The next version of Windows, code-named Longhorn, will feature support for uncompressed digital camera images--which could change the way people view and edit photos.
The company on Wednesday announced deals with camera companies Nikon and Canon, as well as Fuji Photo Film and Adobe Systems, to let Windows users view, print and eventually edit uncompressed digital camera images--which are stored in what's commonly known as a "raw" format.
Sometimes called a digital negative, raw files are pre-pixelized data that comes directly off of a camera's charge-coupled device, or CCD--one of two main image sensors in digital cameras. Eventually, raw files get converted to more common file formats, like JPEG, GIF and TIFF.
Most professional photographers prefer using raw image capture because it offers the highest quality and the greatest creative control. For example, raw data contains more tonal information, and exposure and color can be tweaked after the image has been captured. Microsoft's internal research found that 15 percent of all digital photography users surveyed have tapped into raw files.
But the problem, according to Microsoft, is that most camera manufacturers use proprietary file formats to store the raw data from their digital cameras, and every new camera that comes on the market introduces changes to raw image files.
Josh Weisberg, a group product manager with Windows Digital Media, says users are then cornered into either using the camera maker's editing software or off-the-shelf conversion software like Adobe's Photoshop.
"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."
So, Weisberg said, Microsoft is working with Nikon, Adobe, Canon, Fuji and a handful of other unspecified digital imaging companies to develop the raw architecture for use in Longhorn.
Weisberg also said Microsoft will help its software partners standardize the raw architecture for image codecs, let them contribute their own codecs, and certify them for inclusion in Longhorn.
Microsoft is also offering a new application programming interface, or API, so its partners can add more control options to supported software products.
But well before the launch of Longhorn, expected in the second half of 2006, Microsoft is expected to roll out Raw Image Thumbnailer--a free download of an updated version of its PowerToys for Windows XP.
Weisberg said Windows users will be able to view, preview and print raw data, but not edit it. The download will be ready in a few weeks, he said.
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.
The outlook for digital photography shows no signs of slowing down.
Analysts with market research company IDC even estimate the pricier
digital SLR cameras are dropping in price. The company estimates increased demand for digital SLR cameras to achieve an average annual growth rate of 12 percent between 2005 and 2009.
However, it doesn't look like everybody will be invited to Microsoft's raw party.
Sony, which makes the image sensors used in most digital cameras, and Kodak, which got into a tiff over photo support in XP, were not mentioned by Weisberg as participants in Microsoft's raw architecture conversion for Longhorn.
Another group not expected to participate in Microsoft's public education efforts about the raw architecture is the OpenRAW group. The grassroots consortium wants camera manufacturers to publicly document all of their raw image file formats: past, present and future.
If that were to happen, the OpenRAW group says, photographers would have the largest set of processing choices and a lock on future image decoding. Unfortunately, the group's wishes would mean camera makers would reveal decades of closely guarded trade secrets, something Microsoft and its partners seem unlikely to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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 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.
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.
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. :)
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 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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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 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!
First you regurgitate whatever Microsoft says without even checking their facts.
1: DNG is an OPEN FORMAT!!!!!! I can't believe Adobe is participating in this without pushing DNG. That is a willfull lie on Microsoft's part.
2: Camera manufacturers have NOT got decades worth of proprietary data. They're still babes in the woods when it comes to digital data and RAW formats. How else can one explain the complete MESS RAW is now.
3: You can't print RAW data without working it up first. The data has no white balance adustments, no tonality adjustments, no sharpneing, that's what RAW means!
4: Microsof, if anything, is derailing any motivation to force camera manufacturers into a single RAW format.
Which is a MUST! Why? Because as long as camera maufacturers create these proprietary RAW formats we are victims of their whims. They don't want to support an old format any more, tough noogies. Our older pictures just became unusable. Can you imaigne the screams from pro and amateurs alike if all of a suddent we could no longer print from our negatives or slides? There would be class action lawsuits out the wazoo.
Hey, that's what we need to do right now. Those old files from the Kodak NC 2000e camera (or was it an earlier model?) that are no longer supported by any software that runs on modern operating systems (PC or Mac) should be the first class action lawsuit by photographers.
