Difference in RAW Formats?

[djthomas]

<p>Just out of curiosity, while reading a post on another forum about RAW converters, I got to wondering exactly what the differences were between the various RAW formats--even within brands. What is it exactly that Adobe (or anyone else for that matter) does that requires them to constantly update their software every time a new camera is introduced? Is there that much difference say between a Nikon D7000 and D7100 or Nikon D600 and D610 that causes the process to stop until the software update is put in place? Is there a component of those files that could be programmatically read by the software that would account for the difference in the various cameras? Seems like an odd way to do things...</p>

[lightrasp1664881197]

<p> Just one simple reason - greed. If you haven't figured out that 'the cloud' is a rent-to-rent scheme, or that software upgrades often mean buying more intense hardware, then you must be living in a vacuum! <br /><br /> In 20 years Ado*e will be 50 bucks a month and 'raw' readers won't be the freebee they are now. Standing the test of time is the lowly .jpg; lossy though it may be! The dame greed drives Nikon, Canon and other manufacturers to bring out marginally improved cameras with a never ending stream of amateur featues that are not only useless but wanted by very few. Amongst those are too many focus points and metering points - and for Nikon it has been the 'G'elded series of lenses - useless on non-electronic cameras. <br /><br /> Been shooting for 58 years - and so far resisted the temptation of CC anything. My trusty and (fully paid for), legitimate copies of PhotoShop 6 and 7 can do everything that I need, and no big corporation can hold my photos for ransom if I don't pay a monthly vig!</p>

<p> I grew up using a light meter and tripod and am amazed at the generations of shooters today who get flummoxed by having to actually think before they shoot. Poor dears - life certainly is hard! </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Just out of curiosity, while reading a post on another forum about RAW converters, I got to wondering exactly what the differences were between the various RAW formats--even within brands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not much, at least in terms of the raw data itself. Most raw files are very similar, based on a TIFF-EP. There is proprietary metadata that only the camera manufacture understands and can 'use' in their own raw converters. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is it exactly that Adobe (or anyone else for that matter) does that requires them to constantly update their software every time a new camera is introduced?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is political, not technical in nature. Among the same company, the raw files from differing camera systems is even less, it's a disservice to customers for each new version to be different from the last since <strong>all</strong> 3rd party converter vendors have to '<em>hack</em>' the newer format to support them. So eventually, a new camera raw file from say Nikon which isn't much different from the last <strong>does</strong> get decoded so what's the point of making them all different? Not the case with the JPEG. <br>

<br>

This has nothing to do with Adobe or the cloud. If that were true, Adobe would not offer a free DNG converter, they would force everyone to upgrade when they get a new camera. The bad-guy here is Canon, Nikon and the other's who produce a new, proprietary raw file only to have that cease once Adobe and everyone else spends time and money to decode the data. It's simply pointless. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Is there that much difference say between a Nikon D7000 and D7100 or Nikon D600 and D610 that causes the process to stop until the software update is put in place?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. IF the manufacturers desired it, the D7000 and D7100 raw files could be virtually identical in terms of a 3rd party raw converter understanding any difference that keep it from rendering that raw data. And yes, it's a very ood way to do things. As long as the masses of photographers stay silent and keep from complaining to the companies who create our camera systems, this simply will not change. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'm neither up to date nor an expert. There was (probably) more difference between RAW files in the early days. 6MP Pentax started with 70fr/GB and a later version of their RAWs was 90fr/GB i.e significantly smaller. - I once shot with 3 different bodies and a friend opened via Picasa, which for unknown reasons got RAWs from one Pentax wrong and produced green skin tones. The files looked normal on my LCD or screen.<br>

I guess the changes in RAWs are subtle but I heard you had a basic filter setting for each different film type in wet darkroom days. - Why should sensors behave much differently? - I guess the challenge with decoding isn't to get something colorful out (as with Ektachrome infra red) but rather to tweak the converter to get the colors right, i.e. managed?</p>

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>"Just one simple reason - greed."<br>

<br />Adobe isn't the one changing the RAW formats. It's the camera manufacturers.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Just one simple reason - greed"</i> did point the finger at camera manufacturers (too).

[digitaldog]

<p>How does the camera manufacturer gain monetarily from producing a (temporary) unreadable file in any application but their own free software? </p>

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>How does the camera manufacturer gain monetarily from producing a (temporary) unreadable file in any application but their own free software?</cite>

 

<p>I don't know about any other manufacturers, but Canon's own software gets updated each time they release a new body, too; it's not just third-party converters.</p>

 

<p>Now, I've never tried processing a newer RAW file in an older RAW converter (from either the camera vendor or a third party). I don't know if it doesn't work at all, or if it works but just doesn't support newer features or body-specific items like being able to display which focus point was used.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Now, I've never tried processing a newer RAW file in an older RAW converter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Basically the newer converter doesn't recognize the file. You end up with nothing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know about any other manufacturers, but Canon's own software gets updated each time they release a new body, too; it's not just third-party converters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is easy for them, they know the few differences to code. Everyone else has to hack the released file to do so. It isn't difficult but it takes time and cost money, new installers have to be updated to web sites, release notes have to be written, beta testing has to be done etc. That all takes time. Eventually it happens so why do it in the first place? </p>