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."
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.
TIFF and JPEG are compressed image types professionals want RAW uncompressed image for maximum quality
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
TIFF isn't necessarily compressed, but it's not as good as raw. Raw is before de-mosaicing, before white balance, etc. It is the "raw" signal returned from the CCD or CMOS. (I imagine that's not entirely true, but it's close). And because Raw is only one value per pixel instead of 3, they tend to be much smaller than 16 bit tiffs.
The only thing not functioning in the generic Adobe Raw convertor (which is pretty lousy anyways, Nikon Capture delivers much better quality) are the custom white balance settings.
Honestly I feel like this is complaining about needing a CD player after you buy a CD (or some kind of CD recording device).
Remember we're still paying to Philips and Sony for every player?
This is hardly new. (and somewhat exaggerated imho)
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
This isn't subject to DMCA. DMCA allows reverse engineering for interoperability. No developers, commercial or not, need Nikon's permission to reverse this legally in the US.
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.
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.
Reverse engineer the software (almost) anywhere in the world except the US, and everyone's happy. Also, place some text: "US citizens may not download", which no-one will notice. Not to mention that Nikon in this case encrypts data generated by me and the subject I take a picture of, it is my data being input through the lens. I get the data back in digital form, except I cannot access it with the tool I need to access it with. Does the DMCA allow me to reverse-engineer the encryption in order achieve interoperability? I'm told it does. So tell me, where's the problem?
FUD!
Stop spreading the FUD!
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
>The number one reason for RAW formats is that
.
>people feel more 'elite' when they used them, and
>purchase the associated large storage media, etc.
Um . . . that's bullshit. Do people who use manual exposure and manual focus do it to feel elite too? That'd make about as much sense.
Here's two big advantages to using the RAW format:
1) You don't have to deal with the camera's attempts to auto-adjust the picture to make it look better (auto-sharpening, auto-contrast, auto-white balance, etc). You have significantly more control over the way the finished picture turns out if you shoot in RAW.
2) RAW gives you a lot of extra latitude in exposure, which is particularly handy since digital sensors are less forgiving of under/over-exposure than 35mm film.
Maybe YOU should take the time to learn the benefits of RAW before throwing attitude . .
IRA
And it also happens in the current Canon lineup (Canon EOS-1Ds, EOS-1D MkII, EOS 20D as per this magazine). On my 20D it's under "Custom Function 18: Add original decision data." The Canon Data Verification Kit DVK-E2 (Windows only, sadly) is used to verify such images.
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.
"The photographer can hardly be accused of using such a tool to gain access outside of his rights."
Which is what is so insidius about DMCA: it doesn't matter whether you have a legal right to access the data. The minute you bypass an access system, you've violated federal law. There is no problem with accessing your data, per say, it is only in bypassing the access control. Access control is considered sepertely from the data it is controling access to...
I'm not sure which definition of "pro photographers" you're using here - film only? digital only? film and digital combined? Please clarify.
Also... Nikon has the most affordable lens system? Where have you been shopping that sells Nikkor lenses for less than Canon lenses? In my experience, lenses for Nikon's autofocus mount are consistently more expensive than equivalent lenses for Canon's.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
No, it doesn't mean that, unless Nikon specifically prohibits their libraries to be used with open source programs. And even then such a clause might be unenforcable.
The author could release the rest of the rest of the program under the BSD license. Or the Apache license. Or the LGPL. Or the GPL with an exemption that allows it to be compiled with the Nikon library. Or even the GPL without an exemption, though that would be rather bastardish of the author. These are all open source licenses that the remainder of the program could be licensed under.
This whole thing, including their response, is BULLSHIT.
The NEF format isn't proprietary. It's a TIFF file. The only thing "proprietary" about it is a handful of tags they use. Crack it open with a hex editor and see for yourself. The only trick in reading in the image data is that it is stored in a "sub-TIFF". So you read in all the regular tiff tags (width, height, color depth, etc.), read in the the sub-tiff (easy enough to find, I don't remember the exact tag number), and you can display NEFs.
As far as white balance information goes, that is not atrade secret. It's not an algorithm, it's not code, it's not executable. It is data. More to the point, it is YOUR data.
I could give a rat's ass about their METHOD for obtaining white balance information. But having the white balance data tells you nothing about how they obtained it. It is just data.
Not only that, but white balance data is essential for all digital cameras for correct image reproduction. All digital cameras (including web cams), obtain white balance information either from the user or the environment via whatever algorithms the manufacturers decide on.
There is nothing, NOTHING, special about white balance data in a raw file. There is absolutely no reason this data needs to be encrypted. There is nothing to protect. It would be like Nikon saying they encrypt the image data to prevent someone figuring out what algorithms they use to process the CCD data.
The only fathomable reason for this nonsense is profit, plain and simple. Now that they've been called on it, they're trying the PR spin machine to make it sound like they're trying to help.
And as far as the SDK goes, good luck getting it. They apparently don't like independant developers (such as myself) writing programs for their cameras. So unless your part of a recogonized bona-fide software developer COMPANY, you're not going to get the SDK.
So that leaves those of us interested in such programming to reverse-engineer (which I've done so I could access the tone curves inside their curve files).
First, I found that Nikon was misleading about the compressed NEF files (they are supposed to be lossless raw data, but they're not). Then I found that they were also misleading about how the raw files were produced (raw files are suppose to contain the straight CCD sensor data, but Nikon applies a median filter to the data before it is saved). Sort of pissed me off because I do astrophotography and the filter wipes out stars and other features. And now, they're trying to pull this vomitous crap.
I sincerely hope nobody believes this, but sadly I think many will.
My D70 is going on ebay. I'm buying a Canon.
~X~
~X~
NEF files are not true RAW files, at least on the D70.
The NEF files use a lossy type of compression. The average user wouldn't notice it, but I'm sure some pros will. The copress the dynamic range of the CCD output from 12-bits down to about 10-bits. Their claim is "visually lossless". Sort fo like mp3's being "audio-ly lossless", only less extreme.
Another not-so-RAW feature of the NEF file is that some sort of filtering is applied to the data before it is saved. Again, the average user probably wouldn't notice it but some pros (and anyone doing astrophotography) would. With long exposures, there is a way to trick the camera into writing the data without filtering it first, but this doesn't work on normal exposures.
~X~
~X~
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.
dcoffin:Format no more secret
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.