who would eat 'em alive if they were to do anything that actually threatened their customers 'access' to their photos.
Nikon has been in business producing extremely high qualty products since before Mr Bill was born. They didn't get, or stay, there by good fortune or by annoying their very demanding customers.
At the very least, I'd need perpetual rights to compile and redistribute the code as a library. This would have to include the right to fix the code for security holes, to make it 64-bit clean, and to port the code to a big-endian or MMU-free CPU. Throw in any required patent rights as well of course.
1. Encrypt White Balance
2. ??????
3. Profit!!!
If this encryption is supposed to be a Technical Protection Measure to trigger the Anti-Circumvention Prohibitions of the DMCA... then what could Nikon claim copyright in: the respective measurement describing parameters of the digital photograph taken by their customer?
If you think this is copyrightable (let alone to Nikon rather than to the photographer), then please let us know under which provision...
See above, for instance here , here, and here, for why.
How did this get mod'd up?
Remember, Kodak has pretty much the same attitude.
DRM implemented in cameras... Soon, very soon, we start to pay for each shot we take with a digital camera too...
Note that this simply means they're encrypting the "starting point" for the white balance. You can use Photoshop, etc to alter the white balance legally - Photoshop just won't know what the initial value was. Not that I approve of this - I've got $5000+ in Canon gear and I'd be pissed if Canon pulled this this nonsense.
Camera sensors usually have 10 or 12 bits per color. TIFF uses 8, so some of that info is chopped. It's the least significant bits, sure, but sometimes that extra shadow or highlight detail is quite useful.
I don't know what software Adobe has written regarding this, but the way I figure it, that is irrelevant. The DMCA is not what stops Adobe from providing their users with the kind of access to Nikon raw images that their Nikon-using Photoshop users may want, although I experience a good schadenfreude laugh at Adobe's expense when I read people make the argument that Adobe is somehow disadvantaged by the DMCA here.
Adobe can use some of the money from distributing proprietary software (ill-gotten gain, in my opinion) to negotiate a binary-only proprietary copy of a Nikon library to link to Photoshop which would allow Photoshop users to decrypt the Nikon raw white balance segment that is encrypted.
Nikon and Adobe both walk away getting what they want: Nikon's encryption is no less "secure" than it was before (how this works can be hidden from hidden from everyone, including Adobe), and Adobe gets to supply plug-and-play functionality to their users. Meanwhile, and more importantly, their users are left without their software freedom, and no ability to easily deal with Nikon raw images in other programs. Those users are paying their money in exchange for a loss of their software freedom and complete control over their images. If Adobe complains about not wanting to ship software under its name without full and complete source code to that program so they can inspect, modify, and even share it should the need arise, I'll get another schadenfreude chuckle at Adobe's expense because I want software freedom too. The only difference is I don't want to hoarde it from others.
Both Adobe and Nikon are treating their customers like dirt and it's always a good time to remind Adobe that it was wrong to have Sklyarov arrested, detained, and subject to an "agreement"..
To me, these are all excellent reasons to avoid or stop doing business with both Adobe and Nikon. Run the GIMP, use some other brand of camera that will give you the unencumbered raw functionality you want, and retain full control over your photos. The dcraw website hosts a list of cameras it will work with. Surely some camera on that list will meet one's needs without going to Nikon.
Digital Citizen
tell them no product related to nikon without open
source. feedback button is at bottom of page.
The combination of Nikon camera, in-camera image processing, NEF file format and in-computer image processing with original Nikon Capture software was developed as a system that faithfully saved image files that represent the camera settings made manually or automatically by the photographer at the time a picture was taken.
Nikon's preservation of its unique technology in the NEF file is employed as an action that protects the uniqueness of the file.
Sounds like they're saying that saving settings in a file is unique technology?
Or could this be the DMCA buster that we have all been waiting for, lets say that some pro somewhere makes a hack and gets sued by Nicon, the photogropher could say that the encryption violated his copy right, and use rights. The camera maker has no right to lock down the owners own content.
Not specifically because of this information, but I must say the timing was right, and it put them over the top.
For a whole long list of reasons, I bought a Canon EOS 20D instead of a Nikon D70. Something to know about this, is that I had been saving up for the Nikon, and when it came time to buy, I spent more and bought a Canon. No regrets at all.
That said, I'm not getting rid of my Nikon SLR bodies or my Nikon lenses (both Nikkor and aftermarket). But I think Nikon may have missed the boat on a couple of important points, and I suspect that Canon is going to dominate the Pro-sumer camera bracket, especially for the lenses, now.
Not that it has much to do with the politics of software, but this won't help them. Lots of photo geeks are *geeks*, and they are aware of this kind of stuff.
All that said, you have to sign a NDA to do Canon's API as well, but that's camera control and firmware, not RAW image processing.
This is bad timing, as pro-sumer digital SLR's have *just* reached a plateau of quality/price/performance. NOW is the first generation digital camera, as far as I'm concerned.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Well time to add Nikkon to my list:
Toshiba: Boycott due to selling advanced CNC milling equiptment to the U.S.S.R. that allowed them to make quieter nuke subs.
Sony: Boycott for propriatory audio formats and lack of MP3 support, along with a reduction in quality of their products.
