64-bit codec for Canon & Nikon RAW formats

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Man-wai Chang, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from DSLR.

    How do you solve this problem?

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
    /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
    ^ ^ 21:44:01 up 3 days 1:03 0 users load average: 0.00 0.01 0.05
    ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
    Man-wai Chang, Jun 7, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. >> How do you solve this problem?
    > Don't worry yourself with a non-issue, that is how you solve that problem.


    So even professional photography does not always use raw formats?

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
    /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
    ^ ^ 22:44:01 up 3 days 2:03 0 users load average: 0.01 0.02 0.05
    ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
    Man-wai Chang, Jun 7, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Man-wai Chang

    nospam Guest

    In article <isldp7$38f$>, Man-wai Chang
    <> wrote:

    > >> How do you solve this problem?

    > > Don't worry yourself with a non-issue, that is how you solve that problem.

    >
    > So even professional photography does not always use raw formats?


    what does that have to do with a 64 bit codec?
    nospam, Jun 7, 2011
    #3
  4. >> So even professional photography does not always use raw formats?
    >
    > what does that have to do with a 64 bit codec?


    If raw iamge formats were widely used, then 64-bit codec for 64-bit
    Window$ should be widely avalable?

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
    /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
    ^ ^ 00:49:02 up 3 days 4:08 0 users load average: 0.02 0.04 0.05
    ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
    Man-wai Chang, Jun 7, 2011
    #4
  5. Man-wai Chang

    nospam Guest

    In article <isll0i$kv8$>, Man-wai Chang
    <> wrote:

    > >> So even professional photography does not always use raw formats?

    > >
    > > what does that have to do with a 64 bit codec?

    >
    > If raw iamge formats were widely used, then 64-bit codec for 64-bit
    > Window$ should be widely avalable?


    raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
    windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32 & 64 bit.
    nospam, Jun 7, 2011
    #5
  6. > raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
    > windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32& 64 bit.


    Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
    imaging.... :)

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
    /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
    ^ ^ 01:19:01 up 3 days 4:38 0 users load average: 0.00 0.01 0.05
    ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
    Man-wai Chang, Jun 7, 2011
    #6
  7. Man-wai Chang

    nospam Guest

    In article <islml5$10h$>, Man-wai Chang
    <> wrote:

    > > raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
    > > windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32& 64 bit.

    >
    > Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
    > imaging.... :)


    camera raw is definitely free.

    what's not free is photoshop or lightroom, which use camera raw. it can
    run standalone to convert to dng and then you can use other software.

    photoshop elements is usually $50-60 which is not for 'rich users' or
    'professional imaging.'
    nospam, Jun 7, 2011
    #7
  8. Man-wai Chang

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:50:16 +0800, Man-wai Chang wrote:

    > There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from
    > DSLR.
    >
    > How do you solve this problem?


    Could you explain to me what you mean by a "64-bit codec for raw images"?
    I'm not familiar with any cameras that produce 64-bit data. At best, they
    might use 16bits per channel.
    ray, Jun 7, 2011
    #8
  9. Man-wai Chang

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray <>
    wrote:

    > > There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from
    > > DSLR.
    > >
    > > How do you solve this problem?

    >
    > Could you explain to me what you mean by a "64-bit codec for raw images"?
    > I'm not familiar with any cameras that produce 64-bit data. At best, they
    > might use 16bits per channel.


    the raw converter software is 64 bit.
    nospam, Jun 7, 2011
    #9
  10. Man-wai Chang

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:49:09 -0400, nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, ray <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> > There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from
    >> > DSLR.
    >> >
    >> > How do you solve this problem?

    >>
    >> Could you explain to me what you mean by a "64-bit codec for raw
    >> images"? I'm not familiar with any cameras that produce 64-bit data. At
    >> best, they might use 16bits per channel.

    >
    > the raw converter software is 64 bit.


    That's hardly what I'd call a 'codec' - it's an application - and why
    would it matter?
    ray, Jun 7, 2011
    #10
  11. Man-wai Chang

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray <>
    wrote:

    > >> Could you explain to me what you mean by a "64-bit codec for raw
    > >> images"? I'm not familiar with any cameras that produce 64-bit data. At
    > >> best, they might use 16bits per channel.

    > >
    > > the raw converter software is 64 bit.

    >
    > That's hardly what I'd call a 'codec' - it's an application - and why
    > would it matter?


    depends on the raw converter. camera raw is a plug-in, like a codec,
    although it's not technically a codec. other raw converters are
    self-contained applications, like nikon's software. if it's all 64 bit,
    the raw processing is generally faster.
    nospam, Jun 7, 2011
    #11
  12. Man-wai Chang

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > >> > There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from
    > >> > DSLR.
    > >> >
    > >> > How do you solve this problem?
    > >>
    > >> Could you explain to me what you mean by a "64-bit codec for raw images"?
    > >> I'm not familiar with any cameras that produce 64-bit data. At best, they
    > >> might use 16bits per channel.

    > >
    > >the raw converter software is 64 bit.

    >
    > But there is no such thing as a "raw image". There are "RAW" files,


    stupid semantic games. if someone says 'raw image' it's quite clear
    what they mean, even if the choice of words do not meet with your
    approval.

