Slashdot Mirror
Image Preservation Through Open Documentation
OpenRAW Group writes "The OpenRAW Working Group launched a website today at http://www.OpenRAW.org
designed to solve issues crucial to the future of photography.
Digital technology is revolutionizing the photography industry, and
an emerging part of that technology is the set of RAW camera file formats.
Most professional photographers prefer using RAW image capture because
it offers the highest quality and the greatest creative control.
The grass roots OpenRAW group arose out of photographers' frustration
with camera manufacturers' refusal to openly document their proprietary
RAW file formats. That lack of file format information inhibits innovation,
limits image processing choices, and endangers the long-term accessibility
of millions of photographs.
The goal of the new website is to obtain complete documentation by
manufacturers of their RAW file formats."
...a camera that will etch the image into a chunk of granite!
Let's see somebody try to encrypt stone, baby!
*off to the USPTO
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
Enjoy my fun little christmas hoax - help me do it for real in 2005! ;-)
...taking the position that manufacturers deprive photographers of the proper future use of their IP if the format is not open? IANAL etc ...
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
End of argument.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
I know the story is about getting manufacturers to open up their RAW formats but I think the preferred goal is to have camera manufacturers standardize on ONE format.
Note that Adobe has already developed an open raw format called DNG (Digital Negative). They have a good track record with open formats with PDF files. You may or may not like them, but you they certainly can be generated by non-Adobe products and as far as I'm aware, nobody pays any license fee for that.
Another plus for DNG is that Adobe has a free DNG converter which will convert RAW files from many popular cameras to the DNG format.
You can find more info here about DNG.
Note that Photoshop (the most common photo processor) supports RAW formats for over 80 cameras. You can See a complete list here
Sunny
Be my Friend
These camera makers obviously don't want professional photographers buying their equipment. If I (hobbyist) can't use the Industry Standard photomanipulation package (PhotoShop; my own money, too) with my prosumer camera's highest-quality-mode's files, I ain't buying the camera.
Pinhead control freak MBAs have ruined everything.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
Somehow I'm feeling a little uneasy about clicking on a link which points to www.openraw.org.
I won't argue the second point, that there is more creative control on a computer, be it a jpeg or anything. To do minor editing in a film lab takes great skill, anyone can edit with photoshop.
But what about quality? Will digital ever come close to the quality film when blowing up an image to full page size or more? Will digital ever be as true as film, can an algorithm on a camera that converts colors and images to zero's and one's be as good as film which reacts naturally to the light?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
If I may pick a nit, "raw" is a word, as in "raw data from the sensor." It's not an acronym.
...Get me to the local patent office. I've got plans for the colors Red, Green, and Blue...
We all dance, we all sing.
-The Streets
...was the domain "nikonsucks.com" already taken?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Good article here on why RAW is really unnecessary for almost all photographers, no matter how "advanced" you think you are.
I hate to break it to you, but I am pretty sure I saw this technology in use on various episodes of 'The Flintstones'.
I guess the good news is that any patents should be long expired.
Good digital cameras already exceed teh resolution of 35mm film. You can blow their images up to 8x10 or larger and they look flawless.
Well digital ever look the SAME as film? No, probably not. They deal with light in different ways. However that doesn't mean film is better, just different.
Granted those with enough motivation, time, or money can circumvent any protections against forgery, but in trying to open up the standard it should be done in such a way to make it an nonreversible process, such that you can manipulate the images, but not be able to push them back into the original format.
I predict that at sometime in the future Digital Camera manufacturers may taught their cameras has having "evidence quality" data integrity. Perhaps some already do.
Granted this evidence integrity argument almost certainly has nothing to do with why most manufactures might choose to close up their data formats.
Letter To Iran
* Host a project in a country without DMCA-like rules.
:)
* Create a utility that understands all of the RAW formats out there and translates them losslessly into a new "OpenRAW" format.
* Distribute freely
The utility would be able to interface with Photoshop and a bunch of other software so that it could be easily installed and used. The OpenRAW format should be clearly documented so that camera makers could have the option of adopting the format in their latest firmware update.
Here are some examples...
I first saw this on the Korean war memorial in Washington DC (see images at top of that page). That one is low resolution, but a really neat effect. closeup of surface
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
When does digital exceed film? 5 megapixels? 6 megapixels? More? It seems when digital cameras came out, the sales people said 2 megapixel is better than film for 4 by 6 prints, and 3 megapixels is better for a full page.
Then they came out with the 5+ megapixel cameras, and they changed their docs to say 3 megapixels for brilliant 4 by 6 prints, 5 megapixels for a full page.
