Skip to main content
Ian Lyons
Community Expert
Ian LyonsCommunity Expert
Community Expert
September 22, 2005
Question

+ Camera Raw Feature Requests +

  • September 22, 2005
  • 536 replies
  • 176959 views

UPDATE:

We're interested in what changes you would like see in our products. Do you have an idea for a feature that would help your workflow? Is there a small change that could be made to make your life a little easier? Let us know!  Share an Idea, Ask a Question or Report a Problem and get feedback from the Product Development Team and other passionate users on the Photoshop Family product Feedback Site on Photoshop.com.

In future it would helpful if you could use this thread as a means to add

"Features" that you would like to see in future releases of Adobe Camera Raw.

Please do NOT create additional new Topics and try not to duplicate requests by other users. Also, be thorough in your description of the feature and why you think Adobe should consider it.

Oh, and if you find it necessary to comment on someone's feature request/suggestion, try not to get into a shouting match. The penalty for doing so is...

b If you're asking that a particular camera is supported in a future release or just taking the opportunity to carp that yours isn't then please do so in another thread!

IanLyons

Forum Host

    This topic has been closed for replies.

    536 replies

    Show previous replies
    _
    _nunatak_
    Participating Frequently
    November 3, 2005
    barry ...

    >But I do wonder - will this apply to old DNGs?

    good question. if not, it could validate some people's concerns about converting their files. personally, i wouldn't worry too much about losing a few pixels. in the print biz it's standard to allot a 1/8" (3mm) tolerance for bleed at the edge of the trim area.
    _
    _nunatak_
    Participating Frequently
    November 3, 2005
    simon ...

    not sure--but that would make sense. i wonder how much of an offset would be required?

    >that would make sense only if the pixels were actually shielded from light, right?

    hmmm. theoretically only four pixels would need to be referenced in the array. there are a number of ways that this could be done. one way might be they'd zero those pixels in the factory and then burn the offset into the camera's ROM. ???
    _
    _Barry_Clive_Pearson_
    Participating Frequently
    November 3, 2005
    nunatak, I haven't a clue! I was caught by surprise on this, and still haven't recovered.

    But I do wonder - will this apply to old DNGs? In other words, did old DNG Converters strip off the extra pixels, so that a new ACR won't reveal them? Or are they still lurking in those old DNGs, waiting for a new ACR to reveal some pixels we didn't know we had?
    S
    SimonTindemans
    Participating Frequently
    November 3, 2005
    nunatak,

    My guess is that it's partly to allow for manufacturing and assembly tolerances. I've also heard these pixels are used for reference purposes, but that would make sense only if the pixels were actually shielded from light, right?

    Simon
    _
    _nunatak_
    Participating Frequently
    November 3, 2005
    Ramón, Barry,

    it's all news to me. i wasn't even aware that any marginal data was being excluded! :-)

    does anyone know if it's because the pixels degenerate--like the edges of a film frame, or is it tied to some physical property of the camera's viewfinder?
    _
    _Jörgen_Nilsson_
    Participant
    November 3, 2005
    I still want to be able to use ACR and turn off the built in profiles. I work mostly with MF digital backs and would like to be able to use ACR and PS seamless with furure DNG files from the backs. Please Mr Knoll, is it possible to make ACR work that way ?

    Jörgen Nilsson, Sweden
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    November 3, 2005
    Apparently, we'll soon see, Barry. :)

    Sorry about the misguided reference to Nunatak. :(
    _
    _Barry_Clive_Pearson_
    Participating Frequently
    November 3, 2005
    Ramón, I think Nunatak is innocent at #81! I suspect you were commenting on what I said.

    Yes, I shouldn't have said that. I was caught by surprise. What I should have asked is "how many are there, and how good is the quality of them?" (Simon says "quite valid").

    With a 2008 x 3008 Pentax, using (I believe) a Sony sensor, what more can I expect? I sometimes frame too tightly.
    S
    SimonTindemans
    Participating Frequently
    November 3, 2005
    Thanks, Thomas! And yes, the data in these pixels is indeed quite valid. RawShooter uses all pixels by default, and Silkypix Developer Studio lets you extend your image to include the outer pixels as an option. I like the latter option best, especially for cameras with a 100% viewfinder. WYSIWYG, unless you want to add a little more.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    November 3, 2005
    Nunatak,

    Do you think Thomas Knoll would bother with them if they contained no data? :)
    Show more replies
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices