Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

1 2

4 5 end

Archive 2005 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

mkonik
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #1 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

I'm just going to cross post the link to the thread I started my rants in... A lot of good points across the forums but most people are still missing the big picture, pun intended...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/212421/1

marc

Apr 20, 2005 at 02:49 AM

Octavio Salles
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #2 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Shivatron wrote:
You state that you think Nikon is right for not allowing WB decrpytion to "free softwares out there". I'd be interested to know, Octavio, why you think Nikon has a right to encrypt the data you record (which, might I remind you, includes the in-camera WB data) with the camera you purchased?

As one poster in the Nikon forum said, it's like making a camera that produces film that only works in one enlarger.

Because NC costs $99 and the free software costs $0. Nikon loses money everytime someone uses such free softwares.

Like I said earlier, Nikon is not a non-profit organization... and we are not on the film times anymore. Post processing is a major part of digital photography.

Some people say that Canon don't worry about software... well they don't worry because no one wants to use that bad software they make (from what I hear)... but NC, more and more people are using it regularly, including me.

Apr 20, 2005 at 02:52 AM

stevenrk
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #3 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Octavio wrote:

yeah but nobody said Nikon is trying to do it except Adobe itself! That's why to me this is all a huge internet ridiculous hysteria attack.

Octavio, sorry to be somewhat critical of your statement, but you made these statements earlier which were shown to simply not be correct. Not sure why you are returning to this line. Nikon executives (see posts here) have accepted this as true and are responding. Thomas Knol is one of the two creators of PS and is also quoted in this post. Please inform us what about the statements of Nikon executives or of Thomas Knoll are not accurate?

Steven

Apr 20, 2005 at 03:01 AM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #4 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

From the viewpoint of a software developer, I retain all rights to my software. When a customer purchases my software, they get a limited license to use the software. This is fairly typical of all software. However, IMHO, I think there is a misunderstanding of what is software, and what is data. The WB information that is stored in the nef file is encrypted data, not software. Yes, it does require software/code to decrypt the data, but that is where NC or any other software comes in that imports/converts the nef file. Encrypted data is not inherently protected by copyright. The software that decrypts it is. I use encrypted data all the time in my software, because there are certain things that I don't want to be publicly viewable. And that is what Nikon has done, they have encrypted the WB data, because they don't want it public.

If someone were to be able to decrypt data I have stored/created with my software, I wouldn't like it, but it would not hold up in court as theft or infringement of copyright.However, if you steal my software, I'll do everything in my power to take you down. Now, if you stole the code that Nikon actually wrote, e.g. the code that creates the WB data, that would be theft. But, reverse engineering the data to write your own code/algorithim would not be theft. This has been tried many times in the courts. For example, IBM sued Phoenix Technoligies accusing them of 'stealing' their BIOS code on the IBM PC. But Phoenix proved in court that they had reverse engineered the BIOS and wrote their own, and the courts sided with Phoenix. The 'IBM compatible' computer was the result.

I don't mind that Nikon is encrypting the WB data, what I do mind is them not being forthright with how to read it. If they are trying to protect intellectual property, I would think they could store the data in such a way as to hide their technology. Outside of that, they could license the decryption algorithim to vendors, or provide what is called a software development kit for software developers. This way, they would protect their data, and other software developers could incorporate full Nikon support into their software. Kodak has a similar program for their software technologies.

IMO, all the Nikon software contained in the camera itself is of course intellectual property of Nikon, and I fully support them wanting to protect that. However, I do believe that once the file has been stored on my memory card, it should be totally and completely mine. Just my thoughts.

Jack

Apr 20, 2005 at 03:15 AM

mkonik
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #5 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Jack, your premise is spot on. The bigger issue is how far Nikon will go and how does that impact a photographers options later, not just in post but in time, of working with "his data". This is a pretty terrifying prospect for those that save and use images over the course of many years. Generations of photographs would be lost if the ability to read the file format was compromised and this certainly is a move in that direction. Somehow Nikons' marketing and the product managers lost sight of the end user and need to see the light... A photograph usually tells a story and evokes emotions, imagine if that ability was compromised by this seemingly simple programming action. Nikon's founders are rolling over in their graves right now in disgust... It certainly flys in the face of their mission statement.
http://nikonimaging.com/global/about/brand.htm

I suppose that they should put a disclaimer on the Three Promises of the Heart.*

*Promises are valid only to licensed users of Nikon Capture...

regards,
marc

Apr 20, 2005 at 03:36 AM

Paul Gardner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #6 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

I personably amazed at how many people don't understand the difference between software code and data. How the cmarea manufacturers write the code that deposits the data on the memory card is propritory and is intelectal property. Once the data is written it belongs to the photographer. Any attempt to hide the data is an invasion of the photographers rights. The data belongs to the photographer! The layout of the data needs to be public so that in the future any programmer can write code to read the data on any system of the future.
We need to tell the manufactures that we will not buy any more cameras from them until they make the layout of their formats public. We can live a year or so with our present cameras, can they live without sales.
Nikon's move is just the latest step in the race to control how we process.

