[nathancombs]

That's very good news. After all we are well used to those nice blue screens.

your right BOTH my cameras and my computers can now match each other

[cpopham]

One of the bothersome things is why not port these backwards? Why the refusal to add this to XP, or other OS iterations (OK a Codec for Win 98SE is silly to some).
Is it technological or marketing decision???? My guess, just marketing.

Part of this I can answer at least - it's a Windows Imaging Component codec. WIC requires at least Vista, or XP SP2 w/ .Net 3.0. So that's the hard cutoff - nothing prior to XP, period. I'm also of the understanding that the shell and photo previewer in XP do not use WIC, so that means the codec isn't terribly useful for XP at all.

What I'm saying then, is that Pentax would have to write TWO separate pieces of software - the WIC codec for Vista, and then a separate shell extension for thumbnail viewing on XP.

Just marketing? Not really, more like careful spending of R&D money.

[kenyee]

It'd be nice if Pentax were the first to offer JPEG-XR/HD support. It's hard to believe no one else is working on this though. Of course, this would mean Samsung would have to do better than 12-bits of resolution ;-)

cpopham: why would they have to write a WIC codec for Vista? It's part of .Net 3.0? It has a COM API. Should be working on Vista already...

[jeffkrol]

Part of this I can answer at least - it's a Windows Imaging Component codec. WIC requires at least Vista, or XP SP2 w/ .Net 3.0. So that's the hard cutoff - nothing prior to XP, period. I'm also of the understanding that the shell and photo previewer in XP do not use WIC, so that means the codec isn't terribly useful for XP at all.

What I'm saying then, is that Pentax would have to write TWO separate pieces of software - the WIC codec for Vista, and then a separate shell extension for thumbnail viewing on XP.

Just marketing? Not really, more like careful spending of R&D money.

well they already have the groundwork in place, which they stopped throwing any money at (tough to throw any cash at anything when you have so little to spare.. smirk..). Sorry I find it hard to respect "frugal" when your GNP dwarfs most countries........
Maybe their code is just a POS so why support it?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=D48E808E-B10D-4CE4-...displaylang=en

[MrApollinax]

Everyone who's ever been in bed with Miscrosoft now regrets it. I wouldn't touch anything they offer with a bare pole, only true standards. That's why I shoot/store DNG, use 16bit TIFF for processing, print JPEG and all of it under Linux (python script using dcraw, imagemagick & hugin).

I found this a little ironic since DNG is not a true standard either

I really do not see DNG and JPEG-XR as in competition. I see JPEG-XR as a way to give JPEG shooters some of the flexibility RAW (16-32bit processing) in a smaller file format. If you shoot RAW, this really doesn't matter to you at all. You will still shoot in DNG/PEF. If you shoot JPEG this is a good thing since you will get more information to play with when you do PP.

[Gooshin]

That's very good news. After all we are well used to those nice blue screens.

i have not seen a blue screen in 2 years

and the last time i got blue screens was because my video card repeatedly overheated, once i upgraded my cooling from a single fan to a tripple fan setup it never happened again.


personal use computers running windows are very reliable.

[deadzone]

Just read this news over on Ars Technica, I have to say it is a little surprising. I think AT asks a good question - Why do they want to buy Pentax Patents?

I don't guess it's a bad thing to have a huge company like Microsoft as a partner. Just don't mess with our cameras MS!!!!!!!! I love them too much the way they are.

[mattdm]

Just read this news over on Ars Technica, I have to say it is a little surprising. I think AT asks a good question - Why do they want to buy Pentax Patents?

They probably don't really care but are adding to their web of patent defense. I imagine it's a standard clause: "Yes, we'll sell you access to the vital patent you need to implement something mind-numbingly basic. In exchange, you'll need to cross-license all your software patents and promise not to sue us for something stupid."

I don't guess it's a bad thing to have a huge company like Microsoft as a partner.

Well, guess again. Microsoft eats their partners for breakfast.

But it doesn't look like this is really a partnership in any meaningful way, despite the press release spin.

[Gooshin]

you guys all hate microsoft so much yet you all fail to realize that if you take microsoft out of the equation the world will collapse.

either deal with it, or go back to shooting film, using landlines and sending mail through the post office.

companies merging does not mean that division heads get fired.

microsoft is not a stupid corporation, they would not have been in business this long if they were, you people need to open your eyes.

