Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Graphics Software IT

Adobe Releasing New Photo Format 422

salmonz writes "Toronto Star just posted a story that Adobe is releasing a new digital picture format; the Digital Negative Specification,or DNG. " Supposed to be use in raw photo formats; without the lossyness of JPEG.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Releasing New Photo Format

Comments Filter:
  • by datadriven ( 699893 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:23AM (#10362100) Homepage
    Are we supposed to hate Adobe?
  • Maybe (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nonameisgood ( 633434 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:25AM (#10362120)
    The kicker is, IF the camera companies decide to use it. Standards are only standard is they are used. My questions is, can existing cameras be updated to the new format, or will the manufacturers just want to sell the new ones.
    • Re:Maybe (Score:5, Informative)

      by polecat_redux ( 779887 ) <> on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:39AM (#10362295)
      My questions is, can existing cameras be updated to the new format, or will the manufacturers just want to sell the new ones.

      I'm not horribly concerned if Nikon doesn't release an update for my particular camera since Adobe will be providing an image conversion utility that supports many of the proprietary raw formats.
  • by Thinkit4 ( 745166 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:26AM (#10362138)
    A raw image is what directly comes out of the CCD. In fact it uses less storage than the bitmap that can be produced from it. But it's even better, as with it you can customize white balance and such after the picture has been taken. I use the raw images exclusively on my Canon S45 (it's a difficult feature to find). The problem appears to be in standardization.
  • by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:27AM (#10362152) Journal
    People are comfortable with the idea of 'negatives'. If Adobe can make a market for this format, it will tie people into using thier tools (or thier tools will have an additional 'incentive')

    I have read up on how using the raw format of the camera, and using the software on the PC you can use the additional information the camera would have thrown away, to do things such as save areas that would have been captured to dark otherwise.

    Of course, each cameras format for RAW is basically that, RAW format, and this proposed file format should be nothing more than making sure each software can access it seamlessly.

    So in fact, reading the article, it woudl seem like a good idea...

    until you look at PDF. I just hope they don't try and put some tagging / watermarking / superflous junk into it.

    • until you look at PDF. I just hope they don't try and put some tagging / watermarking / superflous junk into it.

      Why is that superfluous? I bet you law enforcement would JUMP at a digital file format where they have an encapsulated proof within an image that the image has not been adultrated, as would insurance companies and such, and many other uses I can think of. Heck, as a photographer, I'd like it for protecting my own copyright.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:58AM (#10363160) Homepage

      my digital rebel I take a "black mask" shot every night I start a sky photographing session. I'm looking at 25-60 second exposures (multiples to get even longer exposures) and when I subtract a black mask from the images I remove most of the unwanted ccd noise. (simple script under linux in C to work with the RAW files.) I can not accomplish the same quality by doing a black mask on Jpegs or in photoshop with the RAW plugin I bought for it.

      The same goes for stacking images to get a better exposure. performing this on the native RAW images produces crisper results.
      • In astronomical work, there are usually two calibration images you use: the dark frame and the flat. The dark frame is an image captured with the shutter closed. It lets you identify the hot (i.e. broken) pixels. The flat is an image of a uniform field exposed just long enough not to saturate any pixels. This lets you measure the relative light sensitivity of the pixels (which is a function of both the lens and the CCD).

        To get a corrected image, use this formula for each pixel:
        newimage = (image - dark) / (flat - dark)

        Better yet, take a bunch of darks and flats and median-filter them to get rid of cosmic rays which can introduce spurious glitches in the images.
  • JPEG-2000? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by warpedrive ( 532727 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:29AM (#10362186) Homepage

    What about using the new version of JPEG, for 'digital negatives'?

    There are no royalties, no licencing, it has 2x to 5x the compression efficiency, and it's inherently multiresolutional. One file, all resolutions, no reprocessing.. It supports hundreds of component layers, data embedding, lossless encoding..

    So.. why would you use some new proprietary Adobe format?

    • Re:JPEG-2000? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:40AM (#10362317) Journal
      We don't know that it will be proprietary.

