This content has been marked as final. Show 76 replies
Jeff has given you the definitive answer, brief as it is.
Three to four orderly releases of Adobe Camera Raw per year have been promised. Beyond that, Adobe doesn't comment on unreleased software.
I never cease to be amazed by folks who buy a camera before checking whether it is already supported by their software of choice.
Given the choice of getting an older model camera that has been discontinued but is still in the distribution channel or a new model that has just come out with better specs and a similar, possibly lower price, which would you purchase? The camera is not unusable while waiting for Camera Raw to be updated. And odds are pretty good that an update will come out for it. So I would go with the 40D over the 30D if I was to purchase a new camera body now.
It also seems that the original poster knew that it wasn't supported yet, just asking when.
That is an artificial choice, John.
My point is that if I buy a camera, I either don't care whether it's supported by my software of choice or wait patiently for it to be supported. After all, what the OP is waiting for is a free update to ACR from the version that already existed when his camera was released.
Personally, I waited for support for a particular camera to be offered before buying the camera and before upgrading to a version of Photoshop that would support it as well.
The repeated questions here are no different from little children incessantly asking "Are we there yet?" on a long drive. That's not going to get you there any faster.
Thank you for your answers...just fyi, I was well aware that it wasent supported when I bought it, and planned on using dpp(bundled software) until adobe decides to release an update...I just wondered if there was any idea about how long it usually takes...thats all. I would rather wait a bit to use CR, than buy an outdated body for over a grand.
I am new to photoshop, and have no idea about how often updates are released.
Ramon, I am even more surprised at the number of times someone buys a camera
and then asks the same question. When will Adobe support...
"Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?""Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?""Are we there yet?"
I am even more surprized at the number of repetitive dumb answers, when some guys are asking when their cameras will be supported by ACR.
One should be able to see two issues:
1. The photographic world does not turn around Photoshop (even though I like it), but around cameras.
2. The fact, that a new release of ACR has to come out to support a new camera shows very poor design decisions on Adobe's site. The answer is not wait with purchasing a camera until Adobe decides to support it (this is the answer the competition loves to see), but change the design, so that new cameras can be supported easier (perhaps even by entities outside of Adobe).
That's the dumbest post I've read in ages.
>1. The photographic world does not turn around Photoshop (even though I like it), but around cameras.
Then stop whining about lack of Photoshop support.
>2. The fact, that a new release of ACR has to come out to support a new camera shows very poor design decisions on Adobe's site.
Presumably you meant "on Adobe's side".
You obviously have no insight as to the proprietary raw formats used by ALL camera manufacturers.
The solution would be for all those idiots at Canon and Nikon to release cameras than can output a universal formatsuch as DNG.
If Pentax can, so can every other camera manufacturer.
> "I am new to photoshop, and have no idea about how often updates are released."
You asked a perfectly reasonable question.
The problem is that you were mistaken for someone expressing impatience, or someone criticising Adobe, and so you were in turn chastised as though you had done those.
As you have been told, new cameras are typically added every 3 or 4 months. The last update was late-May, so I would expect a new update within about a month from now. But it might not support that camera, in which case there will be a further wait. On occasion Adobe has brought out an update earlier, for example as a Beta release for some reason, and then included new cameras at that stage. So it really is unpredictable by users like us.
However, it is very unlikely that a major camera like this would fail even to make the 2nd update from now, if it does miss the next update.
> "The fact, that a new release of ACR has to come out to support a new camera shows very poor design decisions on Adobe's site. The answer is not wait with purchasing a camera until Adobe decides to support it (this is the answer the competition loves to see), but change the design, so that new cameras can be supported easier (perhaps even by entities outside of Adobe)."
Before I repeat what I said in DPReview, (next post), I'll respond to:
> "so that new cameras can be supported easier (perhaps even by entities outside of Adobe)."
Some amateurs have provided support by ACR for their cameras or digital backs. They have written their own DNG converters.
I have long favoured some sort of open-source DNG converter as a supplement to Adobe's. One person had the idea of combining dcraw's file-input code with extra code to generate DNGs. There are obviously problems with creating the colour matrices and sorting out the WB. But this is do-able.
> "The answer is not wait with purchasing a camera until Adobe decides to support it ..., but change the design, so that new cameras can be supported easier".
The text below was my response in DPReview to your statement.
