[Digikam-devel] dcraw -h (was Re: extragear/graphics/digikam/utilities/imageeditor/editor)

[Thorsten Schnebeck]

Am Samstag 17 Dezember 2005 14:35 schrieb fj.cruz at supercable.es:
> As I said in a recent conversation with Gilles, in my opinnion, ufraw is
> the better app for raw decode, its features are similar to other propietary
> applications like Capture One or Camera Raw and its results are the same o
> better than theses apps too.
>
> On the other hand, it's usually we must to choose between quality or speed,
> so if we want to have a great raw decoder in Digikam, we must to provide to
> the user a modules like ufraw, where they can do the best adjusts for their
> preferences.
>
> Paco.

Hmm, I dont think so.

Ok, by now there is nothing better than ufraw in the free software world and 
of course I'm also using ufraw and not the dcraw kipi converter.

But if we compare ufraw and an enhanced digiKam/dimg than this is like 
comparing Raw Shooter and the PhotoShop RAW plugin.  A integrated digiKam 
module do not need to look like ufraw cause digiKam has powerful plugins that 
can handle further processing like CMS, white balance, sharpen, gradation 
etc.

Some of this stuff is handled by dcraw command line app and some aspects have 
still to be ported like a camera white balance which is not part of digiKams 
current implementation.  

I believe in Cilles art of programming and it is a good KDE tradition to 
create the things you need if there is no other "good enough solution" 
leading to the fame of khtml or KOffice. OTOH if there is something better, 
drop your code and use an established solution, like the current ksync 
opensync swap.

So its all a question of maintaining. What parts of dcraw need digiKam:
- file identification
- file loading and decoding
- demosaicing and basic postprocessing

If Cilles put this all into dimg the whole lib could attract other projects 
and this could help integrating dcraw updates back into dimg. But this is the 
critical point. If such a dcraw lib/class fork is not maintainable, better 
use the original.

Everthing above is IMHO ;-)

Bye

  Thorsten