Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Adobe Proposes New Universal Photo Format
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Proposes New Universal Photo Format
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Adobe Proposes New Universal Photo Format
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
At least it's not MS making a standard, that always gets me jumpy when they do that. I think that this is a great idea, and if it works with my PowerShot S45, I might start shooting RAW format. Digital Negative Standard... good thing they aren't calling it DNS! 
Why is it that Adobe are consistently setting high standards?
What is it about this company that others can't seem to match?
This sounds like a good idea, and if they can get MS and half-a-dozen or more big camera manufacturers on board then it could take off.
However, I wonder what DRM scheme it might have embedded in it.
(Can't wait to try importing one of these into Quark 9.3 and watching it crash...)
What is it about this company that others can't seem to match?
This sounds like a good idea, and if they can get MS and half-a-dozen or more big camera manufacturers on board then it could take off.
However, I wonder what DRM scheme it might have embedded in it.
(Can't wait to try importing one of these into Quark 9.3 and watching it crash...)
wasn't adobe getting sued by the owners of "jpeg" or something?! yes it's a good idea anyway, but sounds to me like they are trying to get away from dealing with "jpeg" issues.
I like how it's completely free. No restrictions. See, this is how you do things. I realize it's a little different for Music and Movies, but if you want to create a standard, it should be earned by being good and being easily adopted. And I hope this is widely adopted. Adobe has really earned repsect for this one.
But yeah, it probably has a lot to do with the jpeg thing.
But yeah, it probably has a lot to do with the jpeg thing.
It would most likely put to rest the various incompatible RAW formats, plus JPEG and TIFF wouldn't be quite as necessary. Unfortunately, it might involve a version of EPS. I'm not sure that I want to be locked into any Adobe-specific technologies, free or not.
I think that this has the potential to be a very good thing - look at PDF - as long as it is used correctly and Adobe allows input from various organizations to make sure it works as it's supposed to work. As someone who needs to take in camera files from all over, this looks like a step in the right direction.
The question now is going to be how to support this format - I'm sure the next update of Photoshop will, but how long until others can deal with it?
The question now is going to be how to support this format - I'm sure the next update of Photoshop will, but how long until others can deal with it?
If it really is free of patent/copyright/trademark/trade-secret/etc. restrictions, I'm all for it. But I'm hesitant to trust Adobe when it comes to this.
A lot of us thought GIF and JPEG were free - until the lawsuits started happening years later.
Today, PNG is known to be free and open. What's wrong with people using it? If it's missing some technical feature, Adobe has only to say what it is and I'm sure there will be plenty of people in the open source community that will be glad to add it in. If the camera makers are not supporting PNG for some reason other than technology, then what makes Adobe think they'll be willing to adopt DNG?
A lot of us thought GIF and JPEG were free - until the lawsuits started happening years later.
Today, PNG is known to be free and open. What's wrong with people using it? If it's missing some technical feature, Adobe has only to say what it is and I'm sure there will be plenty of people in the open source community that will be glad to add it in. If the camera makers are not supporting PNG for some reason other than technology, then what makes Adobe think they'll be willing to adopt DNG?
bousozoku said:
Yeah, Adobe is the Microsoft of the creative industry, except that I have at least slightly more confidence in their decision-making ability. They also have worked well with industry groups in the past.
This is not to say that all of this isn't financially motivated by them - right now they have to write filters for every raw format they want to bring into Photoshop, and I'm sure they'll make money off of something eventually (although it won't be like Acrobat). In reality, this is something the industry needs, but no one else has stepped up to do it.
Hi all,
there's a discussion thread under the article. if you read thru it many of your questions will be answered - such as why Adobe is doing this.
there's a discussion thread under the article. if you read thru it many of your questions will be answered - such as why Adobe is doing this.
Im ok with Nikons NEF format for the time being.. I can't imagine that being phased out of photoshop any time soon.. lol
gwangung said:
Don't get me wrong - standardization is my job. I'm just saying that I'm sure Adobe's intentions weren't purely altruistic when they made this a freely available standard. And I don't really care - good ideas should make the people who think of them some extra cash.
Adobe has set the way we do photo editing anymore, creating a Universal standard sounds like they know which way they're heading in the real world. JPEG has been around a long time, so if they can do a better job at compression and realistic looking pictures, then I say go for it, but if its just a few changes and an extra extension then why do we need it.
I think some people are missing the point of this new format.
It isn't intended to replace jpg. It's aimed at replacing camera RAW formats.
Currently each manufacturer has ther own raw format. That is how the image is stored straight off the sensor with minimal manipulation.
Adobe produce filters to allow photoshop to read these raw formats.
Now isn't it easier for Adobe to put out a standerd and get the camera manufacturers to use that rather than messing about with all these filters to do the same job?
It also means images stored in this format would hopefully have a longer shelf life. The last thing you want is your raw images to be unreadable by any software in a couple of years time
It isn't intended to replace jpg. It's aimed at replacing camera RAW formats.
Currently each manufacturer has ther own raw format. That is how the image is stored straight off the sensor with minimal manipulation.
Adobe produce filters to allow photoshop to read these raw formats.
Now isn't it easier for Adobe to put out a standerd and get the camera manufacturers to use that rather than messing about with all these filters to do the same job?
