Nikon Responds to Encryption Claims 635
ader writes "In a rare response to public complaints, Nikon has released a statement clarifying the use of encrypted white balance information in the NEF raw data from its digital cameras. They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application. In other words: open source coders can butt out."
Bona - fide (Score:5, Insightful)
not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:5, Informative)
At the very least, I'd need perpetual rights to compile and redistribute the code as a library. This would have to include the right to fix the code for security holes, to make it 64-bit clean, and to port the code to a big-endian or MMU-free CPU. Throw in any required patent rights as well of course.
Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:3, Insightful)
None.
Whatsoever.
(Or are You talking about copy rights, patents or trademarks eventually ?)
Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:5, Insightful)
But...do those "property and moral rights" extend to the photos that are taken by the person using the software? Does Nikon "own" the white-balance information of the picture taken by the photographer?
If so, Nikon is basically saying "Buy our camera and use it, but you don't own your pictures".
It'd be like (in film camera terms) buying Kodak film, taking pictures, an then Kodak telling you that you don't own the negative.
Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nikon seems to be fine with not being well supported. Open source developers will respond accordingly. ("well, fine, go ahead and screw yourself")
Companies that want to be widely supported and recommended will supply ready-to-use patches, developer support, and free hardware. I'm not kidding; many vendors have done this. Hard drive manufacturers even supply Linux developers with special
Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just to be rebellious and show some faith in mankind, a google for 'Nikon' produces the two top news stories about this issue. A search for 'Nikon cameras' has a story about DMCA preventing Photoshop compatability in the first three. A a professional digital camera is an expensive piece of kit (at least to me) and I'd expect people to do a bit of research before they buy one. Maybe just maybe, people will hear the voices of many pissed off developers and question Nikon's direction. People can be frighteningly smart sometimes. I'm sure that some people in Nikon's marketing / PR department are having a pisser of a time right now.
Completely deranged? (Score:5, Insightful)
My picture, my property. Ability to read my picture? Also belongs to me.
May not be the way it is right now, but it's the way it damn well should be.
Re:Completely deranged? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to sweeten the deal, I'll even give the key for free to any "bona fide locksmiths" who ask!
Re:the way it was... (Score:4, Insightful)
Take for example the simpler black and white processing method, since I have enough experience with it to speak about it knowledgably. D76 [csustan.edu] is a well-documented (but not obvious) recipe of chemicals, but Kodak also sells it. What Nikon is doing would be analogous to Kodak saying you must use only Kodak's branded D76 with your Kodak film taken in your Kodak camera, and protecting the recipe for the D76 with some sort of crazy law (not a patent) that makes it illegal to try to reproduce that very simple chemical recipe to develop the used roll of film into useful negatives.
Computer-related laws rarely make any sense when applied to anything else.
Re:the way it was... (Score:4, Insightful)
A "process" is a patentable item. Patents expire.
A "software program" is a copyrightable item, as is an "artistic work" (read photographic image in this context). Copyright, thanks to the bizarre and troubling majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, effectively does not.
Now, the trouble with all of this is that I do not see where this is really creating much of a burden for photographers. Yes, Nikon can prevent its image capture software from being copied, but it cannot protect its encryption algorithms from duplication for any longer period than that prescribed by patent law. For a prime example of this idea in action, you may refer to the RSA encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms are "processes" (as are chemical development processes and recipes), and as such, ineligible for copyright protection.
So, unless the international community (or the US Government, in particular) decides to accord patents the same effectively permanent protections they have granted to copyrightable works, the encryption algorithms in use in Nikon's format will eventualy be free for all to use or deconstruct (which has, in fact, already happened).
The interesting thing in this particular case is that Nikon's algorithms are being used to potentially deny the creator of an artistic work the ability to dispose of that work as he sees fit, which we can all agree is a natural right. The case hinges upon the interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, whose wording includes the phrase "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Now, the clear intention of the DMCA was to block circumvention of a mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copies of a protected work, not to allow companies to arbitrarily deny a creator the ability to dispose of his own work as he sees fit--but the text of the law was written in such a fashion as to seeming allow such an action, unless you make an argument based upon subsection 1201.a.3:
Now we need to ascertain the meaning of "copyright owner" in this subsection. The copyright owner of the encryption software, or the copyright owner of the image so encrypted? Which "work" is pre-eminent? Arguments could be either way, although I believe that the copyright of the creator of the image is clearly superior.
