LR compatibility with Canon 5D Mark iv raw file format?

[jeffreym95]

will LR be able to read the 5D Mark iv's camera raw file format? at least when it's putting out regular raw files.  I know that an update to LR was necessary for reading the 80D file format

[PAWU]

How does this cope with your claim, that DNG files are supported from the beginning on:

(Cameras supported by Camera Raw: why is there a minimum version?)

[PAWU]

trshaner wrote:

Adobe holds the patent on DNG file format

That does not turn down anyone using the format. In the contrary. As Adobe holds the patent and allocates free licenses, you can be pretty sure, that you do not infringe someone's other patent in this domain. Patent trolls are spread over the USA, holding bunches of nonsense patents and threatening people doing serious business.

Remember: There was a patent on the LZW-compression method and that did cause some trouble at the time.

[Todd Shaner]

PAWU wrote:

trshaner wrote:

Adobe holds the patent on DNG file format

That does not turn down anyone using the format.

I never said it did. I suggest you read my reply in its entirety: Re: LR compatibility with Canon 5D Mark iv raw file format?

The point being that DNG file format is not (yet) an industry accepted standard under revision control of a standards organization (ISO, ANSI). I also mention business-related conflicts that prevent camera manufacturers from supporting DNG file format. Adobe submitted DNG file format specification to ISO in 2008, but to date an ISO standard still has not been created. You can draw your own conclusions a as to why.

[PAWU]

Standardization takes always a lot of time... There are a lot of interests to conciliate.

[Abambo]

thedigitaldog wrote:

So now you're speaking for both Canon and Nikon?

If they want support, why the proprietary format and why didn't they provide Adobe with a sample months ago? Had they, it be supported today.

Why should anyone wait?

I'm speaking for myself.

So again:

If I would start building cameras today , I would opt for DNG, because this would give me a competitive advantage. If I were Canon or Nikon, I would stay with my format, because I have the resources to push that.

If I would buy a camera today, I would look if LR supports it and if my glasses are still supported. So LR support and mount support gives that camera a competitive advantage.

[Abambo]

thedigitaldog wrote:

John Waller wrote:

A software update (Camera Raw, DNG converter and Lightroom) is required for every new camera model that comes onto the market.

Such a shame, waste of time and unnecessary. If only the camera manufacturers didn't insist on making tiny changes to each new camera's raw format

But this gives Adobe a nice excuse to sell new software respectively to sell their subscription model.

Raw formats do not change that radically from camera model to camera model. And most of the changes are not considered by LR.

DUalpixel however is a huge change and that one will ask a lot of effort for LR. I do not expect this to get support that soon.

[TheDigitalDog]

Feierwoon wrote:

But this gives Adobe a nice excuse to sell new software respectively to sell their subscription model.

That makes zero sense. Adobe provides a FREE DNG converter so their customers of their older software versions can support the new raw data! If what you stated was correct (it isn't), Adobe could force all customers to pay for updates and upgrades for every new camera raw format.

The bad guy isn't Adobe. Nor all the 3rd party software manufactures who must spend time and money updating their software only for new raw formats. The bad guys are the camera manufacturers.

[Abambo]

The free DNG converter is a nice thing and for sure helps a lot. But it converts, and that means alters the data. And it is difficult to find out what info. I used the DNG converter for a while for some of our cameras before switching to CC which obviously solves the problem quite elegantly. (And to get it right: I am quite a fan of the subscription model, because it helps us to effectively save money, and I'm using the Photographer's plan for my own projects at home)

I was thinking a lot on how to handle the RAW/DNG issue, and I decided that we will ditch the proprietary RAW file format during that period, just to avoid double storage issues. Storage is a cost factor in the corporate server world!

But I know by experience, that the changes between generations of the same base model are not that big. They concern mostly resolution and some internal tweaking. I was able to read raw files of just released new cameras using open software. And the specific camera was not yet on the supported camera list.

It's a similar situation like saying Adobe Photoshop CS5 is not supported on Windows 10. It may not be supported, but it runs. It's the user taking the risk and testing. For some users, that's OK.

Adobe's approach is to block new cameras until they have done the necessary due diligence in adapting and testing their software. I understand that approach, but on the other hand it would be nice to let the user decide...

Now for the camera manufacturer I would not like them to stop progress. If they develop a new method to represent the data, like on the 5dMIV, I think they should be welcome to do that. I can decide to buy that camera or not based on my personal needs. If Adobe does not yeat support the new feature, I need to decide if that feature is that important for me.

In conclusion: there are no bad guys here!

[99jon]

Yes I agree. I’m sure the 30mb CR2 files from the 5dmkIV will be supported in the next camera raw update. The 60mb dual pixel raw files will probably need to wait for a future update. But it would be great if LR could implement the micro adjustments as using Canon DPP is not a great workflow.

[Abambo]

I loved DPP before getting to Bridge/ACR and then LR. There must be a reason why I pay for something, I could get for free... (Well Bridge/ACR was for free considering that I used Photoshop anyhow).

[Abambo]

99jon wrote:

Canon DPP is not a great workflow.

If it were, we would not be here discussion on things we can't change...

[TheDigitalDog]

Feierwoon wrote:

The free DNG converter is a nice thing and for sure helps a lot. But it converts, and that means alters the data.

