How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default" JPG?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Forget Dpreview's B.S., "diplomatic language" NEX 16mm lensis not good
Next: How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default"JPG?
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 13 Jun 2010 23:36 Jon Smid <Varkensvoer(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Floyd L. Davidson schreef: >> And why do you supposed after all these years there is >> no alternative? Could it just happen to be that dcraw >> is such a killer implementation that nobody wants to >> waste their time writing a "replacement" that will never >> be more than an obscure "almost an alternative"? > >Probably assuming in vain that you really want an answer, yet trying : > >The *huge* value of dcraw is in the reverse engineering work that was >put in deciphering all of those raw formats out there. This is a >tremendous achievement. This is what it makes it practically impossible >to come with an alternative. Nobody has a better understanding or track >record in this respect. > >But nevertheless the result was put in a program that is crappy in >software engineering terms. If the program was that crappy there would be half a dozen alternative programs available within a few months. Yet for years now nobody has bothered. Not only that, but efforts such as UFRAW, which could easily merely lift that "tremendous achievement" in engineering and write their own code to implement it, don't. Instead the lift *the code*, modify it only enough to meet their specific needs, and use it as is. Your claim of "crappy" software engineering doesn't wash. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Ray Fischer on 14 Jun 2010 02:20 Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >Jon Smid <Varkensvoer(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>Floyd L. Davidson schreef: >>> And why do you supposed after all these years there is >>> no alternative? Could it just happen to be that dcraw >>> is such a killer implementation that nobody wants to >>> waste their time writing a "replacement" that will never >>> be more than an obscure "almost an alternative"? >> >>Probably assuming in vain that you really want an answer, yet trying : >> >>The *huge* value of dcraw is in the reverse engineering work that was >>put in deciphering all of those raw formats out there. This is a >>tremendous achievement. This is what it makes it practically impossible >>to come with an alternative. Nobody has a better understanding or track >>record in this respect. >> >>But nevertheless the result was put in a program that is crappy in >>software engineering terms. > >If the program was that crappy there would be half a >dozen alternative programs available within a few >months. Yet for years now nobody has bothered. Except for Adobe's RAW converter, and Apple's, and Canon's, and Nikon's, and all the other graphics programs. > Not >only that, but efforts such as UFRAW, which could easily You're an idiot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 14 Jun 2010 03:44 rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >>Jon Smid <Varkensvoer(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Floyd L. Davidson schreef: >>>> And why do you supposed after all these years there is >>>> no alternative? Could it just happen to be that dcraw >>>> is such a killer implementation that nobody wants to >>>> waste their time writing a "replacement" that will never >>>> be more than an obscure "almost an alternative"? >>> >>>Probably assuming in vain that you really want an answer, yet trying : >>> >>>The *huge* value of dcraw is in the reverse engineering work that was >>>put in deciphering all of those raw formats out there. This is a >>>tremendous achievement. This is what it makes it practically impossible >>>to come with an alternative. Nobody has a better understanding or track >>>record in this respect. >>> >>>But nevertheless the result was put in a program that is crappy in >>>software engineering terms. >> >>If the program was that crappy there would be half a >>dozen alternative programs available within a few >>months. Yet for years now nobody has bothered. > >Except for Adobe's RAW converter, and Apple's, and Canon's, and >Nikon's, and all the other graphics programs. > >> Not >>only that, but efforts such as UFRAW, which could easily > >You're an idiot. Your exception list doesn't include a single program that duplicates what Jon and I agree is the purpose of /dcraw/ as a program. Do you even know what /dcraw/ is? Plus Adobe used Coffin's /dcraw/ in the development of their own converter, though because Adobe is proprietary we don't know to what degree or exactly in what way even. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: nospam on 14 Jun 2010 04:43 In article <87sk4r893a.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > The purpose is *portability*. The mechanism is ISO Standard C. c++ is portable, a *far* better choice than c. > Despite what you seem to think, threading is not portable. there are portable threading solutions.
From: nospam on 14 Jun 2010 04:47
In article <87eiga94cb.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > And why do you supposed after all these years there is > no alternative? Could it just happen to be that dcraw > is such a killer implementation that nobody wants to > waste their time writing a "replacement" that will never > be more than an obscure "almost an alternative"? because anyone skilled enough to do it can get paid quite well for it, rather than wasting their time on something that is given away. that's why the state of the art converters are commercial products, such as camera raw, capture one, dxo, etc. |