Scott Loveless wrote:
This appears to be an alternate to proprietary RAW formats. Alternative to DNG? Apologies if this has already been posted.Saw this on Luminous Landscape the other day. Doesn't sound like an alternate to the RAW formats, just a guideline to some ethical behaviour - making the RAW formats open has to be a good thing. I don't really understand why companies (Nikon most recently) would want to make their formats proprietary. They give away their RAW converter programs with each camera anyway, so they can't be making money from that. And if more people find using RAW easier, then that has to be good for the manufacturer's reputation. And won't hurt the makers of flash memory either.
http://www.openraw.org/
Just on DNG, I don't quite understand how that can work as a substitute for a RAW format that comes straight off the sensor (forgetting for the moment that no camera writes DNG anyway). Wouldn't there have to be some sort of interpretation of the formats? For example, if some future Fujifilm Sx Pro were to write directly to DNG, wouldn't there have to be some interpretation of the unusual pixel arrangement?
I guess what I am saying is, the RAW is going to be the closest to the DSLR negative you are going to get. Anything else has to change the file somehow, no?
D
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
