New Content Since Last Visit
No New Content Since Last Visit
I find this is a great program but very slow. It is slow starting up, slow processing, and takes forever to save a file when it is finished. Also I would have like to see it save my work in the format the photo was taken. For example Nikon's NEF. format.
ACDSee Pro 3 Beta - Bugs
Speed, and saving to NEF (was: Acdsee Pro 3 Beta)
[closed]
(10 posts)
-
alexjlepp
MemberPosted On June 10, 2009 - 02:38 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorAlso I would have like to see it save my work in the format the photo was taken. For example Nikon's NEF. format.
By definition, you cannot save work in RAW format - the whole idea of RAW is that it representats exactly what camera off the camera sensor. That's not just ACDSee - *no* RAW processing program ever saves its work in RAW format. However, that doesn't mean you need to convert to another format. In Develop mode, simply hit Done no need to Save at all - and the settings you used will be remembered by ACDSee. Your RAW data is unchanged, but ACDSee remembers what yo want done to it, so the next time you view your image, ACDSee will reapply those same settings and show you your image just as you had processed it.
Posted On June 10, 2009 - 04:08 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
NA
InactiveI'd like for Pro 3 to be able to write its edits to the *.NEF file: Not to sidecars, simply nowhere else.
And for those Pro 3 edits in the NEF to be readable by Nikon's ViewNX and Capture NX 2 software.
Why would this not be possible? Maybe for licensing reasons or other such, but technically is should be perfectly feasible.
Posted On June 14, 2009 - 07:52 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
andrew.james.heard
MemberI find this is a great program but very slow. It is slow starting up, slow processing, and takes forever to save a file when it is finished. Also I would have like to see it save my work in the format the photo was taken. For example Nikon's NEF. format.
Hey alexjlepp, can you use a more descritpive topic name next time?
Posted On June 15, 2009 - 04:20 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorI'd like for Pro 3 to be able to write its edits to the *.NEF file: Not to sidecars, simply nowhere else.
FWIW, I think NEF may be one of the few (only?) RAW formats that actaully does normally "support" being written to. Nikon is kind of unique in having their software write to their own raw format. Most manuafacturers specifically warn against it, and kind of go out out of their way not to document the full structure of the formats so as to discourage that sort of thing. In general, being able to write metadata directly to the raw file itself as opposed to using sidecarsis one of the main reasons a lot of people use the DNG format as opposed to their camera's proprietary RAW format. You might consider the possibility of converting to DNG in order to gain that capbility - except that still won't address what appears to be the main reason you are bringing this up:
And for those Pro 3 edits in the NEF to be readable by Nikon's ViewNX and Capture NX 2 software.
Why would this not be possible? Maybe for licensing reasons or other such, but technically is should be perfectly feasible.
I don't think so. In general, no other two unrelated applications that I am aware of can read each others' processing instructions (and by "unrelated" I mean, yes, it makes sense that Adobe programs can read other others instructions). ACDSee has features for which Nikon has no analogue, and vice versa. What would Capture NX do with information about, for example, the Advanced Color controls, or the Lighting controls? And even for features that both progrms share, there is no standard for agreeing on what the units mean (eg, what does it mean to set Contrast to +17, or noise reduction amount to 40?). There would be no chance that the two progams would produce the same image from the same image data and processing instructions. Because of issues like this, there has been little or not move toward standardization of even th basics about how that information should be recorded. Each RAW processing application stores its own processing instructions in its own completely proprietary way even with the same XMP sidecar.
The best one can normally hope for is for a RAW processing program to also save a JPEG preview of its adjustments within the file, so other programs can at least view the *results* of the adjustments, if not make sense of the processing parameters themselves. Again, most proprietary RAW formats don't support even this - Capture NX and NEF are unique as far as I know in that the preview *is* updated when processing and not left as the camera created it. But this is another area here DNG has a lot of appeal for many - it *does* support the ability to embed a JPEG preview within the image file itself.
Unfortunately, since ACDSee does not support conversion to DNG itself, you cannot get an ACDSee-generated preview into a DNG file. You can run the free Adobe DNG Converter, but it will generate its own preview, which still won't reflect your adjustments made with ACDSee. It seems I once found reference to a way to get ExifTool or soem other utility to replace the embedded preview with one of your choosing, so you could have ACDSee generate a JPEG and then have ExifTool stuff it into the DNG, but it seemed there were limitations/complications with this, and it seemed to much of a bother to me.
Having ACDSee be able to generate its own DNG files - complete with processed/adjusted/corrected preview - is high on the list of features missing from ACDSee from the perspective of the sort of workflow espoused by Peter Krogh & "The DAM Book".
Posted On June 15, 2009 - 04:24 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
NA
InactiveIn general, no other two unrelated applications that I am aware of can read each others' processing instructions...
That might be, but it does not prove that it can't be done.
ACDSee has features for which Nikon has no analogue, and vice versa. What would Capture NX do with information about, for example, the Advanced Color controls...
I find that at the very least the example is poorly chosen. Take a look at this clip, showing on the right the LCH tool in Capture NX 2 (I believe "LCH" is an acronym for Lightness, Color and Hue)
Attached Image:
The two are spitting images of each other I'm sure you'll agree. So it should not be overly difficult - in technical terms that is - to make the numerical values behind the Pro "Advanced Color" settings comprehensible to Capture NX 2's LCH tool.
In addition to licensing issues there may also be the non-trivial issue of costs involved, but while respeceting your different opinion on the subject I'll maintain that the tecnical feasabiltiy exists.
Posted On June 16, 2009 - 08:26 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Tony
Developer, ACD SystemsMark is right, this is technically impossible. Even if the GUI was identical between two applications, the algorithms that actually change pixel values couldn't possibly be the same unless the two companies shared their source code.
Posted On June 16, 2009 - 02:51 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
NA
InactiveI hear what you are saying but you are contradicting yourself:
...unless the two companies shared their source code.
The impediment thus is whatever prevent them from sharing from sharing code. If they were to enter into an agreement about sharing code (a phenomenon occuring daily in the software business, previously referred to by me as licensing issues), the developers would start coding etc..
Why anyone would call an unwillingness to enter into an agreement or disinterest of doing so proof of technical non-feasibility is beyond me.
I used to work first as technical director and later as contracts manager for Europe and the Middle East for one of the world's largest software companies. Not to imply that I know everything or much better than the next guy, but some would say I have a fair grasp of the software iindustry.
Nothing more really to add, so what do you say guys, that we leave it here?
Cheers,
Posted On June 16, 2009 - 03:35 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorI agree - technically feasible *if* companies are willing to give up their competitive advantage by sharing technology I this way.
Posted On June 16, 2009 - 09:35 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post) -
NA
InactiveReaders of this topic might want to take a look at this other forum topic:
Posted On June 17, 2009 - 07:46 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Subscribe to this topic via RSS
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
