Posted by
Michael Weber-4 on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/OME-Compliant-Specification-tp5122114p5124871.html
JY,
manufacturers might prefer a proprietary file format because
(a) it binds the customer to proprietary software sold by the same company
and (b) its development/future remains under control of the company.
I am pretty sure that the majority of customers uses image processing
software that comes with the microscope, or is at least distributed by the
same manufacturer. And the latter might fear unforeseeable developments of
the file format, such as a sudden death.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a standardized file format for
microscopy, but I doubt that it will ever come - at least not as a direct
output of a company's acquisition software. The situation is quite
comparable to the photography market: every manufacturers has its own raw
format, a group of customers screams for support of a standardized format
such as png, but nothing really changes. A reasonable way (or
work-around?) would be to have a converter which automatically turns the
proprietary files into a single file format. In fact it does exist in form
of Bio-Formats.
Michael
> On May 31, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Jason Swedlow wrote:
>
>> Dear All-
>>
>> Today, we are publishing a commentary on file formats in the Journal
>> of Cell Biology. The full text is available at:
>>
>
> [snip.]
>
>> New file formats should not be created
>> with every new software release. At the very least, the option of
>> writing data to open, standardized file formats must be supported in
>> all software, whether open or proprietary. We understand that
>> exceptional cases exist where specialized image data or metadata
>> require proprietary, custom formats.
>
> Hi Jason.
> Fantastic work; the paper is excellent.
> But maybe we could turn the above fact upside down, and ask questions
> to manufacturers:
> - If you are a software engineer working for a microscope company, why
> did you chose to create a new file format instead of using existing,
> open ones?
> - Is there missing features, e.g. in OME specification that made you
> chose to go for your own?
> - If they were implemented in OME 'tomorrow', will your product go for
> OME format?
>
> I guess there is people working for Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, etc..
> reading this mailing-list. Maybe they could care to give us a clue as
> why?
>
> Best
> jy
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jean-Yves Tinevez
> PFID - Imagopole
> Institut Pasteur
> 25-28, rue du Docteur Roux
> 75724 Paris cedex 15
> France
> tel: +33 1 40 61 31 77