Sig em Duke !
Lots of modern cars eat brakes. This is what traction control gives you. You didn't think traction control was all good, did you?
Please get a clue whilst I go get a Canon.
Sincerely,
Me.
Oh BTW, my sister in law's purchased new Ford Focus has transmission problems at 38,000 miles. It also has had the brake system recalled, twice. Currently it eats brakes every 10,000 miles. This is just the beginning of the list. Since Ford has been very little help, they are seriously considering painting the car yellow, and writing the word "lemon" on it.
Yeah, my aunt asked me for advice about a car for her daughter going off to college... She mentioned a Ford Focus, and I told her that, from talking with friends, my impression was that it was basically a 4-year disposable vehicle. She was looking for something that would last through 4 years of college and a couple years after that, so her kid could get a few years more use out of it (and some money in the bank from a job) before having to get a new car payment.
She wanted this to start with a 2-3 year old used vehicle, to reduce the initial outlay costs. She's looking for something else now, I believe. My recommendation was a European import microcar, turbo-diesel. Long lasting, good mileage, decent safety. You tend to pay for it, though... (No, this isn't a "Looking to buy" advertisement.)
I had a Ford Tempo through college, and several years afterwards... It was fine until it was about ten years old, then it simultaneously developed transmission and brake problems, and I decided it would be cheaper (and more satisfying, I admit) to replace it instead of repairing it. I'm kind of disappointed that Ford's low-end vehicles don't last that well any more.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
isn't Nikon violating the DMCA with their software by providing access to YOUR protected content?
Just wondering...
Nikon is used by maybe 80% of pro photographers with Cannon at about 15%. There is a reason for this. Brutaly strong pro level cameras 'that just work' ;) and the best and most affordable lens system there is.
... Standards and Practices !
Wine all you want about the proprietary format, the pros don't care they just want the best tool for the job.
PenGun
Do What Now ???
Buying a professional CD player, like say a $3000 rig, then trying to hook it up to your professional digital to analogue converter. However, nothing comes out. You call the maker and they say "Oh the data isn't raw S/PDIF, it's a special proprietary format. You'll need to buy this $200 adapter to make it work."
I mean, when you pay the kind of money a professional camera costs, it's not too much to ask that the software be included at no extra charge. It's a very reasonable expectation that it ought to work out of box with Photoshop. Further I'd say it's reasonable to expect that the format be open. After all, you are paying for the hardware to allow you to capture pictures. How you process them afterwards is your own business.
Are you worried some girls are finally going to prove faeries are real?
If you want a successful example of 'the geeks' pushing 'the sheeple' into something, check into Google's history.
The only viable alternative to Microsoft for home/SOHO users at the OS level is Apple's. You don't agree? Puke up the Kool-Aid, it's interfering with your thinking.
You want to take down MS? Push Apple and OSX. Or fix Linux.
The main reasons why Linux is not a viable mass-market alternative are:
Tech Public Policy stuff
Back in the day (to-day, on occasion), I used a camera to fix the play of light onto chemically treated film. I ran the film through a chemical bath, and then ran light through the film onto photo-sensitive paper, which was then itself bathed. While the precise formulations of the film, development chemicals, and photo paper may be trade secrets, the general process isn't, so I could swap various vendors in and out of my production process more or less at will.
Nowadays, a full digital production process produces good enough results that the convenience usually outweighs what ever superiority the analog process provides in the final result. Just like LP, to CD, to MP3. And, just like the audio analogy I just hinted at, I've now introduced embedded software into the mix... and I bet that if I took the time to dig out my Nikon (Coolpix) manual and looked hard enough, I'd find that the embedded software is merely licenced to me. Naturally, the frickin' hardware is for all intents and purposes useless without the licensed firmware, so when I bought the camera (and the non-Linux computer, and printer) I was merely purchasing a non-exclusive license that allows me to manipulate light, digital signals, and ink with that particular equipment kit.
To say that the content is owned by the creator misses the point (in Nikon's eyes). The content is going through their process, and - to stretch my point - they don't feel any more compelled to tell us how the process works than I am to teach you how I paint your portrait.
Yes, this sucks, but it shouldn't be a surprise in a nation where our right of free speech vaporizes the moment we switch from pen, paper, and the offset press to a computer and TCP/IP. We do have the right to swap out the offending firmware from hardware we have purchased, but attempting to reverse engineer everything in sight is a losing battle. Better to change the rules of the game.
Luke, help me take this mask off
It also ignores the fact that the SDK generates jpeg/tif from RAW. Which wouldn't be bad except the main reason to use Adobe ACR is to use THEIR raw image processing routines. Who wants to waste time decoding the file twice?
Finally, it ignores the fact that Nikon basically wants you to spend $5000 for a camera... and then pay an additional $100 to get their software to process your images.
Stop bashing Adobe and check a few facts. Nikon doesn't want people using ANY third-party image processing software.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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 planet do you live on? EVERY working pro I know has paid for his equipment. You may get a demo of a new camera, but after the demo period is over the camera goes back and you buy your own.
