I've asked this before, but it's time to reiterate the request: camera makers need to disclose more information about their digital systems. In particular, the frequency at which the AA filter is tuned and the spectral information on the Bayer filtration that is used.
I'm sure that the original reason for not disclosing this information was "competitive advantage." Early entrants into the digital sensor race slowed others from getting fully into the game by not helping them understand the details of what they were doing in their sensor configurations. But is that still the case? No. First, all the competitors that we're going to have for traditional systems are pretty much here (we might get disruptive competitors, but they don't need to know the information I'm asking for ;~). Second, every maker pretty much disassembles and reverse engineers their competitor's products within days of release, so there really isn't a secret at all.
Of course the third reason is the whopper: that some other company could steal "the look" their cameras produce if they had that information. Back in the days when this subject first came up, Nikon Capture produced a much different and better conversion than any raw converter at the time did. Today? Not really. But I'm going to cry "complete and utter lie" on the notion that withholding filtering information gives the computer maker's converter an advantage over the competition. The simple matter of the fact is that the vast majority of images aren't being converted by the maker's converter any more. Despite the advantage of knowledge about the sensor, those camera makers converters still lost the converter wars. I don't see any chance that anything will change in that respect, either.
Sure, Nikon will have a Capture NX3 some day. It might even be 64-bit (several years late). It might even be non-buggy (okay, I wrote this in a dream ;~). But what real advantage would it have over what we've got? None. Adobe reverse engineers the spectral information, as do almost all the other converter makers. (Tip to Adobe: you need to do it with more than two lighting sample values, though. You're missing some of the subtleties of the way the camera makers color and gamma correct.)
Essentially, the camera makers have deluded themselves into thinking that they have some magic ingredient that, if they withhold it, will give them some sort of competitive advantage. They are wrong. What they're doing instead is penalizing their customers. We pay a bit more for the converters we use because of the extra reverse engineering those companies have to do, we wait a bit longer for a camera to be compatible with the converter we're using, we have to spend extra time being a detective to figure out that the blue or red filtration changed and is impacting a technique or action we use. Why penalize your customers? Why not enable them instead?