NOT the raw data. Which is what those of us using a non manufacturers converter should care about. The raw in a DNG is just as raw as in the manufacturers proprietary raw. You want to use the camera manufacturers converter with their proprietary raw? There's another forum for that. It's useless data for Adobe and all other 3rd party raw converter software users. It is proprietary!

It's a similar situation like saying Adobe Photoshop CS5 is not supported on Windows 10. It may not be supported, but it runs.

Awful analogy IMHO sorry. The proprietary data in the raw doesn't 'run' whatsoever outside the manufacturers software. EVER.

No, there is a bad guy! You completely missed the point and fact: weeks or so after this proprietary raw comes out, other's who spend time and money can access the raw and non proprietary data. What good was it for the manufacturer to go out of their way to make the new format, YOUR DATA inaccessible for a few weeks? The facts are, no time after release will Adobe or anyone else ever have access to the proprietary metadata because it is proprietary!

The camera companies could produce a raw that's understood from day one while keeping their proprietary data proprietary as they do now. The camera companies could produce a switch on the camera to produce a DNG or openly documented raw without the proprietary data the day the camera ships and we'd have access to that data, saving everyone time and money.

OR is it your position the above is impossible? If so, proof please!

[99jon]

The Camera is not released until September so I guess there will be a short wait. I doubt LR will support dual-pixel raw so Cannon DPP will be necessary to make the micro adjustments for post processing focus.

[John R Ellis]

I doubt LR will support dual-pixel raw

See this article: Attention, photo buffs: Adobe will capture the power of Canon's new photo format - CNET

[ssprengel]

"We're working on it," Adobe spokesman Roman Skuratovskiy said Thursday. He declined to say when Adobe would add the update to Lightroom and its cousin, Photoshop, though.

is all that Adobe has said. Since Adobe products do not yet support the 5D IV files, then that initial raw support could easily be all he’s talking about, not some special dual-pixel functionality. Nothing else in the UI is specific to a few cameras, other than camera profiles, so I doubt Adobe has changed their design philosophy with Canon’s first dual-pixel camera.

[Abambo]

Standard Adobe reply. They will support the camera soon. I'm sceptical however to find the dual pixel support soon in Adobe products.

[John R Ellis]

Since Adobe products do not yet support the 5D IV files, then that initial raw support could easily be all he’s talking about, not some special dual-pixel functionality.  Nothing else in the UI is specific to a few cameras, other than camera profiles, so I doubt Adobe has changed their design philosophy with Canon’s first dual-pixel camera.

It's clear from the context of the Cnet article that the Adobe spokesman is referring specifically to dual-pixel support.  Official Adobe rep Rikk Flohr referred to that article in response to another user's question about support: Lightroom/Camera Raw: Canon Dual Pixel RAW Support | Photoshop Family Customer Community. Of course, the spokesman is suitably vague about when/if such support might ever be released.  I think we all agree that it's quite possible, perhaps likely, that LR/ACR may initially provide standard raw support for the camera, to be followed later by dual-pixel support.

[ssprengel]

The only thing is clear that CNET wants us to think Adobe is supporting dual-pixel in some special way.  Without knowing the wording of the question that Adobe is replying to with "we're working on it" to understand what "it" is I wouldn't get your hopes up.  There's yet to be a camera-specific UI change in ACR or LR.

It's possible "we're working on it" is referring to LR 7 or LR CC 20xx, whatever any next major version might be.  Has Canon even disclosed to Adobe what they're doing with the dual-pixel information to do the corrections?  At least it's Canon which offers DPP for free, not Nikon that wants to make money on their raw processing software and keeps things more secret.

It would be nice for someone from Adobe to official comment on the CNET article to clarity what "it" means that they're working on.

[TheDigitalDog]

Do read this as well, something the Adobe team may wish to work towards:

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

[Abambo]

The link confirms what I thought. The raw file formats are not that different from each camera. Even the dual pixel raw file format is an "easy" go. The only problem with this are all the new opportunities you get and how they get supported by a program like LR.

[JP Hess]

The following article seems to contradict your suspicions or expectations from Adobe:

Attention, photo buffs: Adobe will capture the power of Canon's new photo format - CNET

[Abambo]

The new format will also be implemented in Canons flagship camera. The 5D and the 1D cover a great deal of the pros in the business. That would be an image loss for Adobe to loose those customers (besides the money that they bring).

[ssprengel]

So the RawDigger article shows the second subframe is roughly half the values of the first.  To me that suggests the first subframe is the sum of the two halves of each dual pixel and can be used by any raw converter the way a normal non-dual-pixel value would be used, but then the second subframe is just one of the halves of the dual-pixel, so more sophisticated software can do math on the pixels of each subframe and reconstruct the both dual pixel halves with one half being the values of the second subframe and the second half being the difference of the second subframe subtracted from the first subframe.

At this point I'd guess that Adobe will ignore the second subframe, but may be researching doing something more sophisticated for later if at all.

[TheDigitalDog]

ssprengel wrote:

At this point I'd guess that Adobe will ignore the second subframe, but may be researching doing something more sophisticated for later if at all.

Might I suggest you stop guessing...

[ssprengel]

Consider my conservative guesses a challenge to Adobe to break precedent and support camera-specific technology.  Hopefully you know more and can't say.