.X3F ( Foveon ) is not supported in 1.5. LightRoom is going to get my money

guess we all understand your situation, its frustrating if you have gear that is not (yet) supported by your software.

the main question however is who to blame. apple for not being quick enough or spending their time on the "wrong" cameras (wrong for some, right for many). or is it plain stupid that camera manufacturers such as nikon change their raw file definition with every new camera? of course, we all agree we love new features in cameras, sharper faster lighter cheaper and with more mpix. nikon and co. should focus on this instead of changing their image format over and over again.

so it's them to blame as well. why can't canon, nikon, sony and others sit on a table and create a RAW standard? we all know this will not happen however this would allow for more cameras to be supported by software like aperture, quicker and easier.

just my thoughts.

so it's them to blame as well. why can't canon,
nikon, sony and others sit on a table and create a
RAW standard? we all know this will not happen
however this would allow for more cameras to be
supported by software like aperture, quicker and
easier.

A RAW standard would be good. Adobe are probably in a good position to develop one, as they should be impartial.

They could call it the 'Digitial Negative' perhaps?

As a Pro SIGMA user you should be questioning the
logic behind the support for Canon S60/S70 or
Coolpix 8700 or Olympus 330 ... and not the SD10. i
assure you if Apple has time and resources to
support point and shoot cameras like that, they
could alocate some time for SD10 too.

Have a look at http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/cameras.html and make a note of the models which have an asterisk next to the name. These are the ones whose support is specifically tweaked for Aperture and they are almost all dSLRs. Support for all the other cameras comes 'for free' as their support was added to the OS for apps like iPhoto - which is used by FAR FAR more people than Aperture. It wouldn't surprise me if it was several hundred to one.

I can understand your frustration and using this forum to vent steam, but your best bet is to go through official channels and submit feedback as others have suggested, and to get everyone you know with a Foveon-based camera to do the same.

Hey Al,

I'm not sure anyone is really disagreeing with your view on RAW support, and the fact that the marketing message is in dichotomy with the technical reality.
I have a point 'n shoot (unsupported) Canon that isn't supported .... I use for backup and informal shots. I wish it was but have a hard time justifying it even to myself (I'd prefer to justify the replacement with the s70!!).

Apple's developers found themselves deluged by irate v1.0 users and had to respond to the issues raised. That's put them, imho, something like a year behind. Would they have wished to spend a lot of the year adding new cameras? I suspect so, but they are now where they are .... ahead of Lightroom in many respects and behind in others. Competition is useful for driving the product forward!

If we agree that having RAW support at the OS level (done once for every app., and at a more efficient process level), I still believe that Apple should resolve by providing an open API and invite the camera manufacturers to write and deliver the RAW code parameters along with the camera. Aperture is clearly gaining momentum and I cannot believe the camera manufacturer would want to lose out to their competitor. But this is conjecture and not what you face today.

I believe Karl made some great points, especially regarding future camera models which may or may not be supported by either Lightroom or Aperture. Again, since no ideal solution exists for you, you are faced with determining both the best compromise for today and - as far as you are able - to determine which is likely the better solution for you tomorrow. Don't restrict your determinants to the understandable emotional reaction to lacking RAW support, but the soup-to-nuts of your workflow. Aperture 1.0 to 1.5 has come a huge distance in less than a year (we eagerly anticipate some key performance improvements alongside the new functionality), and you should keep this trend line in mind. As a Final Cut Pro, DVDStudio Pro user, I can attest to the fact that when Apple puts its shoulder behind something, good things happen.

G.

-if all you get from Aperture is working with
imported 16bit Tifs, then you don't understand the
true value of Aperture. i suggest read through the
"RAW " section of the overview here ;
http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/
Sorry i assumed because you don't use it you never
bothered learning that part of the application.

I also have from time to time used RAW files from other bodies, like the D200. I know what it is like to use "real" RAW files.

What do you think is missing? As I said, every aspect of Aperture is open to you save one - the Raw Fine Tune Tool, which a good RAW converter offers the equivilent of. It is indeed more convienient to load RAW files directly but it's only a small delay to batch convert and then import TIFFs. I still do all adjustment and WB and rotation and cropping and keywording in Aperture. Everything you see on that page is a benefit I enjoy today.

I would be really curious to hear what part of the Aperture workflow you think is closed off to someone treating TIFF files as RAW masters. You don't even loose out in quality as a 16-bit RAW file holds all of the data from a camera sensor just fine, so I still have access to the full dynamic range and extra bit depth RAW files offer.

