+ Camera Raw Feature Requests +

Rick Bordon said (quite reasonably):
> Just to be clear, I was asking for the ability to add
> individual camera data when they became available rather
> than when several dozen or so were accumulated, and the
> plugin reference was not meant to be taken literally
> and confused with Photoshop plugins. I have no idea
> how or if this could be accomplished...only that it
> would be nice. :-)

Rick is absolutely right. This is really the flip side of asking camera manufacturers to provide their specs for a new camera in a transparent and timely matter. Why not make ACR transparent enough that most new camera models may be added at the drop of a hat by modifying a text file?

Failing this, I think there are a number of things Adobe could do to make life a little easier. One would be for Adobe plugin hosts to recognize the situation where more than one format plugin exists for a given format. This could be as simple as putting up a dialog to allow the user to choose which one to use.

An example of this would be NEF files, which are supported by both ACR and the Nikon Capture plugin. Photoshop or Bridge would ask which plugin it should use, perhaps with some means of specifying a default. This would allow the additional flexibility to use Nikon's handler when desired.

Another improvement would be the ability to manually map camera models supported by ACR, by adding the model number to a text file.

If two cameras differ only in the model name, arrangement or phase of the Bayer filter array, or the filter colors, that could be specified in a table. I'll bet my copy of Siggraph 1984 that there is already such a table in ACR. So break it out into a text file.

This concept could be extended to cover differences in individual cameras - put the serial number in the text file and bingo, correction for individual camera ISO and color variation.

Yes, I understand there are technical hurdles. I predict that the first raw handler to actively address the issue of new camera models, and allow fine tuning of existing models, will become immensly popular for just that reason.

Mike Russell

Just to be clear, I was asking for the ability to add individual camera data when they became available rather than when several dozen or so were accumulated, and the plugin reference was not meant to be taken literally and confused with Photoshop plugins. I have no idea how or if this could be accomplished...only that it would be nice. :-)

Rick

barry ..
>I agree that plug-ins to plug-ins is a pretty weird concept!

i'll second or third that motion. :-) as you already know, eye prefer to see ACR set free to become it's own application rather than some separate engine hosted within Bridge or PS.

ian ...
>so how could providing plug-in architecture reduce the time required to include new camera models?

third party support? let camera makers or alternate vendors offer their own immediate solutions --in addition to adobe's. in my books competition and choice are good things.

Ian, surely the cycle time for ACR releases takes into account more than batching up a set of camera profile updates. There are facility improvements as well, or tuned demosaicing, etc.

SOME new cameras may need very little work indeed. How much work was needed to cater for the D70s, given the existing support for the D70? (And I suspect some of the Pentax models actually needed very little work).

I agree that plug-ins to plug-ins is a pretty weird concept! It isn't what I would choose. But I can sense the frustration of people who have been let down by their camera suppliers, (who OBVIOUSLY should have provided DNG as an option), and want Adobe to bail them out.

Camera Raw is a Plug-in, so how could providing plug-in architecture reduce the time required to include new camera models?

Its still a lot better than say, Aperture, which is tied to the OS. In order to be compatible with newer cameras, the OS has to be updated! (According to Michael Reichmann).

Mat

rick ...

a "plug-in" architecture for ACR has been brought up before. given the current manner in which ACR's engine is tied, perhaps shackled, to the CS architecture--i suspect this might be more difficult to implement than it sounds. either technically and/or politically.

however, should bridge ever be shaped into a full-fledged digital asset management program, and ACR broken out as an independently powerful non-destructive editing application--we might see a separate plug-in architecture and much more. we need to wait and see what and who's strategic vision plays out ...

in the meantime ... keep looking forward to getting a clump of updates three or four times a year. :-)

Chris,
Thanks for the reply. Yes I realize that, and knowing little about programming I assume that's the best way for you to do it. What I was hoping for was something like a database of camera info that could be downloaded and installed like plugins into ACR so I could just add the cameras I want when they became available rather than waiting for a dot release that covers a whole slew of cameras.

Rick

Rick - new cameras are already added with each dot release of ACR. There is no need to wait for application (Photoshop, Bridge) updates.