Then of course, we need to examine the effect of 1201.a.3.b on existing patent law. How can the DMCA be effective if the "technological measure" relys upon the "application of...a process or a treatment" which has clearly fallen into the public domain? Curiouser and curiouser...
I am a Nikon user. Professionally, I have used nothing but Nikon cameras. I may not continue to do so as a result of Nikon's actions described here.
Yes, the photographer will retain the right to use equipment other than Nikon's. However, the selection of Nikon equipment by a photographer does not give Nippon Kogaku the right to deny me the ability to dispose of my images created with their equipment as I see fit.
Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would expect to be able to give that to other people who also own nikon cameras, given that their camera is also their property. Note that this code is pretty much useless to people who own other cameras, and companys like Canon know enough about things like white balance that they don't give a rip about nikon's code.
Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, not writing device drivers. If the drivers were freely available, and people could write new and interesting software based on it, this would HELP them sell cameras, not HURT them. For the same reason, Nestle gives away the tollhouse cookie recipe - they are in the business of selling chocolate chips.
Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? (Score:3, Interesting)
To make you analogy more corect, you would have a file that doesn't need to be encrypted on your computer. You createed this file by using some program and it is your work. Now the governemnt steps in and encrypts part of it and say you cannot see that.
Re:Bona - fide (Score:5, Informative)
The author could release the rest of the rest of the program under the BSD license. Or the Apache license. Or the LGPL. Or the GPL with an exemption that allows it to be compiled with the Nikon library. Or even the GPL without an exemption, though that would be rather bastardish of the author. These are all open source licenses that the remainder of the program could be licensed under.
Re:Bona - fide (Score:5, Interesting)
My politeMy polite answer to Nikon: Fuck Off and Die. Don't ask for my rude answer...
I had been a Nikon user since mid 70's. When the D1 came out I waited a few months but eventually switched to Digital. I went through a D1 and a couple of D1x. Being both an artist and a geek, Nikon's position on its "proprietary" format infuriated me. I love to be able to tweak things. Its refusal to provide an SDK just made me want to switch away. I am a "bona-fide" developer but I did not want to make the request in the name of the company I work for. I wanted the SDK to tweak things. Many programs are out there now because of this sort of things. I did switch. Last November I dumped my entire pile of Nikon gear. 30 years of stuff all at once on eBay. Now I'm a happy camper Canon 1Ds MkII user. Nikon: Fuck off.
I don't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Widely used by photographers, but not Kodak (Score:5, Insightful)
Widely used by photographers and graphic artists, but not widely used by Kodak and other competing camera manufacturers.
Re:idiots (Score:5, Funny)
A: Sir! The decryption process is complete! We have their top secret white balance data!
Captain: Hurry up boy, we haven't got all day!
A: The numbers are... 32, 198, 53, 52, and 3.4253E-08!
B: My God! Thats --
Captan: Yes, its as I feared, the Japanese have mastered the ultimate ancient technique Silent White Tiger Balanced Fist of Left Justified Saturation. We must memorize these numbers so we may mimic their technique and use their own weapon against them in our final battle on the next episode.
*meanwhile, in reality...*
Nikon most definitely has some juicy technology here and there that a competitor would want to know about.
Riiiight. And rather than take the camera apart and read the code straight off the ROM, they're going to stock up on AA's and take a thousand pictures and 2 thousand man-hours to figure out what that white balance data means.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)
The NEF format isn't proprietary. It's a TIFF file. The only thing "proprietary" about it is a handful of tags they use. Crack it open with a hex editor and see for yourself. The only trick in reading in the image data is that it is stored in a "sub-TIFF". So you read in all the regular tiff tags (width, height, color depth, etc.), read in the the sub-tiff (easy enough to find, I don't remember the exact tag number), and you can display NEFs.
As far as white balance information goes, that is not atrade secret. It's not an algorithm, it's not code, it's not executable. It is data. More to the point, it is YOUR data.
