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

[ssprengel]

For Adobe to work with a new camera model's raw file, they have to be able to find the array of pixels from the sensor stored in whatever way it is, in stripes of certain sizes, channels separate or interleaved, etc, and the WB data, and nowadays the lens distortion data.

The DNG format helps Adobe find the pixel, WB and lens data.  The DNG Profile helps interpret the pixel values into the demosaicked RGB data.

A camera manufacturer could indeed write their raw data into a DNG envelope to make the raw sensor array, WB, and lens distortion data easier to find, but it would also be necessary for the DNG profile to be embedded in the DNG before zero-day support would be realized.

My point has been unless the camera manufacturers do both, why should they be doing one of them (write their raw data in a DNG envelope), since both (the envelope and the profile) would be necessary for zero-day support in Adobe products.

[TheDigitalDog]

ssprengel wrote:

The DNG Profile helps interpret the pixel values into the demosaicked RGB data. zero-day support in Adobe products.

It may help, it's not mandatory. Again, the DNG format predates DNG profiles BY YEARS.

A camera manufacturer could indeed write their raw data into a DNG envelope to make the raw sensor array, WB, and lens distortion data easier to find, but it would also be necessary for the DNG profile to be embedded in the DNG before zero-day support would be realized.    

Could and have!

Proprietary raw doesn't do anyone but the manufacturers good! Whatever really is proprietary isn't part of DNG (that's why it's called proprietary). What is proprietary can be stored in private tags. The slight difference in format from camera to camera release is always 'hacked' by Adobe and every raw converter days, weeks or maybe months after a camera is released. Always! Those are the historical facts. That cost money and we end users have to wait. So explain to us HOW the proprietary raw we get every new release is good for anyone but the manufactures for a very short time.

[Todd Shaner]

thedigitaldog wrote:

Proprietary raw doesn't do anyone but the manufacturers good!

Yes and they want to keep it that way. Proprietary features are what keep camera manufacturers in business and help increase their market share.

thedigitaldog wrote:

What is proprietary can be stored in private tags. The slight difference in format from camera to camera release is always 'hacked' by Adobe and every raw converter days, weeks or maybe months after a camera is released. Always! Those are the historical facts. That cost money and we end users have to wait. So explain to us HOW the proprietary raw we get every new release is good for anyone but the manufactures for a very short time.

There are many "proprietary" camera features Adobe does not support (too many to list here!). The only way to use those features is with the manufacturer's software (i.e. DPP) using the camera's raw file format. The manufacturer could put all that proprietary raw data in a DNG wrapper and even support all those proprietary features inside their own software using DNG file format. Unfortunately that does nothing for the manufacturer concerning maintaining market share and insuring their proprietary designs and patents are protected. This is simply good business practice.

Proprietary features are the only thing that separates a manufacturer's products from its competition. Adobe will be hard-pressed to support many of these new features. I'm fairly certain at some point in the very near future in-camera JPEGs will challenge the best results obtainable using raw files in 3rd party software. Raw files will always offer more flexibility, but to get all of those proprietary features you'll probably need use the manufacturer's software or shoot in-camera JPEG.

It will be very interesting to see if Adobe can provide support for Canon's dual-pixel technology in LR and ACR.

[DdeGannes]

Agreed.

"It will be very interesting to see if Adobe can provide support for Canon's dual-pixel technology in LR and ACR."

or for that matter in the DNG Converter?

[John Waller]

ssprengel wrote:

so why should they support native raws as well as DNGs just to make Adobe's life easier

It's about making the end consumer's life easier, not Adobe's.

Newbies don't know or care about Raw file formats - nor should they have to - but they're always mystified why they cannot buy a new camera and open their own Raw files in their older version of Photoshop or Lightroom. They're forced to upgrade or convert to DNG. Why should any of that even be an issue they have to deal with?

The music industry solved this with standards such as MIDI. I cannot see why the photography industry can't do the same.

[Abambo]

As long as consumers by cameras with proprietary RAW files... Let's face it: DNG is used by the underdogs, who do not have the resources to make their own software to develop the files.

[TheDigitalDog]

Feierwoon wrote:

As long as consumers by cameras with proprietary RAW files... Let's face it: DNG is used by the underdogs, who do not have the resources to make their own software to develop the files.

So your position now is Adobe can't develop the raw files? Ridiculous.

[Abambo]

No, my position is that camera manufacturers using DNG are not the mainstream manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, Sony! That's it.

[TheDigitalDog]

Feierwoon wrote:

No, my position is that camera manufacturers using DNG are not the mainstream manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, Sony! That's it.

Ah, so so called mainstream manufacturers (whatever that means and based on what metric) allows them to hold OUR data hostage? Interesting premise.

Maybe you can explain how that's an advantage to anyone but them considering the facts I've outlined (whatever they've done to lock us and other companies from the raw data only lasts weeks/months).