[filmamigo]

"Microsoft Corp. and HOYA CORPORATION PENTAX Imaging Systems Division have signed a patent cross-licensing agreement"

Such agreements are extremely common in the tech world. It's part of the ecosystem, and why the big (and small) players file hundreds or thousands of patents a year. It gives them a barter portfolio to strike agreements with other firms and provide some protection from IP lawsuits.

If Pentax had to pay for this (as indicated above) it just confirms that Pentax didn't have much that interested Microsoft, but Pentax/Hoya saw a need to head off some risk by cross-licensing with Microsoft. I'm sure there are many aspects of digital photography which are fertile ground for lawsuits. I know in the past there has been contentious issues around basic stuff like the FAT filesystem used on SD cards, JPEG and GIF compression, etc.

Seeing as this follows on the heels of Hoya taking hold of the wheel, I speculate that Hoya's lawyers have reviewed Pentax and identified this as a risk to be managed. The mitigation strategy? Cross-licensing. But when you have to pay for cross-licensing, that means that 1) you don't have a big enough patent portfolio yourself, and 2) you want the protection offered really badly.

[monochrome]

They probably don't really care but are adding to their web of patent defense. I imagine it's a standard clause: "Yes, we'll sell you access to the vital patent you need to implement something mind-numbingly basic. In exchange, you'll need to cross-license all your software patents and promise not to sue us for something stupid."



Well, guess again. Microsoft eats their partners for breakfast.

But it doesn't look like this is really a partnership in any meaningful way, despite the press release spin.

I'd guess it has something to do with MS wanting to gain a legally protected psoition to compete with Adobe for digital imaging. Pentax is probably licensing the in-camera RAW imaging engine to MS so they can attempt to move the RAW standard away from Adobe DNG.

MS/HP did this to Apple/Adobe with the CRT color space calibration standard, so now there are two in the US alone - what's embedded in Windows (sRGB 6500K gamma 2.2) and press industry (6500k gamma 1.8).

Imagine the cash flow to Hoya if MS buys Yahoo (it will happen), builds a competitor to or buys Flickr and figures out how to generate revenue from images.

[Gooshin]

it would be ill advised for the world to stream away from the DNG profile

i just read an article over at digitalpro the other day:
www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/dpp-solutions-a-look-at-dng.html

it would be silly for individual manufactureres to develop their own raw formats when everyone out there is using adobe products anyway!

adobe tries its best to be accomodating, they go out of their way to allow their programs to work with all the silly pef's and nef's and what not, but they have been pushing since day one to standardize raw out put format, so that ALL the developers inloved have less of a headache to deal with IN THE LONG RUN.

[dopeytree]

I think this is a bit wierd. Many people use macs especially the more pro users out there!

[jeffkrol]

it would be ill advised for the world to stream away from the DNG profile

i just read an article over at digitalpro the other day:
www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/dpp-solutions-a-look-at-dng.html

it would be silly for individual manufactureres to develop their own raw formats when everyone out there is using adobe products anyway!

adobe tries its best to be accomodating, they go out of their way to allow their programs to work with all the silly pef's and nef's and what not, but they have been pushing since day one to standardize raw out put format, so that ALL the developers inloved have less of a headache to deal with IN THE LONG RUN.

NOPE, it's just so Adobe doesn't have to liscense or reverse engineer every new format. Problem is DNG leaves such gaping holes to cater to individual vendors that DNG is still partially propriatory anyways. Something manufacturers don't want to give up. Most RAW is just deviations of the TIFF standard anyways and will probably always be able to reverse engineer images based on that...
And as a faithful Corel users, and to all those Silkpics Rawtherapee people, hurray for competition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I reject your Adobe-centric world.........

[MrApollinax]

Again I do not see DNG and JPEG-XR competing in this space much. JPEG-XR is a beefed up JPEG (16-32bits vs 8bits) there will still be a loss in the conversion from RAW even though there is a "lossless" option for JPEG-XR. RAW will still be king for the pros since they usually want to take any conversion process out of the camera and would rather do it on a computer. For pro-sumer/hobbyists you get a better JPEG that will allow you to do a much more PP than you would with your 8bit 256color JPEG>