Besides, if you're a top tier professional (whom you seem to be ranting about) a $5,000 camera is pocket change, and a $25,000 MF digital back is not much more so.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/23/2 050249
Ok i was following this on the first article, and now i am even more confused. How does the DMCA 'legitimately' cover this. (Im not referring to its typical fraudulent and over board use [see lexmark])
Nikon cant seriously be claming copyright protection on *other people's* photographs.
And in any case, like the lexmark issue, this is about reverse-engineering for compatibility. Which IIRC is not actionable under the DCMA. NIkon is merely being obstructionist here. Adobe did this as to splash bad PR on Nikon for being dicks, and as far as i can tell, its working. By having to issue PR to defend their position means they are feeling heat, as opposed to ignoring it and making the public drink their swill.
Nikon's reply is all smoke and mirrors. What they're not telling you is that their API wont allow access to the RAW image data that Adobe needs to get their product to optimally function. It's much like those undocumented API calls that M$ had in their OS for awhile to make their product better than the competition.
Stick with Canon. At least they don't try this crap.
WH
But Nikon doesn't have rights to those "bits", so it should not lock it.
Which part of "freely available" didn't make sense to you.
A format is not "property". Does Nikon own the pictures I take with my camera? No? Then why the hell can't I read the white balance information in them?
My picture, my property. Ability to read my picture? Also belongs to me.
May not be the way it is right now, but it's the way it damn well should be.
Random and weird software I've written.
The quality of Nikon cameras has so much decreased over the past couple years that most semi-professional photographers wouldn't even touch the "professional" Nikon models. I have made several bad experiences with Nikon when I started out and now as a professional photographer I strongly prefer Canon or other quality cameras.
Oh, and there are also the folks who rent what they need. I ran into one such guy last month. He had a Canon 1D Mark II body, which I suppose belonged to someone... and some nice L glass he'd rented for the occasion - $75 a week or something, I forget.
I don't even have a DSLR for personal use... yet. But I've never been a fan of manufacturer-specific software for image processing, and along with various other moves Nikon's made lately, this one isn't likely to make me buy one of theirs.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
So it is not like that somebody in Europe can just screw it. Write a tool that converts it to PNG and just leave it to users to use it?
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Isn't it great that nikon SDK info is in adobe's pdf ?. pdf
http://www.nikonusa.com/kdb/sdk/nikon_SDK_request
I just want to know: If I buy this camera will I be able to talk chicks into doing photoshoots? I'm a dirty old man that needs help.
Speaking as a photographer who uses Nikon equipment, I find this very troubling. As far as connections with Adobe go, Nikon is shooting themselves in the foot if they don't release information. Nikon's digital camera sales would plummet if RAW format usage with photoshop had some important features cut out. But that much aside, I fail to understand Nikon's reasoning behind keeping their RAW data formats a big secret. i fail to see how it benefits them. But then, I fail to see a lot of things... *sigh*
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
and so I won't have to worry about trying to connect a Nikon digial camera to my Linux box.
Problem solved.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Sory for the double reply, but I just spotted something else.
designed to prevent unauthorized copying
Actually the DMCA is very carefully crafted not to apply to apply to or protect any sort of copy protection at all. This was done in a deliberate attempt to evade being struck down on Fair Use constitutionality grounds. The DMCA only covers "access" restrictions, not copying.
You can copy DVDs (encryption and all) all you like and the DMCA never applies. You can even sell those DVDs, and while that would be blatant copyright infringment it still would not be a DMCA violation. The DMCA simply has nothing to do with copying or copyright infringment.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
PNG is 24 bits per pixel for an RGB image. That translates to 8 bits per color.
The person you replied to was talking about 16 bits PER COLOR. i.e. 48 bits per pixel. Also known as "high dynamic range" in some image processing circles. Typically used for pro photography and pro video/film.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Before digital, with film, yes, you owned your image. However, you did not own the chemical process used to record your image on the film.
Regardless, I would definately think twice about buying a Nikon camera because of this attitude of theirs. They should be embracing others. They should give the SDK source code away just so that it becomes a standard (i.e., "Buy our cameras! Every image viewer can read the uncompressed highest quality file format!"). It makes sense to me. They're not selling a format, they're selling cameras and lenses.
Canon should respond by releasing the full specifications and some mechanism for certifying implementations. Better software tools will only sell more cameras, lenses, and other accessories.
My other first post is car post.
As if a typical open source zealot could afford a Nikon anyway. ;-)
Most people I know who would buy a Nikon digital already have lenses for the older Nikon film cameras, those and students who say "I'm a student and I want to learn what the professionals use" but don't actually know any photographers.
Can't afford Nikon? Great, get a Pentax then. The *iST DS starts under $1000. The *ist with similar specs but heavier body under $1500. Takes older manual focus K-mount lenses or newer auto focus.
Still too much for you? The Canon EOS 6.3MP Rebel is slightly cheaper.
Not high enough resolution? Olympus Evolt E300 8MP, also in the same price bracket.
Still too much?
Konica Minolta Dimage A200 8MP under $700.
Still too much? Well you could always make a damn pinhole camera out of a box of quaker oats with a carboard shutter.
The zealots are only a small fraction of the community. Senior geeks tend to earn enough money that they can easily afford such luxuries. I do, and so do many of my co-workers.
