Nikon released new versions of ViewNX-i and Capture NX-D

Nikon-Capture-NX-D Nikon-ViewNX-i
Nikon released ViewNX-i version 1.2.2 and ViewNX-i + Capture NX-D combo version 1.16.030. Here are the changes from the previous release:

  • Upload of MP4 files to NIKON IMAGE SPACE is now supported.
  • Fixed the following issue:
    • The Convert Files option in ViewNX-i would produce solid gray images when applied to photos shot with the D500 and later processed using the Fisheye option in Capture NX-D.
    • Slideshows would sometimes end before playback was complete.
This entry was posted in Nikon Software and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Ric of The LBC

    meh

  • Spy Black

    I wished they made Capture NX-D work at a normal speed. I’d consider using it more.

    • fanboy fagz

      been playing with NXD a little and I like it. slowly ill make the transition to use it as my raw editor. I use acdsee pro for all my jpeg work. I dont like LR so i use nx2 and its slow. I dont shoot a lot of raw though except outdoor BG shoot. the sliders are way too small and hard to make minute adjustments. can you add external presets like in LR to nxd?

      • Spy Black

        Dunno about external presets, I would suspect no. I suggest investing in a REALLY fast computer to make the best use of this app.

        Try loading a demo of Capture One and see if you like that workflow better.

        • fanboy fagz

          No issue with speed. Nx2 is slow becaude of working one image then closing then opening another instead of a flow similar to acdsee pro or lr. Nxd has that. Would be nice to allow presets in nxd. Price on capture1 should be as lr sub price.

          • TinyTempur

            Capture one is horrible, just given it up. Awaiting on on Affinity to hit windows for single file editing and advance changes, to use along side Photo Director which is very nice for cataloguing and batch processing.

            • fanboy fagz

              single file..like ps…? no thanks.

              for raw, I want to give nxd a try

            • Stephen M. Fochuk

              Capture One is pretty slick.

            • Rudi

              Capture one produces the best image quality from raw though it’s UI is not easy to understand. But you can configure it for your taste. I use LR and Capture One 9. LR for cataloge.

      • tomherren

        NX-D does not use external presets. However, you can use the nowadays free Nik Collection from NX-D (“open with”) after registering Color Efex, Silver Efex etc. in NX-D. It automatically creates a TIFF to work on. Not the easiest workflow, but the Nik Collections provides many features that are in my view equal to presets.

  • jmb2560

    Where’s the beef?

  • Tomas Jensen

    ViewNXi crashes on load on my iMac every time.
    Sigh…

    • Stephen M. Fochuk

      Same here on my late 2013 MacPro. Fed up with that but it worked like a charm on my 2010 MacBookPro…

    • Rudi

      Forever each version of the new View-NXi. I don’t know why they don’t fix it….

  • Walter Strong

    Nikon should go DNG and be done with it. There’s nothing special about a NEF and there are better raw developers out there than silkypix.

    • JXVo

      Agree. There is no advantage to the NEF format since they stopped supporting CNX2. At this point the camera and the post-processing software ceased being an integrated system. All aftermarket software strips out the in-camera adjustments ( like ADL) on import and you have to recreate them manually to get back to the picture that your camera actually saved.

      NX-D is not a viable alternative as there are too many restrictions and things it can’t do.

      • Allen_Wentz

        The point is not about there being some “advantage to the NEF format.” It is about _disadvantage_ to requiring camera manufacturers to force-fit their RAW output to some standard created by Adobe.

        • JXVo

          Nothing stopping the industry from creating an open standard for the benefit of millions of customers. It does not have to be DNG but Adobe seems to be the market leader so its the obvious example.

          Camere manufactureds already have to operate within standards inposed by other outsiders such as memory card and processor manufacturers

        • Thom Hogan

          This excuse has been flying around for awhile, but it’s actually untrue. Adobe has been very clear about DNG: they’re willing to hand it to a standards committee. Indeed, they suggested that the day they unveiled DNG.

          Implicit in the “Adobe controls” argument is that DNG is a closed and complete standard. Again, no. It’s an EXTENSIBLE standard, much as TIFF-EF is (Nikon and Canon use that as their base for their raw files). A standards committee could easily approve any needed extensions if sensor needs change in the future.

          Just as the camera makers ignored the OpenRAW initiative, they’ve (mostly) ignored DNG. Why? Because it allows them to keep what they think are “secret sauces” secret. Funny thing is, the user base pretty much reverse engineers all those secrets. Even the latest Nikon EXIF Maker Tag data regarding D5/D500 autofocus sensor information has already been figured out. Spectral responses, black base values, saturation well numbers, and even the double hue shifts and linearity curves all generally are known within a year of a camera coming out, often faster.

