Digital RAW update 3.11 useless

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jacobj, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. jacobj macrumors 65816

    jacobj

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Jersey
    #1
    Really,

    This update includes 1 camera? What about the fujifilm X10? Is this stuff developed by Bob on a Sunday afternoon when he pops back into the office to pick up the keys he left on his desk?

    What is the excuse?
     
  2. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    By definition, RAW is a proprietary format. Actually RAW is an umbrella name for many different proprietary formats. You cannot expect every RAW format on Earth to be supported. The RAW formats of only four Fuji cameras are supported in Apple software. This compares to 46 models from Canon. Instead of purchasing a well-supported brand, you chose Fuji which has only four models supported--three in Fuji's DSLR S-line and the X100, the big brother of your camera. Only Epson at two models and Kodak at one model have less support than Fuji.

    It is incumbent on the consumer to ensure that his purchase will do what he expects. If RAW was important to you, then you should have purchased one of Fuji's supported models or one of the numerous other supported models from other manufacturers.
     
  3. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #3
    It depends on how much info Fuji supplies and how easy it is to implement raw support for the camera in question.

    Higher end cameras like D-SLRs have a higher priority to get implemented.

    If you feel strongly enough that the camera you have should be added, provide a suggestion to Apple.
     
  4. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #4
    I think you have it backwards... If Apple want's our money, then perhaps they should support the camera's we buy? We're talking about a company with more resources at it's disposal than most small countries. The lack of RAW support in Aperture, the lack of updates to the program itself, the lack of key features even in the last version, (I could go on), is simply unacceptable, and a clear indication that Apple doesn't take this space seriously. I'm about to give up on Aperture and I don't blame jacobj for being pissed either.

    LOL... probably! :D
     
  5. jacobj thread starter macrumors 65816

    jacobj

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Jersey
    #5
    Put simply, when I bought it I expected both Adobe and Apple to support it. I expected Adobe to do so first and Apple to follow. This expectation was based on the prolifically good reviews the camera was achieving (apart from orbgate which I expected Apple to have a little sympathy with :p).

    Your point does not make sense: RAW is not a standard format and therefore the only common element is Apple. A new camera will have a new format and therefore the consumer expects their software supplier to adapt, not their camera supplier.

    Apple support the X100 and that must be a clear indication that they intend to support Fujifilm higher end cameras. The reviews have all pitched the camera against the Canon G12 and the Nikon P7000 and have generally argued that it is on a par for the high end consumer. Both cameras are supported by Apple and therefore Apple's approach is inconsistent.

    Please don't roll out the standard, it's not up to Apple to support the camera. Of course it is as they write the software.
     
  6. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #6
    I don't know what is happening with Apple's support of Fuji's cameras... but I will point one thing that has not been mentioned yet.

    Apple needs to get the proprietary RAW documentation from Fuji before it can write its own support. If, hypothetically, Fuji does not forward the documentation then Apple either needs to reverse engineer the RAW format or wait.

    I was following a thread about CaptureOne, and one of the engineers there (uncharacteristically) got frustrated with the tone of questions/accusations of the posters and basically said that until the camera maker chose to share the documentation there was nothing CapOne could do.

    I don't know why Fuji might choose to not share (or even that they are not sharing) but one scenario leaps to mind. Hypothetically, Adobe may be paying for exclusive access. Adobe stands to benefit by frustrating Aperture users, and Fuji probably doesn't care if the price is right. Again... this is just hypothetical, but it would explain things better than "Bob coming in on a Sunday".

    A couple of well aimed questions at Fuji may get the answers, and then a campaign to hurt camera sales if the answer is positive will work better than blaming Apple without getting all the facts first.
     
  7. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    That is just boneheaded thinking. Fuji's X100 camera's RAW format is supported, but its X10 RAW format is not. Do you honestly believe that Apple cares one whit which Fuji camera you purchase? Do you really? Do you believe that Apple would prefer that you purchase a Canon or Sony camera than a Fuji or Epson? You have a brain. Use it.

    As I wrote in my previous post and snberk103 has reiterated in his posts, RAW formats are proprietary. It is up t the manufacturer to provide Apple, Adobe, and every other developer the documentation for these formats. Only on rare occasion do Apple and other major developers reverse engineer proprietary formats. To do so without Fuji's permission has serious legal implications.

    What exactly is the basis of your expectation? Just because you bought something, you think that it has to be supported? Earth to jacobj: It's not always about you.

    Nowhere did I say that RAW is not a standard format. What I said is that RAW is a proprietary format. Proprietary and non-standard are two different things. In the case of RAW, however, it is both non-standard and proprietary. Proprietary means that the format is owned by Fuji. All other developers may use it only with Fuji's permission. Non-standard means that it is different from implementation to implementation.

    I will repeat what I said to VirtualRain. Do you honestly believe that Apple cares which Fuji camera you buy? If you believe this, then why do you believe it?

    The opinion one, several, or all critics on the merits of a camera compared to the competition has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the camera is supported by third-party software. In this case Apple software is third party. If Fuji wants its X10 supported by third party software, then it will be. Your notion that somehow Apple is withholding support for the X10 because it is less expensive is simply not supported by the facts. There are many less expensive cameras and even discontinued cameras from other manufacturers whose RAW formats are supported by Apple software.

    Fuji provides the Windows-based RAW converter software for several of its cameras. It even provides Mac-based CCD-RAW conversion software for its FinePix S200EXR. Perhaps you can explain why it chose to provide this software for a camera that you do not own, but does not provide it for the X10. You might also explain why Apple has a greater obligation to support Fuji's cameras than Fuji has to support its own products.
     
  8. jacobj thread starter macrumors 65816

    jacobj

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Jersey
    #8
    You're so patronising, yet you fail to acknowledge the simple fact. The camera is hardly fringe and it is within the same bracket as other, supported cameras.

    Earth to MisterMe: it's about the 10's of thousands of people like me.

    Earth to MisterMe: did you get a smug little shiver when you thought you had the winning argument. Did that give you that little bit of extra arrogance needed to take you over the edge? Was it enough to make you believe that you were entitled to take a patronising tone?

    No. I never claimed to. I simply claimed that they were failing to provide a service that they should provide given the variables in the equation. I don't think they care about you either, but I assume that you assume some of the future or do you only go with the knowns? Do you ever speculate based on reasonable assumptions?

    You do. You have to to function. So please offer advice, but not smugness. It serves nobody.

    PS. I am also miffed with Fujifilm.
     
  9. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #9
    Patronizing or not.... what MisterMe wrote may still be true. If Fuji has decided to not share the specs with Apple, then there is nothing Apple can do about writing the converter. Apple may really really want to include the RAW convertor - and can't. It makes Apple look bad when they can't provide it, and I'm sure they are aware of this. But it may not be their fault at all. We don't know for sure one way or another. But if you can talk to an engineer at Apple, then perhaps we would know.
     
  10. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #10
    1. Buy a product that is supported by the software you own.
    2. Use software that supports a product you own (a different raw converter.)
    3. Complain to the hardware vendor that they're not supported natively on your platform.

    Personally, I'd go with #2 in your case since it's too late for #1. RPP claims to support "All Fuji P&S cameras."

    Paul
     

Share This Page