This content has been marked as final. Show 12 replies
Pentax has as well for the PEF. There is a DNG codec available but they
$29.95 for it. It is from a third party. That kind of money is just
I know there's a 3rd party. I did the trial download and tried it out. It does work pretty good. I agree the price is pretty steep for a codec considering everyone else's is free. Adobe will "eventually" get one out or maybe even Microsoft. Either way they will all be free. For me a DBG codec is a convenience feature, not a necessity. So for $30 I will pass. Maybe, if they sold it for $10 they might get some volume sales. I'd bite at $10.
$9.95 or $10 I would too. At that price is worth it for ease. If you want
something that will do it and free take a look at Arcsoft.
This isn't codec's but a program that you install in to Windows XP or Vista,
etc. and it gives you the same effect. It works great with the DNG files
from my Pentax K10D and K20D (DNG only for the K20D at this time, though I
have no doubt they will update) and it is free. I have this on all of my
systems and have been quite happy.
Anyone hear anything further on an Adobe or Microsoft DNG codec availability?
Microsoft has nothing to do with these. It is up to each company to do a
Vista codec for their formats. Adobe apparently has no plans to do so or
they would have done so by now. Can't blame them they seem to be having
problems getting a minor Lightroom and ACR update done right.
Since DNG is supposed to be a non vendor specific format for raw files, Microsoft should provide it. But for marketing reasons and control they have not done so.
As for Adobe supplying... they most definitely should. They have created the DNG format and want universal acceptance. They need to complete their mission of support and gain acceptance for it. I have heard in vague terms that it's on their list but a low priority. That's too bad. For me it's a matter of convenience in order for me to use DNG as my standard format for storing RAW files.
I do not want to always want open up Bridge for a simple viewing of my photos.
Nikon provides the NEF codec. So I will probably switch back to NEF since I can use these within VISTA more conveniently. If Nikon and others can provide a codec for a proprietary raw format then Adobe can provide one for their open standard raw format.
At least Adobe should make a clear public stand on this. Are they going to realease a WIC Codec for Vista or not? And if so what timeframe? I realize Adobe doesn not liek to give release dates. But is it going to be this year or next?
Yes, Adobe is working on a codec. We are making progress, and it is getting closer to release.
Why would Microsoft be responsible for putting out a codec for another
companies format. Pentax put their own codec, Canon and Nikon put out their
own codec. Why on earth should Microsoft put out Adobe's codec. I suppose
Microsoft should also put out codec's for Adobe's PSD format as well? Get
real, Adobe is the one that hasn't stepped up to the plate. While I find it
irritating they haven't released one, they have other projects like
Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2, etc. to deal with. Though if it was me I would
just do it and get it over with. Especially since Adobe has a vested
interest in seeing DNG survive. When the maker of the format can't be
bothered to offer support especially for something that would be as useful
as the Vista codec one has to wonder just how dedicated they are too the
Big hug to you Mr. Knoll for letting us know. That is all we wanted was to
know if it was coming.
I would not expect Microsoft to put out a PSD codec. DNG is not a proprietary format, it's universal multi-vendor format so it would make sense to me that they would. After all they do supply other non-vendor specific formats.
However, the rationale is mute now that Thomas has shed some light on the release. Looking forward to it's release.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:58:01 -0700, Laverne_Krahenbil@adobeforums.com
>DNG is not a proprietary format, it's universal multi-vendor format
Nonsense, it is a proprietary format for which the original
manufacturer - coincidentally Adobe - decided to publish the specs and
have others use it free of charge.
It is neither 'multi-vendor' [just like JPEG isn't] nor universal
[which is not a synonym for 'open' or 'publicly documented' or
'standard']. If Adobe wants it to be universally adapted they'd have
to push it by, for instance, quickly coming up with a free codec.
As you say, from Thomas Knoll's last statement we can assume they at
least come up with such a codec.
Writing and Imaging