Come on guys, see the light before its too late and we have lost control of our processing.

Apr 20, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Qranc
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #7 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

From my perspective Nikon is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They invest a great deal in developing a fairly sophisticated soft for their photographers, ask literally next to nothing for it and people complain. All Nikon is saying "use PS if you like just use NC first, trust us it's better image wise. We know, we built the camera and the software." If they offered "free" software (read crappy) then people would complain "I spent this amount on a camera and this is all they give me?"

The day that Nikon builds software capable of matching PS for all it's worth is the day I play hockey with fallen angels. Dealing specifically with the issue of processing/editing, it is a far more sophisticated animal than simply managing histograms, curves or the odd cloneing of power lines.

Maybe Nikon should have been smart and just offered free (crappy) software and let everyone buy 5k worth of camera and leave them to their own decisions about processing.

I still don't see where this creates any loss of control in post processing. You still have an equal amount of control as you would have with film in respect to WB. You can still edit it in photoshop in post processing, you just can't do it useing the raw data.

Apr 20, 2005 at 05:17 AM

bogatyr
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #8 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

molson wrote:
From Nikon's perspective, why would they invest R&D money in software development, which is crucial to improving the output quality of their cameras, if they have to give it away for free, or worse yet, be forced to let their competitors have it for free?

I'd like a free copy of NC4 as much as the next guy, but I'm trying to appreciate the bigger picture here. _peace_

Please, who is talking about giving anything away for free?

I am interested in functional software, and I am prepared to pay for it. But I am not prepared to accept software companies' "protection of intellectual property" whose effect is that other developers are prevented from making alternative software, thereby limiting customer choice. Among other things.

Software companies must accept that they have to compete by coming out with better products than the competition, not by limiting customer choice and prohibiting other developers from making their own software.

By the way, Adobe has no moral reason to complain here. They have produced software which cannot be run without strings to the manufacturer after the license is paid, thus jeopardizing the safety of our data when the tools we need to manipulate our own data does not function independent from the software company.

Apr 20, 2005 at 05:39 AM

bogatyr
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #9 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

molson wrote:
I don't have a lot of respect for a company that tries to steal intellectual property. It makes me wonder why Adobe changed their registration and activation process for Photoshop CS to make it so secure? If they think software code should be made available for anyone who wants to copy it, they should set the example and start with their own products.

Nobody is advocating stealing others' code. What we want, is to see other software companies and third- party developers being able to create their own solutions. The code of any given program belongs to the creator in every instance, but that should not prevent other developers from making their own software.

If I write a program, I own the copyright to that program.

If I try to prevent others from writing a program which performs the same function(s), I am trying to create a monopoly for myself. By the way, software patents are effectively monopolies on technical solutions, and therefore especially detrimental.

Apr 20, 2005 at 05:50 AM

bogatyr
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #10 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Octavio Salles wrote:

Because NC costs $99 and the free software costs $0. Nikon loses money everytime someone uses such free softwares.
.

That means, if I write a program, I should have the right to prevent third-party developers to write a program independent of my program, but which does the same thing?

How perverse is that?

As a photographer, I have to compete with other photographers, both amateurs and professionals. I have to accept that amateurs give away their photos for free, and I must compete with superior quality to make people pay. I cannot demand that non-professionals stop taking pictures because I lose money when someone else gives away pictures for free.

My intellectual property is what I create. I should have no right to prevent others from making their own creations. Increasingly, the concept of "intellectual property" is used to stifle competition and limit the choice of others.

If someone wants to write free software, by all means let them do it. If someone steals the code of others, it is theft which of course is illegal and should be. But if someone creates their own code which does the same thing as another program, it should be perfectly legal.

Apr 20, 2005 at 06:00 AM

Octavio Salles
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #11 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

bogatyr wrote:
That means, if I write a program, I should have the right to prevent third-party developers to write a program independent of my program, but which does the same thing?

How perverse is that?

Lets just let those free software programmers develop their own DSLR with its own RAW format then....

To me these free softwares are like a hungry school of piranhas trying to get a bite. And its not that they won't be able to open Nikon NEF files alltogether... they will open it allright, but just a detail will be left out... if people insist on using that WB detail they can go and buy a NC or a PS (I'm sure they will license Adobe to use it). There are many ways around this WB issue... starting on color balance which any program can do and is a more effective way to control WB anyway IMHO.

