Subject: Re: OpenRAW article: "DNG is not the answer"!
thanks for the courtesy of your reply. i know it takes time to respond in-depth about any meaningful issue, rather than just knocking off a few one liners. therefore i reply in kind. :-)
first of all, i need to address the following:
The reason is that you pose as pseudo-incompatibilities things are simply
honestly, i don't know what is or isn't compatible. it also appears that neither, for certain, do you. i do know that people i usually respect have stated the reason some authors haven't supported the Leica DMR is precisely because of the anti-aliasing issue. put in an untenable position I came back here for community support, clarification, or assistance to counter that notion. instead it seems i'm encountering defensive resistance to the question. why are you disturbed with my attempts at openly debating these issues? i'll get to that a little later on.
second: there's no need to invoke a false dichotomy defense--because there simply isn't one. let me explain why--and move on to the pertinent issues. there are only one of four possibilities:
1--DNG is self contained
2--DNG isn't self contained
3--DNG is partially self contained
4--DNG is neither of the above.
eye think that any reasonable person following this thread, can by application of a technique called "deduction", safely eliminate the 2nd and 4th possibilities. if you claim there are multi-chotomies that exist outside these four, then the onus falls on you to disprove established patterns of logic. but i prefer we not get distracted by that.
that means either DNG is totally self contained, or partially self contained. since by your own admission you felt the underlying system technologies would need to be modified for new "sensor configurations", i think it's extremely reasonable, and probable, to conclude that DNG is not totally self contained. can you rationalize that?
third: why is this important? imo it's important because this suggests the burden of interpretation is placed onto the underlying engine. if that's the case, it's legitimate for developers to question what distinguishes DNG from other containers? Yes it's a well organized and predictable container, but one that still contains fields which may or may not make sense to the underlying engine.
which leads me to question why, when advocating DNG in many of the online forums, here and elsewhere, you've proposed a major benefit of DNG is that it's immediately compatible with existing solutions--namely ACR. i'm now inclined to think that's not a benefit of the DNG format at all, but a benefit of the underlying engine which can make sense of the DNG format. a competitor may not necessarily have the same advantage Adobe has had--although the release of a DNG- SDK may open up the field a bit. it's important to understand this may be why there has been so much (perhaps legitimate?) resistance to the unfettered adoption of DNG .
four: what makes sense to me, is the pursuit of a total, or near total self-contained format. one that might function in a similar fashion to the typical color management model. the file format would contain a specific, but portable appearance that when sent to any raw processor would attempt to preserve that appearance. except for the portable part-- that's what we have now.
i'm trying to establish whether the DNG framework tolerates such portability? or is it designed to advantage the underlying processor dependent strengths of ACR? does DNG have a suitable architecture for relaying a common appearance between control devices independent of ACR? if so why are the 50 or so non-adobe products you mention only partially compatible?
in the absence of clear answers to these questions, i'm bumping up against a dead end. i know i can't continue to advocate an untenable position through blind faith, nor can I support those who insist on doing so. i'm not a software engineer, i'm just looking for answers.
finally: wrt my previous reference suggesting you've become defensive
But don't blame DNG if they choose not to.
barry, who's blaming? from the outset i've been politely enquiring. in all sincerity, no ad hominem intended, may i suggest that you've become such an advocate of DNG that you are having difficulty tolerating any objective questions or criticisms. rather than sustain debate, you now cocoon your defenses by arguing logical fallacies. does that really serve a greater cause?
i've paused to consider this, and while you're free to disagree, it's become more difficult for me to embrace your advocacy efforts. my focus needs to be retained on openness and portability-- not advocating one processor over another.
if you try to characterize that remark as another false dichotomy--i'm going to smack you. :-D
as i live in adobe's ecosystem, embracing DNG is not problematic for me. the near universal adoption of DNG would enhance my workflow. however in the absence of information to the contrary, I can't perform advocacy work outside adobe's universe with a strategy that appears unclear. i would like to work toward a universal solution, and not one biased in favour of any single vendor. whether DNG is it remains questionable to my mind.
imo, the greater cause is to get all players on board and agree on a common portable standard. it's going to be extremely difficult to do this if simple questions can't be answered in the home arena.
View All Messages in adobe.digital.negative
OpenRAW article: "DNG is not the answer"! =>
Copyright © 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.