<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for FastPictureViewer&#039;s Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog</link>
	<description>Stuff about FastPictureViewer, the FastPictureViewer Codec Pack and some totally unrelated topics :-)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:07:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Axel</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-502</link>
		<dc:creator>Axel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-502</guid>
		<description>Of course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Nathanael Jones</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-501</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-501</guid>
		<description>Do your codecs implement ::GetPreview() or ::GetThumbnail() for RAW previews?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do your codecs implement ::GetPreview() or ::GetThumbnail() for RAW previews?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Amazing Article</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-329</link>
		<dc:creator>Amazing Article</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-329</guid>
		<description>Not even Microsoft&#039;s Camera Codec Pack, Google&#039;s Picasa Photo Viewer, or Nikon&#039;s very own NEF Codec work with my camera (D3100) and operating system (Win 7 64-bit). How pathetic is that? Thank you for this incredible information. Your product has just beat down three major heavyweights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not even Microsoft&#8217;s Camera Codec Pack, Google&#8217;s Picasa Photo Viewer, or Nikon&#8217;s very own NEF Codec work with my camera (D3100) and operating system (Win 7 64-bit). How pathetic is that? Thank you for this incredible information. Your product has just beat down three major heavyweights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Using RAW Codecs in Windows &#124; Geoff Coupe&#039;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-299</link>
		<dc:creator>Using RAW Codecs in Windows &#124; Geoff Coupe&#039;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-299</guid>
		<description>[...] Rietschin, the developer of the excellent FastPictureViewer Codec Pack has made an excellent comparison between his own offering and Microsoft’s codec. If you are interested in seeing the full picture, and wanting a superior codec pack, then you [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Rietschin, the developer of the excellent FastPictureViewer Codec Pack has made an excellent comparison between his own offering and Microsoft’s codec. If you are interested in seeing the full picture, and wanting a superior codec pack, then you [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Geoff Coupe</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-297</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff Coupe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-297</guid>
		<description>&quot;They made it clear that the original raw file was never modified&quot; - Ah, yes, so they did in the closing seconds of the video. 

I admit that I never got as far as that in the first viewing - I was so appalled at the (untrue) sweeping statements earlier such as Microsoft&#039;s codec is &quot;for 32 and 64 bit Windows&quot; and &quot;for all the cameras you may have had or may have now&quot;, that I stopped the video the first time around in disgust.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;They made it clear that the original raw file was never modified&#8221; &#8211; Ah, yes, so they did in the closing seconds of the video. </p>
<p>I admit that I never got as far as that in the first viewing &#8211; I was so appalled at the (untrue) sweeping statements earlier such as Microsoft&#8217;s codec is &#8220;for 32 and 64 bit Windows&#8221; and &#8220;for all the cameras you may have had or may have now&#8221;, that I stopped the video the first time around in disgust.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Axel</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-294</link>
		<dc:creator>Axel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-294</guid>
		<description>&gt;They show that they are able to use WLPG to edit RAW files directly

The files are first converted to JPEG then the JPEG is edited, so it&#039;s a convert-then-edit operation. There is a &quot;Make a Copy&quot; button in WLPG that is used for this purpose and that you must click before performing any change. They made it clear that the original raw file was never modified and this behavior is independent of the actual codec used, FPV&#039;s, Ardfry&#039;s, manufacturer&#039;s or theirs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>>They show that they are able to use WLPG to edit RAW files directly</p>
<p>The files are first converted to JPEG then the JPEG is edited, so it&#8217;s a convert-then-edit operation. There is a &#8220;Make a Copy&#8221; button in WLPG that is used for this purpose and that you must click before performing any change. They made it clear that the original raw file was never modified and this behavior is independent of the actual codec used, FPV&#8217;s, Ardfry&#8217;s, manufacturer&#8217;s or theirs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Geoff Coupe</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-293</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff Coupe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-293</guid>
		<description>Axel, thanks for this comparison. I must admit I found that video from Microsoft a bit disengenous, and, in places, very economical with the truth. 

However, one thing intrigues me. They show that they are able to use WLPG to edit RAW files directly. I&#039;m using your FastPictureViewer Codec pack, but WLPG insists that I need to make a JPEG copy first and edit that. Are Microsoft doing some tricksy things with their RAW codec that aren&#039;t available to third parties, or have I simply not got WLPG set up correctly?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Axel, thanks for this comparison. I must admit I found that video from Microsoft a bit disengenous, and, in places, very economical with the truth. </p>
<p>However, one thing intrigues me. They show that they are able to use WLPG to edit RAW files directly. I&#8217;m using your FastPictureViewer Codec pack, but WLPG insists that I need to make a JPEG copy first and edit that. Are Microsoft doing some tricksy things with their RAW codec that aren&#8217;t available to third parties, or have I simply not got WLPG set up correctly?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Axel</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-276</link>
		<dc:creator>Axel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-276</guid>
		<description>&gt;with that version Microsoft codec does not crash WIC Cop but does show that they do not support IWICDevelopRaw

Which is the key point: Microsoft Raw Codec does not support IWICDevelopRaw (as evidenced by the &quot;not implemented&quot; error code) which means the user has no control whatsoever over the conversion process. The tool crashing because of that error is anecdotal. Also anecdotal: the implementation of this interface always was a requirement for raw WIC codecs: double standards, two sets of rules?