And don't say "convert them to TIF or Jpeg." That's not an option. That's like telling a professional photographer to just scan his old print and don't bother going back to the original negative. RAW files are our negatives. They give us the ability to go back to the original, so we aren't victims of the generational data loss every time you make a color adjustment, or the artifacts from saving a file as jpeg.
This article was obviously written by a person who knows very little about photography, and it's scary that Microsoft could be so clueless about the real issues that we as photographers are dealing with as we try to move into the digital age without letting camera manufactuers hijace our photos so they can charge a toll to allow us access to our own intellectual property.
just like one would not print a glass plate on a modern enlarger, you shouldn't expect for an old, proprietary image format to be supported into the far future. but, you should expect that the old capabilities you had will continue to work. if nothing else, keep that old software around and even an old pc, if necessary.
Yes, CNet.com should be embarrased by this article. Was it written by the intern?
Take the phrase "raw files are pre-pixelized data that comes directly off of a camera's charge-coupled device, or CCD--one of two main image sensors in digital cameras" that has SO much wrong with it!
"Pre-pixelized"??? Whaaa??? ... meaningless.
"directly off the CCD" *or* CMOS sensor *or* Foveon-type. and NO its not "direct" it is at the very least de-mosaiced and often compressed. The differences in the intital processing of the sensor data are what really separate one camera from another.
"two main sensors" again ... whaaa??? My D70 has two sensors ... the capture sensor and the metering sensor but that's not at all common to all digicams and DSLRs.
First you regurgitate whatever Microsoft says without even checking their facts.
1: DNG is an OPEN FORMAT!!!!!! I can't believe Adobe is participating in this without pushing DNG. That is a willfull lie on Microsoft's part.
2: Camera manufacturers have NOT got decades worth of proprietary data. They're still babes in the woods when it comes to digital data and RAW formats. How else can one explain the complete MESS RAW is now.
3: You can't print RAW data without working it up first. The data has no white balance adustments, no tonality adjustments, no sharpneing, that's what RAW means!
4: Microsof, if anything, is derailing any motivation to force camera manufacturers into a single RAW format.
Which is a MUST! Why? Because as long as camera maufacturers create these proprietary RAW formats we are victims of their whims. They don't want to support an old format any more, tough noogies. Our older pictures just became unusable. Can you imaigne the screams from pro and amateurs alike if all of a suddent we could no longer print from our negatives or slides? There would be class action lawsuits out the wazoo.
Hey, that's what we need to do right now. Those old files from the Kodak NC 2000e camera (or was it an earlier model?) that are no longer supported by any software that runs on modern operating systems (PC or Mac) should be the first class action lawsuit by photographers.
And don't say "convert them to TIF or Jpeg." That's not an option. That's like telling a professional photographer to just scan his old print and don't bother going back to the original negative. RAW files are our negatives. They give us the ability to go back to the original, so we aren't victims of the generational data loss every time you make a color adjustment, or the artifacts from saving a file as jpeg.
This article was obviously written by a person who knows very little about photography, and it's scary that Microsoft could be so clueless about the real issues that we as photographers are dealing with as we try to move into the digital age without letting camera manufactuers hijace our photos so they can charge a toll to allow us access to our own intellectual property.
just like one would not print a glass plate on a modern enlarger, you shouldn't expect for an old, proprietary image format to be supported into the far future. but, you should expect that the old capabilities you had will continue to work. if nothing else, keep that old software around and even an old pc, if necessary.
Yes, CNet.com should be embarrased by this article. Was it written by the intern?
Take the phrase "raw files are pre-pixelized data that comes directly off of a camera's charge-coupled device, or CCD--one of two main image sensors in digital cameras" that has SO much wrong with it!
"Pre-pixelized"??? Whaaa??? ... meaningless.
"directly off the CCD" *or* CMOS sensor *or* Foveon-type. and NO its not "direct" it is at the very least de-mosaiced and often compressed. The differences in the intital processing of the sensor data are what really separate one camera from another.
