cool

That would be awesome. I shoot almost 100% RAW, and it would be nice to have some adobe quality and standards in play there.

Well, although I'm sure the quality is good, the real benefit of this is the fact that they gave it away. Anyone can use this, free of charge. That means that your photos will still (likely) be usuable by other programs decades from now, even if Adobe goes out of business.

More:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/dng.shtml

What about TIFF?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What about TIFF?

Not quite the same thing as a RAW file, which is what this Adobe format is looking to replace. I'm sure TIFFs will still be useful alongside this new format, as it's meant to be an aquisition format. I imagine TIFFs will still be useful in the manipulation of photos.

Please excuse my ignorance...

I thought TIFF was essentially raw data uncompressed.

How does RAW data differ from TIFF?

TIFF is a format used by MANY graphic programs for images. It is a fairly universal format which is typically higher quality, and does not (usually) use compression.

RAW is a generic term for whatever format a digital camera (if it has the ability to) uses to save the image in "RAW" form, where the camera does NOT process the image. Instead you use the camera maker's software or photoshop to manually process the image, and for people who know what they are doing the results are usually superior.

Let's see...

A RAW file is the actual data that comes in from the camera's CCD. It's not really an image yet...it has to be interpreted by some kind of software first. Ok, I know that doesn't sound that different from other images. Here's the point:

When you import a RAW file into a computer, you can STILL alter things like the color balance. This is NOT the same thing as color-correcting a photo. You see, a JPEG is highly compressed and a TIFF less so, but a JPEG and a TIFF ARE BOTH PHOTOS. A RAW file is not a photo yet...not until something TURNS IT INTO a photo. During that turning-into process, you can still alter things.

I don't know if that really explains it...I'm not an engineer, so this is about as much as I understand too.

The basic idea is that TIFFs are large files that would be difficult to use as a capture format. RAW files are also large, but they are a bit more managable because they are NOT YET PHOTOS. Your computer has to take that file and turn it INTO a photo later.

That's the difference. As small as the difference seems, it does matter.

A RAW file is the actual data that comes in from the camera's CCD.

I thought that "Raw" just meant "uncompressed" If what you say is true, then you are going to have some serious compatibility problems with RAW.

In one-chip cameras, all of the pixels will only contain data from a single color channel. This is usually RGB, but the arrangement of the pixels will be different from different cameras, so how do you know what pixel is what color? Some of Sony's cameras add a fourth color "Emerald" to the Red Green and Blue. Other cameras (will?) have pixels of different sizes - small ones capture less light and thus can see highlight detail, while larger ones can see into the shadows.

Three chip cameras sometimes "stagger" the pixels, and sometimes don't. And who knows what behaviors Foiven's X3 chip might have.

Does photoshop know how to deal with all this stuff?

Yes, photoshop knows how to deal with it. Photoshop CS Supports MOST digital cameras, and is updated for new ones all the time.

I think the reason Adobe is pushing this is to simplify this process for themselves.

As Jon says, Photoshop knows.

But you're RIGHT algr! There ARE many different kinds of RAW data! It's a pain for Adobe to keep up with them all, and it's scary for you if your camera is the only one that uses a particular KIND of RAW file. Maybe most RAW files will be remembered for years, but if yours is forgotten that does you no good.

Adobe wants everyone to adopt their format so there's a bit more consistancy. From a user's perspective it seems like RAW is good...but for a software engineer there are actually many kinds they have to worry about making work.

They're doing that for now, but I can see why they don't want to have to do that forever.

Yes, photoshop knows how to deal with it.

I find it hard to believe that Adobe is really building notes on every new twist in CCD design into photoshop. If this were the case, then the new Sony RGB+E cameras would not work (in raw mode) on any version of photoshop before this year. Not to mention any other program that imports photos. (iPhoto, for example.)

It seems more likely to me that the cameras are converting sensor data to some standardized form of RGB, and the computers are picking it up from there.

Well I never said EVERY single camera is unique. I really don't know how many...just that there is more than one kind of RAW file.

There could be 3, or 30. I only know a little bit about this stuff.

Let me add a little bit more information to what has already been said.

RAW format offers superior quality to TIFF as it stores much more information. While TIFF stores only 256 shades per channel (8 bit X 3 = 24 bit), RAW formats can store upto 1000-4000 shades (10/12 bit X 3 = 24) or more. Although the final images does not need that many colours, this really becomes useful if you have an images which is not sharp or washed out.

Correcting the color works, but parts of the image can be washed out, or have a flat color. The image looses its depth.

Instead with a RAW image file, you can change several settings before converting it to a regular 24 bit image, its almost like taking the picture all over again, as it offers almost all of the options as a professinal camera offers. This was you are assured that a particular photo that you took in a hurry looks perfect if you need it. The only problem is that it adds an extra step, as you need to convert the RAW file to a TIFF or JPEG before you can use it.

Cameras from different companies have different formats.
Older Canon cameras use a CRW format, while the newest ones use a CR2 format.
Nikon cameras use a NWF format.
Olympus cameras use a ORF format.
Other companies use their own formats.

Currently Adobe Photoshop uses the Adobe Camera RAW plugin to convert RAW files. It regularly updates it to support the newest camera.

Adobe is taking into account all the various information that the different RAW formats store, and has created the DNG format to store all of it. The different RAW formats are probably not that different.

This simplifies it for the consumer, as we then don't have to deal with several different formats.

Arpan

I mean... I must run into 30 different format names a week.

My solution for the best pictures has been to take TIFFs with my Olympus and then duplicate those and modify the duplicates and save the modifications. Aka, keep the TIFF, but have a JPEG made from it for a website. Or GIF in some cases.

Adobe is delusional if they think that their format will never be altered. Unless they charge something for it, and then everybody will go toward the other formats that already work. Specifications... yea, right. How many formats have specifications that have already been altered? The idea is nice, but it's full of holes.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Adobe is delusional if they think that their format will never be altered. Specifications... yea, right. How many formats have specifications that have already been altered? The idea is nice, but it's full of holes.

If it DOES become popular in the short run, then all they have to do is to stop adding support for other "new" formats in Photoshop.

Who would dare make a camera that records in some new format which Photoshop can't read.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot about this...what about PDFs? Those seem pretty popular.