Not sure how it's useful to them, but I'm very sure how it's not useful to anyone else.

[Abambo]

Mainstream=those who sell a lot of cameras.

Underdogs=those who sell not a lot of cameras (Leica for example)

Nobody is hold hostage. You can buy a camera or you can wait until the support is there. And to recall some facts: Proprietary RAW files like Canon's and Nikon's where there before DNG. You want DNG support by your camera: Buy only a camera with DNG support!

Belive me: Canon wants support for his cameras by the leaders of the RAW developping software editors.

[TheDigitalDog]

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?

[Bob Somrak]

thedigitaldog wrote:

Why should anyone wait?

Just don't buy the camera util its supported in your software of choice.

[Todd Shaner]

Bob Somrak wrote:

thedigitaldog wrote:

Why should anyone wait?

Just don't buy the camera util its supported in your software of choice.

Better yet wait until it's supported......and on sale!

[TheDigitalDog]

Bob Somrak wrote:

thedigitaldog wrote:

Why should anyone wait?

Just don't buy the camera util its supported in your software of choice.

Why should I wait to drop $3500 bucks into Canon's hands Bob? Maybe a better suggestion (and equally not useful): just shoot JPEG. After all, the raw data I want to use and can't in the software I desire, only becomes mine to access after (in this case) Adobe spends time and money hacking the new format, updating the software, testing it, building new installers and releasing it. That's useful to anyone but Canon how? I keep asking that question but never getting an answer.

[Bob Somrak]

If everybody didn't buy a camera until it is supported than Canon, Nikon etc would do things differently when it affected the bottom line. 

[DdeGannes]

Its 12 years that the Adobe drums have been beating and the Japanese Camera producers do not hear or care!

What of the other dozen or so other third party producers of software for processing of raw file data?

[TheDigitalDog]

DdeGannes wrote:

Its 12 years that the Adobe drums have been beating and the Japanese Camera producers do not hear or care!

I blame the customer base, many here, who collectively allow this to happen and don't make a stink. I applaud Adobe for trying.

I don't care if the manufacturers support DNG or just an openly documented raw format. But since so many customers act like sheep, don't complain and do the opposite, suggest it's no big deal, no progress will be achieved. So yeah, I blame the companies but I also blame many of the companies customers who are posting here.

[DdeGannes]

I have been here since 2004 so I fully understand the issue, however the rapid changes and development of digital imaging is not conducive to standards being accepted by the manufacturer and they wish to able to do their research and development independently.

Look at the likes of FujiFilm a niche player with a unique sensor. Adobe is yet to provide an acceptable rendition of their raw files for several years. Is your answer that they should use the DNG format to capture raw data.

There are also a few niche manufacturers that have no support. This is a complex issue.

[BKKDon]

You are right it is a complex issue and as you stated the FujiFilm X-trans creates problems but also eliminates moire because the photo sensors simulate the randomness of film, then you have Pentax pixel shift technology and now the Canon dual pixel technology which is implemented in 2 image files. Then there is the latest Canon sensor with a global shutter function that exposes all of the sensor's pixels at the same time which should give us distortion free images.

This is what these companies see a differentiators so they are not going to accept a standard that will allow their engineering work, whether hardware or software, to be immediately available to their opposition.

Certainly I see DNG as a great archive solution but I'm not sure it is suitable as an industry standard RAW file ... for example, even though my Galaxy S7 produces DNG not all RAW converters can read it.

[Jao vdL]

Look at the likes of FujiFilm a niche player with a unique sensor. Adobe is yet to provide an acceptable rendition of their raw files for several years. Is your answer that they should use the DNG format to capture raw data.

There are also a few niche manufacturers that have no support. This is a complex issue.

The fact that Adobe can't seem to fine tune their raw converter to Fuji files has nothing to do with the file format. DNG is just a container format that can contain data from any sensor. Nothing prevents Fuji from using dng and getting the exact same best results with their own raw converter while Adobe would still get the slightly worse results in Lightroom. You should not confuse Adobe's preferred file format with their raw conversion engine. They are not related in any way.

[TheDigitalDog]

Jao vdL wrote:

Look at the likes of FujiFilm a niche player with a unique sensor. Adobe is yet to provide an acceptable rendition of their raw files for several years. Is your answer that they should use the DNG format to capture raw data.

There are also a few niche manufacturers that have no support. This is a complex issue.

The fact that Adobe can't seem to fine tune their raw converter to Fuji files has nothing to do with the file format. DNG is just a container format that can contain data from any sensor. Nothing prevents Fuji from using dng and getting the exact same best results with their own raw converter while Adobe would still get the slightly worse results in Lightroom. You should not confuse Adobe's preferred file format with their raw conversion engine. They are not related in any way.

