Four-thirds standards documents

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Richard J Kinch, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. Richard J Kinch, Oct 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Richard J Kinch

    RichA Guest

    I wonder honestly how many of these can be considered met?

    The Four Thirds Specification was developed with the following
    objectives.

    (1) To propose an interface specification that will allow more camera
    bodies and lenses can be interchangeable, in order to improve
    convenience of users and contribute to the growth of industry.

    (2) To propose an interface specification that will allow more camera
    bodies and lenses can be interchangeable and contribute to the growth
    of industry.

    (3) To pursue higher image quality than 35-mm film cameras and
    mobility through the effect of size reduction.

    (4) To consider free system expansion.
     
    RichA, Oct 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Richard J Kinch

    Chris Luck Guest


    The paucity of Four-Thirds data is no accident it seems -

    From foot of page - http://www.four-thirds.org/en/about/benefit.html

    "Details of the Four Thirds System standard are available to camera
    equipment manufacturers and industry organizations on an NDA basis.
    Full specifications cannot be provided to individuals or other
    educational/research entities."


    You don't need to know.
    They don't want you to know.
    If you did know, they'd have to shoot you.

    :)
     
    Chris Luck, Oct 10, 2007
    #3
  4. Richard J Kinch

    Alan Browne Guest

    They want serious co's to know in order to implement it. Otherwise it's
    their info to hold confidential. Not uncommon at all. In fact more the
    rule than the exception.

    Unlike open-to-the-public-but-proprietary formats (such as pdf and dng)
    four-thirds seems structured on a partnership basis with the duty of the
    partners to share in promoting the standard.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 11, 2007
    #4
  5. There lies your mistake.

    From near the page as you referenced (small print at the bottom of the
    first page):
    "Details of the Four Thirds System standard are available to camera
    equipment manufacturers and industry organizations on an NDA basis.

    Full specifications cannot be provided to individuals or other
    educational/research entities."

    As an individual, you cannot obtain a full copy of this alleged open
    standard document. Not for a nominal fee. Not for an extortionate fee.
    Not even for all the tea in China. It is open, but not for you!

    The "open standard" is just another Olympus lie. No matter how loud
    they shout or how often they quote it, it is NOT an open standard in the
    conventional sense of the term.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Oct 11, 2007
    #5
  6. But that ISN'T an "open standard".

    An open standard is available to all, perhaps for a fee. VESA video
    formats are open standards. ISO test procedures are open standards. Pay
    your cash and get the standard defining document(s).

    Olympus claim an "open standard" but actually it is just consortium
    confidential information. This may not be unusual in itself, but
    claiming it to be open when it is exceedingly restricted is a fairly
    unique interpretation of the term, let alone a legal interpretation in
    any jurisdiction.

    Face it. Its just a lie!
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Oct 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Richard J Kinch

    Chris Luck Guest

    It's likely a ploy to ensure that prospective manufacturers are brought
    fully on board and persuaded to adhere to the agreed standards (what
    ever they are) and not apply proprietory modifications which might
    interfere with inter-operability.

    But, as the O/P suggested, they are using a value of 'open' which is
    more widely understood as 'closed'.
     
    Chris Luck, Oct 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Richard J Kinch

    Alan Browne Guest

    Companies don't invest millions to adopt a format based on ploys. It's
    a business decision reached with full understanding of all of the
    conditions including whatever restrictions there may be.
    That has nothing to do with confidentiality; that's a condition of
    playing on the team: thou shalt not deviate from the format.
    The benefits accrue to everyone on the team for maintaining a standard
    including the benefit of qualifying (limiting) those who adopt and
    promote the standard. It does allow for the lenses of CoA to work on
    the bodies of CoB... which is much more than can be said for the other co's.

    There is no evil here, it's a business strategy and the market will
    decide how viable it is. So far I don't see many Oly 4/3 cameras around.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Richard J Kinch

    RichA Guest

    If it was, the Chinese would be cranking out $200 DSLRs.
     
