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

[TheDigitalDog]

ssprengel wrote:

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

Yes, it's why I don't publicly make such guesses. You should consider the same concept.

Do you really think the engineers at Adobe are paying attention to your challenge?

Can we get back on topic or is this thread ready to be locked down?

[Abambo]

Let's see what DPP does with the second subframe... .

[DdeGannes]

Quote

"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."

You purchase a camera from Canon and they provide you with the equipment and the software to render the raw captures in the camera and on a computer for post processing. What's the problem? You choose to use alternative software to process the raw data and you think that is Canon's responsibility to make available to you.

I do not think Canon is inclined to dance to "Adobe" drum beat.

If you are dependent on the Adobe drums then wait until they can play the Canon tune.

[TheDigitalDog]

DdeGannes wrote:

You purchase a camera from Canon and they provide you with the equipment and the software to render the raw captures in the camera and on a computer for post processing. What's the problem?

The problem is DPP sucks! The problem is, I want to use the raw converter I desire from day one. The problem is that's never an issue if I want to edit my JPEG so why the raw? The problem is, why should anyone have to wait? The problem is, Adobe and ever other company have to waste money and engineering resources hacking a new proprietary raw that's only slightly different from the last. I'm a partner in a company that writes software, I pay for engineering and it's expensive!

The problem here is, no one has yet justified WHY any of the above has to be true. Just wait, it will be OK. What justification does anyone here have that what the camera manufactures are doing is useful to anyone but themselves and anything but a burden for customers and others? The problem is, if all the customers who dropped money on such cameras agreed this tactic doesn't aid them as customers instead of acting like sheep, the problem would quickly disappear! You're either on the bus or you're not.

I guess this is to be expected by non professionals who don't really care what converter they temporarily use or how long they have to wait for access to their data, in the software they desire. Sad.

[Abambo]

thedigitaldog wrote:

The problem is DPP sucks!

Don't use it! Don't even buy the camera. If that is the argument, don't even consider buying the camera.

The only time I was pissed of was when Nikon protected their format by encryption and used the DCMA to lock out third party developers.

For the rest: It's business logic. The camera maker optimizes their RAW format to their cameras and their needs. And I'm sure, that Canon has an interest to get Adobe supporting their cameras, as LR and PS have a unique market share with professional photographers.

[Todd Shaner]

thedigitaldog wrote:

The problem is DPP sucks! The problem is, I want to use the raw converter I desire from day one.

I agree with you 100%. DPP is clunky, slow and user-unfriendly, but it supports all the features in my Canon cameras.

thedigitaldog wrote:

The problem is, Adobe and ever other company have to waste money and engineering resources hacking a new proprietary raw that's only slightly different from the last. I'm a partner in a company that writes software, I pay for engineering and it's expensive!

The problem here is, no one has yet justified WHY any of the above has to be true.

The following are my thoughts as a computing technology veteran with 45-years of experience in design engineer, product marketing and sales…with no axe to grind.

DNG file format is an Adobe created “open” standard: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/history.htm

It (currently) is not an industry standard file format controlled by ISO or other internationally recognized non-profit standards organization such as ANSI. Because of this camera manufacturers may be reluctant to offer in-camera support for something that only Adobe (for profit company) has control in determining changes to the specification.

In addition, as camera manufacturers develop new proprietary features such as Canon’s dual-pixel technology the Adobe controlled DNG specification may not have sufficient provisioning to support said technology (dual image bit maps). This means each camera manufacturer must discuss with Adobe their new proprietary designs prior to release AND Adobe must in an unbiased manner determine how said technologies will be supported. Is this starting to sound like a legal contract? Since these proprietary features are created independently by each camera manufacturer there is no "standardization." When Nikon comes out with their proprietary dual-pixel technology Adobe must revisit the DNG revisions made to accommodate Canon’s similar technology and perhaps change the DNG specification yet again! It won't work until DNG file format becomes a standard that all major camera manufacturers agree on and follow. A good example is the TIFF file format: TIFF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Until the DNG file format becomes an industry standard with Canon, Nikon, and other major manufacturers on board I seriously doubt you’ll see in-camera DNG file format support from said manufacturers. Again no axe to grind here–I'm just trying to offer my unbiased perspective.

[TheDigitalDog]

DNG has been under ISO consideration (Adobe has submitted it) for couple years now. ISO moves very slowly!

Getting the ISO to do anything with respect to DNG isn't going to automatically make the camera manufacturers move forward. The customer base can.

The camera manufacturers could provide a 3rd option between JPEG and proprietary raw IF they wanted: DNG. Without any proprietary tags or with them. THEN we, the customer could decide what data to use based on our needs and the software we wish to use. Wait for full support (again, without any proprietary processing abilities) or just use the actual raw, contained in the camera generated DNG on day one of release.

