Comments on: Longhorn photo support comes into focus

Microsoft is rallying industry support for "raw" digital photo formats which it says could ease picture editing and boost image quality.

[198775425444042216790779840523]

late....again.

By the time Longhorn materializes... there will be a better format.

[taznar]

Late to the game again

I doubt there will be a better format, but that still doesn't change
the fact that MS is waaay late. This is something they should
have been pushing for 2 years ago to include in an XP service
pack. Everyone from Adobe to Apple to several open source
groups have been trying to coral the camera manufacturers into
a single RAW standard for some time. It would have been much
easier if the "big guy" (Microsoft) had been in there too. Now
that the problem has trickled from the professional to the
consumer level cameras, its a little late in the game to easily
reverse course -the cameras are already sold/being sold.

What?

Late again how? Not even Apple has direct RAW support in their OS. It sounds to me that Microsoft may finally get the camera makers at all work together to finally make RAW a viable image format instead of a propritary mess that it is.

Also, any new formats that the camera companies release would include the image codec that you would install in to Windows. I don't see a problem.

May you should stop trying to bash Microsoft and use your brain. This is a good thing moron.

Robert

[198775425444042216790779840523]

late....again.

By the time Longhorn materializes... there will be a better format.

[taznar]

Late to the game again

I doubt there will be a better format, but that still doesn't change
the fact that MS is waaay late. This is something they should
have been pushing for 2 years ago to include in an XP service
pack. Everyone from Adobe to Apple to several open source
groups have been trying to coral the camera manufacturers into
a single RAW standard for some time. It would have been much
easier if the "big guy" (Microsoft) had been in there too. Now
that the problem has trickled from the professional to the
consumer level cameras, its a little late in the game to easily
reverse course -the cameras are already sold/being sold.

What?

Late again how? Not even Apple has direct RAW support in their OS. It sounds to me that Microsoft may finally get the camera makers at all work together to finally make RAW a viable image format instead of a propritary mess that it is.

Also, any new formats that the camera companies release would include the image codec that you would install in to Windows. I don't see a problem.

May you should stop trying to bash Microsoft and use your brain. This is a good thing moron.

Robert

[ScifiterX]

The OpenRAW conceptis neat though

I hope other companies implement Microsoft's suggestion to allow
dealing with photos at least as an option. If I were them I'd also
keep the JPG/GIF/TIFF pre-conversion option too.

[ScifiterX]

The OpenRAW conceptis neat though

I hope other companies implement Microsoft's suggestion to allow
dealing with photos at least as an option. If I were them I'd also
keep the JPG/GIF/TIFF pre-conversion option too.

Microsoft Missed the Boat - Again!

Yet again, we get an announcement that Microsoft is doing
something really new and imaginative. Apple already support
RAW in their bundles Photo programme, iPhoto.

I am not sure whether Apple is just quicker to realise stuff is a
good idea well in advance of Microsoft or whether Microsoft has
no R&D and simply spends its energy in copying Apple's ideas
loosely enough to remain out of court.

Microsoft is a fantastic marketeer as they manage to have a
vastly inferior product in terms of cost, reliability, functionality
and security, than Apple do, yet they control 90% of the market.

[jerictrevors]

I would so buy apple if...

I would buy apple products if:
1.) their mouse had more than one button (it bugs me cause i grew up on pc's)
2.) More games came out for it. I'm a huge online player, and even one-player games too. But the majority come on PC.
3.) I'm not fluent on Apple's language for their speeds and other hardware problems. Really, i dont know what is what when it comes to their "G5" or whatever its called.
4.)Its just too damn expensive :( I iknow they're ina "niche market". What they do is awesome but i like building my computers also.

Microsoft isnt that bad, yet they are behind where they should be. Service pack 1 for Longhorn should be coming out by now or in the near future. I grew up on MS (i know sad for me) and i know they have problems, but i like what i like. :)

[Andrew J Glina]

Don't be so sure

RAW != RAW in all, or even most, cases. Each camera manufacturer has it's own RAW standard and most sell custom software releated to it. On Apples own site it says;

Native (?RAW?) picture formats may require additional software.

This kind of disclaimer generally mean "Don't complain if it doesn't work".

Offering it...

Offering RAW support in one of Apples programs is not the same as having RAW images support at the OS level. Does Tiger work directly with RAW files, no only iPhoto just like on Windows you have to use Photoshop or some other program to use them.

It looks like this time Microsoft is beating Apple to the punch and now Apple with have to copy.