&gt;do you know what programs would use the IWICDevelopeRaw interface

None, as far as I know. As I wrote in the article, the primary use for WIC codecs as of today is to provide Explorer thumbnails and previews, and to surface metadata to Explorer and to the Search Indexer. Our codecs are optimized for this use case.

Incidentally, all our raw codecs do implement IWICDevelopRaw and thus would allow some level of control to an application using that interface (only exposure compensation is available at this time, but I could wire up more controls), when our codecs are set to full render mode.

Last time I checked, implementations of IWICDevelopRaw in manufacturer codecs (Nikon and Canon, not to mention them) was either missing or very bogus, going from black images to crashes.

Thomas Knoll may be right an no one bothered so far, not even Microsoft in their released codecs. All Photo Gallery does is a blind conversion, then it let the users work on the 8 bit RGB data, with all camera settings and effects lost in the process: the camera-made JPEGs are actually a better starting point!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>>with that version Microsoft codec does not crash WIC Cop but does show that they do not support IWICDevelopRaw</p>
<p>Which is the key point: Microsoft Raw Codec does not support IWICDevelopRaw (as evidenced by the &#8220;not implemented&#8221; error code) which means the user has no control whatsoever over the conversion process. The tool crashing because of that error is anecdotal. Also anecdotal: the implementation of this interface always was a requirement for raw WIC codecs: double standards, two sets of rules?</p>
<p>>do you know what programs would use the IWICDevelopeRaw interface</p>
<p>None, as far as I know. As I wrote in the article, the primary use for WIC codecs as of today is to provide Explorer thumbnails and previews, and to surface metadata to Explorer and to the Search Indexer. Our codecs are optimized for this use case.</p>
<p>Incidentally, all our raw codecs do implement IWICDevelopRaw and thus would allow some level of control to an application using that interface (only exposure compensation is available at this time, but I could wire up more controls), when our codecs are set to full render mode.</p>
<p>Last time I checked, implementations of IWICDevelopRaw in manufacturer codecs (Nikon and Canon, not to mention them) was either missing or very bogus, going from black images to crashes.</p>
<p>Thomas Knoll may be right an no one bothered so far, not even Microsoft in their released codecs. All Photo Gallery does is a blind conversion, then it let the users work on the 8 bit RGB data, with all camera settings and effects lost in the process: the camera-made JPEGs are actually a better starting point!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FastPictureViewer Codec Pack vs. Microsoft Camera Codec Pack by Nora Bre</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/08/fastpictureviewer-codec-pack-vs-microsoft-camera-codec-pack/comment-page-1/#comment-275</link>
		<dc:creator>Nora Bre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 06:39:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=181#comment-275</guid>
		<description>Great write-up and a solid comparison.  Lots of extra meta data is shown with the FastPictureViewer Codec Pack.  I think you even show more metadata than what I see from the Canon codec and they really should know their RAW format.  I wanted to try WIC Cop myself and I noticed that there is a newer version on MSDN -- http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/wictools/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=2887 and with that version Microsoft codec does not crash WIC Cop but does show that they do not support IWICDevelopRaw.  Since Lightroom does not support WIC do you know what programs would use the IWICDevelopeRaw interface?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great write-up and a solid comparison.  Lots of extra meta data is shown with the FastPictureViewer Codec Pack.  I think you even show more metadata than what I see from the Canon codec and they really should know their RAW format.  I wanted to try WIC Cop myself and I noticed that there is a newer version on MSDN &#8212; <a href="http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/wictools/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=2887" rel="nofollow">http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/wictools/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=2887</a> and with that version Microsoft codec does not crash WIC Cop but does show that they do not support IWICDevelopRaw.  Since Lightroom does not support WIC do you know what programs would use the IWICDevelopeRaw interface?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Step Forward in the Universal Image Metadata Quest? (A call for a New Container Format) by Axel</title>
		<link>http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/2011/05/universal-image-metadata-quest-a-call-for-a-new-container-format/comment-page-1/#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>Axel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 19:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/blog/?p=143#comment-255</guid>
		<description>I guess the MWG is mosty busy to clean up the mess with multiple metatata schemas and redundant and/or deprecated metadata items. Pretty much everyone came up with some metadata scheme, and it&#039;s a huge work to reconciliate everything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess the MWG is mosty busy to clean up the mess with multiple metatata schemas and redundant and/or deprecated metadata items. Pretty much everyone came up with some metadata scheme, and it&#8217;s a huge work to reconciliate everything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