          • Eric Calabros

            Nikon could reveal those tags in NEFs for developers, couldn’t they? so migrating to DNG makes almost no difference. they have to open their minds first. the files will be subsequently opened.

          • Reilly Diefenbach

            No one who is mad at Adobe for the subscription system or other slights real or imagined will listen to any reason regarding DNG. It’s a religious argument, logic free.

    • Allen_Wentz

      I _strongly_ disagree. The idea that all RAW digital capture should comply with the decade-old Adobe DNG format is just wrong.

      A) because it is Adobe’s lead, and Adobe has given us ample reasons to avoid letting them develop “standards.” And

      B) because force-fitting to suit Adobe’s DNG spec constrains the future creativity of digital capture engineers.

      • Walter Strong

        I’m not an engineer so I can’t speak to whether or not the DNG spec is a constraint on creativity, but it doesn’t seem to matter to Leica engineers.
        What advantages does a NEF convey over a native DNG in the absence of software that does something unique with a NEF?

        • Eric Calabros

          You talk about DNG like it really has some advantages.

          • Walter Strong

            Well, switching to native DNG would dispel the notion there’s anything special about a NEF that’s unlocked with Nikon branded software so people wouldn’t have to waste their time finding that out on their own.
            Nikon has never played the software game well and silkypix hasn’t changed that, unless this update is a complete sea change.

            • Eric Calabros

              That notion has dispelled by Capture One, when it got the colors right. (I dont mean you can get right colors in LR. You can, but that will consume your time, and patience). The file format is not the problem. The problem is Nikon doesn’t talk with raw developers about the right path of developing that data. This problem could continue to exist in DNG format too.

            • Walter Strong

              True enough.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, the problem could continue with DNG, though that would depend on the camera makers ;~). DNG has the ability to support things like spectral information and expected linearity response.

              Simply put, the camera makers are all thinking that they have to be proprietary, that they have to lock the gates to outsiders. This flies against the history of successful tech long term, where building an ecosystem of support outside the main gates has tended to dictate the long-term winners.

            • El Aura

              I wonder, don’t the camera makers know that almost nobody is using their raw conversion software anymore?

            • Thom Hogan

              No, because that’s not actually true. You have to remember that many of these fora have what would be called “highly interested and active photo enthusiasts.” That’s a small subset of the actual camera buying market. A lot of folk who don’t know better buy a camera, learn that they can get free software, and end up using it. They haven’t learned enough to know what they might be missing by stepping out of the proprietary realm.

            • El Aura

              I would have thought that very few people outside this circle of “highly interested and active photo enthusiasts” would even be shooting raw. And for JPEG shooters, this whole discussion about proprietary file format doesn’t apply.

            • Thom Hogan

              Not shooting raw wouldn’t stop these people from downloading free software ;~). They’ll look at it, not understand it, and abandon it. But meanwhile, the camera maker sees lots of downloads…

            • El Aura

              And they aren’t able to see the difference between download and usage numbers? Don’t these apps phone home sometimes?

            • Thom Hogan

              You have to remember there’s a make-work mentality in Japan, because you can’t fire someone easily. Thus, once you have software coders, you look for reasons to keep them employed ;~).

            • whisky

              i don’t see the benefit either — except to Adobe.

              the most popular DNG processor is LR/camera RAW. DNG’s processed in any Adobe product carry the same features and look the same. however Adobe doesn’t extend the identical privileges to non Adobe DNG software — unless other parties license the Adobe DNG extensions.

              add to this that a DxO DNG is not the same thing as an Adobe DNG — and there’s room for miscommunication and misunderstanding of the target output.

              a uniform standard would indeed be valuable, providing it’s neutral across all processors, and doesn’t steer users to one product over another. JMO.

            • Allen_Wentz

              A uniform standard certainly would simplify some things for many users – – but it could _not_ be neutral and it _would_ limit engineering creativity. No thank you.

            • Thom Hogan

              Your last point was addressed at Adobe’s launch of DNG, and you’re wrong: DNG is an extensible standard (as is TIFF, and since JPEGs and raw files are all currently in TIFF containers…). I see nothing on the current horizon that would limit engineering creativity in the recording of image and camera data. Nothing.

