←back to thread

We asked camera companies why their RAW formats are all different and confusing

(www.theverge.com)
361 points Tomte | 3 comments | 04 Apr 25 11:41 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[07 Apr 25 10:26 UTC] No.43609745[source]▶
Raw decoding is not as simple as you might think.

It’s the best place to add “signature steps.” Things like noise reduction, chromatic aberration correction, and one-step HDR processing.

I used to work for a camera manufacturer, and our Raw decoder was an extremely intense pipeline step. It was treated as one of the biggest secrets in the company.

Third-party deinterlacers could not exactly match ours, although they could get very good results.

replies(6): >>43609759 #>>43610604 #>>43611686 #>>43615373 #>>43615559 #>>43623272 #
1. _ph_ ◴[07 Apr 25 14:06 UTC] No.43611686[source]▶
Well, it is obvious that between a RAW file and the final image there are a lot of complex processing steps. But that is independent of the file format used. DNG isn't so much different, just documented. And while the manufacturers converter might give the best results, the photographers rather use the image processing programs from Adobe or their competition which use their own RAW converters anyway.
replies(1): >>43612155 #
2. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[07 Apr 25 14:47 UTC] No.43612155[source]▶
Yeah, they could do it with DNG (I suppose), but they don't really have any reason to do so (in their minds). Personally, I like open stuff, but they did not share my mindset, and I respected their posture.
replies(1): >>43622834 #
3. _ph_ ◴[08 Apr 25 15:19 UTC] No.43622834[source]▶
If a camera company sells me a camera, I consider it a definite disadvantage, if I cannot open the Raw files until the software companies have updated their products. This is also a great way of forcing customers into the subscription models like Adobe offers. So as a customer, I do criticize that they don't support more open formats.