The only implication of the encrypted data is that when a user loads a D2X RAW image in Photoshop, they will not be able to see what the WB setting was on their camera when the picture was taken. They can still manipulate the WB setting using the tools in Photoshop, and make any other edits.
For cameras other than the D2X, there is full WB support.
In addition, Nikon provides, for free, a Photoshop plugin that uses their code to develop NEF files. This supports the D2X fully.
The source of the disagreement is that Nikon requires other software developers to use Nikon's algorithms to "develop" the NEF file format. However in the past many developers were able to reverse engineer the file format and write their own algorithms. Some were faster or more richly featured than Nikon's, resulting in work-flow improvements for photographers. Nikon seemed to either ignore or be ignorant of these 3rd party developers. Now it seems that they are taking actual technical/legal steps to protect their file format. This caused a lot of outcry because Nikon's software package, called Capture, is very poorly written, especially for Macs.
That is the source of the photographer outcry currently in progress. Nikon's code for working with their own file format operates much more slowly than the code that 3rd parties (including Adobe) developed by reverse engineering the file format. Photographers currently using Nikon software to work with D2X NEFs say that it is hair-tearingly slow to perform basic batch operations.
The other source of tension is the nascent battle for control of the digital negative. Camera vendors like Nikon want the control to remain at the camera maker level. So, they will fight to protect their file format as proprietary IP.
Software vendors like Adobe want the control to shift to the software level. So, they will promote a "standard" RAW format, DNG, that they developed. And they will focus public pressure on camera makers who attempt to promote, protect, or assert control of their file format.
true, i've also have had such problems.You should consider Canon, they are very well built and have none of the problems that nikon has.
Actually, you're completely fucking wrong. Nikon GIVES AWAY some gear to high profile professionals- it's well known, and they've admitted to it as much on their websites. Where do you think computer companies learned it from?
I suspect Canon does the same, but I haven't heard anything to back it up. At the very least, Canon Professional Services members get equipment discounted a healthy bit off retail.
Please help metamoderate.
I purchased an Olympus camera last fall after trying out an identical model (C-U725) which took very satisfactory photographs. The photographs taken by the purchased camera are terrible, random noise added to the images has a standard deviation of about 8 in each channel - using averaging to reduce noise on the camera does not make the noise disappear until the image is about 256*256 pixels (i.e averaging about 64 pixels to produce one). I contacted Olympus technical support, and they agreed to repair the camera under waranty. I shipped the camera to them, at my expense, along with the forms they asked me to fill out and a copy of the sales reciept. The camera was returned to me in a different box, completely untouched without any notice of the reason for lack of service. Olympus has refused to deal with me further in repairing the camera.
don't buy their cameras....buy a different brand.
A photo is the property of the photographer. (Or the studio employing the photographer, but that amounts to the same thing.) A photo that happens to have been taken with a Nikon camera most certainly is not Nikon's property.
People are bleating about wantning NEF/RAW support for OSS like GIMP. Since when does GIMP support CMYK anyways? So even if you get the extra information from NEF files, what good will it do to process your images in GIMP? Wasted information. Rather than the file format being your weakest link, the image processing software will be.
Improvements of D20 vs. D10
-8MP
-5 Frames per second
-Improved battery life
-Ability to take AA batteries in optional grip
-Instantaneous shutter release
-Instantaneous startup time
Same price.
These improvements are not just a ploy, my friend.
No need to scream and shot. Clearly Nikon believes in the open market and free competition. They believe their equipment and file format are the best and that is clearly the message from Nikon's soap box. All this does is will just only allow Nikon's competitors to step up to the plate and see if there is a demand for an alternative. Of course, if there is, Nikon would be too late to enter the market of 'free play' because they have already scared away the would-be developers that would have given the consumer open-sourced and free tools that would have increased their bottom line. Of course, this is Nikon's version of "beating the competition"
I've been holding back going into digital photography. I have a few thousand dollars invested in film based cameras and associated lenses and equipment, all of which is currently Nikon (with the exception of about 30 filters being Hoya). With digital having about reached the level that satisfies me, I am now looking into moving that way. But clearly, I cannot continue with Nikon. I had hoped I would be able to because so many of my older lenses would still be usable, even though they don't focus automatically (I never did like that ... in fact I'm even a manual exposure setting guy).
I've never really looked at the other camera brands before. Recently I've started to do so. It does seem Canon is on par with Nikon, if not exceeding it, in terms of the flexibility of the system. And many people have suggested Canon. But if we had a vote on which to move to, which would you suggest?
Or maybe I'll just stick with film and move up to medium or large format.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Let me be absolutely clear about that. Nikon won't just charge you for servicing it, they flat out will not service it period; you'll get the camera back in the mail, still broken. Worse, if you're buying a camera used, you can't call Nikon to check if the serial number is grey market or official USA import. This is why used Nikon gear is almost worthless, and new Nikon gear costs a fortune.
Nikon customer service is an absolute joke.
I bought my D70 legitimately from a know camera retailer (specialist shop) at a premium. Nikon's repairer here in Sydney is Maxwell Australia. I had to send the camera in 3 times. First time they reset something. Second time they claimed no problem, and third time they held on to it without informing me they were waiting for parts. (To get them to recongise there was a problem with the camera I ended up taking a DVD of it failing for me).