It also means images stored in this format would hopefully have a longer shelf life. The last thing you want is your raw images to be unreadable by any software in a couple of years time
Presumably, this means it is a lossless codec. Otherwise it's useless to replace raw formats.techgeek said:
But my comment still applies - why not use PNG. This is already an open standard that supports both lossless and lossy encodings. It supports everything that Adobe's press release claims as DNG's advantage, except that Adobe isn't in charge of it.techgeek said:
Furthermore, since PNG supports both lossy and lossless encodings, a camera using it can eliminate JPG and make the firmware smaller. (Just about every web browser and image-reading program made today supports PNG, so compatibility shouldn't be a major concern anymore.)
Sure. But I'd rather future-proof my documents with an open standard (like PNG) instead of an Adobe-proprietary standard. Even with free distribution of the standard, Adobe still owns it.techgeek said:It also means images stored in this format would hopefully have a longer shelf life. The last thing you want is your raw images to be unreadable by any software in a couple of years time
Ignore my previous post. I finally got around to reading the spec more closely.shamino said:
This format appears to be very different from all other image file formats (even lossless ones). If I read the spec correctly, it stores a camera's red/green/blue sub-pixels separately and does not combine them into whole pixels (which JPG, PNG, TIFF and most other formats use). So the data more accurately reflects the layout of a camera's CCD element.
I still think they could get this feature via an extension to PNG or TIFF without needing to create a whole new format. They probably decided that it's easier to just release something and say "my way or the highway" than to submit drafts to a standards body to add a feature to an existing spec.
I havn't got around to reading the spec (not sure I'm that interested) but I assume it's some kind of "bit bucket" where the literal raw data off of the sensor gets shoved.
Adobe have the advantage of having looked through all the propriatry raw formats for the existing filters. I guess they spotted a lot of commonalities between them all and thought "blow this for a game of soldiers! Lets make our own version".
Can't blame them really.
Adobe have the advantage of having looked through all the propriatry raw formats for the existing filters. I guess they spotted a lot of commonalities between them all and thought "blow this for a game of soldiers! Lets make our own version".
Can't blame them really.
shamino said:
The RAW format is exactly what you said - a means to capture exactly what the camera saw, as opposed to a compressed or interpreted version of the image. Hence why it's called "RAW".
As for making an extension to PNG or TIFF - don't know why that would be any better - I don't know that those formats adequately address the needs handled by the RAW format.
They really haven't said "my way or the highway" - since camera manufacturers have the option not to participate, but I commend them for at least trying to address the problem with some sort of proposal. Sure, it's governed by Adobe for now, but the fact that they have made it open means that anyone can write to it, and they can't go and change it haphazardly, especially once camera manufacturers get on the program.
Sure, I'm not into being tied into one company for "standards," but I think Adobe does a fairly good job of keeping users' needs in mind and working well with industry standards groups.
These, like JPG, MOV, WMA/WMV, and most other modern formats are "container" formats. A file can contain data encoded with a wide variety of different codecs, and sometimes (in the case of TIFF) multiple encodings in a single file.emw said:
Each codec is pretty much independant, but the file-container specifies a standard way to search for and identify them.
So for example, you could produce a "fat" TIFF that contains RAW, lossless-compressed RGB, and JPG, along with thumbnail views and other information.
When applications read the file, they can pick the version they want. Presumably an app like the Finder would fetch the thumbnail (to generate the icon), a web browser would pick the JPG, and Photoshop would pick the RAW data.
What about Kodak's DCS format? I've been using the DCS plugin and pulling the large files without complaint. And I have color info, ...
And don't be so sure about MS...Adobe sleeps with anyone that will get it an advantage. Look at OpenType for example. How many print firms, designers, etc, have agreed to throw away thousands of dollars worth of Type 2 PS fonts for 1/160th the amount of OT fonts? If Adobe offered a conversion program, great. But no. Make more money off type. ($300 for a font library of one typeface???)
Look, I am on a soapbox right now and yes, kinda grumbly. But my reason is, didn't Adobe pretty much flipoff Jobs when he wanted to use Adobe Display Postscript (they refused) and he went Quartz instead? Hasn't Adobe flipped us off by NOT releasing a OS X Adobe Type Manager Deluxe? What about Photoshop courses that push use on PC and not Mac? (read MacInTouch user). Or dumping Framemaker. Or trying to force GoLive when Dreamweaver was a better prog? How about how every new version of Illustrator isn't working with last version files (without some grief...)?
Its ok to be skeptical...
(PS, I like OT font..simpler and works on both platforms..but I have much invested in PS libraries to not justify replacing them)
And don't be so sure about MS...Adobe sleeps with anyone that will get it an advantage. Look at OpenType for example. How many print firms, designers, etc, have agreed to throw away thousands of dollars worth of Type 2 PS fonts for 1/160th the amount of OT fonts? If Adobe offered a conversion program, great. But no. Make more money off type. ($300 for a font library of one typeface???)
Look, I am on a soapbox right now and yes, kinda grumbly. But my reason is, didn't Adobe pretty much flipoff Jobs when he wanted to use Adobe Display Postscript (they refused) and he went Quartz instead? Hasn't Adobe flipped us off by NOT releasing a OS X Adobe Type Manager Deluxe? What about Photoshop courses that push use on PC and not Mac? (read MacInTouch user). Or dumping Framemaker. Or trying to force GoLive when Dreamweaver was a better prog? How about how every new version of Illustrator isn't working with last version files (without some grief...)?
Its ok to be skeptical...
(PS, I like OT font..simpler and works on both platforms..but I have much invested in PS libraries to not justify replacing them)