"two main sensors" again ... whaaa??? My D70 has two sensors ... the capture sensor and the metering sensor but that's not at all common to all digicams and DSLRs.
Is it just me or are we getting an ENORMOUS amount of PROMISES from Citizen Gates about the next coming of Bull as the CURE ALL, END ALL PROBLEMS OS in the world?
Sounds like make or break for MS, IF Longhorn comes up SHORT on deliveries / promises, Redmond will have a HUGE PROBLEM on it's hands.
Of course, you will not read about that from CNET (Bill's Blowhole).
Is it just me or are we getting an ENORMOUS amount of PROMISES from Citizen Gates about the next coming of Bull as the CURE ALL, END ALL PROBLEMS OS in the world?
Sounds like make or break for MS, IF Longhorn comes up SHORT on deliveries / promises, Redmond will have a HUGE PROBLEM on it's hands.
Of course, you will not read about that from CNET (Bill's Blowhole).
It is painfully obvious that Citizen Gates is out to be the Darth Vader of creativity computing.
MS has attempted for years to topple Adobe & Apple in the arenas of professional press publication, ColorSync, Acrobat & digital photo / video processing.
Citizen Gates even went to the great lengths of buying millions of photographic rights, building a huge digital photo database & opening Corbis as his own company outside of MS, so he could control & make billions of royalties from professional photographers & publishing houses.
MS has lamely attempted to put out "prosumer" PhotoPC software for years without success to the point that they have to give it away with "Discount Dells".
Citizen Gates has also attempted to alter & undermine native Java / Flash coding with "Windows-compatible" versions of their own "interpretations" of Java/Flash in order to derail & dillute NON-MS coding on the Internet.
Gates has recently be very public about developing an Adobe Acrobat PDF killer-app within ShorthornOS in 2006/07/08/??.
MS doesnot have a built-in / included "Apple iLife Suite" equivilant (not even close) with MSXP.
This is such a slimy attempt to kill Photoshop/iPhoto/RAW file protocols within the entire digital creative industry in order to have world dominance in the realm of digital media all being "managed" through MSOS.
DOJ are splineless drones bowing down to the one they serve. All Hail Darth Gates!
gates and co. simply realize that now that they've taken care of the business OS/Application users of the world, they have to catch up to what consumers are looking for in the "wonderful world" of everything digital. there's money to be made with software that controls and indexes digital media.
they've been trying to get Windows into everything that isn't already sealed up by adobe and apple. they will make inroads with DVD, online video, downloadable music, apps for organizing personal photos and search options for all of the above.
one thing that a lot of non-designer types do not realize is the amount of work that adobe has done to get photoshop and illustrator to work well with fonts. even MS knows they cannot topple this without buying adobe outright.
the dirty secret of the publishing industry is the lack of truly brainless font management that is still needed. i still run into font problems once in a while that would topple someone that has only used MS's office suite. MS can't even get their OS buttoned up correctly, how in the world could they ever compete with professional typesetting not to mention color calibration.
and please, if you're working on a wintel box that never gives you problems AND you're working for a huge publishing house or ad agency, then you are an anomoly that owns a magic system. or, you never use a lot of different typefaces.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon--all are targets for Mozilla's plan to use Web apps to free people from ecosystem lock-in. Also: new Firefox features aplenty.
The rise of Apple's stores is one of the past decade's great retail stories. So, why then does the company continue to creep back into the big-box outlets and will this hurt the brand?
The company helps small businesses with little tech savvy build apps easily, and now its partner Constant Contact will email-blast prospective users, too.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
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.
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
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.
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
dealing with photos at least as an option. If I were them I'd also
keep the JPG/GIF/TIFF pre-conversion option too.
dealing with photos at least as an option. If I were them I'd also
keep the JPG/GIF/TIFF pre-conversion option too.
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.
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. :)
Native ( RAW ) picture formats may require additional software.
This kind of disclaimer generally mean "Don't complain if it doesn't work".
It looks like this time Microsoft is beating Apple to the punch and now Apple with have to copy.
Robert
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.
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. :)
Native ( RAW ) picture formats may require additional software.
This kind of disclaimer generally mean "Don't complain if it doesn't work".