If you think you need RAW files to obtain all the benefits of Aperture, then you are missing how Aperture is aiming for a world where RAWs are treated just like JPGs - and that goes both ways! That's why you can set WB in any file imported into Aperture, not just RAW.

-According to yourself popularity is the determinig
factor for supported cameras. Then,our SIGMA comunity
should make some noise to be heard by Apple. Let's
ask for more than imported 16 bit images. ACDC is
doing that these days.

Sure we should ask. I have been asking and will continue to do so. I am just also realistic about when I can expect support - personally I suspect sometime next year, now that the Fuji cameras have support (always figured they would come first). I actually think support might have even been delayed a little so Foveon can have the final SD-14 capable conversion code for Apple, which Foveon seems to be feverishly working on judging by the Photokina report.

As a Pro SIGMA user you should be questioning the
logic behind the support for Canon S60/S70 or
Coolpix 8700 or Olympus 330 ... and not the SD10. i
assure you if Apple has time and resources to
support point and shoot cameras like that, they
could alocate some time for SD10 too.

I don't question those at all in the same way I do not question the addition of iLife support into Aperture. You cannot put a label on any camera or even software and say "this is pro, this is not pro". Pros use all kinds of crazy things, basicalyl whatever gets the job done. Pros may well have a DSLR and then a Coolpix 8700, and who says they are wrong to want to use images from both cameras in the same program?

Also, Aperture is for prosumers as well as pros, and that is a good thing because if prosumers don't pick something up they many not be interested in using it as a pro. Better to catch them early as they are growing photographically and expand into the pro market organically.

Am I observing "tongue-in-cheek" British humour (humor)? I think Foveon was an early signer to that Adobe universal Raw campaign. I'm not sure how much that may be actually affecting Sigma's acceptance into the hallowed camera halls of Mac's iPhoto app (is Adobe hindering signers from involvement with non-signers or vice-versa?). It's been over two years since the introduction of Sigma's SD-9, so what could be so time-consuming in testing or writing code for this particular RAW format?

Maybe an observation that comes from the retail world might illuminate another factor? It seems that the large companies (e.g. Nikon, Canon, etc.) have paid big bucks for marketing share/dominance (and retailers have been loving it!). Why the big bucks and why the steep reduction in prices for CCD digital cameras in general since Sigma's introduction of the SD-9? Foveon's breakthrough technology is an obvious reason. They are protecting their capital investment backsides with a capture system that has been found wanting. In leveraging their market dominance and big, fat wallets, they have effectively blocked Sigma from cyber shelf space for Sigma's DSLR. In doing so, they have also sidelined X3F technology.

So, it seems the big boys are playing anti-competitive. If that's the case, I wish there were a few more Spitzers to clamp their chops into some of these camera company executive bums (double entendre intended)!

iMac DV SE front-slotted with G4 upgrade, PBook G4 12er 60GB SuperDriven Mac OS X (10.4.7) Sigma SD-10 and Polaroid's X530

CCDs and CMOS chips were already established technology and cheaper to produce when the first Foveon chips were produced. And as always in the electronics field, an established technology with massive economies of scale leads to cheap prices.

Canon presumably have individual camera models that have sold more than Sigma's entire range of dSLRs, so it's not surprising that something that was already cheaper to produce got even cheaper. A good example is Canon and Nikon - last time I saw figures, Canon's photographic R&D budget was around the same as Nikon's dSLR turnover. Now imagine how much further down the line Sigma's dSLRs are. 😟

No need for conspiracy theories this time. 😉

Ian

P.S. To phrase it a different way - new technologies such as DVD writers come out, initially very expensive. A few years later, economies of scale and more advanced manufacturing process kick in, and the prices drop drastically. CCD and CMOS sensors are just older technology, and are therefore 'a few years cheaper'.

That explains the price reduction over time (vis-a-vis economies of scale), but it doesn't wash with what was observed on the U.S. side of the pond (i.e. when I was ON that side of the pond - I work in Morocco) when I was on the hunt for the SD-10. Camera retailers were actually hiding that they even had Sigma stock while putting out SD-10's to sell on e-Bay (at their electronic store which, when you searched their site, you couldn't find a trace of Sigma's for sale!?). The ads for Nikon, Canon, et al, though, were in your face and that's all you could find (throwing big bucks to PUSH product in your face while the retailer was pushing Sigmas out the back door to sell on eBay, which was decent of them, but they were really making money promoting big name brands). My observation when I was Stateside and "won" my Sigma SD-10 for $950 instead of the approximate retail of $1,500! Woohoo! Now, I wish Apple would recognize Sigma as a player and induct their brand of RAW.