      Adobe has traditionally understood the value of releasing full file specifications under a non-restrictive license, as they have done with PDF and PS.

      They have no motivation to make this standard proprietary, if they did that, digital camera makers wouldn't use it! All signs point to them making this one completely open.
    • Re:JPEG-2000? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <> on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:50AM (#10362411) Homepage
      What about using the new version of JPEG, for 'digital negatives'?

      There are no royalties, no licencing, it has 2x to 5x the compression efficiency, and it's inherently multiresolutional.

      Actually, Adobe did a very similar thing: they took the TIF format (the industry standard storing images with lossless compression) and added a few special fields, using the extension mechanism already provided by TIFF. As far a I can see, Adobe doesn't intend to charge royalties for DNG. It looks quite open -- even the DNG guide for manufacturers doesn't mention any licensing requirements.

      (Adobe's DNG web site [] is already online.)
    • Re:JPEG-2000? (Score:3, Informative)

      by insac ( 623145 )
      At a first glance of the specs, it seems that Adobe is proposing something more than a "RAW" format.

      They're filling the format with lots of structured metadata that can give you all the information you need (and probably also some you don't need :-) about the photo AND the settings of the camera (which lens you used, which model, and every other setting I don't know anything about).

      You could look at a photo and say "Hey, I like the way the details are emphasized in this photo. Let's see which settings he
    • Re:JPEG-2000? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Naikrovek ( 667 )
      JPEG-2000 probably wasn't even considered because its not just about lossless images. There is a lot of data in a RAW image besides the image itself. The camera settings, the zoom, aperture, simulated film speed, time of day & date, shutter speed, and a lot of other information that isn't really translatable into human-visible imagery. It is the raw sensor data plus all of those things above and more.

      The greatest advantage of photographing in RAW is that you can adjust the white balance long AFTER t
  • RAW is the way to go for professional photo stuff. From my Nikon D70 I can get RAW format pics which contain lots of extra info about the camera settings and ALL the digital data from the camera, not just what the JPG compressor decided I should have. This is critical for later processing of the photos. Without this extra data, lots of detail in the shadows and highlight regions will likely be lost. I for one want to choose what data to keep and what to throw away, I don't want a compression algorithm makin
    • Parent is uninformed (Score:5, Informative)

      by Archimonde ( 668883 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:28AM (#10362820) Homepage
      Who modded this up?

      This format is about putting all RAW files under one (DNG) format.

      Eg. Nikon has NEF, Canon has CRW, Olympus has xxx, adsf has yyy....

      Isn't it better to have one open/standard format which all manufacturers support/endorse?

      If you are skeptical read this. []
  • Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erwin ( 8773 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:30AM (#10362195)
    this makes dealing with RAW files less of PITA. However, has anyone other that Adobe been involved in the spec's creation, or is this just another case of the brilliant minds a [insert company/organization name] coming up with the "ultimate" solution to their corner of the world's problems, without really considering the broader context.

    I await more information and a working open-source library...wake me when it's ready.
    • Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Binary Boy ( 2407 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:37AM (#10362278)
      Many well known photographers, manufacturers, and developers were consulted. However, in a case like this, in the end it takes someone like Adobe taking the bull by the horns - the proliferation of RAW formats was not (and is not) going to be solved by slow-moving standards bodies - this will take a market force demanding adoption by the many stakeholders, who have not even shown interest in the problems let alone investing in a solution.

      Preservation of digital photography in RAW formats is an ugly challenge and kudos to Adobe for taking the lead in a very serious issue. This is not a marketing ploy - in fact, if you understand the effort you'll see it's a very open attempt, and in some ways will be subsidized by Adobe - for instance, their DNG Converter will continue to provide the capability to convert any RAW format they support into DNG, leaving other DNG developers to focus on the act of processing DNG images and not on reverse engineering every new model camera's RAW format.
  • by buro9 ( 633210 ) < minus bsd> on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:31AM (#10362208) Homepage g.asp []

    Adobe Systems has today announced a new unified public format for raw digital camera files and a free software tool, Adobe DNG Converter, for translating raw photo formats into the new .DNG format, which is compliant with the Digital Negative Specification. There is no standard format for raw files, which vary between manufacturers and cameras. Digital Negative Specification will introduce a single format that can store information from a diverse range of cameras. An updated Adobe RAW File Converter adds support for DNG as well as several other cameras.