Robert

Microsoft Missed the Boat - Again!

Yet again, we get an announcement that Microsoft is doing
something really new and imaginative. Apple already support
RAW in their bundles Photo programme, iPhoto.

I am not sure whether Apple is just quicker to realise stuff is a
good idea well in advance of Microsoft or whether Microsoft has
no R&D and simply spends its energy in copying Apple's ideas
loosely enough to remain out of court.

Microsoft is a fantastic marketeer as they manage to have a
vastly inferior product in terms of cost, reliability, functionality
and security, than Apple do, yet they control 90% of the market.

[jerictrevors]

I would so buy apple if...

I would buy apple products if:
1.) their mouse had more than one button (it bugs me cause i grew up on pc's)
2.) More games came out for it. I'm a huge online player, and even one-player games too. But the majority come on PC.
3.) I'm not fluent on Apple's language for their speeds and other hardware problems. Really, i dont know what is what when it comes to their "G5" or whatever its called.
4.)Its just too damn expensive :( I iknow they're ina "niche market". What they do is awesome but i like building my computers also.

Microsoft isnt that bad, yet they are behind where they should be. Service pack 1 for Longhorn should be coming out by now or in the near future. I grew up on MS (i know sad for me) and i know they have problems, but i like what i like. :)

[Andrew J Glina]

Don't be so sure

RAW != RAW in all, or even most, cases. Each camera manufacturer has it's own RAW standard and most sell custom software releated to it. On Apples own site it says;

Native (?RAW?) picture formats may require additional software.

This kind of disclaimer generally mean "Don't complain if it doesn't work".

Offering it...

Offering RAW support in one of Apples programs is not the same as having RAW images support at the OS level. Does Tiger work directly with RAW files, no only iPhoto just like on Windows you have to use Photoshop or some other program to use them.

It looks like this time Microsoft is beating Apple to the punch and now Apple with have to copy.

Robert

[rpomeroy]

And what about Macs ?

"In some cases, like with Nikon, customers are charged for it," Weisberg said. "The other problem is that you have a proprietary format such as Adobe's DNG (Digital Negative) standardized raw format that can't be read without specialized formatted software."

Proprietary!? DNG is an open spec that anyone can use. If MS just adopted it the camera mfg's would get on board. Also - how will OpenRAW translate to the Mac ? This is such a blatant lock-in strategy it isn't even funny. Shame on you CNET for misrepresenting the facts.

[shadowself]

iPhoto already supports RAW

The latest version of iPhoto (shipping for several months now)
already supports the ingest of RAW format from many digital
cameras.

Just one more thing Longhorn might have (will this make the final
cut?) 18 months after Apple already ships it.

What do you...

Why don't you quick your ********. iPhoto doesn't work on Windows. How does this translate to PC user's. That is such a lame ass statement. Who gives a flying flip about Mac users. Let Apple take care of them.

Robert

[rpomeroy]

And what about Macs ?

"In some cases, like with Nikon, customers are charged for it," Weisberg said. "The other problem is that you have a proprietary format such as Adobe's DNG (Digital Negative) standardized raw format that can't be read without specialized formatted software."

Proprietary!? DNG is an open spec that anyone can use. If MS just adopted it the camera mfg's would get on board. Also - how will OpenRAW translate to the Mac ? This is such a blatant lock-in strategy it isn't even funny. Shame on you CNET for misrepresenting the facts.

[shadowself]

iPhoto already supports RAW

The latest version of iPhoto (shipping for several months now)
already supports the ingest of RAW format from many digital
cameras.

Just one more thing Longhorn might have (will this make the final
cut?) 18 months after Apple already ships it.

What do you...

Why don't you quick your ********. iPhoto doesn't work on Windows. How does this translate to PC user's. That is such a lame ass statement. Who gives a flying flip about Mac users. Let Apple take care of them.

Robert

crocodile tears

Microsoft complaining about proprietary formats -- the only thing that keeps people on their Microsoft Word upgrade treadmill -- is risible.

I agree OpenRAW is the answer, because, after all, it's OUR data. But let's also see Microsoft use open document formats, not some patent-encumbered XML they've jacked up.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Open document formats?

How about the FACT that they've published their full file formats for their Office applications? There are reasons people use MS Office applications instead of other applications but being locked to the MS file formats isn't one of them.

crocodile tears

Microsoft complaining about proprietary formats -- the only thing that keeps people on their Microsoft Word upgrade treadmill -- is risible.