We know that the parameters needed by ACR to process the raw image data for a new camera are mostly already established and could be supplied as data in some way. They are the DNG tags.
But only "mostly", not ENTIRELY. It doesn't apply to Sigma/Foveon cameras, where Foveon algorithms are used by Adobe. Neither, apparently, is new data sufficient for the Fujifilm S5 Pro, where new algorithms are needed, and were delivered with ACR 4.1, DNG Converter 4.1, and Lightroom 1.1. (I believe 4.0 and 1.0 had unofficial support for the S5 Pro, but I don't know if they had the new algorithms). So new code has to be supplied occasionally for the raw image processing.
Then there is the big problem of reading and analysing the raw files from the camera and generating the above parameters. That causes specific problems with some cameras where part of the raw file format, typically the metadata, is different from what has been done before. Obvious examples were WB problem with D2X, D2Hs, and D50, or the new ARW format for the Sony A100. This is a problem with the sRAW format of the new Canons, which will need new algorithms to read the data. Pentax's new lens-identification scheme unexpectedly introduced with the K10D 1.2 firmware will need a code change.
In addition, virtually every release of ACR and DNG Converter adds extra features and/or corrects bugs in earlier releases. Here is 3.2:
"More metadata is preserved when saving in DNG format. This change required switching to writing DNG version 188.8.131.52 files, which can be read by Camera Raw 2.4 or later.
- Added support for the GPS metadata tags.
- Fixed a time zone processing bug with Canon CRW format files.
- "As Shot" white balance support for Nikon D2X, D2Hs, and D50.
- A new user interface when using Camera Raw with Photoshop Elements"
3.3 modified the Bayer demosaicing algorithm. 3.7 has lots of algorithm changes to be compatible with Lightroom 1.0. We know that 4.0 added lots of new features, as did 4.1, while Lightroom 1.1 had lots of new features as well as support for new cameras.
- SOME new cameras can't be handled simply by data-held profiles, but need new algorithms that couldn't realistically have been pre-supplied.
- Lots of new features and bug-clearances are continuing in parallel, and need a code-oriented development cycle.
The real problem is that we have a proliferation of undocumented raw file formats. While reverse-engineering had its place earlier, in a reasonably well established industry it is shoddy engineering. The fault really lies with the camera manufacturers, not with Adobe.
"You asked a perfectly reasonable question"
I think he did also No reason for others to jump all over the poor guy :-\
> SOME new cameras can't be handled simply by data-held profiles, but need new algorithms that couldn't realistically have been pre-supplied
This proves only, that your vision regarding what to do would not yield a good solution.
Photoshop is the example, how to do it: think of the concept of plug-in. Though a mixed solution too could be realized: external executables plus parametrization.
> Lots of new features and bug-clearances are continuing in parallel, and need a code-oriented development cycle
Irrelevant in this context.
> The fault really lies with the camera manufacturers, not with Adobe.
While this is correct, we can ignore it, as it is a given. We have to live with that - and Adobe does live with that, like all other raw processors do.
OK. Let's write a plug-in to the Camera Raw plug-in. Then the question changes to "when is the new plug-in to the Camera Raw plug-in that supports my new camera going to be released?" The answer would be exactly the same--three or four times per year.
The only advantage of such a system would be the download size for an update would be somewhat smaller. Given that the download time is trivial for most users anyway, this is not worth the engineering effort.
While some cameras are only simple variations on existing cameras, using "parameter files" is not a general solution. I've had to write new algorithms for over half the camera models that I've added support for recently, to deal with new compression algorithms, etc.
> Then the question changes to "when is the new plug-in to the Camera Raw plug-in that supports my new camera going to be released?" The answer would be exactly the same--three or four times per year
You might decide so, but such decision would not be based on professional but on business considerations. If the interface is well designed and kept unchanged or backwards compatible, new plug-ins could be developed any time, independently of the version cycles of ACT. Btw, this would take off the pressure from the ACR development to issue a release at times, when it may not be convenient.
However, the main point would be to publish the interface, so that others could develop camera-specific plug-ins, just like Phtoshop plug-ins.
Parameter files are certainly not a general solution, but there are quite a few cameras with the sensor from another model. In some cases the entire difference is the model name (some people, who urgently wanted support for their cameras, edited the model name string in their preferred raw converter).
However, this is really a secondary issue. The more important subject is supporting cameras with new features, like dust speck removal, without a new ACR version.