    Click here for more information on Adobe DNG []

    Press Release:

    Adobe Unifies Raw Photo Formats with Introduction of Digital Negative Specification Free Converter Tool Kick Starts New Digital Negative File Format by Translating Raw Formats into Easy-to-Use, Archive-Ready Files

    SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Sept. 27, 2004 -- Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today introduced the Digital Negative Specification, a new unified public format for raw digital camera files. The company also launched a free software tool, Adobe DNG Converter, which translates many of today's popular raw photo formats into the new .DNG file format, compliant with the Digital Negative Specification.

    Raw files, which contain the original information captured by a camera sensor prior to any in-camera processing, have become popular due to their promise of greater flexibility and image quality. Until today there has been no standard format for these files, which vary between manufacturers and individual cameras. The Digital Negative Specification solves this problem by introducing a single format that can store information from a diverse range of cameras. Technology leaders, major customers, and professional photographers today also endorsed the new specification (see separate quote sheet).

    "Professional photographers and other creative professionals are moving to raw camera workflows because of the outstanding creative control they get over digital images," said Bryan Lamkin, senior vice president of Digital Imaging and Digital Video products at Adobe. "However, clients and publishers have difficulty working with disparate raw file formats and nobody can be sure that today's raw formats will be supported ten years from now. Adobe customers asked us to work on a unified, public format for raw files and that's what we've delivered with the new Digital Negative Specification."

    Serious photographers want to store raw files in long-term image archives, because -- unlike standard JPEG's and TIFF's -- these files represent the pure, unaltered capture. Current raw formats are unsuitable for archiving because they are generally undocumented and tied to specific camera models, introducing the risk that the format will not be supported over time. The unified and publicly documented Digital Negative Specification ensures that digital photographs can be preserved in original form for future generations. The new .DNG file format also simplifies digital imaging workflows for creative professionals who today have to juggle multiple file formats as they bring raw images, from different cameras, into print and cross-media publishing projects.

    New Specification Built on Existing Standards

    The Digital Negative Specification is based on the TIFF EP format, an accepted standard, and already the basis of many proprietary raw formats. The power of .DNG format lies in a set of metadata that must be included in the file to describe key details about the camera and settings. .DNG-compliant software and hardware can adapt on the fly to handle new cameras as they are in

  • What a stupid name (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:36AM (#10362273)
    The connotations of 'Negative' are purely historical and bear no relevance to modern (i.e. digital ) photography.

    The images stored in ths format will not be negatives (i.e. inverted) anyway, contrary to what the name means and suggests.
  • by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:39AM (#10362293)
    I'm going to vomit. That's liks asking "what's wrong with the mini cooper" in an aritcle about jumbo jets. PNG is not what this format is designed to work with, RAW data from the camera is. RTFA before jumping on the open source bandwagon and screaming that everything should be PNG because you saw a blurb about it on ESR's website. Fuck, I like open source and masturbate every time I see a linux login prompt, and you zealots are starting to piss me off.
    • Fuck, I like open source and masturbate every time I see a linux login prompt

      That can be very embarrassing in a lab environment. :|
    • Insert AOL! here. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Glytch ( 4881 )
      Amen to that. At the risk of sounding like an elitist asshole, it's obvious that a good many folks on Slashdot don't know much about photography, and think that just because they bought Sony's newest fucking Cybershot that they're the next Helmut Newton.

      As for myself, I've been eagerly waiting for an influential company to propose something like this; I work in a pro lab, and having to master and keep up to date on a dozen different raw converters is very stressful. A single standardized open format that I
  • by sammy baby ( 14909 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:41AM (#10362322) Journal
    Adobe has put up a page regarding the new format [] on their site. But for those who couldn't be bothered to read the original article and are posting questions like, "Why bother..."