It looks like this time Microsoft is beating Apple to the punch and now Apple with have to copy.
Robert
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.
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.
Robert
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.
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.
Robert
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you need a picture? (Pun intended).
Robert
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.
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.
Do you need a picture? (Pun intended).
Robert
>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.
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
>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.
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
checking their facts.
1: DNG is an OPEN FORMAT!!!!!! I can't believe Adobe is
participating in this without pushing DNG. That is a willfull lie on
Microsoft's part.
2: Camera manufacturers have NOT got decades worth of
proprietary data. They're still babes in the woods when it comes
to digital data and RAW formats. How else can one explain the
complete MESS RAW is now.
3: You can't print RAW data without working it up first. The data
has no white balance adustments, no tonality adjustments, no
sharpneing, that's what RAW means!
4: Microsof, if anything, is derailing any motivation to force
camera manufacturers into a single RAW format.
Which is a MUST! Why? Because as long as camera maufacturers
create these proprietary RAW formats we are victims of their
whims. They don't want to support an old format any more,
tough noogies. Our older pictures just became unusable. Can
you imaigne the screams from pro and amateurs alike if all of a
suddent we could no longer print from our negatives or slides?
There would be class action lawsuits out the wazoo.
Hey, that's what we need to do right now. Those old files from
the Kodak NC 2000e camera (or was it an earlier model?) that
are no longer supported by any software that runs on modern
operating systems (PC or Mac) should be the first class action
lawsuit by photographers.
And don't say "convert them to TIF or Jpeg." That's not an
option. That's like telling a professional photographer to just
scan his old print and don't bother going back to the original
negative. RAW files are our negatives. They give us the ability to
go back to the original, so we aren't victims of the generational
data loss every time you make a color adjustment, or the
artifacts from saving a file as jpeg.
This article was obviously written by a person who knows very
little about photography, and it's scary that Microsoft could be
so clueless about the real issues that we as photographers are
dealing with as we try to move into the digital age without
letting camera manufactuers hijace our photos so they can
charge a toll to allow us access to our own intellectual property.
Let the lawsuits begin!
just like one would not print a glass plate on a modern enlarger, you shouldn't expect for an old, proprietary image format to be supported into the far future. but, you should expect that the old capabilities you had will continue to work. if nothing else, keep that old software around and even an old pc, if necessary.
mark d.
Take the phrase "raw files are pre-pixelized data that comes directly off of a camera's charge-coupled device, or CCD--one of two main image sensors in digital cameras" that has SO much wrong with it!
"Pre-pixelized"??? Whaaa??? ... meaningless.
"directly off the CCD" *or* CMOS sensor *or* Foveon-type. and NO its not "direct" it is at the very least de-mosaiced and often compressed. The differences in the intital processing of the sensor data are what really separate one camera from another.
"two main sensors" again ... whaaa??? My D70 has two sensors ... the capture sensor and the metering sensor but that's not at all common to all digicams and DSLRs.
checking their facts.
1: DNG is an OPEN FORMAT!!!!!! I can't believe Adobe is
participating in this without pushing DNG. That is a willfull lie on
Microsoft's part.
2: Camera manufacturers have NOT got decades worth of
proprietary data. They're still babes in the woods when it comes
to digital data and RAW formats. How else can one explain the
complete MESS RAW is now.
3: You can't print RAW data without working it up first. The data
has no white balance adustments, no tonality adjustments, no
sharpneing, that's what RAW means!
4: Microsof, if anything, is derailing any motivation to force
camera manufacturers into a single RAW format.
Which is a MUST! Why? Because as long as camera maufacturers
create these proprietary RAW formats we are victims of their
whims. They don't want to support an old format any more,
tough noogies. Our older pictures just became unusable. Can
you imaigne the screams from pro and amateurs alike if all of a
suddent we could no longer print from our negatives or slides?
There would be class action lawsuits out the wazoo.
Hey, that's what we need to do right now. Those old files from
the Kodak NC 2000e camera (or was it an earlier model?) that
are no longer supported by any software that runs on modern
operating systems (PC or Mac) should be the first class action
lawsuit by photographers.