I do see a contradiction between professional and business considerations: people are softly forced to upgrade their ACR (and therefor their Photoshop) only to support their camera. Although converting the original raw files in DNG solves this problem, that might be too bothersome for some customers. Adobe has, of course, the right to go after its best business interest.
What kind of a fantasy world do you live in, Gabor Schreiner? Honestly, I'm curious to find where you find your dreams.
> "However, the main point would be to publish the interface, so that others could develop camera-specific plug-ins, just like Phtoshop plug-ins"
Adobe HAVE published the interface - it is called DNG!
Apart from Adobe, there are really 2 sorts of developers of DNG converters: camera manufacturers, and "amateurs" with specialist needs.
We can ask why camera manufacturers didn't use DNG in-camera rather than provide a DNG converter. There are some plausible answers: Pentax have now started to, but originally used PEF before DNG was launched; Silicon Imaging use DNG for "stills" from a movie camera that needs a different raw format for its movies; Hasselblad-Imacon's raw files from their latest models haven't had lens corrections applied.
The amateurs either do what camera manufacturers might otherwise be expected to do, or sometimes process raw files of cameras that are not intended to make their raw image data available at all! They are not an important market, but reveal just what can be done by people who don't expect/demand that Adobe do it all.
Although I'm in favour of an open source DNG converter independent of Adobe (other than probably using the DNG SDK), it isn't the best way of handling this problem of supporting a major new camera when it appears. I simply recommend Pentax for illustration. They haven't quite got it right yet, for example they don't compress DNGs in the K10D, and their software only accepts DNGs created from Pentax products, not from (say) Adobe products. But their moves so far are a model for what other manufacturers could do if they respected their users as much as Pentax appear to.
The key here is "error cause removal", not "blame". What has to be done so that threads like this stop happening? The focus has to move from Adobe to the camera manufacturers, either in-camera or in-software. Users need to stop blaming their 3rd-party software suppliers. (Adobe isn't the only one that gets blamed! All of them primarily use a code-cycle rather than pure data releases to support new cameras. All of them get threads like this in their forums - often for a lot longer).
How many of the people who are impatient to get their new cameras supported have made their views known to the camera manufacturer rather than their software supplier? How about telling Chuck Westfall that Canon need to do something? (I suspect he agrees, although may not say so).
> Adobe HAVE published the interface - it is called DNG!
Do you think, that the DNG specification should govern the technical development of digital photography?
No, DNG is not the universal cure for this problem. It does solve some issues, while it makes others worse. How long would a manufacturer have to wait, until the DNG specification gets updated for a new feature, AND the DNG converters and raw processors get updated?
I don't think that camera manufacturers share your limitless enthusiasm towards DNG so far, that they would publish their technical enhancements far ahead of the shipping of the camera in order to give the DNG consortium enough time to embed the new features in the DNG specification. That's not how the market works.
Anyway, I find it pointless to debate here, what the camera manufacturers should be doing, while they are doing just the opposite. Both Canon and Nikon (these two cover most of the market) have powerful raw processors, which are obviously sufficient for many of their customers; they don't see this issue as a problem at all.
> Do you think, that the DNG specification should govern the technical development of digital photography?
> No, DNG is not the universal cure for this problem. It does solve some issues, while it makes others worse. How long would a manufacturer have to wait, until the DNG specification gets updated for a new feature, AND the DNG converters and raw processors get updated?
... and not even a single example of any point you're trying to make! Get real!!
> "Do you think, that the DNG specification should govern the technical development of digital photography?"
The DNG specification TRACKS the technical development of digital photography. Just as raw converters do.
How often do you think the DNG specification has to change because of new sensor technical developments? When was the last such change - Fujifilm SuperCCD SR? (Before DNG was launched). Perhaps Canon sRAW is another - I don't know.
But such changes are FAR rarer than changes to raw converters to cater for camera manufacturers' raw file formats or new sensor details such as sizes, bit-depths, colour responses, etc. I suspect that only 1 upgrade to the DNG specification is needed for about 100 new camera models, hence about once every 2 or 3 years.
> "How long would a manufacturer have to wait, until the DNG specification gets updated for a new feature, AND the DNG converters and raw processors get updated?"
Separate out the issues!
> "How long would a manufacturer have to wait, until the DNG specification gets updated for a new feature?"