I could give a rat's ass about their METHOD for obtaining white balance information. But having the white balance data tells you nothing about how they obtained it. It is just data.
Not only that, but white balance data is essential for all digital cameras for correct image reproduction. All digital cameras (including web cams), obtain white balance information either from the user or the environment via whatever algorithms the manufacturers decide on.
There is nothing, NOTHING, special about white balance data in a raw file. There is absolutely no reason this data needs to be encrypted. There is nothing to protect. It would be like Nikon saying they encrypt the image data to prevent someone figuring out what algorithms they use to process the CCD data.
The only fathomable reason for this nonsense is profit, plain and simple. Now that they've been called on it, they're trying the PR spin machine to make it sound like they're trying to help.
And as far as the SDK goes, good luck getting it. They apparently don't like independant developers (such as myself) writing programs for their cameras. So unless your part of a recogonized bona-fide software developer COMPANY, you're not going to get the SDK.
So that leaves those of us interested in such programming to reverse-engineer (which I've done so I could access the tone curves inside their curve files).
First, I found that Nikon was misleading about the compressed NEF files (they are supposed to be lossless raw data, but they're not). Then I found that they were also misleading about how the raw files were produced (raw files are suppose to contain the straight CCD sensor data, but Nikon applies a median filter to the data before it is saved). Sort of pissed me off because I do astrophotography and the filter wipes out stars and other features. And now, they're trying to pull this vomitous crap.
I sincerely hope nobody believes this, but sadly I think many will.
My D70 is going on ebay. I'm buying a Canon.
~X~
Ok, open source coders can "butt out" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ok, open source coders can "butt out" (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that Nikons definition of 'bona fide software companies' is 'software companies able to pay a lot for their proprietary SDK'.
Probably Nikon thinks that Adobe is very 'bona fide', and thus has to pay a high price for their SDK. It is likely Adobe saw this high price as extertion, and refused to pay up. When Adobe told Nikon that their proprietary format was already known to the public some stupid lawyer at Nikon probably threathened Adobe with DMCA action if Adobe did not pay for Nikons S
Re:Ok, open source coders can "butt out" (Score:5, Insightful)
The article appears to disagree with you:
Really, this is much ado about nothing. You have to get "approved" for a PalmOS SDK too. And for an Amazon developer token. Heck, to be hosted on Sourceforge, your project has to be "approved".
In all reality, I suspect the approval process really just makes sure you're a developer and not just some fly-by-nite company that's a front for Kodak and Canon market research. And possibly also checking that you're not Kim Jong Il trying to bring top secret Nikon encryption to the Axis of Evil. When The GIMP or Debian or Mandrake or SuSE or Redhat is turned down for an SDK for no good reason, then I'll believe it's a conspiracy. For now, I'll chalk this whole debate up to uninformed wanking.
Re:Ok, open source coders can "butt out" (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, will that software run on any system I have? It looks to me like it only runs under Mac OS X, and Windows. That means, in order to run it at all, I have to invest several hundred dollars in a copy of XP and many hours of my time re-partitioning a software RAID system just to run it.
Sorry, if you can't tell me how your stuff works, you're not really selling it to me, it's just on loan until you decide to stop providing service and support for it.
Other forrmats are available (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:5, Informative)
camera sensors are usually 10 and 12-bit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:3, Informative)
In order to ramp down to a standard 8-bits per pixel display, a tone curve is applied to the CCD data. This is what the the D70 does.
RAW files can be quite large, which is why a lot of the camera manufacturers are offering lossless compressed RAW files.
~X~
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:3, Informative)
A 16 bit RAW will be much smaller than a 16 bit per channel (48 bit RGB) TIFF. And will produce an image of the exact same quality, if not better.
You do realise that RAW images are generally only one channel, effectivly?
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:3, Insightful)
If I am not mistaken the digital-negative standard is an extension to the tiff format (or tiff based).
Well tiff is very good format, the only downside is that there is so many tags and extendions to it, that is hard to find a decoder that compreends all of the tags embeded i
Re:Um, you misunderstood him (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently bought my fist D-SLR (D-rebel XT). I started out shooting jpeg and it worked just fine, but after trying raw a few times I just couldn't go back. The after-the-fact exposure controls are just too fabulous. They're also not terribly large files. About twice as big as a jpeg on fine quality. So for scenes where I might want to exposure bracket with
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:5, Informative)
>people feel more 'elite' when they used them, and
>purchase the associated large storage media, etc.
