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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Most Nikon DSLRs will save as NEF or JPG, but the quality of the image one can produce using NEF-aware software is superior to even an uncompressed TIF because the NEF contains extensive additional data about shooting conditions (think EXIF, but better) in addition to the raw data from the CCD.
Most serious Nikon shooters I've talked with shoot using NEF (i.e., RAW), archive those, and work with their images as TIFFs after using a good NEF-aware converter like Nikon's Nikon Capture for post-processing, printing, etc.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
"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
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)
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.
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.
no, just in the USA
The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
"In other words, "Would all the tech-saavy people in the audience please discourage everyone they know from buying our products"."
Yeah! That's how we took down Microsoft!!
"Derp de derp."
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".
How would the white-balance information people's digital photos qualify as Nikon-owned property?
AFAIK, the DMCA is there to protect copyright and data colateral to taking a photo should be technically owned by the camera's operator.
Nikon can own the patents or trade secrets behind how to use the data but the actual data's ownership/copyright should clearly belong to whoever took the snaps.
This is not too many steps away from Microsoft claiming it owns all code and software written or compiled using VisualStudio tools.
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.
Yet, hacking your own (and purchased) X-Box is subjected to DMCA infringment?
As much as I and other readers hate to admit it, the DMCA protects proprietary properties that is "explicitly" locked down with security. In other words, it's one thing to reverse engineer, but it's quite another to "hack" encrypted security according to DMCA.
Life is not for the lazy.
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
Yeah! That's how we took down Microsoft!!
Amusing, but Nikon does not have a 90% lock on cameras and people that spend over $1000 on camera equipment tend to not be ignorant consumers.
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 article appears to disagree with you:
Really, this is much ado about nothing. You have to get "approved" for a PalmOS SDK too. And for an Amazon developer token. Heck, to be hosted on Sourceforge, your project has to be "approved".
In all reality, I suspect the approval process really just makes sure you're a developer and not just some fly-by-nite company that's a front for Kodak and Canon market research. And possibly also checking that you're not Kim Jong Il trying to bring top secret Nikon encryption to the Axis of Evil. When The GIMP or Debian or Mandrake or SuSE or Redhat is turned down for an SDK for no good reason, then I'll believe it's a conspiracy. For now, I'll chalk this whole debate up to uninformed wanking.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
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.
Isn't it great that nikon SDK info is in adobe's pdf ?. pdf
http://www.nikonusa.com/kdb/sdk/nikon_SDK_request
*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.
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~
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.
dcoffin:Format no more secret
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.