And don't say "convert them to TIF or Jpeg." That's not an
option. That's like telling a professional photographer to just
scan his old print and don't bother going back to the original
negative. RAW files are our negatives. They give us the ability to
go back to the original, so we aren't victims of the generational
data loss every time you make a color adjustment, or the
artifacts from saving a file as jpeg.
This article was obviously written by a person who knows very
little about photography, and it's scary that Microsoft could be
so clueless about the real issues that we as photographers are
dealing with as we try to move into the digital age without
letting camera manufactuers hijace our photos so they can
charge a toll to allow us access to our own intellectual property.
Let the lawsuits begin!
just like one would not print a glass plate on a modern enlarger, you shouldn't expect for an old, proprietary image format to be supported into the far future. but, you should expect that the old capabilities you had will continue to work. if nothing else, keep that old software around and even an old pc, if necessary.
mark d.
Take the phrase "raw files are pre-pixelized data that comes directly off of a camera's charge-coupled device, or CCD--one of two main image sensors in digital cameras" that has SO much wrong with it!
"Pre-pixelized"??? Whaaa??? ... meaningless.
"directly off the CCD" *or* CMOS sensor *or* Foveon-type. and NO its not "direct" it is at the very least de-mosaiced and often compressed. The differences in the intital processing of the sensor data are what really separate one camera from another.
"two main sensors" again ... whaaa??? My D70 has two sensors ... the capture sensor and the metering sensor but that's not at all common to all digicams and DSLRs.
Sounds like make or break for MS, IF Longhorn comes up SHORT on deliveries / promises, Redmond will have a HUGE PROBLEM on it's hands.
Of course, you will not read about that from CNET (Bill's Blowhole).
Sounds like make or break for MS, IF Longhorn comes up SHORT on deliveries / promises, Redmond will have a HUGE PROBLEM on it's hands.
Of course, you will not read about that from CNET (Bill's Blowhole).
MS has attempted for years to topple Adobe & Apple in the arenas of professional press publication, ColorSync, Acrobat & digital photo / video processing.
Citizen Gates even went to the great lengths of buying millions of photographic rights, building a huge digital photo database & opening Corbis as his own company outside of MS, so he could control & make billions of royalties from professional photographers & publishing houses.
MS has lamely attempted to put out "prosumer" PhotoPC software for years without success to the point that they have to give it away with "Discount Dells".
Citizen Gates has also attempted to alter & undermine native Java / Flash coding with "Windows-compatible" versions of their own "interpretations" of Java/Flash in order to derail & dillute NON-MS coding on the Internet.
Gates has recently be very public about developing an Adobe Acrobat PDF killer-app within ShorthornOS in 2006/07/08/??.
MS doesnot have a built-in / included "Apple iLife Suite" equivilant (not even close) with MSXP.
This is such a slimy attempt to kill Photoshop/iPhoto/RAW file protocols within the entire digital creative industry in order to have world dominance in the realm of digital media all being "managed" through MSOS.
DOJ are splineless drones bowing down to the one they serve. All Hail Darth Gates!
the business OS/Application users of the world, they have to
catch up to what consumers are looking for in the "wonderful
world" of everything digital. there's money to be made with
software that controls and indexes digital media.
they've been trying to get Windows into everything that isn't
already sealed up by adobe and apple. they will make inroads
with DVD, online video, downloadable music, apps for
organizing personal photos and search options for all of the
above.
one thing that a lot of non-designer types do not realize is the
amount of work that adobe has done to get photoshop and
illustrator to work well with fonts. even MS knows they cannot
topple this without buying adobe outright.
the dirty secret of the publishing industry is the lack of truly
brainless font management that is still needed. i still run into
font problems once in a while that would topple someone that
has only used MS's office suite. MS can't even get their OS
buttoned up correctly, how in the world could they ever compete
with professional typesetting not to mention color calibration.
and please, if you're working on a wintel box that never gives
you problems AND you're working for a huge publishing house
or ad agency, then you are an anomoly that owns a magic
system. or, you never use a lot of different typefaces.