This content has been marked as final. Show 22 replies
Dooode, this is a User to User forum not staffed by Adobe. Besides, why would you care about a half-assed raw file?
there are plenty of reasons to use sRAW, for instance, shooting only for newspapers does not need to be done with more then say 3 MP. You can use the original RAW file and convert it to a smaller ammount in ACR to gain more speed in processing but you still have the facts of to much space on CF cards, longer waiting for copy to drive, longer waiting for previewing etc etc.
Having this half size RAW file and still be able to get the most out of it using all ability of RAW is something I would loved to have on my 1D2 :-)
Some photographers have very good reasons to record the smaller files. For example the smaller files make longer bursts possible.
Another reason is, that not everything one shoots will be printed at the maximum size.
However, the sRaw files don't contain truely raw data; they are demosaiced, one CFA reduced to one pixel. Therefor sRaw is not the equivalent of raw data in terms of the possible adjustments.
>Therefor sRaw is not the equivalent of raw data in terms of the possible adjustments. <<br />
So that is the explanation of the 'half-assed' qualification?
Looks like I have to spent some time on the sRAW thing, if you can't use a good colour correction or highlight recovery it's more or less useless :-(
> So that is the explanation of the 'half-assed' qualification?
I don't know the explanation, as I did not make any such qualification.
SRaw is certainly no half-solution in terms of resolution, when you don't need the full amount of pixels. Even the half-resolution is several times more than useful for example for common web presentation, and the vast majority of actual prints don't need more (the latter is only my guess).
SRaw is half-assed in terms of adjustibility, but this comes at half-price (storage and write time). Apparently, it is a hybrid. Why not? More choice is always good.
thanks G Sch
The qualification came from Jeff, he seems a little grumpy after locking himself up to rewright Real World Camera Raw :-)
The new edition is coming soon as I understood so hopefully the reason for his qualification will also be in there.
I'd really like to know the reason why sRaw isn't supported as well.. as I've been expecting Adobe to get it working. If they can't for some reason, I'd settle for an explanation, but the rest of us are holding our breath waiting for this to be supported.
I was on my way to posting this question myself today, but found I'm not the only one. If it can't be done, or the developers just don't want to support it for one reason or another, just tell us! I'll move on and except it.. but SOME response to the user community would really be appreciated.
I know this is the user-to-user forum, but there doesn't appear to be a user-to-developer forum for camera raw.. so I'm left whining to you folks.. :/
>but the rest of us are holding our breath waiting for this to be supported.
Not very wise.
No, it's not very wise.. I 100% agree.
Does anyone know where we can rattle some chains as a group to get the ball rolling on this? Does Adobe think we don't care about sRaw? Or am I in the group of less than 1% of CS3 users who want it supported?
>Does anyone know where we can rattle some chains as a group to get the ball rolling on this?
Sure: with Canon. If the camera manufacturers insist on using and protecting proprietary file formats, only their customers can have an impact on them.
> am I in the group of less than 1% of CS3 users who want it supported?
According to the posters on DPReview, quite many people are using or plan to use sRaw. Of course no-one knows, how far this sampling represents the Canon 40D and 1DMkIII users and even the combination of 40D and ACR users, but the arguments for using it are very reasonable.
Anyway, there is no reason to hold the breath: DPP, Bibble (and I think some other raw converters too) support the sRaw format.
Yes, DPP does support it.. (they better! :)) but I'm not a fan of DPP.. the quality you can get out of ACR is way better than DPP, and there are no shortcut keys in DPP. I'd much rather use ACR, but I don't have a choice really atm.
I know over at DPR, people raved about DPP and how it's superior to to ACR.. but I did my own tests and found this not to be the case imho. I kind of have a hard time believing ACR isn't supporting sRaw because Canon doesn't trust them with proprietary code. If Bible can do it, why can't ACR?
Bibble is a small company that Canon wouldn't bother suing for cracking or infringing on their proprietary format. Adobe has the deep pockets that make it a very attractive target to sue.
Then why is there support for full raw? Is that GPL and sRaw proprietary?
It has been explained to us that Thomas Knoll has to develop entirely different algorithms for ACR as Canon (and Nikon) do not share information about their proprietary formats. It's not difficult to imagine that sRAW is a low priority at this point. It would be ludicrous for me to presume to summarize his posts. Try doing a forum search on his name. I was just trying to put your comment about Bibble in proper context.
Will do Ramón, and thank you for your replies.
Well I would imagine that since it is basically one person doing the ACR
camera support updates that priority is to get as many cameras supported as
possible and worry about odd ball flavors of the formats for a specific
camera later. You have support for this camera, be happy about that. If your
lucky in the next update or two you may see support for the odd ball flavor.
You may not. It isn't far to skip support for another camera just to support
two formats for one camera.
> Then why is there support for full raw? Is that GPL and sRaw proprietary?
Right on; the proprietary format does not have more to do with sRaw than with any other raw image.
SRaw has been out already for over six months; it is certainly not the question of decoding it.
It is possible, that the reason Adobe does not implement the sRaw support is, that it does not fit into the DNG specification. I am not saying that this is so; not only that I don't know Adobe's plans, but I don't know much of the sRaw format either.
Thomas Knoll repeatedly posted, that he did not see any reason to upgrade the DNG specification - but neither Dust Delete Data, nor sRaw is supported.
I'm positive that sRaw _WILL_ be supported, at some stage...but it's a single format hybrid from a single manufacturer that in the grand scheme of things is not mission critical for Camera Raw. It would have been easier for Adobe to support sRaw if Canon had lifted a finger to help, but alas, that's not the case...(as far as I know).
I hope that Canon has not lifted the wrong finger...
The words leading us to hope that the Canon engineers might envision adding DNG output in their software are not yet a reality...
I bought CS2 last January as a student. Does Adobe Camera Raw recognize/support Canon Picture Styles or do I have to shoot JPEG in order to use these settings in my 30D?
You'll have to use JPEG, as Canon does not share its info (See my previous post) and still, the Canon and Adobe processing engine are not the same.
That said, it is not so difficult to emulate the setting in ACR or Lightroom, and apply it at will.