![]() ![]() > Once the CFA bayer (or other mosaicing type) data is available (decrypted as it is crypted for quite a few camera makers), the demosaicing performed and the photo white-balanced and exported with its full dynamic range in a RGB colourspace, you have done most of the technical steps to start working creatively with it. dcraw from Dave Coffin, on the other hand, is a small, mostly one man, project based on reverse engineering. Yeah, it would be niced if everyone adopted an open standard, but in the real world Nikon, Canon, Sony etc use their own RAW formats, and those are undocumented and proprietary. The DNG software is not really relevant, as it's mainly used by smaller camera makers. > Adobe offers the DNG SDK as open source, it gives quite good clue on how to process RAW images, alternatively dcraw from Dave Coffin has been online for ages and is the basis (in a way or another) of most of open source RAW processing software. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines or this is reminding me of other similar situations. They seem to be thinking why should we do all this work for a platform we don't care about and carry the porting effort and the maintenance burden on our shoulders. ![]() I just think they're thinking about this the wrong way. They're entitled to their opinion, it's their software. Reading the blog and the comments (and the un-pulled GitHub pull request with changes to build under Windows) it seems the tone is that the developers aren't strongly motivated to get this working on Windows. I think there's a good correlation between successful open source products and the number of platforms they support. On the other hand if you care about your free software attracting more users (some of whom could be developers who help push the software forward for everyone's benefit) then you should aim to target as many platforms as possible. The point I was trying to make is that if someone builds free software and intentionally limit support to a certain platform then people complaining about that doesn't really make sense. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |