[Marc Sabatella]

There are not that many DSLRs models out there and i am not expecting every little vendors to support every camera.

It's not just about DSLR's; it's all cameras that support RAW.

My expectations from Adobe/Apple/Pentax are higher.

Apple? They are a tiny niche player in the RAW processing market. There's Adobe and there's everyone else. And Adobe already supports the K-7, right? As for Pentax, they are a tiny niche player in the camera market - there's Canon and Nikon and there's everyone else. So yes, you *are* talking about a niche software company supporting a niche camera. And the camera has been out what, a week?

Again, if you think Apple should be supporting Pentax cameras faster, by all means, take it up with Apple. They could have asked Pentax for RAW files in advance and started working on supporting them sooner had they considered it important. Whether or not Pentax had any final firmware RAW files early enough for Apple to get their act together is another matter, of course. But in any case, it's Apple's problem, not Pentax's, and certainly not anyone on this forum's.

Companies will also strategise and schedule their updates (unless it an emergency related to their own product). An update won't usually include just one item (K-7 details
for example), every aspect of an update has to be coded, tested and coordinated.
Also, we're only the customer, they don't care about us, we've given them our dollar. What are we going to do but wait?
We are the unpaid guinea pigs.

[Wheatfield]

There are not that many DSLRs models out there and i am not expecting every little vendors to support every camera. My expectations from Adobe/Apple/Pentax are higher. Add up the price of a K7+lens/CS3/iMac and it is a very substantial amount of money. These companies have the $$ to do some R&D and get it right. Is it unreasonable for Pentx to send a pre-prod camera using the new PEF format to apple and adobe? They did send one to most magazines and even individual testers.

These three companies are in this together..... more cameras sold = more CS sold and more Aperture sold etc etc. Together they are in 'Imaging'.

mike

Adobe supports the PEF file from the K-7.

The problem is you just don't seem to get it.

If you want PEF support, you need to upgrade your software.
CS3 will not, and never will support the K-7 PEF format.
CS3 will support the K-7 DNG format, so if you don't want to bring your software up to date, you still have the option of a raw format that is supported.

BTW, this is better than you will get from Canon or Nikon. As they don't offer the DNG format as an alternative, you would be stuck with an software upgrade to get native file support for their newest models.

[Ash]

Guess I'm a 'small niche' consumer too... Pentax & Apple.
To me they're an awesome combination (though I don't have a K-7).
But as it is with technology, EVERYTHING must be updated to be compatible with the latest gear.
I had CS2, which worked fine with my K10D/K100D, then when upgraded to K20D I needed CS3 to have PEF support. So it is again with the K-7 and CS4... and so on and so forth...

[Duck Dodgers]

adobe released an acr update on june 24th adding support for the k-7d. i'm pretty sure 5.4 requires cs4, but i might be wrong.

love the apple hate.

fyi, pef is a proprietary format and for this reason new model support (via adobe camera raw / acr from adobe) usually follows the official release of the hardware. shoot dng, it's opensource and lacks this issue.

Do you have any documentation on this? I see nothing on Adobe's site that might confirm this. They make a claim of "DNG — the open standard for raw files," but that's a far cry from "open source," or even "non-proprietary."

Indeed, Adobe goes on to implement a "non-open-source" license; it is a patent license:

Digital Negative (DNG) Specification Patent License
Adobe is the publisher of the Digital Negative (DNG) Specification describing an image file format for storing camera raw information used in a wide range of hardware and software. Adobe provides the DNG Specification to the public for the purpose of encouraging implementation of this file format in a compliant manner. This document is a patent license granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.

Open specifications do not equal open source. DNG is a proprietary format, the specifications of which have been released by the owner, Adobe.

Adobe - Digital Negative (DNG): License


Pedantic of me, perhaps, but that's just my nature.

[Marc Sabatella]

Do you have any documentation on this? I see nothing on Adobe's site that might confirm this. They make a claim of "DNG — the open standard for raw files," but that's a far cry from "open source," or even "non-proprietary."

DNG is first and foremost a file format, not a piece of software, so the term "open source" isn't really applicable. Although there is a development kit, and that probably isn't open source.

The format itself, as you say, is fully and publicly documented - which already puts it one step ahead of any other RAW format in that respect. The definition of the format is currently under control of Adobe, so in that respect it's no different from any manufacturer-controlled format. But Adobe has submitted the format for ISO standardization, a process which can take some time to complete. Assuming that goes through - and I have no idea what the current status of this is - DNG will be as "open" as any file format can be. In addition to being fully and publicly documented (as it already is), no one company will control it, no one company will be allowed to alter it for their own purposes and still say it is follows the standard, there will be assurance the definition format won't change in incompatible ways without the agreement of all concerned parties, etc. ISO standardization is pretty much the Gold standard for file formats.

[Duck Dodgers]

DNG is first and foremost a file format, not a piece of software, so the term "open source" isn't really applicable. Although there is a development kit, and that probably isn't open source.

The format itself, as you say, is fully and publicly documented - which already puts it one step ahead of any other RAW format in that respect. The definition of the format is currently under control of Adobe, so in that respect it's no different from any manufacturer-controlled format. But Adobe has submitted the format for ISO standardization, a process which can take some time to complete. Assuming that goes through - and I have no idea what the current status of this is - DNG will be as "open" as any file format can be. In addition to being fully and publicly documented (as it already is), no one company will control it, no one company will be allowed to alter it for their own purposes and still say it is follows the standard, there will be assurance the definition format won't change in incompatible ways without the agreement of all concerned parties, etc. ISO standardization is pretty much the Gold standard for file formats.

