Creating a thread for 64bit Windows7 users to post in regards to support for the DNG codec on 64bit-Win7.
Currently 64bit nor Win7 is supported for the RC codec. Adobe supports 64 bit, in CS4, LR 2.x and LR3 beta. I expect 64bit and Win7 for the codec.
For those who want to play with the unsupported RC codec on 64bit win7, it would be great to get comments on this thread with your experiance.
I don't undesrtand how Adobe can ask me to choose DNG over RAW and want me to lobby my camera manufacturer to support DNG, while at the same time not prividing me with a DNG codec.
Maybe this is a political game where Adobe wants to put pressure on Microsoft to support DNG. If that is the case, it's a game that is being played at my expense and I don't like it a bit.
i'd like to see 64-Bit OS users (Vista or Windows 7) being supported much better with codecs than they are right now. Adobe wants to establish DNG as the preferred RAW picture format and in my opinion it would certainly help to provide a codec that allows to quickly browse pictures in the Explorer - not only on 32-Bit Windows. Likewise Nikon unfortunately provides a NEF codec for 32-Bit Windows only. From my point of view it's really a pitty.
> 'd like to see 64-Bit OS users (Vista or Windows 7) being supported much better with codecs than they are right now.
Our codecs for DNG, PSD, NEF, and CR2 support 64 bit Windows 7. http://www.ardfry.com
Does it not seem ironic to anyone else that DNG is supposed to be this open format, yet Ardfly and Fastpictureviewer are, in the mean time, charging $30 for the codec? Shouldn't Adobe be releasing this for free?
It's "Ardfry," which is a Gaelic (Irish) word.
DNG is an open file format. "Open" just means fully documented, and the fact that it's supported by third parties lends credibility to this claim. I don't think it logically follows that Adobe must provide support on all platforms. They have provided a free 32 bit codec, and will someday get around to releasing a 64 bit version without a doubt. In the mean time, we provide a fast solution that supports 64 bit Windows.
Since time is money, the codec will pay for itself in time savings. The price is relatively low - a fraction of the cost of a decent circular polarizer, and you'll probably end up using it more than the polarizer.
www.gnu.org - free developement tools
www.adobe.com/products/dng/pdfs/dng_spec.pdf - freely available DNG specifications
Now you are all set to write your own free DNG codec
Joke aside, Adobe is under no obligation to supply anything for free, where is the logic behind that claim? The Word and Excel document formats are open and, unlike DNG, actual international standards (see ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500), does this means that Microsoft Office should be free? Microsoft makes free readers but it's entirely at their discretion, and the same goes for Adobe.
As for 3rd parties filling niches and charging for their work, what's wrong with that? What FPV and Ardfry charge is pocket change compared to the work involved with writing stable and well-performing codecs, and as David implied is certainly also pocket change compared to the cost of any photographer's kit.
Imaging software and codec author
I realize that Adobe is not under any obligation to provide anything for free. I did however purchase Adobe CS4 Design Standard which as you know is not free, so I am a bit perplexed why they would not include the codec to see the DNG files in Windows Live Photo Gallery or other browsers that are not Bridge (unless I am missing something and there is in fact something on the CS4 disk).
I guess I was surprised that this open DNG format would not have more support if they want to see it grow like JPG did. Good business for you though...
Since it looks like no one is going to reply to my new thread above regarding wonky RGB values and the Profile Editor:
I would like to know if there are issues regarding the use of DNG Profile Editor and Vista x64, as I described?
Where can I get the RC codec to try?
The only RC codec I found was from 2008, and it only supports 32bit.
What advantages do people see in a 64 bit DNG? I am asking as someone who just got a 64 bit Win 7 laptop three weeks ago.
If Adobe wants DNG to be a standard, then they should provide Codecs in a timly fasion. I purchased two new cameras from Canon, and Canon was able to provide Codecs within a month or so of the release of the camera. Why should I convert everything to DNG when I can't see them from Windows, but I can see the Canon's format? I really think Adobe has dropped the ball on not supporting DNG on the Widows 7 64bit platform. And yes, I do have Ligtroom and Creative Suite 5, but I would like to see the photos in Windows as well.
I'm not sure I follow the case you are making. Canon's codec doesn't support 64 bit Windows 7.
From the download page for the codec from Canon:
- Windows 7 32-bit version (64-bit version is not supported.)
Even for the Canon codec you have to rely on a third party codec like ours (i.e., from Ardfry Imaging) for true 64 bit support.
I was thinking that you might be able to convert your Canon format to DNG,
and use it in Photoshop. If it can work, the 32 bit applicatation would do
the job. This is just for the one step.
CS5 has been released and still no x64 codec
Check out this stitching app that can handle RAW format (but still need the codec)
The site also provide a list of codes, so you might concider keeping your image in camera RAW and not converting it to DNG.
Oh man. I'd really need that codec for Vista 64bit too... Wonder if they'll ever start supporting 64bit with this issue. It's actually quite strange that CS5 is mainly made for 64bit platforms, am I right? (For example you can't have 32bit premiere pro cs5)
I don't know about cs5, I have cs4. I do know that most new win 7 pcs are 64 bit, so adobe will have to start soon.
This is really astonishing...CS5 requires 64bit Windows yet they don't provide a codec for DNG.
CS5 does not require a 64bit OS, it is only highly recommended where there is a 64bit version of Adobe products. but currently there is still a 32bit version available.
I really think that the lack of completing the DNG codec for 64bit win7 centers on Adobe pushing bridge. Why make a codec for an OS when users can just use your included product to view the files....
It would be nice because Bridge writes the Bridge Cache files to the directory or the drive which take time to initially generate and take up space. Sometimes you also want to be able to quickly brows a folder in Finder or Explorer without having to open a separate program to do it.
I totally agree. I purchased a camera that uses DNG. I'm on windows 7 64 bit.
needless to say I will never purchase another DNG camera again.
I understand that adobe is under no obligation to provide such a codec, but if they want people to want to use DNG, then they have to support it.
My bet is that Adobe has given up on DNG, but doesn't want to publicly admit it yet. They don't seem to be doing any work on it whatsoever.
If Adobe is truly committed to DNG, how do you explain the fact that the codec is still a "release candidate" 2 years and 11 months after its creation. The download page states, "The DNG Codec will move from a release candidate to a shipping version once sufficient feedback is received". How does Adobe expect to receive any significant feedback when 32-bit Vista is the only Windows platform it works on in a straightforward manner. Certainly they can get little feedback of value when Vista's market share as of the first of this month stands at a paltry 11% with XP at 55% and Windows 7 at 23% accounting for the bulk of the remainder.
Once I stumbled onto this fact, I began questioning whether or not I should be converting my RAW images to DNG. After all, if DNG is to flourish and survive as a viable universal format who is going to push is if not Adobe?
Sorry, but the link is to a photoshop feathering article.