    There are currently two image formats in wide use for high-end cameras. RAW is the format of choice for people who demand high-quality shots with no compression artifacts. Unfortunately, different camera manufacturers have implemented their RAW encoding differently, which means that two cameras that can save to RAW don't necessarily use the same format. As a result, professionals often have to convert between their vendor's RAW format, and that used by their software.

    The other format is good old JPEG, but as you probably know, JPEG is a lossy compression [] algorithim, making it unsuitable for those who demand a certain level of quality in the shots as captured.

    The new format is designed to provide the same advantages of RAW, without the cross-vendor incompatibilities. Adobe is calling it "a publicly documented and readily available specification," although I didn't see any kind of license data around the download of the spec (which is on the Adobe page listed above).
  • by foxtrot ( 14140 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:45AM (#10362357)
    The idea for this spec is not to replace JPEG or PNG. Higher-end digital cameras have a mechanism by which to save images in a lossless format. It used to be this was generally TIFF, but when you're looking at six megapixel images, TIFF nets you pretty monstrous file sizes.

    Most digital camera manufacturers came up with their own lossless compression. And, of course, they're all incompatible.

    Now, why Adobe? If you're shooting high-end digital photography where you care about it being lossless, and you're doing post-production on your images, what are you using? Adobe Photoshop. So instead of having to have input routines for Photoshop for seventeen different specs, Adobe would much rather the manufacturers have one standard-- can't say as I blame them. Standards are good.

    Now, most of us will still keep our cameras set to shoot JPEG, but the folks who do this stuff for a living, this will benefit them. This isn't a case of trying to create a new standard to replace one that already exists to try to get market dominance, a-la Microsoft (or, heck, Acrobat/pdf for the most part...), this is a new standard to make up for the fact that there simply isn't one in this segment and there desperately needs to be.

    Now, this doesn't mean Adobe won't leverage the spec and make piles of cash off of it, but at least in this case they're actually inventing something that people need instead of trying to push something on them that they don't.
  • by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) * on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:47AM (#10362379) Homepage Journal
    DP Review has the press release [], which includes the following description:

    The Digital Negative Specification is based on the TIFF EP format, an accepted standard, and already the basis of many proprietary raw formats. The power of .DNG format lies in a set of metadata that must be included in the file to describe key details about the camera and settings. .DNG-compliant software and hardware can adapt on the fly to handle new cameras as they are introduced. The new file format unifies conflicting raw formats, enabling the preservation of a pristine version of the original raw image and the metadata associated with it. .DNG is also flexible enough to allow camera manufacturers to continue to add their own "private" metadata fields.

    Adobe already has a page [] on DNG. Its is a free format and the specs are right there on the page, so GIMP won't lose out.

    I believe the format is a) to save Adobe money long term (they don't have to support yet another specific sensor) and b) reduce headaches and complaints from the user. We'll just see how the camera companies and digital photography professionals react.
    • by Binary Boy ( 2407 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:57AM (#10362493)
      Adobe can save money with the adoption of DNG - but more money will be saved by smaller developers who cannot do the ongoing reverse engineering that Adobe does to support new RAW formats.

      Adobe is leveraging their reverse engineering work in providing the free DNG Converter - this will actually benefit smaller developers more than Adobe, as they will only have to tell their users to download DNG Converter to move their RAW into DNG - the third-parties can focus on supporting DNG and providing excellent processing tools, while Adobe will continue to do the hard work of camera support (until the cameras produce DNG directly - which is of course the long-term goal).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:56AM (#10362489)
    Since many people here are not photographers and don't deal with RAW formats, let me but it in simple terms.

    Each camera has there own RAW format. Read each Manufacturer has their own proprietary format. Some even have multiple formats. For example, Nikon uses .NEF files. Canon uses .CRW and .CR2.

    Photographers work with RAW because it is lossless and can be recorded with 16 or 12 bits of data per pixel, where JPEG and TIFFS tend to be 8 bits per pixel. Also, as mentioned already, settings such as white balance, tone, sharpness, color, and even exposure compensation can be applied after the shot was taken.

