Canon RP support
Just submitted a support case to Phase One. Hope other RP owners will do the same.
0
-
Still not present in 12.0.3... And strangely, C1 does not handle DNG files well. Strangely, because exactly that format is openly documented, no reverse engineering is needed.
I ran all *.cr3 file through the DNG converter. LR6 has no problem with these, indicates Canon RP with the RF 24-105 or any other lens attached via the adapter, but C1 acts strangely when I try to make adjustments: The images change color briefly, the histograms also jerk briefly, to resume later their final form. And so is the image. Something is wrong.0 -
[quote="herthh" wrote:
Still not present in 12.0.3... And strangely, C1 does not handle DNG files well. Strangely, because exactly that format is openly documented, no reverse engineering is needed.
Despite the open and well known specification I think you would not be able to find a single application that fully supports all variants of TIFF (which I believe DNG is based on). DNG itself comes in a few variants. C1 supports DNG from cameras. Adobe's DNG converter is not a camera.0 -
[quote="OddS" wrote:
...
Despite the open and well known specification I think you would not be able to find a single application that fully supports all variants of TIFF (which I believe DNG is based on). DNG itself comes in a few variants. C1 supports DNG from cameras. Adobe's DNG converter is not a camera.
With a single "open and well known" DNG specification, how can "DNG itself come(s) in a few variants"? Obviously they can't all be DNG compliant.
A DNG from a camera thus cannot be different from a DNG generated by the Adobe converter.
No need then for raw converters to distinguish between them; it can treat them equally.
MLi0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
[quote="OddS" wrote:
...
Despite the open and well known specification I think you would not be able to find a single application that fully supports all variants of TIFF (which I believe DNG is based on). DNG itself comes in a few variants. C1 supports DNG from cameras. Adobe's DNG converter is not a camera.
With a single "open and well known" DNG specification, how can "DNG itself come(s) in a few variants"? Obviously they can't all be DNG compliant.
A DNG from a camera thus cannot be different from a DNG generated by the Adobe converter.
No need then for raw converters to distinguish between them; it can treat them equally.
MLi
For information.
If anyone can synthesize this into a simple list of what may or may not work in all cases then I for one would be interested to read it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative
Note the various comments about standards.0 -
mli20 is correct:
The very reason for a using an universal raw file format is to stop the never ending chase for camera format adaptations.
Substantial amount of man power is surely going into reverse engineering and implementing of custom readers and testing for yet another combination camera/model. With a standard format such as DNG, there would be no need for a raw-converter to have hundreds of "camera modules." What is the percentage of man power flowing into this tedious task, and the resulting size of the code, is anyone's guess. The other responder here did not understood the dark nature of this phenomenon, and its fundamental, all changing ramifications.
The steady camera/model adaptation forces end-users of image processing programs to constantly update their products, and thus to... purchase more often a new software version, or to subscribe to a money-draining scheme, such as Adobe's. The inconvenience to software companies for making these tedious, non-creative tasks of camera adaptations are rewarded by the steady flow of income from more frequent software updates.
In end effect, this phenomenon is damaging consumer interests only. Cameras are more expensive, because camera makers will calculate their development effort for their proprietary raw-formats, testing etc, in-house software, which only few of us are using, and so will do the software makers for reverse engineering raw formats. Only the end-user, consumer or professional, ends up without any benefit from waiting "for support" for yet another new camera model, and than even potentially purchasing a new update with for "a camera number 750 by Booboomaticon X super-7", the count never stops.0 -
[quote="herthh" wrote:
mli20 is correct:
The very reason for a using an universal raw file format is to stop the never ending chase for camera format adaptations.
At a personal level that is very easy.
Once the camera (or cameras) you own are supported for RAW file format and, if you are interested in such a thing, tethering controls, just keep it/them and the chances are they will always be supported.
It will save you a lot of money.
If you can also persuade the computer manufacturers to leave their operating system hardware unaltered you will never have to change an application simply to ensure that it continues to work
That's not entirely true I suppose.
To my knowledge and recollection Canon, to take a well known manufacturer, dropped support for some aspects of its earliest digital camera bodies from its own software a few years ago. But in general once a digital camera has become supported and sold in some volume the support will simply roll forward as software is updated.
However if a standard was adopted by all manufacturers the software could quickly be frozen in time and we would never have to change bodies or software.
Alternatively just use jpgs. They seem to suffice for probably 99% of all digital images ever taken.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Alternatively just use jpgs. They seem to suffice for probably 99% of all digital images ever taken.
Grant
I'm the 1%. I hate jpgs.0 -
[quote="Robert4" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Alternatively just use jpgs. They seem to suffice for probably 99% of all digital images ever taken.
Grant
I'm the 1%. I hate jpgs.
Me too.
But most of world does not care and does not want the hassle of RAW editing - even it their phones happen to support it.
Grant0 -
W/R to the RAW processing comments above it's somewhat interesting to not that the New small Canon Rebel camera launched this month seems to have remote control options via a smart device with auto uploading and cloud storage intentions as well some internal "creative" features that offer mobile device like editing and image adjustment capabilities.
Presumably it will still offer RAW images too ... with or without in cameras settings I wonder?
I also noted, browsing the Canon web site, that they offer RAW image reading and display codec for windows - but not for any of the most recent models - which I think means nothing using CR3.
Does that mean that CR3 support is built in to Windows (?10)?
Or is it not needed?
Or does no one want it?
Grant
ETA - could not remember of the RP included this mobile device connectivity and sharing feature. It seems it does.
Does that suggest any profiling of the likely user marketplace?0 -
I do hope Capture One updates soon for Canon EOS RP support. I am getting real tired of editing JPEGs and would love to be able to take full advantage of the CR3 format. 0 -
I do hope Capture One updates soon for Canon EOS RP support. I am getting real tired of editing JPEGs and would love to be able to take full advantage of the CR3 format. 0 -
[quote="NN635410521488483750UL" wrote:
I do hope Capture One updates soon for Canon EOS RP support. I am getting real tired of editing JPEGs and would love to be able to take full advantage of the CR3 format.
Submit a support case, as I did. It may help to speed things up.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
12 comments