A RAW repository, The Internet Archive and OpenRAW

Stan writes "I just read this in the OpenRAW mailing list, OpenRAW plans to create a RAW repository, a final resting place for RAW file documentations of current and already abandoned digital cameras. The RAW repository will be hosted in the Internet Archive, which describes themselves as a digital archive of the Internet and other cultural artifacts. And they have all reasons to support OpenRAW, they currently photograph billions of book pages with cameras and store them in RAW format. Unfortunately the camera makers think different (which is not always a good thing)."

Comments

How Open is the Repository?

[Anonymous Coward]

This effort is being set up by a guy (Juergen Specht) who hosted a mailing list and then deleted it without notice when some of the posts offended him.

See:
http://www.vudeja.com/04/09/mailing-list

http://www.esthet.org/blog/archives/001294.html

http://www.wirefarm.com/archives/004186.html

http://www.easterwood.org/hmmn/archives/001111.htm l

http://openraw.org/about/

Don't be surprised if this site just up and disappears one day, taking all of the data with it.

Re:What horseshit

[mukund]

The manufacturers are just opposed to working together to create some sort of standard.

Adobe made an open format called digital negative... The camera manufacturers need to start adopting it.

Re:Digital == Loss of freedom

[kimba]

With my camera I shoot in RAW. By some process in history, today the RAW format for my specific camera is open - available not only for use in commercial products like Adobe, but in GPL'd software that will convert it for me and for while I have the source.

Unless someone arrests me and confiscates all my software, as well as removes all this purportedly legal software from the market, what is the risk of using this camera?

Please tell me this, this is critical..

[johansalk]

From Canon, as they refused to cooperate with openRAW and ended their letter with a slap in the face: "If our equipment or software does not meet your needs, you are entirely welcome to seek other suppliers".

And this is *exactly* what I'll do from now on and for the foreseeble future; I will *not* entrust the future accessiblity of my visual data to such a company and its formats, and I will not render myself under their mercy given their manifest chauvinism. Does anyone know what suppliers are cooperating with openRAW? Those will get *all* my business.

Thanks

Re:Please tell me this, this is critical..

[Ubergrendle]

From Canon, as they refused to cooperate with openRAW and ended their letter with a slap in the face: "If our equipment or software does not meet your needs, you are entirely welcome to seek other suppliers".

This is true, and unfortunately Canon can afford to take this position. In the DSLR market -- the *serious* digital photography market -- Canon has through various reports a 50-70% market share. Their only serious competitor is Nikon who controls anywhere from 30-50% depending upon who you listen to, and the rest make up a very small percentage. Kodak just announced a complete retirement from the DSLR market, Sigma cameras are doing horribly, and although Pentax and Minolta have decent offerings their market penetration is relatively weak. Canon can throw around threats since Nikon is WORSE in their disregard for RAW, actively encrypting (weakly) the white balance data. Nikon knows the encryption is a joke, but its enough to have legal teeth via the DCMA and thus Adobe won't translate it.

Personally I'm more concerned with the retirement of RAW formats than the current vendor specificity. When you by a Canon EOS system or a Nikon F-mount you're buying into a closed, proprietary hardware system. Extending it to the software realm is crappy, but not surprising. Microsoft is best positioned to bust this wide open, and its in Adobe's best interests to open RAW or see the success of DNG. My guess is once the balance of power starts shifting heavily in favour of Canon or Nikon (towards virtual monopoly) the lesser company will open up their RAW format to be more accomodating.

Re:why?

[croddy]

well, yes -- that page calls it "Raw" and "raw", which makes sense. I'm just confused about the "RAW" nomenclature.