    BTW: Post-Processing is a HUGE part of Digital SLR photography for those that are only used to the Point and Shoot cameras.

    Now for why it is a good thing to have a unified RAW format. I recently purchased the Canon 20D. It included a new .CR2 format. However, none of my existing programs could work with it, even though it is similar to the .CR2 format found in the Canon 1D Mark II. There was a hack for Photoshop CS that worked, but the "As Shot" white balance was wrong. Adobe released the new Camera Raw plug-in today and it works good.

    With each new camera release, all software writers will have to update their program if they want to support the new cameras. At the rate at which DSLR's seem to be announced this could be a huge pain. If a company like Adobe could convince the market the their DNG file is the way to go, your software would only have to work with that format.
  • Less why, more how (Score:4, Informative)

    by Builder ( 103701 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:08AM (#10362635)
    I see a lot of posts asking why bother. What I'm more concerned about is how this could work ?

    Ignoring the differences in the various RAW formats between manufacturers, what about differences between two cameras from the same manufacturer ? What causes that and would DNG cater for it ?

    As an example, look at the Nikon D70 and the D100. Adobe had full support for the D100 with their ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) plugin. But when the D70 came out, we waited months for true compatibility with Photoshop (yeah, yeah, you could use the nikon supplied plugin, but that was worthless really).

    I'm guessing Adobe want this because in order to keep selling Photoshop to photographers, they have to keep amending ACR everytime a new camera comes out. But can a fixed standard cater for everything that Canon and Nikon will be putting in their cameras, and want to store in the RAW files 2 years from now ?
  • by Klowner ( 145731 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:09AM (#10362649) Homepage
    So they're gonna be pronounced as "Ding" I'm assuming, consider the possibilities:

    Dude2: "Hey Dude, I have a funny picture to send you"
    Dude1: "Dude, wait, I have dialup and it's gonna take forever"
    Dude2: "No way dude, it's a ding, it'll only take a moment, here it comes"
    Dude1: "Okay, got it .. Dude, is that a ding of my dong? HTF DID YOU GET THAT?"

    ... I shall stop here
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:13AM (#10362686)
    Adobe has posted a DNG Primer [] online, describing some slightly technical details. Here are the key points from the document that helps to understand what makes the format useful:

    Image format: DNG is based on the TIFF-EP format, but DNG specifies the inclusion of a number of additional tags that let the converter properly interpret the raw file.
    Metadata: DNG enables inclusion of metadata in EXIF, IPTC, and XMP formats.
    Compression: Files can be stored as uncompressed (either bit-packed or padded to 16-bits per pixel) or with lossless JPEG compression.
    Color space: DNG fles are stored in a linear, nonwhite-balanced color space (usually the native color space of the camera).
    Interpolation: DNG enables file storage either in mosaic (CFA) form or in demosaiced form. Generally, a mosaiced file is preferred because it represents the original data the sensor captured and enables maximum conversion fexibility. It is also smaller than a demosaiced file. In some instances, however, saving a demosaiced file can improve compatibility, particularly if the camera sensor contains an unusual mosaic pattern that all converters do not support.
  • by tezza ( 539307 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:15AM (#10362710)
    I've seen a lot of people ranting against Adobe. I deal with Adobe tech all day, postscript [], pdf [], fonts []. They had a big hand [] in the SVG spec.

    In my opinion, working with the bare bones of their technology, ALL of it is well thought out, comprehensive and well explained.

    They consider all of the difficulties of the problem domain. For instance, see how easy it is in PDF to create changes to an existing document, great for low powered CPUs. Just append the changed object and add on a new footer to the file. 95% of the file retained, which is a lot less expensive than re-generation of the whole file.

    I think Adobe will do a good job here and post the specifications ala PDF and Postscript.

    Not mentioned in the other comments is the run time hardware cost of saving this Digital Negative. I think Adobe will put effort into making this as friendly to integrated hardware capture as possible. A large portion of this has to be very little re-ordering of data as it comes from the CCD, as these usually require an in memory buffer. This fundamentally changes the nature of the format.