Um . . . that's bullshit. Do people who use manual exposure and manual focus do it to feel elite too? That'd make about as much sense.
Here's two big advantages to using the RAW format:
1) You don't have to deal with the camera's attempts to auto-adjust the picture to make it look better (auto-sharpening, auto-contrast, auto-white balance, etc). You have significantly more control over the way the finished picture turns out if you shoot in RAW.
2) RAW gives you a lot of extra latitude in exposure, which is particularly handy since digital sensors are less forgiving of under/over-exposure than 35mm film.
Maybe YOU should take the time to learn the benefits of RAW before throwing attitude . .
IRA
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:5, Interesting)
Most serious Nikon shooters I've talked with shoot using NEF (i.e., RAW), archive those, and work with their images as TIFFs after using a good NEF-aware converter like Nikon's Nikon Capture for post-processing, printing, etc.
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:4, Insightful)
Why did Nikon actually go to extra effort to make their NEF output less useful?
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:4, Informative)
The NEF files use a lossy type of compression. The average user wouldn't notice it, but I'm sure some pros will. The copress the dynamic range of the CCD output from 12-bits down to about 10-bits. Their claim is "visually lossless". Sort fo like mp3's being "audio-ly lossless", only less extreme.
Another not-so-RAW feature of the NEF file is that some sort of filtering is applied to the data before it is saved. Again, the average user probably wouldn't notice it but some pros (and anyone doing astrophotography) would. With long exposures, there is a way to trick the camera into writing the data without filtering it first, but this doesn't work on normal exposures.
~X~
Re:Other forrmats are available (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole thing seems like it's driven by Nikon's greed. They want money for their software, and they don't want anyone else taking a slice of the pie. Frankly, I think this will turn Nikon customers towards Canon, Konica-Minolta, etc.
Frankly, you'd think that Niko
Bad Publicity (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this would seem to suggest that Nikon will be even less willing to listen to open source developers...unless they're loud enough to raise a stink in the mainstream media to some extent. Nikon's announcement about this issue is proof that bad publicity gets their attention...let's hope that there's enough volume to the (well reasoned, intelligent) complaints from the open source community.
I know I'd rather have some options when it comes to software. I use Nikon's commercial software, Nikon Capture, and it's very, very good...but competition is always a good thing.
bought pros, worst warranty/service in the industr (Score:3, Informative)
There is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING. Most of the pros you see are GIVEN Nikon equipment. That's why.
While Canon and Nikon best each other in different arenas, show me a pro who yaks loudly enough about either, and I'll show you someone who gets free equipment. Why? Because they're both very, very good- and as long as you buy the model intended for what you're trying to do (ie, you don't buy
Mod this idiot down. (Score:3, Insightful)
What planet do you live on? EVERY working pro I know has paid for his equipment. You may get a demo of a new camera, but after the demo period is over the camera goes back and you buy your own.
Besides, if you're a top tier professional (whom you seem to be ranting about) a $5,000 camera is pocket change, and a $25,000 MF digital back is not much more so.
Given... by whom? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you for your anecdotal viewpoints. I'll add a third. There are people out there (I know, because I'm one of them) doing serious photo work out there with cameras that were paid for - but not by them. I'm sure I'm not the only person who lugs around a D1 or a D2H that was "given to" me by the folks I'm shooting for, but belongs to them, not me, not Nikon.
Oh, and there are also the folk
Rather have authentication in my digital camera (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rather have authentication in my digital camera (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rather have authentication in my digital camera (Score:5, Informative)
So let me get it straight (Score:5, Insightful)
However you then find there's an extra little catch.
You can only access your picture with software that your camera maker has decided to approve.
You didn't agree to any of this, it didn't warn you on the box, nobody told you that the pictures are only your subject to some extra pre-conditions and you had reasonable expectation that the camera would not raise artificial obstacles to you getting at your picture.
And this situation is somehow supposed to be acceptable?
