On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 01:51:16PM -0800, Juan Buhler wrote: > > It would be nice if the whole industry standarized with DNG or > something, but i's not like manufacturers are trying to keep people > from reading their camera's files.
Funny you should mention that ... Nikon, in the D2H, have taken to encrypting some of the metadata in their RAW files. While it's a pretty lame attempt at encryption, easy enough to get around if you so choose, Adobe have specifically stated that they would not do so. While Nikon are not the only company to apply some form of encryption or obfuscation to their metadata, this is the most blatant attempt to limit just who is allowed to read those raw files. There's at least one school of thought that says an attempt to decrypt the data without an explicit licensing agreement with Nikon would render you liable to prosecution under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. While Adobe would almost certainly have no difficulty getting a license, should they choose to do so, there's no guarantee that any such licence would be available to me as a private developer (except, possibly, under terms requiring me to use a private API, specified by Nikon, and limiting my use of the RAW data to the capabilities provided by that API). That's an attempt, by Nikon, to assert ongoing rights to the content of a RAW file taken by me on a camera I own. I see this as analogous to Nikon insisting that Nikon chemicals be used to develop any film exposed in Nikon bodies. > > j > > On 2/6/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > > >> On 5 Feb 2006 at 21:47, John Francis wrote: > > >> > > >>> It's not just long-winded; it comes up with what I consider to be > > >>> a totally unrealistic hypothetical camera buying scenario. > > >>> > > >>> They are, to my mind, trying too hard to make a point. As such > > >>> they come across rather more like agenda-driven zealots than an > > >>> honest disinterested opinion poll. That counts against them, > > >>> of course - it's a lot easier to ignore people if you can dismiss > > >>> them as fanatics. > > >> > > >> > > >> True they have an agenda to push (note the site name) however it's > > >> one that is > > >> non-commercial and should ultimately benefit photographers. Sure the > > >> survey is > > >> not that well conceived but I'd not found another forum which is more > > >> likely to > > >> have any clout with regards to the issue of RAW file standardization. > > > > > > > > > I tend to agree with John. I felt their survey was too biased to > > > provide realistic, objective data. As a manufacturer, I'd not lend it > > > much creditability. > > > > > > Godfrey > > > > > > I agree with Godfrey. The survey was excessively biased. > > > > Personally, I survey bombed it, choosing the most reasonable answers > > that led the the conclusion opposite of what the survey was slanted towards. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > -- > Juan Buhler > Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com > Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