It depends on whether they ask Adobe (under NDA, not via published specifications), or conversely let Adobe react to the release of a new sensor innovation. If the manufacturer cares, they will speak to Adobe well in advance. If they don't care - then their users should react accordingly, and make sure they criticise the right company!
Remember - if the new sensor is so different that it needs a new version of the DNG specification, and simply can't be handled using the current version, then it is probably a big change that will take a long time to fit into raw converters, including ACR and Lightroom.
> "AND the DNG converters and raw processors get updated?"
Since Adobe release ACR and DNG Converter together, their development will have to wait for the new version of the DNG specification (if it is absolutely necessary) anyway. Your earlier suggestion of a plug-in to a plug-in doesn't solve that problem.
> "Both Canon and Nikon (these two cover most of the market) have powerful raw processors, which are obviously sufficient for many of their customers; they don't see this issue as a problem at all."
Then what are we talking about? All is well, people are not complaining about delayed support for their cameras, and we can continue as we have been going for ever.
But .... see this from the OpenRAW survey of a year and a half ago:
Well, I am confused. Up until reading through this, I was under the impression that a new camera, not supported in a discontinued version of an app, could always be accommodated if the user applied the DNG conversion. Now it seems that even that may not be an option, even for a current application.
Bottom line: If one purchases an 40D or the new Nikons, and Raw is not supported, will DNG work, and will there be limitations?
DNG will work just fine. There is nothing in the recently announced cameras that require any changes to the DNG spec to support. Canon "sRAW" does not require a DNG spec update, for example.
Ain't software wonderful? Sure glad I am a hardware person! :D
You have to wait for the DNG Converter to support any given camera model's RAW format, though. Or Canon/Nikon have to give you DNG files.
Back to square one.
> "Up until reading through this, I was under the impression that a new camera, not supported in a discontinued version of an app, could always be accommodated if the user applied the DNG conversion. Now it seems that even that may not be an option, even for a current application".
It is very rare that a new camera would need a change to the DNG specification. In 2005 Thomas Knoll said that, had DNG existed at the time, the last time DNG would have needed such a change was with the Fujifilm SR sensor. (Hence my comment in #21). From his reply above, perhaps that remains the last time!
DNG can cater for changes in values of parameters: sizes, bit-depths, colour responses, etc. Significant changes in geometry would be a problem - the hypothetical case I sometimes quote is a circular sensor with sensels arranged in concentric circles. I'm confident THAT would need a change to the specification! It would also need such dramatically different algorithms that it would take a long time for 3rd-party raw converters to catch up with it.
In spite of appearances, there is a lot of inertia in the industry about such sensor innovations. Both the Foveon sensors and the Fijifilm SuperCCD sensors are not handled even now by some 3rd-party products. Some can't handle 4-colour sensors like that in the Sony F828. Some 3rd-party products have the sense to accept Linear DNG, and this can enable them to accept a file that has been partially-cooked by Adobe, and add their own value to that. (Although Silkypix only allows 3-colour Linear DNGs, so can't support the F828 even via linear DNG).
But there is another factor. You said:
> "... could always be accommodated if the user applied the DNG conversion".
That "always" would need a "full" implementation of the DNG specification, and those don't exist. There can always be a time where a new camera IS covered by the DNG specification but ISN'T supported (properly or at all) in discontinued versions of applications.
That is NOT a fault of DNG - they wouldn't support those cameras via other routes either, probably because they simply don't have the algorithms needed. DNG is an excellent way of getting the raw image data to the raw converter, but the latter still has to have the algorithms needed by the specific sensor configuration!
"Both Canon and Nikon (these two cover most of the market) have powerful raw processors, which are obviously sufficient for many of their customers; they don't see this issue as a problem at all."
While some are happy some others are not. For example it helps me a lot to nicely fit RAW conversion into my workflow. I know some people like the Nikon converter - some don't. The end result of the conversion is similar to ACR but the user interface is an acquired taste to say the least and integration of RAW conversion into photoshop gives several advantages. I know one advantage (for Adobe) is that the money goes to Adobe^^.
Im suprised at some of the early replies to LivDougs origninal thread, especially Ramón G Castañeda - You dont have to be arrogant and pedantic, just answer the poor guys question.
