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

Ultimately, RAW formats aren't that complex, and camera firmware is mostly developed in countries that don't have strong open source software traditions.

Look at the decoders for each format that darktable supports here: https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/tree/develop/src/l...

It's some binary parsing, reading metadata, maybe doing some decompression-- a thousand lines of C++ on average for each format. These aren't complex codecs like HEVC and only reach JPEG complexity by embedding them as thumbnails!

Cameras absolutely could emit DNG instead, but that would require more development friction: coordination (with Adobe), potentially a language barrier, and potentially making it harder to do experimental features.

Photographers rarely care, so it doesn't appreciably impact sales. Raw processing software packages have generally good support available soon after new cameras are released.

> Cameras absolutely could emit DNG instead, but that would require more development friction: coordination (with Adobe), potentially a language barrier, and potentially making it harder to do experimental features.

I think this is being too generous.

DNG is just an offshoot of TIFF. Having written a basic DNG parser having never read up on TIFFs before, it really isn’t that hard.

As far as experimental features, there’s room in the spec for injecting your own stuff, similar to MakerNote in EXIF if I recall.

If you are planning to do experimental stuff, I’d say what Apple pulled off with ProRAW is the most innovative thing that a camera manufacturer has done in forever. They worked with Adobe to get it into the spec. All of these camera manufacturers have similar working relationships with Adobe, so there’s really no excuse. And if you can’t wait that long, again, MakerNote it.

In my opinion, custom RAW formats are a case study in “Not Invented Here” syndrome.