Subject: Re: OpenRAW article: "DNG is not the answer"!
When Leica used an openly-documented raw file format (which happened to
be DNG) for the DMR digital back for the R8 and R9 cameras, there was
no rush to support those cameras. They had to take their turn along with
all other cameras. Even among supposed OpenRAW supporters like Bibble.
i'm sometimes troubled that i have insufficient data to verify the various claims being made. it was recently brought to my attention that Leica's Modul-R requires some special anti-aliasing algorithims to compensate for Leica's exclusion of an anti-aliasing filter. without them, Leicas's DNGs are susceptable to excessive moire. it was proposed that while ACR and DNG were sufficiently resourced to incorporate these costly algorithims--not every small developer was. therefore, in the case of Bibble, support for the Modul-R was not deemed cost effective. maybe there are obstacles that prevent DNG from being adopted as an all-in-one solution--but i wouldn't know as i have insufficient data.
perhaps Thomas or someone from the DNG development group would offer to comment on this? particularly, are DNG's sufficiently self-contained that they will render satisfactorily with any DNG processor -- or do processors that support DNG also need to support the characteristics of the camera's sensor technology?
View All Messages in adobe.digital.negative
OpenRAW article: "DNG is not the answer"! =>
Copyright © 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.