If i want a camera for whatever the reason, and my fav software dosent yet support it, im pretty sure eventually it will. No way id make a decision on a camera on whether my software will support it in 2 weeks or 2 months.
Just refrain to answer the question, we are not all rocket scientists like u mate!
Get a grip Ramon!
Barry, if you quote me please quote the whole. What I wrote was:
i I was under the impression that a new camera, not supported in a discontinued version of an app, could always be accommodated if the user applied the DNG conversion.
I was "under the impression", not that "could always be accommodated if the user applied the DNG conversion" was unassailably true as seems could be drawn from the partial quote. I wrote what I did to invite comment from people like Thomas.
From what you state, a digital negative seems not as pure an information source as an silver halide negative, or maybe more accurately, it will transmit data and data patterns to the RAW converter that cannot be properly recognized or interpreted by that software as it stands. That would, on the face of it, make sense, but then, why would DNG be backwards compatible? What is in the Nikon D80 NEF that can be interpreted by ACR4 but not 3.7, yet converting the D80 NEF to DNG does render it useable in 3.7?
Seems that no real standard exists in the whole of digital capture.
> "Barry, if you quote me please quote the whole"
I was trying to supply you with information so that you could evolve your impression. That doesn't need a full quote - I'm not keeping score of debating points!
> "What is in the Nikon D80 NEF that can be interpreted by ACR4 but not 3.7, yet converting the D80 NEF to DNG does render it useable in 3.7?"
The trivial answer is "the model name Nikon D80". What matters is WHY that matters. (I'll ignore the fact that D80 NEFs were first supported in ACR 3.6 Beta, so perhaps it will be better to talk about the D40X, first supported in ACR 4.1).
For many camera models, there is very little that is significantly different from previous models. Apart from anomalies such the WB problem of some NEFs, Nikon tend to evolve the NEFs of new cameras fairly slowly. The Makernote tends to get a bit longer to support new menu features. Some models support GPS Exif data.
But ... how can any software product know that? How could the people developing ACR 3.7 know that the D40X (not yet released) was so like what had gone before that they might be able to write code that would be able to deduce what it looked like?
We now know that the color filter array origin for the D40X has the form:
How could anyone (outside Nikon) have predicted that in advance? In fact, it can be read from the Exif data in the D40X NEF. But many other raw files DON'T hold that information in their Exif data. (Assuming they even support Exif data).
I won't bother to show all the ways that the D40X differs from other Nikons, often in ways that cannot be deduced by looking inside the NEF. (For example, the colour response, the anti-alias filter strength). But ... why does Nikon itself update its own software when it releases new camera models? Or, for later models, only support them via NX and not via the previous versions of Capture? The D40X needs the latest Nikon software!
> "Seems that no real standard exists in the whole of digital capture".
DNG is unique. DNG files carry within them a range of such camera details, not carried by any previous format. I've just been testing the Beta of Capture One v4, which supports DNG (except for rival digital backs!) It can support lots of cameras via DNG that it can't support directly.
Here is a bigger list:
Someone starting to read from your quote would think I believe what you wrote I wrote. That's the problem with out of context. I'm somewhat picky, I suppose! :-)
There is an old truism in engineering:
Q: When is a Standard not a Standard?
A: When there is more than one.
We are awash in "standards", understandable at one level due to the relatively newness of digital capture at the camera level, but it seems necessary that essential information for successful output at RAW needs to cover every parameter remotely necessary to that end. The rest can be outside the spec and available through the manufacturer's software. Separating which is which is the responsibility of an association of such manufacturers, set up through a larger agency like IEEE, to become the standard in question. We do not need a repeat of NTSC vs PAL, or Beta vs VCR. Imagine what the industry would be like if circuit board fabricators each had their own standards for layout and their tools. To me, processes for RAW would be similar in concept to gerber files generated to run the board fabs.
> There is nothing in the recently announced cameras that require any changes to the DNG spec to support
dust delete data.
This could be designed to accomodate supporting of hot/warm pixel correction, which does not exist yet.
> "We are awash in "standards", understandable at one level due to the relatively newness of digital capture at the camera level, but it seems necessary that essential information for successful output at RAW needs to cover every parameter remotely necessary to that end.... Separating which is which is the responsibility of an association of such manufacturers, set up through a larger agency like IEEE, to become the standard in question".
How about ISO, the biggest of them all?