            • Thom Hogan

              Again, Adobe has already agreed to give DNG to a standards committee. Yes, Adobe would benefit from everyone using a common file format: it would simplify their code base considerably and make it easier and faster to support new cameras. But it would also benefit ALL other software developers, too, including CaptureOne, DxO, OnOne, Corel, Affinity, and more.

              DxO is a good example of how flexible DNG really is: it can be extended, and has been in a few cases by some small camera makers. But having these extensions in a single standards-maintained base would be beneficial to the world, frankly.

            • whisky

              my point was that rendering an attribute in an Adobe product, e.g. “vibrance”, in LR and then saved inside a DNG would not render the same “vibrance” when opened in another product — unless such attribute were decoded using the same Adobe engine — requiring licensing of an adobe rendering engine component.

              it’s possible to have multiple instances of attributes embedded inside a DNG — which requires further managing what instance was intended for what purpose.

            • Thom Hogan

              True. Indeed, when you convert to DNG today you’ll get something called Adobe Standard set as the rendering intent (Nikon’s Picture Control information, would be lost).

              But that’s not the point of why DNG was developed. And moreover, the format was “if you don’t know what this tag means, don’t try to render that tag’s data.” In theory, you should still have all the original information that came from the camera (though again, not if you convert a raw file to DNG through Adobe’s DNG Converter ;~).

            • Allen_Wentz

              Sorry Walter but your notion that all digital capture should at the lowest level be force-fit to an Adobe format would be terribly limiting to engineering creativity. Even if we ignored Adobe business practices, which we cannot do.

              You may think that no vendor anywhere has anything special about their RAW captures. I disagree.

            • Thom Hogan

              You don’t understand how DNG works, apparently. The standard is extensible. If a software product doesn’t have the ability to understand a new extension that a camera maker provided, it can still resolve the image data and basic information and convert it into an image. There were numerous examples given early on in ways that DNG could be extended for pretty much all the then-known sensor progression, including things like individual photon detection.

            • Thom Hogan

              Bingo. There’s nothing special about NEF or CRW or ARW. They’re all proprietary tag additions to the TIFF-EF standard. But camera makers sure have a vested interest in you thinking there’s something special about them.

          • Thom Hogan

            A DNG does have some advantages. It’s an extensible definition that already encompasses everything the current camera makers are doing with their proprietary formats based on TIFF-EF. It’s a single definition, which would certainly make it easier for software developers to support new cameras (and faster).

        • Allen_Wentz

          You are correct, you are not an engineer. You say “native DNG” as if that were some natural property of the light captured via a sensor. It is not. There is nothing “native” about DNG. It is just an old format from Adobe modified by committees for a decade that Adobe sees business benefit in coercing the world to use.

          Digital capture WILL continue to see further tech improvements. Some future engineers (or CaNikon today for that matter) will very likely choose to work the magic of digital capture in ways that would be constrained by force-fitting to the DNG format.

          • Walter Strong

            By “native DNG” I meant “saves to DNG when saving raw”. I didn’t say anything about the natural properties of light or whatever you think I intended to say.

          • Thom Hogan

            I’d sure like to know what one of those constraining ways would be. I know of none.

            Look, all of our image files are in a form of TIFF. TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format. This format means that the file starts with a declaration of tags, and then pointers to the data for those tags. TIFF has always been extensible: you define a new tag, then point to your new data later in the file. What’s happened is that the camera makers turned that into proprietary tags (undisclosed data format that has to be reverse engineered). What OpenRAW and Adobe DNG both proposed was to bring raw files back into a standards-managed group so that software could be written to understand all these extensions. But even DNG, as Adobe proposed, would have let camera makers create a proprietary tag/data couplet. DNG, by definition, allows for converters to simply work with the data that is known.

      • Thom Hogan

        See my response above. Your arguments are incorrect and don’t reflect the reality.

    • Rudi

      I hope they never will do.

  • HKer

    As aside, FYI all, I just received a Adobe Bridge as a freebie as part of the LR/PS package. My subscription expires next month, so be interesting to see if the price remains the same or low (or higher!). Adobe is making a packet to its nice for them to give something back. They should do something so that the longer you subscribe, the more apps you get. BTW that upright tool in LR rocks!

    • Scott M.

      I was mad at Adobe because of the new subcription concept at first. However, after signing up soon after it was implemented I have been very happy with it. I had CS6 and they are STILL updating that for me. For $9.99 a month it has been a great deal for me. I think so many counterfeits and pirating copies forced them into this.

  • I see a substantial improvement in speed for both i and D. Very welcome response from Nikon after repeated complaints (from me).

  • Ian Weir

    It finally works in my iMac

  • Back to top