If Adobe can't fine tune their raw converter for this data, they should fix that. I don't see how that has anything to do with whether the data is proprietary raw or not. Further, not being a Fuji user, I don't know what 'fine tune' means. Perhaps LR/ACR is far from best converter for this data. Some would suggest that's true for all raw files, proprietary or not (otherwise, people wouldn't switch from LR/ACR to C1, Iridient Developer or the slew of other converters). I don't see how one has anything to do with other. And I await an answer as to why anyone should wait to use their raw data in the converter they desire, the day a camera ships. I'm not holding my breath.

[DdeGannes]

Quote

"Look at the likes of FujiFilm a niche player with a unique sensor. Adobe is yet to provide an acceptable rendition of their raw files for several years. Is your answer that they should use the DNG format to capture raw data.

There are also a few niche manufacturers that have no support. This is a complex issue.

The fact that Adobe can't seem to fine tune their raw converter to Fuji files has nothing to do with the file format. DNG is just a container format that can contain data from any sensor. Nothing prevents Fuji from using dng and getting the exact same best results with their own raw converter while Adobe would still get the slightly worse results in Lightroom. You should not confuse Adobe's preferred file format with their raw conversion engine. They are not related in any way."

The point I was trying to make is that Digital image capture and the processing thereof is still in a rapid stage of development and that is why the Camera Manufacturers are not interested in getting committed to any standard that would hamper their research and development. Why would they allow themselves to be boxed into a standard designed by Adobe who is not in any way involved in the development of digital cameras and related components. 

[Jao vdL]

The point I was trying to make is that Digital image capture and the processing thereof is still in a rapid stage of development and that is why the Camera Manufacturers are not interested in getting committed to any standard that would hamper their research and development. Why would they allow themselves to be boxed into a standard designed by Adobe who is not in any way involved in the development of digital cameras and related components.

DNG in no way hampers them in developing new sensor layouts or other new tech. It is just a container. You can get any bit depth, sensor layout, etc in there that you can imagine. You can store any extra layers of data in there. It has no problem describing the fuji sensor layout, a multilayer sensor like the Foveons, or anything you can imagine. It's just a bitstream that contains raw sensor data. The only reason camera makers have to not use an open file format is market segmentation and creating a "special aura" that surrounds them that indicates that they somehow have some special sauce in their own raw converter. They like to pretend there is something magic about their own format, which is completely false. Anything you can contain in a proprietary raw file can be contained in a more open format like dng. Nothing introduced by any camera maker in the last years has been different in this respect. It's telling that all the camera makers use file formats that are basically still TIFF. Maybe something might get introduced in the future that couldn't be described in this basic structure, but it is really hard to imagine what that could be as these formats (dng is only the most well-known one) are designed to be extremely flexible.

[Todd Shaner]

Jao vdL wrote:

The only reason camera makers have to not use an open file format is market segmentation and creating a "special aura" that surrounds them that indicates that they somehow have some special sauce in their own raw converter.

That is Marketing & Advertising 101 and what keeps manufacturers profitable. It's all about who comes to market first with new features that sway customers to buy those new products. Been there and done that for 45-years.

Adobe holds the patent on DNG file format and independently determines and develops all changes to the specification. Most new camera features can be accommodated by simply adding an entry for the new feature into the EXIF MakerNotes section of the DNG file. But that's not always the case as you can see by reading the version changes made to the Adobe DNG Specification: Digital Negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a camera manufacturer develops new features not accommodated in the DNG specification they must divulge to Adobe the technical details and request support. This means they cannot introduce new products with these features until 1) Adobe has made changes to the DNG specification to support them, 2) submitted those changes to the manufacturer for firmware implementation, and 3) the manufacturer has tested those changes. Even if the DNG specification became an ISO standard the same process would have to be followed with probably even longer delays.

The marketing departments of most major camera manufacturers would veto this process since it delays time-to-market for new product releases and opens-the-door (leaks) to competitors. I'm also sure their Legal departments have placed restrictions on how new technologies can be used. Placing support for proprietary features in a "generic" open-source or ISO standard container may compromise patents the manufacturer holds for those technologies. Having worked in product development for a large OEM manufacturer I've experienced these "obstacles" first-hand–It can be very frustrating.

ERGO–The state camera manufacturers are locked-in using proprietary raw image file formats.

[TheDigitalDog]

trshaner wrote:

Adobe holds the patent on DNG file format and independently determines and develops all changes to the specification.

As the do for TIFF (and PSD), so what?

I suppose the reason so many cameras offer proprietary raw and JPEG, instead of TIFF is because of who owns and controls that format? Meanwhile, the number of 3rd party software companies that have no issue supporting TIFF is pretty large. Bad guys: Camera companies. And again, there is nothing stopping them from either providing a 3rd option for customers (DNG) or producing an openly documented raw format with, like DNG, private tags for proprietary metadata that only serves each individual company anyway. What stops the companies from doing this is all political and the customers who don't demand a change will never see a change. The sheep shall inherit no change.