Re:So let me get it straight (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly I feel like this is complaining about needing a CD player after you buy a CD (or some kind of CD recording device).
Remember we're still paying to Philips and Sony for every player?
This is hardly new. (and somewhat exaggerated imho)
No this is more like (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, when you pay the kind of money a professional camera costs, it's not too much to ask that the software be included at no extra charge. It's a very reasonable expectation that it ought to work out of box with Photoshop. Further I'd say it's reasonable to expect that the format be open. After all, you are paying for the hardware to allow you to capture pictures. How you process them afterwards is your own business.
Re:So let me get it straight (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't get it. The white balance data is an essential part of the image data. OF YOUR IMAGE DATA. Nikon has no right to lock up any part of your image data.
Or are you saying it's okay for companies to lock up your IP?
"Honestly I feel like this is complaining about needing a CD player after you buy a CD (or some kind of CD
Here's the brochure (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.europe-nikon.com/uploads/ngb/Brochur
"Compressed NEF (RAW): 12-bit compression,
JPEG: JPEG baseline-compliant
Exif 2.21, Compliant DCF 2.0 and DPOF"
Notice it says NEF (RAW) without stating the missing white balance information.
Further down it talks about the camera supporting white balance.
"Auto (TTL white balance with 420-pixels RGB sensor), six manual modes, preset white balan"
And the only mention of software is in the "Optional Accessories".
"Optional Accessories....Nikon Capture 4 (ver.4.3) Software"
So, you have:
1. A misleading statement that NEF is RAW format.
2. A statement that the camera supports white balance.
3. A statement that the capture software is extra.
We may not *look* big, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, "Would all the tech-saavy people in the audience please discourage everyone they know from buying our products".
We geeks may not have the sort of numbers big companies specifically target, but we do have something they dream of having on their side - Our positive word of mouth when the vast majority of friends and relatives ask us for recommendations on buying a new product; in this case, a digital camera.
Guess which product line just got added to my "Whatever you do, do NOT buy this one" list?
Thanks for the help, Nikon, but we'd rather deal with whichever of your competitors actually wants geeks on their side.
Re:We may not *look* big, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! That's how we took down Microsoft!!
great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want a successful example of 'the geeks' pushing 'the sheeple' into something, check into Google's history.
The only viable alternative to Microsoft for home/SOHO users at the OS level is Apple's. You don't agree? Puke up the Kool-Aid, it's interfering with your thinking.
You want to take down MS? Push Apple and OSX. Or fix Linux.
The main reasons
Re:We may not *look* big, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah! That's how we took down Microsoft!!
Amusing, but Nikon does not have a 90% lock on cameras and people that spend over $1000 on camera equipment tend to not be ignorant consumers.
Re:We may not *look* big, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the D2X and D2HS record NEFs with encrypted white-balance data. These are both professional cameras. The D2HS is a sports journalism camera; the D2X is a next-generation camera that would work well either in the studio, equipped with AirPort Extreme and shooting 12 megapixels of super-RGB color, or in the field shooting 8 frames per second at 6 megapixels.
The D2HS is $3,500. The D2X is $5,000. Both are for the body alone. No lenses, flashe
You want it, you got it (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon me, but Fuck' Em with a spoon. They shouldn't receive the support of the open source community, nor should they receive the support of the non-Nikon software community. If they like the bed they're making, then we shouldn't deny them the long-term pleasure of lying in it.
Re:You want it, you got it (Score:5, Insightful)
> source community
There's the rub. They don't WANT the support of the open source community. They want people to buy their own (admittedly very, very good) software.
Well I just won't buy them then (Score:5, Interesting)
Hack the Planet! (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL,... (Score:5, Insightful)
DMCA prevents the creation or distribution of a tool that defeats access control measures for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to protected content.
Or something like that.
The white balance information is part of the image data. It's unique to each photo. It's the data that's created when the photographer takes the photo.
The person who will be gain access via a white balance plugin is the person who has the raw image data--typically the photographer, unless he gives the file to someone else.
The photographer can hardly be accused of using such a tool to gain access outside of his rights.
Further, since the tool is freely available to any "bona fide software developer" for the asking, it can hardly be described as an access control measure.