I agree OpenRAW is the answer, because, after all, it's OUR data. But let's also see Microsoft use open document formats, not some patent-encumbered XML they've jacked up.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Open document formats?

How about the FACT that they've published their full file formats for their Office applications? There are reasons people use MS Office applications instead of other applications but being locked to the MS file formats isn't one of them.

Longhorn to have raw.

Gee isn't this just another MS - johhny come late? Your article
should have said: Msoft now has joined others with raw format
editing, or Msoft finally catches up on raw format editing, but of
course actually Longhorn is a long way off and raw editing is
offered by apple on tiger and has been offered by adobe for a
olong time!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop making it appear that Microsoft is first at
doing everything, when actually it is just always copying and never
innovating.

[cturkin]

idiot

didnt you read any of the previous posts? Do you understand anything at all?

XP can edit raw files using applications, just as OSx can edit raw files using applications.

In a couple of weeks you can view raw files in XP without needing any special software.

Try to understand the subject before mouthing off about it.

Longhorn to have raw.

Gee isn't this just another MS - johhny come late? Your article
should have said: Msoft now has joined others with raw format
editing, or Msoft finally catches up on raw format editing, but of
course actually Longhorn is a long way off and raw editing is
offered by apple on tiger and has been offered by adobe for a
olong time!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop making it appear that Microsoft is first at
doing everything, when actually it is just always copying and never
innovating.

[cturkin]

idiot

didnt you read any of the previous posts? Do you understand anything at all?

XP can edit raw files using applications, just as OSx can edit raw files using applications.

In a couple of weeks you can view raw files in XP without needing any special software.

Try to understand the subject before mouthing off about it.

[rpomeroy]

What this really means

What's really going on here is that MS will get all the camera manufacturers to use MS specific API's to write MS specific CODECs that will take camera specific RAW formats and convert them into MS proprietary RAW format so that you have to use Windows and their DRM to view and share the photos. If you ever decide to use another platform (Linux or Mac) you'll be hosed. MS cannot help themselves - the MUST control EVERYTHING or they just won't be satisfied.
They are not good stewarts of the industry. The are on top and they need to ease up on the controls or they are going to strangle the lot of us.

[markdoiron]

Camera Industry Isn't Looking at Music Industry?

i think that the camera industry is smart enough to look at the music industry and see how apple is hosing them with their itunes. i'd be surprise if they're dumb enough to set up microsoft to control the raw image file format.

btw: i have no sympathy for the music industry. i don't even listen to anyone that's a member of the riaa. but i'm an avid photographer and would love to have native os support for raw images.

mark d.

[rpomeroy]

What this really means

What's really going on here is that MS will get all the camera manufacturers to use MS specific API's to write MS specific CODECs that will take camera specific RAW formats and convert them into MS proprietary RAW format so that you have to use Windows and their DRM to view and share the photos. If you ever decide to use another platform (Linux or Mac) you'll be hosed. MS cannot help themselves - the MUST control EVERYTHING or they just won't be satisfied.
They are not good stewarts of the industry. The are on top and they need to ease up on the controls or they are going to strangle the lot of us.

[markdoiron]

Camera Industry Isn't Looking at Music Industry?

i think that the camera industry is smart enough to look at the music industry and see how apple is hosing them with their itunes. i'd be surprise if they're dumb enough to set up microsoft to control the raw image file format.

btw: i have no sympathy for the music industry. i don't even listen to anyone that's a member of the riaa. but i'm an avid photographer and would love to have native os support for raw images.

mark d.

[NeverFade]

What?

Maybe I am mistaken, but how does anybody use an image at
the OS level without using an application?

iPhoto has native formats, including Raw built in. You don't
HAVE to use iPhoto to view them, either, if that;s what you are
pertaining to. You can view a slide show or see a thumbnail of
the images at the OS LEVEL w/o having to open up iPhoto.

Of course, iPhoto is a free app with a new Mac...

So, you are terribly mistaken by saying Apple is copying MS.

Sorry, pc guy, ain't gonna happen.

RAW editing

The article is basically saying iPhoto editing functionality of RAW
will be in Longhorn at the OS level.

Apple could have added this feature in Tiger if they thought it
useful.

I don't think its all that advanced a feature. Just something nice
to have.

I like having a dictionary and thesaurus built into the OS much
better and find that much more useful.

Some may argue that it is unnecessary code in the OS. As you
would have a huge RAW file right on your OS and not in an
application that can be closed, an unnecessary memory hog.

