The Nikon D850 does not exist yet. RawTherapee already supports the Sony α9, as well as the not-so-new Canon EOS 5DS.
There is an effort underway to unite the raw decoding code used by the libre programs in our community into one. When that is done, everyone benefits as soon as someone does the work. That is kickass.
I own a Pentax. It writes to either PEF or DNG. PEF isn’t open source friendly at all. DNG is sort of digital negative standard and it is widely supported.
From the same source: “Adobe stated that if there were a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea.” Should that format make Adobe Systems Incorporated a FOSS friendly corporation? It sounds strange.
@Jacal I don’t know if DNG is FOSS but it could still be friendly (to a certain extent), just as Canon is sort of friendly by not shutting down the efforts of CHDK or Magic Lantern. What Adobe has to say for itself: Digital Negative (DNG) Specification patent license.
Canon can’t shut down CHDK/ML, as Canon’s firmware is based on the Linux kernel, they were forced to release the source. I don’t think canon likes the fact that those projects exist. Though if they just embraced them, they’d be better off, I think.
I must have missed some news there. Do you have any links that support your claim? Both that the Canon cameras are based on Linux and that their firmware is open?
Good to learn more about Canon’s firmware. Should have indicated sarcasm; couldn’t find an adjective for frenemy . Since we are down this path, do you know of any other companies that use Linux in their firmware? Is this a plus for the FOSS community?
Canon can’t shut down CHDK/ML… If they could I be they would
Not necessarily. One purpose of the “control” these brands try to keep over their cameras is that they could face litigation because someone broke his camera using CHDK or MagicLantern. So, the easy thing for them would be to make the camera load only signed software (UEFI anyone?). FOSS licenses allow you to make your own derivatives, they don’t make it mandatory for the camera to run it.
And they haven’t done it yet. It could well be out of ignorance, or just because they think that the confidential audience isn’t worth locking out, since letting them play is generating a lot of goodwill and part of the brand attractiveness to tinkerers, who are often consulted by acquaintances before purchasing a camera.
Why should Canon care? They don’t release anything under GPL.
If they wanted to take down ML the have something better though: lawyers. Even if everything ML do was perfectly legal (IANAL so I won’t comment on that) they could still use the power of their big wallets to make it impossible for the free community to face the charges.