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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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)
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.
Are you going to save the images from the Canon in TIFF or JPeg? You do know the Nikon outputs those formats as well? Their NEF format is only for highly specialzed pro applications.
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.
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.
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.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
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
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.
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".
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.
I suppose that's why the D30 had atrocious autofocus, the D60 was marginally better but suffered horrible front/back focus problems, the 10D (which I own) does the same only not quite as badly, and the 20D finally fixed it for the most part?
I suppose that's why my camera can't talk to the new 580EX flash to communicate smaller frame size and focus distance, but the 20D can? All as a cheap ploy to get me to upgrade from my 10D because it has atrocious flash metering, so much so that wedding photo pros hate it? There's a reason 580EX marketing material specifically mentions the wedding photography industry.
Still, at least Canon will service imported grey-market gear, and their CMOS sensors have lower noise than just about anything except the Fuji SuperCCD(which is amazing in almost all regards, just hindered by a body that isn't as well designed).
Please help metamoderate.
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
isn't Nikon violating the DMCA with their software by providing access to YOUR protected content?
Just wondering...
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.
Toshiba? Wow, I was just thinking of putting on some legwarmers and dancing around to the Pointer Sisters.
Didn't the Cold War end about 16 years ago, bub?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't it great that nikon SDK info is in adobe's pdf ?. pdf
http://www.nikonusa.com/kdb/sdk/nikon_SDK_request
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.
Hmm, the D30 I had focused just fine, as did my 10D and my current 20D. None of the front/back focus problems at all, even with a 300mm f/2.8 wide open.
As for the flash, yeah, Canon's flash system wasn't the best, and now you're flaming them for improving it?
You know, it really sucks that my Sun Ultra 5 workstation won't work with my USB mouse -- damn Sun for not including USB in the system before it was widely available.
Basically, your 10D precedes the new flash metering system in the 580EX -- it's not reasonable to expect older cameras to know about and use features of newer flashes.
*somewhere in a badly-dubbed Canon underground research base*
A: Sir! The decryption process is complete! We have their top secret white balance data!
Captain: Hurry up boy, we haven't got all day!
A: The numbers are... 32, 198, 53, 52, and 3.4253E-08!
B: My God! Thats --
Captan: Yes, its as I feared, the Japanese have mastered the ultimate ancient technique Silent White Tiger Balanced Fist of Left Justified Saturation. We must memorize these numbers so we may mimic their technique and use their own weapon against them in our final battle on the next episode.
*meanwhile, in reality...*
Nikon most definitely has some juicy technology here and there that a competitor would want to know about.
Riiiight. And rather than take the camera apart and read the code straight off the ROM, they're going to stock up on AA's and take a thousand pictures and 2 thousand man-hours to figure out what that white balance data means.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Um, actually PNG can also support 16 bits per color (48 bits per pixel) just like TIFF. It is not limited to 24 bit color. A simple google search would turn that up.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
You don't use apple itunes to record music you've composed and played. By using a Nikon camera, Nikon doesn't own or license your pictures in any way, shape, or form, so they shouldn't try and hold a monopoly over your data. That's why "Apple good, Nikon bad."
I would liken it more to the chemical processes used to develop the film.
Take for example the simpler black and white processing method, since I have enough experience with it to speak about it knowledgably. D76 is a well-documented (but not obvious) recipe of chemicals, but Kodak also sells it. What Nikon is doing would be analogous to Kodak saying you must use only Kodak's branded D76 with your Kodak film taken in your Kodak camera, and protecting the recipe for the D76 with some sort of crazy law (not a patent) that makes it illegal to try to reproduce that very simple chemical recipe to develop the used roll of film into useful negatives.
Computer-related laws rarely make any sense when applied to anything else.
A "process" is a patentable item. Patents expire.
A "software program" is a copyrightable item, as is an "artistic work" (read photographic image in this context). Copyright, thanks to the bizarre and troubling majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, effectively does not.
Now, the trouble with all of this is that I do not see where this is really creating much of a burden for photographers. Yes, Nikon can prevent its image capture software from being copied, but it cannot protect its encryption algorithms from duplication for any longer period than that prescribed by patent law. For a prime example of this idea in action, you may refer to the RSA encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms are "processes" (as are chemical development processes and recipes), and as such, ineligible for copyright protection.
So, unless the international community (or the US Government, in particular) decides to accord patents the same effectively permanent protections they have granted to copyrightable works, the encryption algorithms in use in Nikon's format will eventualy be free for all to use or deconstruct (which has, in fact, already happened).
The interesting thing in this particular case is that Nikon's algorithms are being used to potentially deny the creator of an artistic work the ability to dispose of that work as he sees fit, which we can all agree is a natural right. The case hinges upon the interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, whose wording includes the phrase "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Now, the clear intention of the DMCA was to block circumvention of a mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copies of a protected work, not to allow companies to arbitrarily deny a creator the ability to dispose of his own work as he sees fit--but the text of the law was written in such a fashion as to seeming allow such an action, unless you make an argument based upon subsection 1201.a.3:
Now we need to ascertain the meaning of "copyright owner" in this subsection. The copyright owner of the encryption software, or the copyright owner of the image so encrypted? Which "work" is pre-eminent? Arguments could be either way, although I believe that the copyright of the creator of the image is clearly superior.
Then of course, we need to examine the effect of 1201.a.3.b on existing patent law. How can the DMCA be effective if the "technological measure" relys upon the "application of...a process or a treatment" which has clearly fallen into the public domain? Curiouser and curiouser...
I am a Nikon user. Professionally, I have used nothing but Nikon cameras. I may not continue to do so as a result of Nikon's actions described here.
Yes, the photographer will retain the right to use equipment other than Nikon's. However, the selection of Nikon equipment by a photographer does not give Nippon Kogaku the right to deny me the ability to dispose of my images created with their equipment as I see fit.
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
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'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.
There's no way 80 percent of pro photographers use Nikon. With the current dismal crop of D2s they've released, photographers are dropping Nikon and moving to Canon as fast as they can afford it. I work for a major newspaper chain, and every paper is looking to find a way to switch to Canon. Why? The newer Nikon cameras have a reddish cast, and lots of noise in the shadow areas. If you want quality, use Canon, or better yet, stay with film.
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 ?
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).
Once it enters my house, under any circumstances, its mine to do with as i please.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
dcoffin:Format no more secret
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Portable raw format.
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
cheers,
Kris
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
Just an idea here, but what if the "answer" for this is that there is a new, soon-to-be-released Chinese camera called "Niikon" that will be in every Wal-Mart next week.
It's an idea, but TBH it falls flat when you consider the target market for the cameras affected by this are people buying Nikon's top-end pro cameras - not the kind of thing you buy in Wal-mart.
I prefer the idea that the SDK will sooner or later cost money.