[LiveBrianD]

I was looking into using an alternate firmware like CDHK on my Canon camera so I can save things as raw files, and was reminded how all these different manufacturers use different formats for that. Why? DNG, CRW, RAW, RAF, DNG, PEF, SRF, etc... why don't they just use something like PNG? (loseless compression) What idiot thought that out?

[lawyerfish]

LiveBrianD, on 03 April 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

I was looking into using an alternate firmware like CDHK on my Canon camera so I can save things as raw files, and was reminded how all these different manufacturers use different formats for that. Why? DNG, CRW, RAW, RAF, DNG, PEF, SRF, etc... why don't they just use something like PNG? (loseless compression) What idiot thought that out?

The idiots that want Canon users to spend money on another Canon when upgrading, or their equivalent idiots at Sony, Nikon, Pentax etc.

[smax013]

lawyerfish, on 12 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 03 April 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

I was looking into using an alternate firmware like CDHK on my Canon camera so I can save things as raw files, and was reminded how all these different manufacturers use different formats for that. Why? DNG, CRW, RAW, RAF, DNG, PEF, SRF, etc... why don't they just use something like PNG? (loseless compression) What idiot thought that out?

The idiots that want Canon users to spend money on another Canon when upgrading, or their equivalent idiots at Sony, Nikon, Pentax etc.

I don't think that will have much effect is that is the reason. Since most software programs tend to work with most (if not all) RAW formats, it is not like you typically have to get anything new. In other words, I don't see how a proprietary RAW format would force me to buy another Canon (or Nikon, etc). Now, all the Canon lenses, etc would likely force me to stick with Canon.

I think it is more a matter of the want to be able to tweak the format so that it best works with their design of their hardware...i.e. get the best "performance" out of their hardware and their design.

[Szczecinianin]

Well, RAW, proprietary or not, offers better tonal range than other formats and is loseless compression too. If JP(E)G/PNG may be enough for a typical user, professional use may require better quality. Hence you have JP(E)G, JPG + RAW and RAW only cameras so you can choose the one that meets your requirements. And why so many of them? And why to have new formats? Well, more formats means developing NEW APPS that support them as you never know, which one of them is gonna be most popular. And when some of them make it to the top you can say: look, my software was the first to fully support it. Life is also change. And so, now e.g. in IrfanView, among other things, 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions are included.

[JimH443]

LiveBrianD, on 03 April 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

I was looking into using an alternate firmware like CDHK on my Canon camera so I can save things as raw files, and was reminded how all these different manufacturers use different formats for that. Why? DNG, CRW, RAW, RAF, DNG, PEF, SRF, etc... why don't they just use something like PNG? (loseless compression) What idiot thought that out?

I was watching a few vids about CHDK, and one did cover the RAW formats it provides. As I recall (and paraphrasing), the author of that vid says that the DNG format is the most "generic" of them.