I guess we shall see.

Easy...

By OS level I mean any windows problem that opens a file would be able access it because the RAW support is at the OS level. There are many things that are at the OS level. For example Photoshop wouldn't have to include inside of its problem support for RAW, just work from what Windows Longhorn offers.

Do you need a picture? (Pun intended).

Robert

[NeverFade]

What?

Maybe I am mistaken, but how does anybody use an image at
the OS level without using an application?

iPhoto has native formats, including Raw built in. You don't
HAVE to use iPhoto to view them, either, if that;s what you are
pertaining to. You can view a slide show or see a thumbnail of
the images at the OS LEVEL w/o having to open up iPhoto.

Of course, iPhoto is a free app with a new Mac...

So, you are terribly mistaken by saying Apple is copying MS.

Sorry, pc guy, ain't gonna happen.

RAW editing

The article is basically saying iPhoto editing functionality of RAW
will be in Longhorn at the OS level.

Apple could have added this feature in Tiger if they thought it
useful.

I don't think its all that advanced a feature. Just something nice
to have.

I like having a dictionary and thesaurus built into the OS much
better and find that much more useful.

Some may argue that it is unnecessary code in the OS. As you
would have a huge RAW file right on your OS and not in an
application that can be closed, an unnecessary memory hog.

I guess we shall see.

Easy...

By OS level I mean any windows problem that opens a file would be able access it because the RAW support is at the OS level. There are many things that are at the OS level. For example Photoshop wouldn't have to include inside of its problem support for RAW, just work from what Windows Longhorn offers.

Do you need a picture? (Pun intended).

Robert

[t8]

Open Source

Time for an Open Source format to develop.

[t8]

Open Source

Time for an Open Source format to develop.

You are all missing the most important point

Yes Microsoft lacks innovation all that, but this is the most important part of this article:

>As for its long-term strategy, Microsoft said it will use its new
>raw-image capabilities to augment a future version of its Microsoft
>Digital Image Suite. The imaging and editing tool competes
>directly with Adobe's Photoshop Elements but is not expected until
>long after Longhorn has been released.

Microsoft has just declared war on Adobe and Adobe doesn't even realize it. They will move to leverage their desktop monopoly power to kill Photoshop in the same way that they killed Netscape, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and other one time industry powerhouses.

In short, it's just a repeat of the old dirty Microsoft strategy.

Adobe knows...

Adobe knows exactly who they have to worry about. Sure Microsoft could have been a problem but Adobe's purchase of Macromedia not only ensured Acrobat, but ensured Adobe was web development, web animation and even multimedia all wrapped up.

As for as Microsoft's crappy little image editor it doesn't even come close to Photoshop Elements and never will. Microsoft has a nasty habit of foo fooing thier consumer software with too much cute and automated crap.

Just look at the stupid little mascot they added to the Windows XP search feature for crying out loud. Stupid, not to mention the dumb little talking paperclip in office. People generally don't want the crap unless they are under 3 years of age.

Saying Microsoft's imaging sofware is going to take care of Elements is like say FrontPage is the end all and be all of web page design. It is bull poop!

Robert

You are all missing the most important point

Yes Microsoft lacks innovation all that, but this is the most important part of this article:

>As for its long-term strategy, Microsoft said it will use its new
>raw-image capabilities to augment a future version of its Microsoft
>Digital Image Suite. The imaging and editing tool competes
>directly with Adobe's Photoshop Elements but is not expected until
>long after Longhorn has been released.

Microsoft has just declared war on Adobe and Adobe doesn't even realize it. They will move to leverage their desktop monopoly power to kill Photoshop in the same way that they killed Netscape, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and other one time industry powerhouses.

In short, it's just a repeat of the old dirty Microsoft strategy.

Adobe knows...

Adobe knows exactly who they have to worry about. Sure Microsoft could have been a problem but Adobe's purchase of Macromedia not only ensured Acrobat, but ensured Adobe was web development, web animation and even multimedia all wrapped up.

As for as Microsoft's crappy little image editor it doesn't even come close to Photoshop Elements and never will. Microsoft has a nasty habit of foo fooing thier consumer software with too much cute and automated crap.

Just look at the stupid little mascot they added to the Windows XP search feature for crying out loud. Stupid, not to mention the dumb little talking paperclip in office. People generally don't want the crap unless they are under 3 years of age.

Saying Microsoft's imaging sofware is going to take care of Elements is like say FrontPage is the end all and be all of web page design. It is bull poop!

Robert