The process took me over 3 months. Maxwell (and therefore by extension Nikon) were rude and arrogant, and refused to replace my camera the 3rd time around. IIn the end I got the retailer to replace it under threat of taking it further with the relevant consumer bodies.
I will never ever buy another Nikon product again.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
This sad sack is an assfaced Microsoft lackey who's lips are still wet with the cum of Billy Gates!
No, no, no. It makes no damn sense to "edit the NEF file directly." Image editing software works with raster images. A NEF file isn't a raster image-- it is raw data from the camera sensors, meant to be converted into a raster image for display and editing purposes. The SDK as you describe it clearly provides just that-- NEF-to-raster conversion functionality.
There's no reason why you'd want to save an image back to NEF-- in fact, I don't see that the conversion can necessarily be made backwards. Not that I really know the answer there, but just think of it: after you have an edited image, why would you want to translate it to the raw sensor data that would have produced it? (The transformation might well be lossy, too!)
Yes, but to get pro service with Canon, you need top be a CPS (Canon Professional Services) member. There's no membership fee as such, but to be eligable you need to fulfill two criteria:
* Own at least two Canon EOS pro bodies (EOS 3 or higher for film, 10D/20D or higher (1D, 1Ds etc) for digital) plus three or more L-series lenses (that's their $1K+ lense range)
* Be a full time professional photographer.
For anyone in the business, owning two bodies is not uncommon, as well as some good glass - but a lot of photgraphers like to take on the job as a second income or hobby and these people are left in the dark.
That said, if it is your primary income, then CPS offers a lot for the pro - including product evaluations (Want to buy a 70-200 F2.8L and not sure whether to get IS? Try them both on your gear and see what you think). I know of someone who dropped their 1Ds Mk II during a near-nude model shoot and the lense mount actually broke. Not only was it a speedy turnaround but there was NO CHARGE for the repair....
I was doing a shoot at the Avalon International Airshow about six weeks ago and I met someone who had a D2X. Nobody else could even *get* one, let alone hire one.
So this guy couldn't speak English well at all, but I did manage to find out that the D2X he had was a pre-production model that he'd had for some time. I couldn't work out where he got it, but bets are on that Nikon gave it to him or his organisation.
I'm in the process of showing them my middle finger right now. I'm selling all my Nikon gear (worth about $6K) and switching to Canon. This encryption bullshit was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Much has been said about the property rights and the legality. However, surely what matters is what people expect and what the product SHOULD do?
The expectation of people (me anyway) is when you buy a camera, you can take pictures and do with them what you like, with no restrictions whatsoever, unless clearly stated otherwise on the box in big letters.
Nikon and others SHOULD allow that use of picture data and associated info. Anything else is misleading and therefore morally wrong, regardless of the legality.
It is morally wrong for the manufacturer when the user buys a camera and then realises, after much picture taking, that there is encrypted data in the pictures that can't be used, or that make the pictures useless.
Any other arguments about legality and IP rights are really beside the point.
Nikon can of course try to attach ownership rights to the white information in their picture. (I won't even go into the nonsense of attaching property rights to a few bytes.)
However, if they then make it impossible to read it by prohibiting and encryption, they are basically selling a camera that does NOT have usuable white information the picture, and if Nikon should say that it does in their advertising or tech sheets, they should be sued for unfair competition and have the product returned because it doesn't match specs.
To put it another way, this is like selling one of those chocolate eggs with a toy/bonus inside, and then prohibiting the buyer to open the chocolate egg to use the toy.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Bibble Labs announced that they will be supporting the D2X encrypted NEF white balance in their Bibble software:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05041901nikon_en cryptnef.asp
It's not open source, but they do support Linux. They claim to have succesfully located and unencrypted the white balance information. As far as I can tell they do not use the Nikon SDK.
As a Nikon shooter I don't really see what the fuss is. I bought the D2H last year, and the extra cost of the software is just like any other Nikon/Canon accessory (e.g. the $120 strobe cables).
Their SDK is not useful to many people, specifically people who code for Linux. Besides licencing issues, etc. I'm not sure that the libraries will run on Linux.
:)
In any event, it's not hugely relevant anymore - Dave Coffin has broken the encryption so we can all go on with our lives
Adobe's ACR does things differently to how Nikon Capture would. This includes colour choices, white balance, etc.
By forcing you to use their SDK or break the law, Nikon are saying that their's is the right (and only) way to decode NEF files.
By using the SDK, you are limited to the fastest it can process files - you can never process a file faster by working out your own solutions, you're always limited to the speed of the libraries.
You're also forced to live with all the bugs, memory leaks, etc. You never really have the kind of control that you want over your app.
If the job at hand was hard, then it might make sense for an API to help you, but everyone manages this work just fine. So why force an SDK on us ?
...when you cannot access the data because it is encrypted?
Canon
Willfully unfounded lawsuit? Possibly triple damages.
"Very mean (counter-)defendant"+"very stupid (counter-)defendant"=possibly even a multiple of punitive damages.
