On this one, I suspect there's a bit of profit motive involved. The new camera specs and their RAW file parameters are identical whether it's ACR 3 or ACR 2. If you write a plug-in for one, I'm sure it's easy to transport it to the other. I use both a lot. ACR 3 adds a few features. In every other way, they're identical. But I'm not complaining. Profit is important. Keeps our favorite software provider in business. Paul On Feb 9, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Thibouille wrote: > >>> Adding new cameras to the Camera Raw 2.x plugin would mean >>> maintaining a second parallel development effort, which would be too >>> costly. ... >> >> They might have without too much trouble IMO ... > > Trust me. I worked with the folks at Adobe extensively, once knew > lots of folks in their development groups very well personally. There > are no resources to maintain a parallel development effort on Camera > Raw, it would have cost a lot of money and time just to set it up. > >> Fair enough. I'd just don't want anyone (Adobe or any other) to sell >> me a product which is low cost because support is essentially absent. > > That's not the way they work. Adobe has always been very good on > support. > > Godfrey > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