    > which contain sensor data from which images
    > can be produced.


    yes it does, and calling it a raw image is acceptable because the
    meaning is obvious.

    > That requires a "raw converter", not a
    > codec.


    more stupid semantics. again, it's obvious what he meant (how else
    would you know to substitute raw converter?), and a raw converter can
    be a codec (or if you want to nitpick which i'm sure you do, a 'dec'
    since there really isn't a 'co'). adobe camera raw is a good example of
    that.

    > UFRAW is a good example, and can be compiled on
    > either a 32 bit or a 64 bit system.


    yes it can.

    > It's not a "codec".


    no it isn't but others could be, so maybe it's not such a good example
    after all.
    nospam, Jun 7, 2011
    #12
  13. Man-wai Chang

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:50:16 +0800, Man-wai Chang <>
    wrote:
    : There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from DSLR.
    :
    : How do you solve this problem?

    On the occasions when I think it needs solving, I use one of several 32-bit
    computers on which I have photo editing software installed. But usually it
    doesn't. DPP works fine (in 32-bit mode) on a 64-bit machine, and Windows 7's
    failure to display thumbnails is at most a nuisance.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 8, 2011
    #13
  14. Man-wai Chang

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 7 Jun 2011 18:41:15 GMT, ray <> wrote:
    : On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:50:16 +0800, Man-wai Chang wrote:
    :
    : > There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from
    : > DSLR.
    : >
    : > How do you solve this problem?
    :
    : Could you explain to me what you mean by a "64-bit codec for raw images"?
    : I'm not familiar with any cameras that produce 64-bit data. At best, they
    : might use 16bits per channel.

    He means a RAW codec that runs on one of the Windows 64-bit operating systems.
    For reasons never fully explained, the 32-bit RAW codec won't run on those
    operating systems, which are therefore incapable of displaying thumbnails. A
    minor problem overall.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 8, 2011
    #14
  15. Man-wai Chang

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:43:31 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

    > On 7 Jun 2011 18:41:15 GMT, ray <> wrote: : On Tue, 07 Jun
    > 2011 21:50:16 +0800, Man-wai Chang wrote: :
    > : > There seems no FREE and/or OFFICIAL 64-bit codec for raw images from
    > : > DSLR.
    > : >
    > : > How do you solve this problem?
    > :
    > : Could you explain to me what you mean by a "64-bit codec for raw
    > images"? : I'm not familiar with any cameras that produce 64-bit data.
    > At best, they : might use 16bits per channel.
    >
    > He means a RAW codec that runs on one of the Windows 64-bit operating
    > systems. For reasons never fully explained, the 32-bit RAW codec won't
    > run on those operating systems, which are therefore incapable of
    > displaying thumbnails. A minor problem overall.
    >
    > Bob


    And here I always thought, as did a bunch of other folks, that a codec
    was "a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or decoding a
    digital data stream or signal". I would not think of a RAW data file as
    being a 'stream or signal'.
    ray, Jun 8, 2011
    #15
  16. On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:10:50 +0000, ray wrote:

    > And here I always thought, as did a bunch of other folks, that a codec
    > was "a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or decoding a
    > digital data stream or signal". I would not think of a RAW data file as
    > being a 'stream or signal'.


    Why not? A signal is not necessarily a function of time: it can just as
    easily be a function of space, which fits the notion of an image nicely.

    --
    Andrew
    Andrew Reilly, Jun 8, 2011
    #16
  17. [OT] Ubuntu 9.10 now un-supported.

    > Man-wai, I noticed you are using Ubuntu 9.10.
    > 11.10 is out and it's still free, and great, too.


    I planned to update after moving my home. Thanks!

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
    /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
    ^ ^ 17:35:01 up 3 days 20:54 0 users load average: 0.00 0.03 0.05
    ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
    Man-wai Chang, Jun 8, 2011
    #17
  18. >> photoshop elements is usually $50-60 which is not for 'rich users' or
    >> 'professional imaging.'

    >
    > UFraw, Raw Studio and Raw Therapee are all free.


    How about TIFF? Is it professional enough?

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
    /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
    ^ ^ 17:35:01 up 3 days 20:54 0 users load average: 0.00 0.03 0.05
    ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
    Man-wai Chang, Jun 8, 2011
    #18
  19. "Man-wai Chang" <> wrote in message
    news:islml5$10h$...
    >> raw image formats are widely used and do not require 64 bit mac or
    >> windows, however, adobe camera raw is both 32& 64 bit.

    >
    > Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
    > imaging.... :)


    Professionals shouldn't have to worry about paying for software.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Jun 8, 2011
    #19
  20. >> Adobe is for the rich users. It's not free. OK, it's about professional
    >> imaging.... :)

    >
    > Professionals shouldn't have to worry about paying for software.


    Ok, I am not a design professional. :)

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
    /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.1
    ^ ^ 22:30:01 up 4 days 1:49 0 users load average: 0.00 0.01 0.05
    ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
    Man-wai Chang, Jun 8, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,036
    Allan
    Jul 15, 2005
  2. greymfm

    RAW Viewer for wide range of RAW formats

    greymfm, Jun 14, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    greymfm
    Jun 14, 2006
  3. Jonathan Walker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    554
    Peter
    Aug 26, 2007
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    865
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. helena68
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,433
    popularscan
    Nov 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page