In short, it's the photographer's freakin' creation. Who the hell is Nikon or anybody else to say what he can or cannot do what he produced?
My thoughts exactly... (Score:5, Interesting)
To my thinking this is another clear application of interoptibility, so I don't see how the DMCA could apply especially given the ownership of the "protected content".
Licenced Firmware Inside (...everything) (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day (to-day, on occasion), I used a camera to fix the play of light onto chemically treated film. I ran the film through a chemical bath, and then ran light through the film onto photo-sensitive paper, which was then itself bathed. While the precise formulations of the film, development chemicals, and photo paper may be trade secrets, the general process isn't, so I could swap various vendors in and
Re:IANAL,... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well technically then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wondering...
Re:IANAL,... (Score:3, Informative)
Incorrect. The DMCA clause criminalizing the act of circumventing is pretty nasty and broad, but the clause prohibiting distribution of any circumvention product is even nastier and far more sweeping.
US law Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201: [warwick.ac.uk]
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any
Re:IANAL,... (Score:4, Informative)
Which is what is so insidius about DMCA: it doesn't matter whether you have a legal right to access the data. The minute you bypass an access system, you've violated federal law. There is no problem with accessing your data, per say, it is only in bypassing the access control. Access control is considered sepertely from the data it is controling access to...
Re:IANAL,... (Score:4, Interesting)
-
The Way To Get Nikon's Attention (Score:4, Interesting)
Fewer than 1/100th of slashdotters who would have gone to that link from the main article will use this one, so it's kinda pointless, but here is is anyway...
How to get a Nikon Software Developers Kit (SDK) [nikontech.com]
Re:The Way To Get Nikon's Attention (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be a bad idea for Slashdot to promote itself as a weapon. Slashdot would be seen as a gang of punks, not as a statistical sample of the victim's customer base.
Slashdot did the smart thing.
Re:The Way To Get Nikon's Attention (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes - but Campbell's isn't going to threaten me with lawsuits if I want to design and build my OWN can-opener...
A touch of hypocrisy it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, they are NOT doing this for their own benefit or to create lock-in or control of how images taken on their cameras may be used, but are doing it for camera owners, or so they say. Seems a bit bogus here...
A nikon owner myself. Get to make some recommendations at work about a camera, and a chance to move some dollars in a different direction. Actually think enough technical people making recommendations could make a difference.
Re:A touch of hypocrisy it seems (Score:3, Insightful)
So you'd rather a dev reverse engineer the format, make an invalid assumption, and have a piece of software you bought suddenly start putting a blue cast onto all of your images because you just upgraded the firmware?
Nikon isn't saying "you can only use our software", they're saying "we provide an SDK that documents everything, free of charge".
It's time to start using of the "I" word (Score:5, Interesting)
I cannot tell you how many times I have been in Fry's Electronics (or some other store) talking to a customer about something and they left with a different (better) product than they came in for. The reason is that I don't work for Fry's and have nothing tangible to gain no matter what they buy. I simply like seeing "good tech" survive, and so I thoroughly evangelize companies that treat me well. I do the opposite for compoanies that treat me badly. I can say for sure that IWILL has lost more than 10 sales because of me. IWILL XA-100 had a 40% failure rate (at the local Fry's), and they did not step up to the plate and recall the damned things. I got stuck with one, which was traded out for two others in unopened boxes with no success.
I have a feeling Nikon is going to lose sales, because now I can use the "I" word that scares Joe Sixpack so much. "Incompatible"... I'll also use another word that is designed to scare Mr. Sixpack, "Proprietary".... I can then go on about how my Olympus takes wonderful pictures, and is "compatible" and "not proprietary" and will work with all kinds of software. Heck, I didn't install the Olympus software, and even lost the disk with the software on it and can still get my pictures. And then mention that most other vendors are open and just work, and express puzzlement at why Nikon hates it's customers...
This generally works. While I am aware that I may only stop 5 or ten sales, if 10 people did this, it would be 50 to 100 sales, etc, etc. Furthermore people buying the non-proprietary item who are happy with it, will warn their friends away from that vendor. This is viral in nature. It does work, however it is dependant on how many people take part.
