I just installed version 2.2.4 (Windows Only) and seems to be running fine. One thing caught my attention. The download file name had "32-bit" as part of its name. Does this mean that there is a 64-bit in the works? I have no idea.
Thanks very much. Last time I checked with Nikon (about a month ago), they would not even give a data for a date. Given all I have read in this thread, my guess is that it will run on Snow Leopard but it surely will not be a native 64-bit rewrite. I can survive until January.
As much as I have come to really like NX2, I would have abandoned it as a result of the poor/untimely Snow Leopard support, but for the fact I do not like how the Adobe raw converter works on NEFs.
You're welcome. When you are referring to ACR is it in LR or Photoshop? You can download the Camera Beta Profiles from Adobe Labs. I cannot longer see the difference between LR and NX converting NEF files anymore, since ACR 5.5.
To the best of what I know (and the last time I checked earlier this year), the raw converter produced similar results from both LR and Photoshop. This was the case even after downloading the beta profiles for my camera. Sometimes the color shift was something I could almost not detect, in other cases it was significant. I want to see as close as I can what I shot.
There are several other reasons I like NX2 now that I have used it for a while, but that was the primary driver - of course there are the other irritations like incredibly slow performance when compared to Photoshop or LR on the same computer.
As per the release notes, this is the version that provides compatibility with the 64 bit versions of Windows 7 and Vista. FWIW, lots of companies now include either 32 bit or x86 in installer names regardless of whether they offer a 64 bit version of the app or not.
It is very unlikely that there will ever be a native 64 bit version of NX2. The reality is that a 64 bit app represents a major code re-write - I have never seen a situation where is was not considered a version upgrade. A NX3 product would be the most logical point for a 64 bit release but I wouldn't be surprised if that too is a 32 bit app with 64 bit compatibility.....
Thanks for your response. I was surprised because I have not seen that qualifier before.
I agree that it is highly unlikely that NX 2 will have both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. However, I do not think they have a choice with NX3, if they want to remain competitive. LR and CS4 have both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Nik Viveza 2 comes with 32-bit and 64 bit, which installs automatically depending on the version you have. It installed twice with CS4, because Photoshop automatically installs both versions - many of their plug-ins only run in 32-bit. Viveza is the shell that Capture NX is built on.
I have a question for you, since you seem to know. I have never programmed for PCs, just for IBM Mainframes, in my previous life. Is there any way of preventing programmers, in any software company, from downloading the source code for a software, like LR for example, into an SD card or portable media? I always wondered about that possibility.
Thu 17-Dec-09 01:35 AM | edited Thu 17-Dec-09 01:38 AM by gkaiseril
The source code is in a text file just like on a main frame, at least if you moved from Hollerith cards to disk and there is very little preventing someone from placing the source code on any type of media and walking out the door or emailing it somewhere. Although from the size of executable, I expect the source code is pretty voluminous, so it could take more than one SD card. What stopped your fellow programmers from taking copies of your employers code out on a reel of tape or a roll of paper tape?
I believe Phil Zimmerman has a U.S. Supreme Court case involving carrying print outs of his encryption source code across an international border. The court found the Munitions Export restriction applied to executable code and not the plain text of the source code.
Thanks for your response. To answer your question, I wrote a lot of programs, but also maintained a living system by making modifications to existing programs. All of the programs were valuable to the organization I worked for, but with little value elsewhere. A lot of the programs were monstrosities of tens of thousands of lines, written for the IBM 1401, unstructured, undocumented, and go-to galore. By the tenth got-to, you had no idea what the program was really doing. Who would want them? I worked for a Public Utility Company and not NASA
There is a reason I asked that question. The explanation often given why Nikon Capture NX, for example, does not convert to DNG format, is because people will get to know the ins-and-outs of their algorithms and somehow end up in Canon's hands. I never understood that argument. If Canon really wanted to get the code for the software or firmware, they can always pay off someone, if there is no way of preventing downloading the source code into a portable media - 8 GB SD cards can hold a lot of code and fits in a small pocket of a wallet. Industrial espionage is a very old "trade."
Adobe has made the DNG format public and provides a free converter. This is not an international standard and it not been fully accepted by many manufacturers, but some camera manufacturers do provide this in camera. This leaves one to wonder what would happen if Adobe drops this format. Since the DNG format is not an open international standard Adobe is in complete control of the format. This is not an Open RAW format but Adobe's attempt to set the standard for archiving images. I do not think there is a lot of value for Nikon or Canon to spend time on this as most users are happy with the Jpeg format and professionals are happy with Tiff format.
If I were interested in getting code from an employer, I would be looking at system level utilities, since these would be less client specific. Adobe probably controls their source code and only assigns certain functions of the software to certain employees so very few employees have access to the whole set of code. Also the employment contracts that cover these employees may not only cover the copyright rights but also trade secrets. The Coca Cola formula is covered by trade secrets and not a copyright or patent for several reasons not the least of which is the unlimited life of trade secrets.
There has to be some security, otherwise it is crazy. I do not agree regarding DNG. IMHO, I do not think that it will go away, but just the opposite. NX2 sent me around in circles and have both NX and LR. Regardless, I fully converted to LR and bring in the photos in DNG format. I send them over to CS4 (which I got ~ a month ago,) in PSD format - very happy with my present workflow. I will upgrade to LR3, but seriously doubt NX3. However, Nikon might surprise me. Therefore, you can never say never.
Thu 17-Dec-09 12:24 AM | edited Thu 17-Dec-09 12:55 AM by BillCoughlin
** Update ** I downloaded and installed 2.2.4 and everything seems fine so far. Initial image load seems much quicker. ..... I"m leaving original message below in case somebody else has similar situation:
I'm running version 2.2.0 under Windows 7 32 bit. When I click 'check for updates' it says no updates available. Is this version 2.2.4 the one I should have despite the system saying no update is available? Regards, Bill
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ... Dr Seuss
This seems to run much faster than the previous version in 64 bit Vista on a AMD Quad Core with 8GB RAM. Still a few display quirks when switching to another window while NX is loading or saving, and I wish they would let you change printers and settings before hitting the Print button in the Preview window, rather than after.
A couple of people have noted 2.2.4 improve performance on Windows especially for file read/write. As people gain experience, I would be interested to know about any other performance improvements. Most aspects of earlier versions (at least on the Mac) were slow in almost every area, for example changing color temperature, and occasionally using the brush for masking.