Again, IF the majority of customers expressed a real desire for this, it would happen quickly because neither Nikon, Canon nor any other company wants to piss-off a large segment of their customers. So this goes back to those customers either giving a damn about this issue and being vocal or just letting this mess continue as it has for years with no resolution. You're either on the bus supporting an openly documented raw format that you can use on day one of a camera release or you're not.The later position makes no sense to me, nor has anyone yet provided justification for this. And no, the idea that providing an OPTION for a DNG or similar, that any old raw converter could access because it will stifle new technology that's proprietary is unproven, makes no sense. Again, if this isn't factual, prove it: days or weeks (or more) after this so called new technology shows up in a camera, after time and money spent by all 3rd party software companies, we get access to the raw but not the proprietary features. So what justification is there in waiting?  

[TheDigitalDog]

For the rest: It's business logic. The camera maker optimizes their RAW format to their cameras and their needs.

Logic and fact: An openly documented raw format or DNG don't stop them from doing this. Again, some here seem to have an inability to understand what proprietary means. Further Proprietary tags can be stored in a DNG. Camera companies can supply beta units or raw files to Adobe and others such that the day they release their cameras, the raw confuters could ship and support this newer format. And these software companies under NDA could save a lot of time and money decoding the tiny differences in the actual raw data. They don't care, nor need to understand, nor will they examine proprietary data because again, it's proprietary!

Thanks to the sheep for their ideas about why, we end users should sit around and wait on raw support when there's zero reason to do so; maybe some will transform into wolf's (or dogs), make their voices heard so someday, our raw data can be as accessible and as timely as the JPEG these expensive cameras always produce that's always accessible the day the camera ships.

[Abambo]

Write to Canon, Nikon, Sony that you will create the DNG-now movement that will boycott cameras not supporting DNG. If you are several hundred thousends of users, they will bend.

[andrews34554371]

Can I ask perhaps a stupid question? How do you actually know (without having a 5D mk 4 to import files from) when Adobe has released and made this update available to the masses ? I want to buy a 5D mk 4 buy not if I can't work RAW files for some time. 

Regards Andrew

[Jao vdL]

Check here: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/ and put that in your

newsreader. It's where Adobe posts notices of Lightroom updates and what

new cameras are now supported. You can also follow their twitter feed if

you're more twittery than RSSy.

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:39 PM, andrews34554371 <forums_noreply@adobe.com>

[Todd Shaner]

....and when the camera model is listed here: Cameras supported by Camera Raw

[andrews34554371]

Thanks guys

[alinaa42233776]

When is the new update coming out? I received my new camera yesterday and had a shoot this afternoon using raw format. the latest cc is not supporting my raw files... Please help

[Jao vdL]

Nobody here knows or is allowed to say. Could be tomorrow, could be a few months. We had an update to LR not to long ago so could be some time but really I have no clue. It's always wise to wait to buy a new camera until third-party raw converters support it.

[alinaa42233776]

Any recommendations how i can transfer or convert raw files from new mark iv to the current lightroom ?

[Bob Somrak]

Use Canon DPP to convert them to 16 bit TIFF

[SebastianScherer]

Hi there..

I got my Mark IV yesterday, .... the RAW file recognition isn't working yet.

I run the latest Lightroom CC version.

[Abambo]

Congratulations! I wait until may workflow is supported. And then I may go for a used 5DMIII as a second body. I currently have a 5D MII as my second body that I bought as used equipment.

[weddje]

shooting a Wedding this weekend with the canon 5d mark iv. How should I handle roughly 1000 raw files?

Any word on an update?

Ok, not usefull for anyone but just to ventilate: Whats the use of pre ordering such anticipated camera for $4667 (4130euros)? Guess Canon is to blame here.

[Abambo]

weddje wrote:

shooting a Wedding this weekend with the canon 5d mark iv. How should I handle roughly 1000 raw files?

Any word on an update?

Quite simple: Do not use the brand new camera or be prepared to use DPP to convert your data.

I would process like this: Doing basic editing in DPP, then exporting to 16bit-TIFF files. This should be OK for further processing in your preferred editor.

Ok, not usefull for anyone but just to ventilate: Whats the use of pre ordering such anticipated camera for $4667 (4130euros)? Guess Canon is to blame here.

Are you a professional or a hobbyist? As a professional, I would wait until my workflow is supported. It costs much more to change the workflow then to shoot with the still excellent prior model. The difference between 20Mp, 24MP and 30MP does not necessarily justify the invest.

As a hobbyist, you do as you think is good for you.

[Martinomac]

@weddje, I'm in your shoes now too and facing the same dilemma.  I can't wait to use my 5DIV for the remaining weddings this year but the above suggestion just doesn't fit my workflow yet.

I just did a test from my 5DIV .CR2 files (not dual pixel RAW) and converted them using DPP to .TIFF, details:

8-bit - 90MB each file

16-bit - 180MB each file

Not really practical with 1000+ RAW files from a wedding as it may blog down LR. But if you have HD space to spare and patience while editing, go for it.  I'd personally just use my 5DIII for my remaining weddings until beta/full support comes to LR for 5DIV.

[Abambo]

My policy would have been to wait for the support of the camera. You spend today a bunch of cash for a camera you wont use.

[Abambo]

A beta build of Adobe Camera RAW exists, that reads 5DM4 RAW files, so it may be soon released if there are no major glitches.

[k.r.bjornsen@gmail.com]

Are there any chance to get a link to this beta and participate in the testing?