We are doing a huge issue out of nothing.

Apr 20, 2005 at 12:44 PM

Octavio Salles
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #12 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

stevenrk wrote:
Nikon executives (see posts here) have accepted this as true and are responding. Thomas Knol is one of the two creators of PS and is also quoted in this post. Please inform us what about the statements of Nikon executives or of Thomas Knoll are not accurate?

What Nikon executives ??

Thomas Knol works for ADOBE, that should explain.

Apr 20, 2005 at 12:46 PM

Xavier Rival
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #13 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

What a funny thread! Reminds me the good time about the Canon 300D locked features and what happened then

It seems that camera compagnies really do not understand much to computers and they are learning slowly. Photographers are much more aware about the computer problems that the camera makers, which gives me much hope in the future.

Edited by Xavier Rival on Apr 20, 2005 at 01:57 PM GMT

Apr 20, 2005 at 01:56 PM

Glenn01
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #14 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

OK, I'll bite. What DID happen?

Glenn

Apr 20, 2005 at 01:57 PM

Xavier Rival
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #15 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Glenn01 wrote:
OK, I'll bite. What DID happen?

Glenn

Very simple: Canon did use software to lock some features of the camera, differentiate their products. I do not disagree that they had to differentiate the products; they chose the simplest way for that.

Consequence: Some people good at hacking computers became curious about what was in the firmware and hacked it. They unlocked the software locked features. They started thinking about features they would like to see (I did not follow closely whether new features were designed by them or not; I never was interested in the 300D). I am not sure we would have seen that if the feature removal had not been purely software based.

I am not sure but I believe they will not do that again (at least they did not do that with the 350D).

The encryption of some fields of Exif files is obviously not directly comparable, but still a bad move in the software point of view, which will cause the aggravation of the customers who just wanted to use another software than NC.

What I would expect now is people get concerned about what is in the files out of the camera. I already tried to read the RAW of my own camera one year ago... and found some open source program that does just that (dcraw). I am curious whether we will see a dcraw update including support for D2Hs and D2X cameras; if yes, then you will see the decryption algorithm publically available.

What I see now is a lot of discussion here and on other forums about the aspects of Raw files. A lot of discussions also about processing software (technical and legal aspects).

My own opinion about RAW is simple: standards make the life of people who use computers easier. Will NC 12 still support your old D2X files in 2015, when you will have a D5 ? Will you find a version of NC compatible with the OS you use by then ? I would like to see some standard, yet extendable formats appear for RAW (DNG is a great first step); be free to use my files now or later, on this or that computer with no restriction and still be able to get the full power out of it; Nikon is just heading the other way and I regret that.
I do not support hacking. But I think everyone, including Nikon would benefit from programmers implementing software their files at no cost for them and possibly inventing some features that should not be included in NC (what about DxO ?).

Apr 20, 2005 at 02:23 PM

jmaio
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #16 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Xavier,

You pose some interesting points. The other day, I was going through some family photos that were more than 35 years old. I wanted to find a few for a relative's birthday. It was no problem to find and then scan the slides. I enhanced them in PhotoShop and emailed them.

I wonder what will be the situation 35 years from now when not only the software standards may be unreadable, but we'll be trying to find an appliance that can read something called a "CD-ROM" or a "DVD".

Long-lasting, non-proprietary standards are really needed, or a big part of history will be lost.

Apr 20, 2005 at 02:38 PM

Glenn01
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #17 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Thanks for the info Xavier.

One of the things I discussed briefly with the Nikon Rep yesterday was DNG support. My feeling was that Nikon was not in favour of supporting that either. What a royal pain. I expressed to the rep that while Nikon has every right to protect their part of their systems, this whole thing is a terrible PR move and APPEARS very selfish on their part, and that they might lose far more in sales of new cameras then they would ever hope to gain back in sales of NC. Typically in business, whether a company is right or wrong, appearances are everything and THAT is what drives business in the end.

Glenn

Apr 20, 2005 at 03:28 PM

bourbonnais
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #18 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

FLAME ON!
I can't believe Nikon would try a stunt like this!
It is like they are trying to say that you can only use their film and their lab with their camera.
At least when the DVD companies tried to encrypt their DVD formats, Matshusta provided third party companies with the encryption/decription algorithms. Even that was cracked by a kid in Europe.
All this Nikon stunt will do is alienate a lot of their loyal users, myself included, and for what?
The encryption has already been broken, so even if Adobe doesn't provide an official plug-in, how long do you think it will take before hack plug-ins are floating around on the net?
WAKE UP NIKON THIS IS A STUPID MOVE ON YOUR PART!
YOU ARE LOOSING FACE OVER THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apr 20, 2005 at 05:21 PM

Qranc
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #19 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

It is like they are trying to say that you can only use their film and their lab with their camera.