Nikon is increasingly lagging behind Canon in terms of innovation. Just look at their respective current DSLR offerings, and Canon's stuff is better by any technical definition. Nikon's newest DSLR offerings are marginal improvements and little evidence of real innovation.
I see this as a clear indication that Nikon is top-heavy and full of staunch conservative bureaucrats unable to move with the times. Management sits in a high castle out of touch. The badly translated but clearly terse verbiage used in this press release further demonstrates Nikon management's mode of thinking sounding similar to what IBM's board was capable of in the 1970s.
The very notion of "bona fide" software developers is pretty ugly and necessarily implies that some software developers aren't good enough to be working with Nikon. While I'm not particularly worried about open source in this regard - although unlikely, Nikon could just make binary libraries and not share their proprietary algorithms.
No, my concern is that "non bona fide" developers likely include independent raw CCD photo processing software vendors like those making Bibble, Pixmantec Raw Shooter Essentials, D1SLR and other similar software packages. These applications are designed to decode the raw CCD data from digital cameras using algorithms and color science developed by their respective vendors independently of Nikon. With varied results, but in many cases producing better or at least equal results to Nikon's very expensive Nikon Capture software which is particularly awful in terms of workflow and cost.
Nikon Capture feels similar to Sony's proprietary software in terms of stability and design clarity. These japanese giants produce an incredibly poor grade of consumer software, light years behind the technical quality of their hardware and so obviously I'm interested in having 3rd party software support for their very good hardware.
The "official" Nikon mesage is that these measures exist to protect the quality of the decoded images. That's very nice of them. But the pictures belongs to the photographers and photographers should be free to choose the software they wish to use for processing those images even if that means the colors are decoded differently from what Nikon's own best lab technicians have come up with.
Just as an example, CaptureOne is one Nikon compatible application - it does a superior job of handling moire CCD color noise on Nikon D1x, far surpassing Nikon Capture. Bibble handles colors on Nikon D1 subjectively better than Nikon Capture. Locking out these competing products is simply an awful measure that will not benefit consumers at all.
There can be only one explanation for Nikon's decision, and that is to produce more orders for Nikon Capture and license revenues from libraries included in commercial products from vendors choosing to use Nikon's official way of doing things. That's purely selfish of Nikonand serves consumers interest in no way!
I don't know how those libraries work, but from this press release I'd at least assume that they essentially output RGB data processed the Nikon Way, so you'd have pretty much the same result as using Nikon Capture, even if the library is embedded in a different program. That just means you won't be getting a second opinion and photographers using Nikon hardware won't be enjoying much creative freedom.
Here's the brochure for the D50
e s/ GB/D50_Leaflet.pdf
http://www.europe-nikon.com/uploads/ngb/Brochur
"Compressed NEF (RAW): 12-bit compression,
JPEG: JPEG baseline-compliant
Exif 2.21, Compliant DCF 2.0 and DPOF"
Notice it says NEF (RAW) without stating the missing white balance information.
Further down it talks about the camera supporting white balance.
"Auto (TTL white balance with 420-pixels RGB sensor), six manual modes, preset white balan"
And the only mention of software is in the "Optional Accessories".
"Optional Accessories....Nikon Capture 4 (ver.4.3) Software"
So, you have:
1. A misleading statement that NEF is RAW format.
2. A statement that the camera supports white balance.
3. A statement that the capture software is extra.
Dave Coffin's open source dcraw RAW converter has been mentioned here a couple of times, but it's worth pointing out that the latest version already supports decryption of Nikon D2X white balance data. There's a brief discussion of the decryption algorithm here, and Photoshop developer Thomas Knoll points to the relevant section of code here.
As far as I know, Nikon has not threatened to invoke the DMCA over decryption of the data - this looks more like a rather lame attempt to obfuscate one of the key image parameters to make life difficult for 3rd party developers (who Nikon can then claim have 'incomplete' support for the NEF format if the camera's white balance settings can't be extracted). Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility that Nikon is deliberately playing games with Adobe, since the Photoshop developers have to choose between implementing decryption that might be actionable under the DMCA, and leaving out support for 'as shot' white balance (it seems like they've gone for the latter, for now). Smaller fish like Bibble are already including white balance decryption, which could leave Adobe at a disadvantage if they continue to believe that this is a legal risk (and who knows the details of the DMCA better than Adobe?!). Meanwhile, Nikon presumably hopes to sell more copies of Nikon Capture (though to be fair, Nikon View, which even comes with a rudimentary Photoshop plugin, can also handle these files and is a free download for Nikon users).
but because there are other (much)better cameras/camera manufacturers out there. /* the one I'm thinking of is Sigma, and their SD10 digital camera system ... *mhmmm, jummy* Foven X3 ... which btw, is 100% fully supported by Gimp.
PS. use the 'rawphoto' or 'ufraw' gimp-plugin's... and yeah, both are based on the 'dcraw' code .. which some have found beats even the manufacturers own software-offering at import :)
Frankly, this sticks with me as a form of pseudo-tying. Odd are that their library is largly OS and/or compiler dependent. Ok.
So;
Since this is the way they want to play the game, and I just coincidentally happen to own a Nikon digital...