The quality of film was never measured by how large the print would be, the way they do with digital cameras. Instead film is more concerned with lighting conditions, the time of the exposure.
So I am asking, at what point does film do worse than digital? And who is programming those digital programs to say what "ones and zeros" equals an image. With film it is all natural.
One last quick comment. What will last longer? Film or digital content? What can you be 100% certain to be able to view in the future? CD's get rot, and go bad. Many programs and games that used to run on my 386 will not run on my PIII. Technology changes, maybe we will need some emulator to view those digital images. Or maybe the standard will change and our old 3 megapixel jpegs will be considered crappy, like it came from a childs toy. Film will always have it's place as the elite method for taking quality pictures.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Standardized RAW files don't make sense precisely because they are "raw".
Each camera, particularly as technologies progress, has its own peculiar nuances regarding how the image is captured. It's up to the manufacturer to decide the appropriate way to store that data in a "raw" format. Complying with a standard for unprocessed data will add unnecessary bulk and/or change data values (wrecking the point of "raw" image files).
I don't want a standard RAW format; I want the camera to give its data unmodified. If I need a camera-specific driver to interpret that data into a useable form, fine. If I want the camera to produce standardized formats, pick TIFF or JPG or such from it's menu. There is a place for standards; unprocessed data is not it. I want the unprocessed data unprocessed.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Come on mods, can you not smell the obvious here?
Since we've been informed of the recent tiff between Nikon and Adobe, could this be an Adobe-organized covert way to raise the heat on Nikon? Their raw ambitions are probably obvious: one could picture Bruce Chizen seeking this sort of mechanism, given what was said in the San Francisco Chronicle article in Sunday's Business section. Not a pretty image.
Batista is a false champion!
-- In the end, all formats must go open source --
The DNG specification may be patented. Adobe grant a license to those wishing to implement DNG-compliant code, though the license (in particular, the revocation clause) may be GPL-incompatible. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
Already did this with DNG. It's derived from TIFF and works fine.
Why is everyone duplicating effort? Just to be "more open"? Jesus jesus jesus..
...other than their opinions, which are redundant, since that is already known. In other words, what do they give back? Software? Money? Sponsoring open standards developers? Surely this isn't just a bitch site. That would go against the spirit of "open."
What the hell are you talking about?
Access to this web page is restricted at this time.
Reason:
The Websense category "Nudity" is filtered.
URL:
http://www.openraw.org/comments/?id=47
No, not to be "more open". To be more open. The quotation marks you used imply that being more open would not really make it more open.
Having said that, your post suggests that you either do not understand the issue (of openness) or consider it irrelevant. Either way, it seems odd that you should openly decry it.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Digital can be at the same quality level as film.
Look at the images from a high end digital SLR.
Consumer digital cameras aren't a fair comparison, most of them have smaller lens and sensor sizes making it impossible to have the same quality image.
If you read the DNG spec carefully, you'll note that some camera data is normalized into plain old RGB values - still logarithmically arranged to keep the most of the sensor data, but still not the exact RAW data obtained from the sensors.
This is because the DNG file format can essentially hold two kinds of sensor data - Bayer grids, and RGB values as mentioned before. If you start to do anything different (like the diagonal arrays of the Fuji cameras or stacked sensors of the Foveon chip, the format just has no way to hold the "real" RAW data and has to transcode it.
For that reason I think the OpenRAW group is a much better idea, because as sensors evolve open specs are the only way to get real raw processors built. DNG is just not enough to handle a space that is still evolving very quickly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
if you are going to do this you may as well go the whole hog and use a lossless format like png
scanning your photo library into jpeg is like ripping your cd collection into mp3. You can't change from one lossy format to another without losing even more quality.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Ken Rockwell is very opinionated - and not always right. This is one such case.
For a very casual user, sure, JPG is fine. But if you are starting to talk about larger prints or crops then it only makes sense to use the most computing power possible to make your JPG look as good as it can. Cameras can only have so much computer power in them and so the results from them are not always as good as what a real computer can give you.
Furthermore, using JPG only is a little like keeping only the nicest print from film and throwing away the negatives. There are casual shooters who in fact do this - but everyone knows it's preferable to keep your negatives. In the digital realm the real reason to keep RAW files around is that processing algorithms improve over time and so a program now might be able to produce a much nicer JPG than one from a few years ago.
If you care about the quality of your images at all, RAW is simply the best way to go.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
DNG is all about a standardized container for holding (some) RAW data, It actually has to transcode some RAW files, so it's not really a RAW container - but that's a different matter.