This vendor screw consumer atitude really bends me out of shape...
Oh BTW, my sister in law's purchased new Ford Focus has transmission problems at 38,000 miles. It also has had the brake system recalled, twice. Currently it eats brakes every 10,000 miles. This is just the beginning of the list. Since Ford has been very little help, they are seriously considering painting the car yellow, and writing the word "lemon" on it.
Re:It's time to start using of the "I" word (Score:3, Insightful)
I do like how you mention that you use a variety of sources to form your opinion, but then you have the example of how you influence sales, and the Focus, which surprise me. If I go into a store and someone tells me that the expensive item I'm going to purcha
New OpenRaw.org Website Launched (Score:5, Informative)
A new website has launched to advocate for the public documentation of the manufacturer's raw format spec's. From the website "We want camera manufacturers to publicly document their RAW image formats -- past, present, and future. The goal of OpenRAW is to encourage image preservation and give creative choice of how images are processed to the creators of the images. To this end, we advocate open documentation of information about the how the raw data is stored and the camera settings selected by the photographer."
At present, the only documented RAW format is Adobe's Digital Negative (DNG) [adobe.com]. The current problem is that I dont think it's ever actually been implemented in an actual camera. Adobe provides a free converter, which is great, but it's not the same thing.
Personally, I'd like adobe's solution. A single format is easier for developers to work with than the ever growing list of RAW formats (even if they are open). It's this thing called standards.
DMCA confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Nikon cant seriously be claming copyright protection on *other people's* photographs.
And in any case, like the lexmark issue, this is about reverse-engineering for compatibility. Which IIRC is not actionable under the DCMA. NIkon is merely being obstructionist here. Adobe did this as to splash bad PR on Nikon for being dicks, and as far as i can tell, its working. By having to issue PR to defend their position means they are feeling heat, as opposed to ignoring it and making the public drink their swill.
adobe (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.nikonusa.com/kdb/sdk/nikon_SDK_request
Utterly ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Nikon's software is expensive and not very good (Score:5, Insightful)
I see this as a clear indication that Nikon is top-heavy and full of staunch conservative bureaucrats unable to move with the times. Management sits in a high castle out of touch. The badly translated but clearly terse verbiage used in this press release further demonstrates Nikon management's mode of thinking sounding similar to what IBM's board was capable of in the 1970s.
The very notion of "bona fide" software developers is pretty ugly and necessarily implies that some software developers aren't good enough to be working with Nikon. While I'm not particularly worried about open source in this regard - although unlikely, Nikon could just make binary libraries and not share their proprietary algorithms.
No, my concern is that "non bona fide" developers likely include independent raw CCD photo processing software vendors like those making Bibble, Pixmantec Raw Shooter Essentials, D1SLR and other similar software packages. These applications are designed to decode the raw CCD data from digital cameras using algorithms and color science developed by their respective vendors independently of Nikon. With varied results, but in many cases producing better or at least equal results to Nikon's very expensive Nikon Capture software which is particularly awful in terms of workflow and cost.
Nikon Capture feels similar to Sony's proprietary software in terms of stability and design clarity. These japanese giants produce an incredibly poor grade of consumer software, light years behind the technical quality of their hardware and so obviously I'm interested in having 3rd party software support for their very good hardware.
The "official" Nikon mesage is that these measures exist to protect the quality of the decoded images. That's very nice of them. But the pictures belongs to the photographers and photographers should be free to choose the software they wish to use for processing those images even if that means the colors are decoded differently from what Nikon's own best lab technicians have come up with.
Just as an example, CaptureOne is one Nikon compatible application - it does a superior job of handling moire CCD color noise on Nikon D1x, far surpassing Nikon Capture. Bibble handles colors on Nikon D1 subjectively better than Nikon Capture. Locking out these competing products is simply an awful measure that will not benefit consumers at all.
There can be only one explanation for Nikon's decision, and that is to produce more orders for Nikon Capture and license revenues from libraries included in commercial products from vendors choosing to use Nikon's official way of doing things. That's purely selfish of Nikonand serves consumers interest in no way!
