Openraw

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I hadn't seen this posted here and thought it might be of interest:

http://openraw.org/




--
Brian Sullivan (MVP)
Meeting by Wire ( www.meetingbywire.com)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian Sullivan MVP <brians@wormtiredmeetingbywire.com> wrote:
>
> I hadn't seen this posted here and thought it might be of interest:
> http://openraw.org/

'Twas of interest.

"Support of Adobe's DNG is support of establishing another monopoly.
All standards should be independent."

"The methods, software, algorithms, and circuitry used to produce
RAW files belong, rightfully, to the camera manufacturers...
However, the RAW file resulting from my use of their equipment,
[circuitry and software] belong to me."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Brian Sullivan MVP <brians@wormtiredmeetingbywire.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hadn't seen this posted here and thought it might be of interest:
> > http://openraw.org/
>
> 'Twas of interest.
>
> "Support of Adobe's DNG is support of establishing another monopoly.
[snip]

That is the opposite of the truth! DNG has made it easier than ever for
other companies to process Raw files. The number of packages that read
DNG, or indeed write DNG, increases month by month:

http://avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2005/04/dng_support_sta.html

http://avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2005/04/picture_arena_1.html

There is also a myth that Adobe can somehow control you if you use DNG.
But how? The current version of DNG is 1.1.0.0. That number is written
into every file that conforms to this version of the specification. And
Adobe can't change DNG 1.1.0.0! (They can only bring out new versions).
The DNG 1.1.0.0 specification has been downloaded all over the world.
Even I have copy.

If lots of packages (or indeed cameras) write DNG 1.1.0.0, and lots of
packages read DNG 1.1.0.0, Adobe is out of the loop. Given that they
have published a global licence to use DNG, would a court take
seriously any claim by Adobe that contradicted that licence?

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/license.html

(I suspect that one reason Compuserve and Forgent succeeded with their
claims over GIF and JPEG is that they had never published a global
licence for free use of them. Does anyone have any specialised
knowledge of this?)

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY