Apple Releases Digital Camera Raw Compatibility Update 3.2

[MacRumors]

Apple yesterday released Digital Camera Raw Compatibility Update 3.2, adding RAW image support for a number of digital cameras, as well as addressing issues with existing support for several other models.

This update extends RAW image format compatibility to Aperture 3 and iPhoto '09 for the following cameras:

- Canon EOS Rebel T2i / 550D / Kiss X4
- Leica S2
- Olympus E-450
- Olympus E-600
- Olympus E-620
- Sony Alpha DSLR-A230
- Sony Alpha DSLR-A330
- Sony Alpha DSLR-A380
- Sony Alpha DSLR-A450

It also addresses RAW processing issues for the following cameras:

- Canon EOS 30D
- Pentax K-x
- Pentax K-7

Full details on supported camera are available in Apple's support document on the topic.

The new update weighs in at 5.28 MB and requires Mac OS X 10.5.8 or 10.6.2 or later.

Article Link: Apple Releases Digital Camera Raw Compatibility Update 3.2

 

[rhyx]

Fantastic, now I can use my T2i with Aperture 3.

 

[dr_lha]

But no support for the Olympus E-PL1, despite the fact that the E-P1 and E-P2, which use the same file format, were supported in the last release, and the E-P2 is almost identical to the E-PL1.

 

[guzhogi]

But no support for the Olympus E-PL1, despite the fact that the E-P1 and E-P2, which use the same file format, were supported in the last release, and the E-P2 is almost identical to the E-PL1.

Funny, I would think having the same file format will make it work.

Fortunately, now I can use my… oh, wait. I don't have a camera that shoots in RAW format. Never mind. Move along people. Nothing to see here.

 

[dr_lha]

Funny, I would think having the same file format will make it work.

The ORF (Olympus RAW) file has an identifier string for the camera, if this string doesn't match a camera on Apple's list of supported cameras, the file won't open. However if you go in and edit the string from "E-PL1" to "E-P2 ", Aperture will open it no problem. I even wrote a python/automator program to perform this on E-PL1 RAW files so they can be opened in Aperture.

http://public.me.com/dr_lha

 

[blindzero]

niiiice.

finally start playing with my T2i.

 

[guzhogi]

The ORF (Olympus RAW) file has an identifier string for the camera, if this string doesn't match a camera on Apple's list of supported cameras, the file won't open. However if you go in and edit the string from "E-PL1" to "E-P2 ", Aperture will open it no problem. I even wrote a python/automator program to perform this on E-PL1 RAW files so they can be opened in Aperture.

http://public.me.com/dr_lha

Not recognizing the same format just because of a different model name? That's kinda stupid. Now Apple will have to keep putting out updates just to change a 1 to a 2 or something.

 

[dr_lha]

Not recognizing the same format just because of a different model name? That's kinda stupid. Now Apple will have to keep putting out updates just to change a 1 to a 2 or something.

I think the reasoning behind this is that the RAW importer has some settings that are individual to each Camera, rather than just being something that can import a certain file format. So officially to get the best results Apple needs to tune the importer to each camera.

Still it would be nice if they just supported the "unsupported" cameras with some default settings.

 

[charliex5]

What was wrong with the 30D processing? I never experienced any problems when dealing with RAW photos. I've since moved on to the 7D and only keep the 30D around as a backup. Still, I'm curious.

 

[Doctor Q]

I think the reasoning behind this is that the RAW importer has some settings that are individual to each Camera, rather than just being something that can import a certain file format. So officially to get the best results Apple needs to tune the importer to each camera.

Still it would be nice if they just supported the "unsupported" cameras with some default settings.

Why couldn't the camera-specific details live on a central website that the software drivers could pick up "live" when needed, and cache for later, so we wouldn't keep having to pick up these updates to keep up?

 

[needles27]

What was wrong with the 30D processing? I never experienced any problems when dealing with RAW photos. I've since moved on to the 7D and only keep the 30D around as a backup. Still, I'm curious.

It tinted the images green when re-processed or imported under the new RAW 3. So happy to have this fixed!

 

[Analog Kid]

It tinted the images green when re-processed or imported under the new RAW 3. So happy to have this fixed!

I hope they fixed this tinting problem on more than just the 3 cameras listed-- I've been having the problem with my D80 and Aperture 3 is dead to me until this is fixed.

Why couldn't the camera-specific details live on a central website that the software drivers could pick up "live" when needed, and cache for later, so we wouldn't keep having to pick up these updates to keep up?

That's kind of what's happening, no? In this case, the driver is picking up the details through Software Update hitting the Apple config website.

 

[Doctor Q]

That's kind of what's happening, no? In this case, the driver is picking up the details through Software Update hitting the Apple config website.

Not quite. I was proposing something more automatic, without users having to respond to prompts and wait for installers to run.

I know that some people want precise control over what gets installed, but these kinds of trivial updates seem like bother we could do without. Imagine if you launched iTunes, clicked iTunes Store, and it said "The list of top weekly hits is out of date. Click here to install an iTunes update". That would be awful! Instead, we expect it to fetch the latest data automatically, so I wondered if O.S. updates for camera data and printer drivers could be handled that way too.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Why couldn't the camera-specific details live on a central website that the software drivers could pick up "live" when needed, and cache for later, so we wouldn't keep having to pick up these updates to keep up?

My guess would be reliability. Something hardcoded into the application seems more reliable than a cache file that's constantly updated.

 

[ABG]

Just a shout out to all the Apple fans who enthuse about Apple's great customer service ethic. I bought Aperture 2 to go with my new iMac just before Xmas - I'm impressed how obsolete and totally unsupported it is only a couple of months later.

I don't feel like rewarding Apple with another Aperture sale, so its off to Lightroom I go.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Just a shout out to all the Apple fans who enthuse about Apple's great customer service ethic. I bought Aperture 2 to go with my new iMac just before Xmas - I'm impressed how obsolete and totally unsupported it is only a couple of months later.

I don't feel like rewarding Apple with another Aperture sale, so its off to Lightroom I go.

Except had you bought LightRoom 2 just before LightRoom 3 you would be in the same boat.


/Critical thinking skills.

 

[ABG]

Except had you bought LightRoom 2 just before LightRoom 3 you would be in the same boat.


/Critical thinking skills.

Clearly your critical thinking skills need work - I didn't say it would be different. I don't have sufficient information on which to base comment about Adobe's camera update policy.

I'll try and explain it to you again.

I pointed out that a company supposedly famed for its world leading customer service hangs those same customers out to dry by not providing updates from the moment a new version comes out. Aperture 2 never had support for the Panasonic LX3 and had flaws with the Canon 30D raw support. The LX3 support was "due" but when it came it came the other side of v3 and so Apple's stance is to leave v2 customers hanging. I assume Apple's refusal to provide camera updates (not functional improvements) for v2 is to force migration to v3. That marketing decision will instead, push me to to buy a competitors product.

I have Abobe Master Collection CS3.3 - I still get updates for that, despite CS4. And for MS Office 2003, 2004, Win XP etc. Hell - I even get updates on Apps I've bought.

From your comment you've demonstrated an inability to understand a simple premise and the validity of the comment which followed. Being able to type "critical thinking skills" isn't the same as understanding the term or using those skills if you have them

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I have Abobe Master Collection CS3.3 - I still get updates for that, despite CS4. And for MS Office 2003, 2004, Win XP etc. Hell - I even get updates on Apps I've bought.

Yeah, you get Adobe Acrobat updates.

Don't buy an app for what it will be, get it for what it is. It's just stupid to do otherwise.

 

[FasterQuieter]

Thanks dr_lha, that works great. I too was disappointed the e-pl1 was not covered in the latest update. It seems crazy, given how popular this camera is and how little work would presumably need doing to make it compatible.

 

[hangdog]

No PPC

For the Pentax K-7, this is a bugfix because they broke support in 3.1.

But, this appears to no workee on my G4 (which still runs iPhoto 09 in 10.5.8 just fine, and {hacked} Aperture 2.1.4 also). Won't install at all. Installer sez "Not for this computer".

So back to 3.0.