  • by guidryp ( 702488 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:19AM (#10362739)
    This is a major boon. For those too lazy to read. It is 100% free and open for anyone to implement. Adobe is also providing a free converter.

    This provides a common RAW format for cameras. This is not a png or jpg replacement, but a RAW replacement.

    There are a number of third party RAW converters on the market right now. Many have limited camera support. You can bet they will quickly moving to support DNG. Which will instantly open up their usage to almost all current cameras.

    With DNG support and Adobes converter you will soon be able to open just about any RAW image with any converter.

    Even without camera output this is a benefit. As you can get one converter to support all your cameras.

    You can archive all your RAWs as DNG and not have to worry that you kept all the software that came with the camera that generated the original RAW.

    Camera support would be even better, but that may be slow as the manufactures may suffer "Not Invented Here" syndrome, or see value adds to their own format quirks.

  • by coult ( 200316 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @12:13PM (#10363326)
    We really shouldn't even call it an image format. Most people think of image formats as a way to compress and store image data for viewing or printing; things like JPEG or GIF or PNG.

    DNG is a format for storing the data recorded by the CCD's in a digital camera. This data can of course be processed and displayed as an image, but DNG really isn't an image format exactly.
  • by Sigfried ( 779148 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @12:13PM (#10363331)
    If you actually go to adobe's website and RTFM [],you will see that Adobe did the Right Thing (TM):

    A DNG-format file is fully compliant with the TIFF 6.0 Specification Standard and the ISO TIFF-EP codification of that spec, which was designed from day one as a fully extensible raw, processed, or whatever image / metadata annotation spec.

    BTW, TIFF was originally designed for offset printing folks, and in the 6.0 standard already supports a huge number of colorspace models besides RGB, and has an extensible mechanism for specifying color-data encoding and compression schemes (you can even store JPEG encoding in TIFF).

    When I worked at the ground-data processing section of the Jet Propulsion labs, TIFF was occasionally used to store and transmit raw multispectral satellite data, which consisted of over 256 separate color-spectra bands from far infrared to ultraviolet, stored spatially in separate tiles.

    Working together with Spot Image and other satellite providers, NASA also helped develop the GeoTIFF extension to TIFF, which annotates an image with exact georeferencing information.

    It looks like Adobe went the route of using SubIFD's to define the extended data. A little bit unfortunate, since that data will not show up in a "tiffdump" listing of the file, but in any case I have no doubt that folks are already taking the spec and writing "libtiff" extensions to parse the stuff.

    For more information on TIFF, see my old, clunky website that is chock full of invalid links,but still has a few useful things to say: []

    --Niles (original GeoTIFF and TIFF webpage author)

  • by Thagg ( 9904 ) <> on Monday September 27, 2004 @01:35PM (#10364206) Journal
    I've looked over most of the information Adobe has published, and it's not bad. It's true that a typical RAW format file is difficult to interpret. I've reverse-engineered a couple of RAW formats just for fun, (it's pretty easy if you can tell the camera to output a RAW and TIFF image of the same shot) and the Adobe propsed DNG format does have flags for most of the issues that I've come across (I have to say that there were some new ones for me, too -- the flag that specifies how closely the G in the RGRG rows compares to the G in the GBGB rows is something I've never even thought of.) It's good that Adobe has considered the possibility of more-than-three-channel cameras.

    But -- I think that digital cameras are still *way* too new for this kind of standardization. Significant true innovation is happening at a frenetic pace, and if we limit RAW formats to a preconceived format we may inadvertantly (or advertantly, I suppose) squelch that innovation. Fuji's spectacular sensor with separate sensors at each pixel for dark and bright values is an example -- how would that be encoded here? One might well have a camera with vertical and horizontal polarizers on every other cell, to allow post-processessing to reduce or enhance specular highlights. Cameras could be built with psuedorandom placement of cells, to eliminate aliasing artifacts (Why not? It's not as if the semiconductor masks are laid down by hand anymore.)

    In short, I think that this format could end up being a Procrustean bed that we force camera makers into, and that it's not worth it at this point.


Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"