    RichA, Oct 11, 2007
    #9
  10. Richard J Kinch

    RichA Guest

    Panasonic L1, and it's Leica version.and now the DMC-L10
    Olympus: E-1, E-300, E-500, E-330, E-400, E-410, E-510 and E-3 in
    about 10 days.
    So, 11 4/3rds cameras have been produced so far, not bad from 2
    companies, or 3 if you include Leica.
     
    RichA, Oct 11, 2007
    #10
  11. Lets test that a little.

    The US Tennis Open.
    Is it still "open" if only white US southerners can play after they have
    signed a non-disclosure agreement never to tell anyone outside of the
    "open" membership what their score or opposition was in any match?

    Sounds more like the Ku Klux Klan Klosed tournament to me!
    ;-)

    I use documents regularly which are only available to a select group of
    people who have met specific criteria. As well as meeting the criteria,
    I also signed a non-disclosure agreement not to divulge the contents of
    the documents. I don't think that any of these documents, many of which
    are specification standards, could be termed open. On the contrary,
    they are often referred to as classified information!

    The criteria to access them is being a national of specified countries
    and/or organisations, whilst in my case the NDA is the UK's Official
    Secrets Act. I don't think anyone would ever consider the "Design
    Specification for the Weapon Aiming System of XXX" to be an open
    standard. No more than anyoine can consider the equally restricted
    access "Four Thirds Design Specification" an open standard.

    It fails the test of being open BECAUSE it is closed.
    It is just another of Olympus' four thirds lies.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Oct 11, 2007
    #11
  12. Richard J Kinch

    newsmb Guest

    "Open Standard" is a colloquial term and AFAIK has no legal or
    technical meaning.

    Four-Thirds is neither open nor a standard. It is strictly a
    proprietary specification that is licensed out by Kodak and Olympus.
     
    newsmb, Oct 12, 2007
    #12
  13. I see.

    What we need is a leaked copy, then?

    Then it *will* be open.
     
    Richard J Kinch, Oct 12, 2007
    #13
  14. No, what you will then have is an NDA infringement and a possible court
    case. To be an open standard it has to be officially released and
    accessible to ANYONE who wants to read it, whether for use or for
    interest. It doesn't have to be free, just accessible.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Oct 12, 2007
    #14
  15. Richard J Kinch

    Alan Browne Guest

    Again, I don't "see" many around. eg: not many people seem to own them.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 12, 2007
    #15
  16. Richard J Kinch

    Alan Browne Guest

    Where the hell did I say it was "open"?
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 12, 2007
    #16
  17. Richard J Kinch

    RichA Guest

    True. Pity. There is nothing as versatile on the market for $400 as
    the E-330. Of course, it's original body cost was $1000.
     
    RichA, Oct 12, 2007
    #17
  18. Richard J Kinch

    dbd Guest

    "Open" as in "open high stakes poker game". It is open to you if you
    have enough money to bring to the table to be a credible participant
    and enough discretion to be trusted. Few individuals or educational
    institutions qualify.

    Dale B. Dalrymple
    http://dbdimages.com
    http://stores.lulu.com/dbd
     
    dbd, Oct 12, 2007
    #18
  19. If a PDF of these two books were to appear on
    alt.binaries.e-book.technical, then I would consider that "accessible".
    Once publicly disclosed, the NDA becomes meaningless. Hence it becomes,
    de facto, "open" in every sense of the term, except some steamed
    Japanese personae sputtering "you're not allowed to know these
    mechanical facts". Information is secret when it has not been
    published, not because it is asserted to be a secret.

    Like Adobe charstrings encryption in the 1980s. NDAs and secrecy over
    a mere 10 digits that protected an entire sector of the software
    industry. One day the numbers are published, the secret is blown, and
    the industry changed instantly.

    Or CSS and DVDs. A few secret lines of code.

    The status of secrecy does not turn a fact into property. Publishing a
    secret may cause harm, but loss of property is not one of them.
     
    Richard J Kinch, Oct 12, 2007
    #19
  20. The same place as I suggested YOU said it was open, Bozo, NOWHERE!

    You stated the obvious benefits of a private consortia document, but
    that isn't what Olympus claim it to be. Hence my response to your
    comment - if it has the attributes to believe then it CANNOT be what
    Olympus claims.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Oct 13, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.