https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19153
Patrick Pelletier <x...@funwithsoftware.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |x...@funwithsoftware.org
--- Comment #19 from Patrick Pelletier <x...@funwithsoftware.org> ---
I'd love to see DNG support. Currently, there is the category:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_in_raw_image_format_available
which indicates that the author will provide raw images files on request; this
boils down to emailing a DNG (or a native camera-specific raw file) to someone
when asked. Although this is workable in the short term, it doesn't seem like
a good long-term solution, since it can fail in any number of ways:
photographer experiences a hard drive crash, stops answering email, goes to
live off the grid in New Hampshire, or dies. Eventually the digital negatives
(DNG or native format) will be lost to time, unless they are archived somewhere
centralized. It seems like Commons would be the perfect place for that.
(In reply to Darxus from comment #10)
> Compatible with existing software?
Yes. All existing software for developing raw files is only going to support
native camera raw files or DNG. If you "invent" your own format (e. g. based
on PNG), then you'd need to add support for your new format to all open-source
raw processors. (And closed-source raw processors, like Lightroom, wouldn't be
able to use it at all.)
> There is no linux image editing software that supports dng.
Darktable, RawTherapee, and UFRaw, at the very least.
(In reply to Brion Vibber from comment #5)
> ImageMagick claims to support them so inline thumbnailing ought to be
> feasible. Do we have some sample files that can be tested with, maybe from
> somebody's actual camera stream?
DNG files also contain an embedded thumbnail, so the best approach might be to
just extract that. (Especially since the embedded thumbnail will best capture
how the image ought to look, while if you develop the raw file, you have a lot
of choices to make about exposure and so forth.) But if that isn't sufficient,
there are plenty of ways to develop the raw data from the command line, such as
dcraw, or the command-line mode of RawTherapee.
As for samples, I'm happy to provide DNGs on request, and presumably the
authors of the images in the category mentioned above would, too. In my case,
I have a Pentax K-50, which uses DNG as its native format, so for me there's no
difference between native format and DNG. My DNG files are around 15 MB each.
(In reply to fenglich from comment #18)
> At Comment #17: I think it makes little sense to add support for proprietary
> format because they are not aligned with the principles, purpose and mission
> of Wikimedia. A proprietary format is closed, requires special, governed
> software and hence does not combine with Wikimedia's goal of making media
> available, in many senses.
On philosophical grounds, I totally agree. On practical grounds, it doesn't
much matter, because the open-source raw processors all use dcraw's parsing
code, and can therefore support (virtually) all known proprietary raw formats.
But I do suspect that having a single format, DNG, would be easier to work
with, and is more suited to long-term archival.
> I see the main purpose of DNG
> support as that the original source is available for investigation and
> derivative works.
Precisely. DNG is the "source code", and JPG/PNG/TIFF is the "object code".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