Not at all. Nikon has said you can do what you like with their "film". You can still edit WB and everything else in post can't you? Well that's rhetorical and I'll save us some posts, YES you can.

They merely have said if you want the unlike film feature of adjusting WB in raw data before interpolation they will allow you to do that provided you use the software they created for that unlike film feature.

Comparing encrypted WB in raw data to film/lab/processing is just no where close. Closer description would be Fuji providing you with the ability to shoot with daylight balanced film and then adjusting before its developed.

Apr 20, 2005 at 06:31 PM

Octavio Salles
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #20 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Exactly Qranc, that's what I was trying to say.

Apr 20, 2005 at 07:11 PM

stevenrk
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #21 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Qranc said:
It is like they are trying to say that you can only use their film and their lab with their camera.

Not at all. Nikon has said you can do what you like with their "film". You can still edit WB and everything else in post can't you? Well that's rhetorical and I'll save us some posts, YES you can.

They merely have said if you want the unlike film feature of adjusting WB in raw data before interpolation they will allow you to do that provided you use the software they created for that unlike film feature.

Comparing encrypted WB in raw data to film/lab/processing is just no where close. Closer description would be Fuji providing you with the ability to shoot with daylight balanced film and then adjusting before its developed.

I have to respectfully, but strongly disagree. If you want to draw analogies, it is much closer to if PS suddenly updating their software to only allow you to save an image as a psd, and that image could only be properly printed on a new line of printers they were starting to sell. I think you would agree that would be unacceptable. What Nikon is doing is just as foolish, and is truly disrespectful of Nikon users. Hopefully they will come to their senses in time not to make this a wonderful business school case study in how to upset your entire core customer base just at the moment they were starting to feel good again about being Nikon users.

Apr 20, 2005 at 09:29 PM

Quentin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #22 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Qranc wrote:
It is like they are trying to say that you can only use their film and their lab with their camera.
....

Comparing encrypted WB in raw data to film/lab/processing is just no where close. .

Sure it is. In fact, its a perfect metaphor.

II don't want Nikon, Canon or anyone else shutting me out of some of the data in my photographs. Its white balance today, but it could be other data tomorrow - or the whole file. It's not reasonable, and it's not acceptable. More importantly, it will cost Nikon in lost customers and lost respect.

Apr 20, 2005 at 10:24 PM

stevenrk
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #23 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

Quentin wrote:
I don't want Nikon, Canon or anyone else shutting me out of some of the data in my photographs. Its white balance today, but it could be other data tomorrow - or the whole file. It's not reasonable, and it's not acceptable. More importantly, it will cost Nikon in lost customers and lost respect.

Well stated.

Does anyone have information about the person/address/telephone number that Nikon owners can use to voice their objections. A kind of "just say yes or we'll say No!" statement.

It's been stated in this thread that Nikon tracks these forums, so maybe they could show themselves and provide us with that information. Several contributors have also spoken of conversations they have had to voice their concerns, and maybe they can let us know who to contact - expecially with the letter, it needs to go somewhere it gets counted instead of lost in a customer representative's out box.

My sense is that Nikon really needs to turn this one around by next week if they want to avoid doing permanent damage to themselves in "lost respect" from what is left of their core user base.

Apr 20, 2005 at 10:49 PM

Glenn01
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #24 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/213027

I'm not sure that Nikon monitors THIS forum, so to be sure, dropping them a line is a good idea. It's fine for us to discuss this among ourselves, but doesn't get the message through to those that REALLY matter - the head haunchos at Nikon.

Glenn

Apr 20, 2005 at 11:10 PM

Qranc
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #25 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

If you want to draw analogies, it is much closer to if PS suddenly updating their software to only allow you to save an image as a psd, and that image could only be properly printed on a new line of printers they were starting to sell.

If you want to use this analogy then we must assume PS is the camera and PSD is the raw. You can't do anything with the raw data without PS where as what Nikon has done is far more liberated with their approach. In fact the analogy would equate to Nikon camera will do all the processing for you no ifs ands or buts. Nikon is far more liberated allowing you to use the raw data with 3rd party software (with the only exception being WB) not to mention allowing for output of other files not restricted to the analogy of psd only.

They reserve the right to edit raw data in WB with their own software if you want to process on the PC as opposed to in camera. Adobe wouldn't have to change anything at all or make any sort of printer, the PSD is far more restricted as it is in respect to third party than what Nikon has done with their encryption of WB.

Apr 20, 2005 at 11:13 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 5 end