The ISO standard raw file format is ISO 12234-2 (TIFF/EP). Drafted in 1998. Became an ISO standard in 2001. Began its 5-year review in 2006. Destined to finish its review, and be published as a new standard .... ?
NEF and CR2 are based on ISO 12234-2. In fact, a NEF will typically identify the version of that standard it conforms to. For example, a D70 NEF says:
So why do we have the problem identified by this thread?
Because ISO 12234-2 is not fit for purpose! I don't see evidence that it was designed for unambiguous interworking or for "future-proof" archiving. It is also out of date, for example it doesn't cater for Fujifilm SuperCCD sensors.
DNG is (in effect) ISO 12234-2 brought up to date and made fit for purpose. (It is based on that standard, of course). Adobe have given ISO permission to use DNG features in their current review of the standard. (Just as Adobe gave ISO permission to use TIFF in the first version).
Standards bodies are not independent sources of specification expertise. Most experts tend to work for big companies. So ISO calls upon experts from many companies for their working groups. It is a slow and sometimes contentious activity.
Sometimes the best way of creating an ISO standard is for a company to develop and succeed with its own specification and then submit it to a standards body. ISO is adopting Adobe's PDF specifications, (and with that, XMP specifications), for various standards. (For example ISO 19005-1 - PDF/A).
Microsoft developed Windows Media Photo, changed its name to HD Photo, and it is now likely to be standardised as JPEG XR, a genuine advance on JPEG. (Fortunately, it too uses XMP and Exif).
Adobe and DNG are the primary sources of expertise and practical specifications (respectively) for any future comprehensive standard raw file format. No sensible standards body will waste its time trying to devise an independent alternative. I don't believe ISO themselves have any illusions about this; I hope no one will show otherwise!
> "We do not need a repeat of NTSC vs PAL, or Beta vs VCR".
We already have competition between (unpublished) proprietary formats such as NEF and CR2. But I am not aware of any plausible alternative for a published raw file format other than DNG or whatever ISO manage to do with it. Canon and Nikon show no signs of publishing their specifications and giving up some of their rights. Microsoft appear to be concentrating on JPEG XR, and not attempting to devise an alternative raw file format. (Good!)
DNG supports raw image data from Fujifilm SuperCCD SR sensors. Will NEF ever do so? Will CR2 ever do so? What else will ever do so?
Normally I don't bother replying to the deranged comments of cowards hiding behind a pseudonym who come in here itching for a fight but with nothing to contribute.
That frivolous message was and remains your only post on these forums ever. I suggest you mind your own business.
I am quite familiar with ISO and it's predecessors, as well as IEEE. They are also culprits in the real lack in standardization for their respective bodies, but as you point out, they are subject to the pressures from the manufacturers to adopt their standards.
NEF and CR2 are competitive so far as the cameras are. That should be of no concern to a regulatory body, and won't be if the participants behave themselves when formulating a true standard. That the standard be revisited goes without saying, and needs formulation to allow it to be. Technology moves on, and a standard such as for RAW is not a primary or even secondary standard as a standard volt etc. Therefore, some accommodation for changes need placement. And sometimes, complete abandonment is necessary. :-(
If I had a say in it, I would insist on a hard standard for RAW, then design in my own software package which the user can call up in lieu of RAW. Both available. Jpeg seems to be used this way right now.
I realize it is quite complex, and don't get the notion that I believe it is a simple matter. It isn't. What is simpler is the agreement to do something about it and proceed in that direction. Just do the hard work so that we can get on with our hard work.:-)
So, did anyone answer LivDoug's initial question before this degenerated into a debate about DNG???
I'm a soon-to-be 40D owner as well, and I'd like a definitive answer, because regardless of how good Canon's software is, I prefer to work in LR & PS - that's why I paid a croc-load of money for their software in the first place!!!!
> "did anyone answer LivDoug's initial question".
Yes, a number of people did. Include me, at:
Barry Clive Pearson, "support for Canon 40D?" #10, 29 Aug 2007 11:57 pm
> "I'd like a definitive answer"
Part of the answer to LivDoug's initial question ("any idea ...?) is that there isn't a definitive answer known to the users of this forum.
Perhaps you should also ask Canon why, having paid a croc-load of money for their hardware and firmware, they haven't helped you with your problem. They are the ones who could eliminate threads like this in future. (Adobe can't by themselves).
It will take a concerted effort my many in the business.