And I'm also now looking for a semi-pro/pro digital now to replace my Coolpix, I think I will exclude Nikon as I don't wish to be part and parcal with any possible litigation issues because I want to unload my camera shots into a Linux based host!
That Canon EOS Digital Rebel is starting to look rather attractive right now as the bottom of the line camera I might consider!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Once it enters my house, under any circumstances, its mine to do with as i please.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Come on, you can do better than this....
give it a real shot..
you less-than-talented para-legal contractualizing hacks.
Every pro out here knows why you did this.
And theres nothing in it about "dmca".
Company management has not a clue, and you perps told them it was for their own protection to encrypt the data. You're -really- doing this to drive the company stock down, so you can steal it when they lose share price in the Nikkei.
Don't say it's not true, cause I've seen the likes of you before.
YOU'RE the ones {types} who screwed up HP, AND Sony, AND just about any successful cash cow out there.
Those companies had lots of lawyers sucking them dry, and then they gobbled up the leftover pieces at low stock prices when no sane investor was interested.
End result? Piece-o-crap shell of a company that rebadges generic product to sell in discount warehouse stores.
dcoffin:Format no more secret
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
You're lucky if you can sell all your gear and just buy canon intead (I'm guessing you bought a D70 kit not long ago and don't have much more gear). Most of us have far too much gear to even consider it. By selling on ebay (or to a camera store) you can easily loose 50% of their value (not of price paid). For pro's, that might be possible to do. It's a big expense, but if you work a bit more, you could pay for the extra, but for amateurs who spent like 5000$+ to get good lenses, selling it all and buying canon instead just isn't so easy. That's why I got a Fuji DSLR instead (Kodak makes some nikon mount cameras too).
,to dTTL, to iTTL, forcing people to go from a 500$ SB-28 to a SB-80DX to a SB-800. There's not even yet a macro ring flash that works in their newer mode yet AFAIK, and it would cost a lot. That's a lot of money wasted of flashes. Plus, the way it works with studio strobes isn't optimal either... The Fuji DSLR I bought works 100% "real" TTL. he old SB-28 (and *ALL* older flashes) work as good as always, including my old macro ring flash and alien bee strobes. This feels like Nikon just wanted to make an extra 1000$ by forcing you to buy 2 more flashes (I know it's not that simple, but it still feels like it). That was a big factor in me buying a Fuji over a Nikon body.
... lots of things), but I still wish I hadn't bouight this very first Nikon body, so I wouldn't be "locked in" with all this Nikon gear. I so wish I had listened a bit more to a friend who had a Canon...
If you can, by all means DO sell all your nikon gear while you still can.
Not because you only see canon (at canon sponsored) sporting events or such. Who cares what someone else uses anyways? As long as it works for me I'm happy - and Nikon is doing that less and less well...
Because:
-Nikon's latest DSLRs aren't so great. Their high end (like the D2x) cameras may be fast, but picture quality isn't as good as you'd wish for. Nikon DSLRs usually not as good as their Fuji counterparts (PQ wise, not speed). Even Kodak makes some nice ones (just not the K14 that didn't deliver) Before the D70, there wasn't a real good camera for "prosumers". The issues here are complex and would take more than a simple paragraph to address. I'm not gonna argue with anyone who completely disgrees.
-Lenses: Nikon only has a few VR lenses compared to Canon (a year ago the only one there was is the 80-400 IIRC; now we also have a 24-120 and a 70-200). Focusing tends to be slower than Canons (or so I hear), and the AF-S lenses are expensive and heavy, and usually more expensive than the Canon ones. Nikon has some good lenses, but I like Canon's lens system much better. Nikon has also pretty much locked itself with the crop factor. Their new DX stuff ONLY work with it. If they ever went back to full frame (or anything in between), your brand new expensive 12-24mm DX lens is useless. I'm sure as hell not spending a penny on their DX lenses (which is lately forcing me to look at Tokina/Sigma/Tamron lenses instead...)
-Canon gear seems to be evolving more rapidly overall. Nikon hasn't made anything really outstanding in quite a while. Nikon is also a weird japanese company that doesn't seem to listen or care much about their users or the north american (and european?) market overall. There seems to be more used Canon gear for sale at any time too.
-The flash system. This used to be one of the few Nikon advantages, but they've made it a mess. In a short period of time they changed their whole flash system like 3 times: "real" TTL and variants (matrix, 3d matrix, color 3d matrix...)
Support isn't exactly great either. I had lots of problems with their slide scanners. Getting upgrades to software you own is a pain too.
There were other factors who got me buying a Fuji over a Nikon (better white balance, great at IR shots,
This encryption of white balance info seems like a big deal to a lot of people, but there are FAR more issues that I'm much more concerned with,
///<sig
Portable raw format.
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
cheers,
Kris
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
I just want to take this opportunity to thank Nikon for helping me to decide which DSLR camera to buy, which has been troubling me for a while.
This response from Nikon make it a no-brainer for me to choose Canon instead. I just bought a Canon 350D today. With the investments I will be making on lens and stuff, I probably won't ever consider buying a Nikon DSLR ever again.
Oliver.