OpenRAW can/should be about both storage systems and algorithms used to decode RAW camera data. So it goes beyong just another way of dealing with image storage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tell me if I am wrong here. The problem with DNG is that most people don't design hardware around software. You create the hardware then create a app that accesses what the hardware can do. Wouldn't hardware be limited buy the slow update process of the app. When ATI/nvidia build a gpu they dont make the driver first. I agree the that the raw formats from the companies should be open but I don't see how building hardware to suite software will work out. Adobe says they will update DNG to suite the needs of the camera makers. Which makes since but on whose schedule does this get done? They like to keep the technical details of the new cameras under pretty heavy wraps until near launch so that they can keep there edge. Kind of hard to keep a secret from the compition when you have to let the standard now there is a change coming a year in advance so its works with you new camera when its launched. AGAIN I agree that once its on the market the raw file should be open.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
I kinda like the Adobe Digital Negative initiative.
So why this OpenRAW project?
If you want to ensure that some data hasn't been modified, sign it. Encryption (or obfuscation, which is what I think these cameras are doing) is not designed to ensure data integrity, so don't try to use it that way.
How nice it would be to search photo archives for a certain picture by using common words. "tiger left profile blue sky" But this presupposes that whoever wrote a description for the picture knew to input those words. This leads to the quandary of how to describe a picture. Animal (species, View angle) background (composition, color, etc.) Not to mention, grass, wind effect, sun orientation, etc. To me this deserves an open source solution.
That there is more than bit depth that vary. Bayer based camera and Foveon based are so different that they can't really share a format...
Here is a more balanced view. There are pros and cons to both methods but the bottom line is that if you shoot anything other than RAW, you're losing information. Many people wouldn't care about that but that's not really the point. A RAW file is like a negative. It can be reprocessed down the road with different parameters. Once it's been converted to a jpeg, all you can do is work with the information you have.
cheers,
Kris
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
I agree with what OpenRAW is now...
But not with what it should be. Just pushing DNG is NOT ENOUGH. DNG CANNOT SUPPORT all kinds of sensors now, much less in the future - you do not get "raw" sensor data.
And that should be the point, is to try and coerce camera makers into revealing EVERYTHING that is sotred in that RAW file.
Furthermore even in teh future if everyone used DNG you'd still need something like an OpenRAW effort - to push camera makers into reveling what proprietary sections of the DNG file (allowed for by the spec) do and say.
Basically, once you read the full DNG spec you'll realize it's not really a solution at all. It helps having metadata centralized, but only slightly - all the tricky parts are still just as tricky.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://libpng.org/pub/png/png.html
Portable Network Graphics (PNG) is a lossless compression format which is Freely (as in "free spech") usable by anyone for any purpose, even in commercial and/or proprietary applications.
It will be a looongg time before a digital CCD can match the quality of a drum-scanned 4x5" piece of film. Even with a cheap $300 flatbed scanner at 2400 DPI, you get a 135 megapixel image with stunning quality.
Has digital surpassed 35mm film? Sure except in rare circumstances where Velvia still retains more detail.
I work for the largest professional photo lab in the country and we process very few RAW files. Last year for example, we processed better than 13 Million digital files and received less than 1K in raw format. The reason is that our customers are alread overwhelmed by the digital revolution. Back in the day, we did ALL the work. We processed the film, balanced the color and took care of printing - and we got it right. Now, with digital, our customers have taken on a great deal of that responsibility. So much so they work harder at composing their shots correctly and output in jpg rather than take the time to use the clunky, camera manufacturer supplied RAW conversion software. Ideally, we would accept all manufacturers RAW files, but it will be nearly impossible until there is a standard RAW file. That doesn't mean the cameras have to work the same, just that the math to process the file will be identical.
Professionals use Photoshop. Professionals don't use GIMP. Users of the PS CS2 can open Nikon NEF files no problem using the RAW plugin. Even if they open up NEF, GIMP users cannot use all the information provided. No CMYK even!
And I thought I was the only geek on Slashdot who enjoyed watching wrestling...
What's wrong with Adobe's Digital Negative format? It's well thought out, an open standard, and already supported by a bunch of imaging apps including (arguably) the most important one: Photoshop.
Is this just "Not Invented Here Syndrome"?
mjr.
Film or sensor is however not the only important thing when talking about resolution. With ~6Mp sensors and up, the quality of your lens is going to count. Some cheapo lenses will not show enough details on a 6M pixel sensor!
