[mort96]

I disagree. Bufferoverflow frames raw formats as something that's really only there for R&D purposes, and it's more or less just an afterthought that it's available to photographers. In reality, Narretz points out, getting access to the raw sensor data is a key feature to many photographers; it's an essential aspect of the product from a user perspective.

[rickdeckard]

Since you disagree: where in this thread did anyone state the opposite of what you just wrote, who said that RAW is NOT a key feature to many photographers?

[mort96]

Here:

> It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in, just sufficiently standardized to be used in the camera-vendors' toolchain for development. It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch.

[rickdeckard]

Nothing here states that a RAW format is NOT a key feature to many photographers. This is a straw-man argument.

[mort96]

It says that it "just happens" to be available to customers and the main reason it exists is for R&D. That's what I disagree with.

[rickdeckard]

The whole post shapes the context, even the whole sentence helps already: It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch. Supporting DNG would mean adding an extra feature and then hiding the RAW-option again.

--> Even if DNG-support would be adopted as a feature for the end-user, the proprietary RAW would still need to be maintained because it has a core-purpose during development of the product. The utilization AFTER that is the product-feature

None of this negates the value of RAW for photographers, this is completely beside the topic

[mort96]

That's not how I interpret it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