I don't know how those libraries work, but from this press release I'd at least assume that they essentially output RGB data processed the Nikon Way, so you'd have pretty much the same result as using Nikon Capture, even if the library is embedded in a different program. That just means you won't be getting a second opinion and photographers using Nikon hardware won't be enjoying much creative freedom.
Nikon format already reverse-engineered (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Butt our or... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Butt our or... (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Butt our or... (Score:4, Insightful)
The white balance data in an image is copyrighted by YOU. That's right, it's your data. It comes from the environment or your settings or whatever. But the data is yours.
Nikon is trying to encrypt data that is copyright to you. The DMCA does not apply.
White balance data is essential to get correct images. All digital cameras have it, one way or the other. There is nothing special or unique about white balance data.
As I stated in another post, it would be like Nikon encrypting your JPEG files.
~X~
Re:Butt our or... (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK, the DMCA is there to protect copyright and data colateral to taking a photo should be technically owned by the camera's operator.
Nikon can own the patents or trade secrets behind how to use the data but the actual data's ownership/copyright should clearly belong to whoever took the snaps.
This is not too many steps away from Microsoft claiming it owns all code and software written or compiled using VisualStudio tools.
Neither Adobe nor Nikon's interests are neglected. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what software Adobe has written regarding this, but the way I figure it, that is irrelevant. The DMCA is not what stops Adobe from providing their users with the kind of access to Nikon raw images that their Nikon-using Photoshop users may want, although I experience a good schadenfreude laugh at Adobe's expense when I read people make the argument that Adobe is somehow disadvantaged by the DMCA here.
Adobe can use some of the money from distributing proprietary software (ill-gotten gain, in
Which completely ignores the fact that... (Score:3, Insightful)
It also ignores the fact that the SDK generates jpeg/tif from RAW. Which wouldn't be bad except the main reason to use Adobe ACR is to use THEIR raw image processing routines. Who wants to waste time decoding the file twice?
Finally, it ignores the fact that Nikon basically wants you to spend $5000 for a camera... and then pay an additional $100 to get their software to process
Illegal under the DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone did reverse engineer this, Nikon could have that entire project shut down for violating the DMCA.
Re:Illegal under the DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
no, just in the USA
Re:Illegal under the DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Reverse engineer the software (almost) anywhere in the world except the US, and everyone's happy. Also, place some text: "US citizens may not download", which no-one will notice. Not to mention that Nikon in this case encrypts data generated by me and the subject I take a picture of, it is my data being input through the lens. I get the data back in digital form, except I cannot access it with the tool I need to access it with. Does the DMCA allow me to reverse-engineer the encryption in order achieve interoperability? I'm told it does. So tell me, where's the problem?
FUD!
Stop spreading the FUD!
Hackers... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure Lord Nikon could figure out how to do this...
As if an open source zealot could afford a Nikon (Score:4, Funny)
As if a typical open source zealot could afford a Nikon anyway.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Are you going to save the images from the Canon in TIFF or JPeg? You do know the Nikon outputs those formats as well? Their NEF format is only for highly specialzed pro applications.
Re:Slashdotted... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No Problem (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose that's why the D30 had atrocious autofocus, the D60 was marginally better but suffered horrible front/back focus problems, the 10D (which I own) does the same only not quite as badly, and the 20D finally fixed it for the most part?
I suppose that's why my camera can't talk to the new 580EX flash to communicate smaller frame size and focus distance, but the 20D can? All as a cheap ploy to get me to upgrade from my 10D because it has atrocious flash metering, so m
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the flash, yeah, Canon's flash system wasn't the best, and now you're flaming them for improving it?
You know, it really sucks that my Sun Ultra 5 workstation won't work with my USB mouse -- damn Sun for not including USB in the system before it was widely available.
Basically, your 10D precedes the new flash metering system in the 580EX -- it's not reasonable to expect older cameras to know about and use features of newer flashes.
Re:This just keeps getting better (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nikon (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure which definition of "pro photographers" you're using here - film only? digital only? film and digital combined? Please clarify.
Also... Nikon has the most affordable lens system? Where have you been shopping that sells Nikkor lenses for less than Canon lenses? In my experience, lenses for Nikon's autofocus mount are consistently more expensive than equivalent lenses for Canon's.