But the most important question is; what are you going to do with your photos? Show them on the web, 1Mp will do! Make snapshots for the family album? 3..4M is OK. Some nice photos printed on 11"x16" (A3) a 6Mp works fine if you use a good lens and a tripod! If have plenty examples to prove this.
Let's see if we can put this into words you might understand. It would save the unprocessed, raw data into a standardized file format (this byte goes there).
It describes a FILE format. The raw data is still raw.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Really. They can't? So different. Huh.
Did you know that Adobe already converts about 70 RAW files formats into a single DNG file format? Including Sigma and Fuji?
Little things like real world facts are SO inconvenient, aren't they?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I think we can rely on individual photographers to decide to save their images in a format of their own choosing. We rely on them to take the pictures in the first place, and to decide which images to keep and throw away.
I can't believe no one (including the OpenRAW site itself) has even mentioned dcraw. This well known open source program basically IS the documentation for the raw formats used by hundreds of digital cameras and DSLRs, including those with obscure compression and encryption of the raw format. I challenge you to find a single well known modern digital camera that is not presently supported by dcraw.
Having a well documented reference implementation like this is the key to raw file preservation, since reverse engineering is unfortunately often more effective than lobbying the camera companies as this site suggests. If they refuse to cooperate, our time is better spent using technical means to force the information out into the public domain.
I always include a copy of the dcraw.c source code on every photo archive CD or DVD I make, so I could come back in 20+ years and decode those images after their proprietary Windows/Mac software is long gone.
You should always take your RAW images and post process to a different format as soon as convient (ie. same day in most cases). You keep the raw file but you also keep the image in a less flexible but standard format for posterity. You back up both images to hard drive, burn to CD/DVD, or whatever other strategy you use to keep pictures. Worst case if you can't decode the RAW in 10 years time, you'll still have a copy of the picture in some format.
At the time you take the picture, if you don't have any way of converting the RAW file to something standard, you really ought not to be using the camera.
(There's a whole other topic there - keeping data so it doesn't deteriorate through your own lifetime. CD/DVD is not a long term solution as it is proven to deteriorate).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"We processed the film, balanced the color and took care of printing - and we got it right. Now, with digital, our customers have taken on a great deal of that responsibility." If you ask me, this is one of the things that is killing pro photographer's foray into the digital world. I work with a local pro photographer, and the quality of the prints that we get is consistently terrible, even though they look great (or at least acceptable) on the screen. Pro labs ASSUME that their customers "know what they're doing" and tweak their pictures until they are "just right". Consequently, the labs are not enough effort into color corrections, and digital just doesn't come out as well. Photographers going digital have to basically abandon everything that they know about film. Forget forgiving exposure; digital sensors tolerate exposure within only a few stops. Photographers who used to load film and shoot now have to worry about color correction, saturation & contrast settings on-camera, which file-format to use... It's a whole new world. Just my two cents; maybe the labs around here just suck.. Josh
Firstly i agree, photoshop is a professional app and one of the few commercial pieces of software that is genuinely worth paying for over a free alternative..
However, gimp DOES have CMYK.. atleast version 2.2 which i have installed on this laptop..
Me, i'm not a graphics professional and the limited graphics manipulation work i do doesn't justify spending any money, so gimp suits me just fine.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You mustn't just think of what is needed for today, but for what is needed as photo editing tools become more sophisticated, least we find we are floating in a sea of fakes we are unaware of. Tools in the future may extrapolate lighting angles to more accurately include additions or hide subtractions from a photo. Image size and perspective might also be auto-calculated in the future. Shadows automatically inserted, etc. I see nothing technically that would prevent this. Whether a human is examining the scene or an automated computer analysis of some sort, this type of thing would have to make forgery detection harder. Granted we will have better forgery analysis tools in the future also. It will no doubt become an arms race of sorts if it hasn't already.
Keep in mind that if a tool exists to detect a fake, a forger can use the same tool to continue to improve his or her forgery skill. By needing to also make his fake consistent with physical setting captured at the time of shooting the original, his work will be much harder, hopefully impossible.
As to encrypting and signing, encryption has always been subject to breaking. In this case you only need generate key pairs consistant with your doctored photo, not match some preexisting pair that belonged to the orginal
Letter To Iran
And that you still need to handle differently each style of image capturing technology... If DNG doesn't lose any info, that's it... RAW from the captor is a different thing from without using lossy compression...
It's like saying TIFF is a format, it isn't. More of a metaformat and handling one kind does not mean much for your ability to read others, ergo not really a format, but a container...