However, if they then make it impossible to read it by prohibiting and encryption, they are basically selling a camera that does NOT have usuable white information the picture
That's demonstrably false. Professional photographers have been shooting with the D2HS since Februaryish and the D2X since last fall. They haven't had any problems at all. In fact, this whole mess only emerged last week, after months of heavy use of both camera bodies by pro photographers.
So empirically we know that these cameras do produce usable white-balance data.
I'm pretty sure your whole objection is based on a big misunderstanding fed by poorly written and sensationalist blog articles. (Gee, does that sound familiar?)
Nikon is saying the NEF file is proprietary. It existed 4 years before Adobe even started RAW processing. They offer you TIFF & JPG-both easily readable. The NEF is their format and from my understanding actually does contain proprietary code-which is executable through the SDK and other methods. Nikon NEVER threatened anyone with a lawsuit or DMCA-that's a bunch of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) posted by Thomas Knoll of Adobe. On Engadget Nikon said they are not allowed, due to the confidentiality part of the SDK, to disclose who uses the SDK or has signed it. Yet-I've read twice where Adobe says they signed the SDK and have it as have I read that Bibble also did the same. Both seem to have reversed engineered the Raw NEF file-and even Adobe said they will support the D2X in ACR 3.1. I don't see Nikon suing Adobe or Bibble-yet they seem to have broken the SDK confidentiality. This is becoming a non-issue. This sounds like a lot of petty crap from Adobe trying to pressure their supposed open standard, DNG. I find it ironic that DNG is supposed to be this open format yet Adobe is the only one working on the specification and they have a TRADEMARK on DNG!!! Talk about Hypocrisy!!
The list of ingredients is not subject to copyright. The actions of the procedure are not subject to copyright, even though the wording certainly is. Patents could be used, but fortunately nobody bothers.
That was timely.
Nikons photo encryption reported broken
http://fudge.org
Nope im much more hard core then the losers around here.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How hard can it be to file a deceptive trade practices complaint on this because they claim that you can use the RAW format witout any extra purchase and clearly that is not true.
It is like saying that a TV is digital TV ready without saying that you must buy an extrenal digital TV reciver to get digital tv.
Now it's, "Nikon GIVES AWAY some gear to high profile professionals."
Next it will be that your brother's uncle's friend told you that he heard that someone had gotten a free camera.
Sigh. Maybe if you're James Natchwey or someone of that caliber you might get a Nikon sponsorship. But the other 99.9% of the all the other working professionals are not so luckey.
So again, Most [your words] of the pros you see are NOT given Nikon equipment."
And watch your fucking language.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
You can go to many universities and they'll try to sell you the idea that fresh T Rex organics can be 68 million years old. This actually reinforces your idea of information as property, a concept which is broken by Nikon's patented encryption. Since you regard information as property, and since Nikon won't let you have "quiet enjoyment" of your own information, they are effectively stealing this your property from you by using their property as a blocking agent, and by not clearly warning you that using their camera does this.
I don't know how you'd solve this dilemma, but if I was judge I'd say either that Nikon had just voided any rights to their own "property" by criminally employing it, or that by failing to adequately advertise this requirement they fraudulently misrepresented their product. And I'd let them choose between either committing the "IP" to the public domain and compensating you for your trouble, or compensating every person who ever unknowingly bought one of the crippled cameras.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Nikon is used by maybe 80% of pro photographers
Judging from what I see on sporting sidelines, White House press conferences etc, I would say it is 85% white lenses and 15% other.
What you say hasn't been true since 1988.
No, my objection is based on a somewhat purist or abstract approach, not on blogs.
Clearly you cannot use the white information without jumping through some hoops. However, Dave Coffin has already reverse-engineered the format, but this solves the issue just for this one instance of this kind of restriction being applied.
I admit, calling it "inferior" sounds harsh, but plz understand that I take it to mean "a little worse", as in "it could be better".
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
If this is how they repay you after splashing out thousands of dollars for their D2X, then obviously, they do not deserve their customers
I own a Nikon D70. I feel somewhat betrayed by Nikon for this. Until I can see where this is going I am not going to buy that F/2.8 28-70mm zoom lens I was drooling all over because I am considering whether I want to risk investing in a manufacturer who treats their customers like this. What next? Are they going to compromise the NEF format further in the future?
If you are considering getting a D70s or D50, please don't. At least not until Nikon stop these childish games.
As for myself, I am inclined to sell off my Nikon equipment and go buy a Canon instead unless Nikon reverts this nonsense policy.
In this case, if I take a photo, *I* am the copyright holder of that photograph. Think about that one.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Now if we could only get every developer of a software package for Linux to use either and find a bunch of people willing to look for legacy apps to make readily installable, the software installation problem for Linux would be solved once and for all.
You see any signs of this?
Tech Public Policy stuff
This only just became news at the end of April 2005. How did you learn of this, five or six months in advance?
And you know what, you sound just like most of the "satisfied Canon owners" who actively (and angrily) troll Nikon forums, saying how much better their gear is than ours. You know what? Fuck Off, Canon owner. You got some chip on your shoulder, and it's nothing to do with Nikon. Canon owners always seem to be trying to prove they're bigger/better/faster than everybody else. Probably also members of the tiny penis club.