Just becoming accepted by the ISO folks doesn't change anything. MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP3) was ISO approved in 1991 and it's still proprietary...sure, fees have been waived for open source projects, but that could change at anytime. Moreover, current commercial developers still have to obtain a license in order to develop software that can create or play MP3 files. A submitter to ISO doesn't give up very many rights at all, which is why Microsoft fought so hard to get their "Office Open XML" (that always makes me laugh) accepted (MS eventually have to sign a "Covenant Not To Sue," since the "open ISO standard" is still proprietary). Unlike OpenOffice.Org' Open Document, which is also an ISO standard.

Patents being what they are, just getting approved by the ISO doesn't provide any added benefits, other than opening up the design for inspection. Which could be done without the ISO. If you choose to implement the ISO standard, you still may be required to pay.



MP3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Office Open XML - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OpenDocument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Edited to add: Anyway, this is now off-topic...it's just that I continually see people mis-construe the term "non-proprietary."

[Wheatfield]

DNG is first and foremost a file format, not a piece of software, so the term "open source" isn't really applicable. Although there is a development kit, and that probably isn't open source.

The format itself, as you say, is fully and publicly documented - which already puts it one step ahead of any other RAW format in that respect. The definition of the format is currently under control of Adobe, so in that respect it's no different from any manufacturer-controlled format. But Adobe has submitted the format for ISO standardization, a process which can take some time to complete. Assuming that goes through - and I have no idea what the current status of this is - DNG will be as "open" as any file format can be. In addition to being fully and publicly documented (as it already is), no one company will control it, no one company will be allowed to alter it for their own purposes and still say it is follows the standard, there will be assurance the definition format won't change in incompatible ways without the agreement of all concerned parties, etc. ISO standardization is pretty much the Gold standard for file formats.

I think the real advantage of the DNG format is that while Adobe remains in control of the specification, they have released it as a royalty free format.
Anyone can develop devices that use the DNG format without paying Adobe for the pleasure of doing so.
All they have to do is make sure their implementation meets Adobe's specification to ensure universality.
By keeping control of the specification, they have assured users that individual manufacturers can't develop an internal standard that turns the DNG into a proprietary format.
If you want to use DNG, it has to match the Adobe spec.

Imagine how complicated the film world would have been if camera manufacturers had decided on an individual basis to modify 35mm film cassette form factors to match their individual whims because they thought they had a better idea.
Can anyone remember the Agfa Rapid magazines?

This is what camera manufacturers have done with raw file formats, the DNG format is an attempt to create a universally compliant format.
I'm not seeing this as a bad thing, especially in light of the very real possibility of camera manufacturers making their proprietary formats so exclusive that they would have to be decoded by their own proprietary software, which could then be charged for.
I believe Nikon charges good money for Nikon Capture, as an example.

[Marc Sabatella]

Just becoming accepted by the ISO folks doesn't change anything. MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP3) was ISO approved in 1991 and it's still proprietary...sure, fees have been waived for open source projects, but that could change at anytime.

Hmm, there must be different types or levels of standardization, then - that's totally unlike anything I've ever experienced in the world in standardization in my previous life as a software engineer. My *impression* is that Adobe was making DNG a standard like the kind of standards I was familiar with - ones in which control over the format is completely relinquished to the standardization committee. But sicne I don't know the specifics, and in any case, it's not a done deal yet, I certainly won't claim I know for sure my impression is correct. I'll just say that although no one knows what the future holds, I do have a sense that DNG is as open a RAW format as the world is ever likely to see.

[japape]

Hi All,

Most of you probably know this already but I was having problems opening the raw file for the K7 in Photoshop CS3. The files could be "edited" in Lightroom. So, I just exported the raw files as a TIFF and CS3 could open it. I guess that this will have to be the standard work around until CS3 is updated with a camera raw plugin for the K7.

-joe

[dopeytree]

Apple really are taking their time on this one!

We still can't view a thumbnail of k-7's pef files in the finder.

Which is odd as adobe were pretty quick to accept the k-7's pef format.

It's only a little niggle but I've now switched to shooting in dng

[Wheatfield]

Hi All,

Most of you probably know this already but I was having problems opening the raw file for the K7 in Photoshop CS3. The files could be "edited" in Lightroom. So, I just exported the raw files as a TIFF and CS3 could open it. I guess that this will have to be the standard work around until CS3 is updated with a camera raw plugin for the K7.

-joe

Ain't gonna happen Joe. If you want to shoot PEF (and I don't see any reason why a person would want to but that's your choice), you will either be doing the kludge that you are doing now, buy CS4, or start shooting DNG.
Of the three, the last option is the smart one as it removes all compatibility issues.
As a point of interest, I can open K-7 DNG files on Photoshop 7, which is now something like 4 generations old.

[Wheatfield]

Apple really are taking their time on this one!

We still can't view a thumbnail of k-7's pef files in the finder.

Which is odd as adobe were pretty quick to accept the k-7's pef format.

It's only a little niggle but I've now switched to shooting in dng

Apple is having a lot of problems with Snot Leopard. Apparently they broke some of the support for CS-4 and Epson scanners. It might be a while before they get around to fixing format support for a small player like Pentax.
DNG is the smart way to go, you no longer are tied to software vendor updates.

[erich808]

BTW-The PEF file issue isn't remedied by having CS4. My new Kx PEFs won't open in CS4, but my K200 PEFs are fine.

[boriscleto]

BTW-The PEF file issue isn't remedied by having CS4. My new Kx PEFs won't open in CS4, but my K200 PEFs are fine.

That's because Adobe hasn't updated ACR for the K-x yet. This thread was about the K7. Use DNG on the K-x.