Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: etto1972 on February 21, 2017, 11:07:56 am
-
I have been a Capture One user since version 3.7
Despite I know extremely well Aperture 3 and all itinerations of Lightroom, I still regard this software as the very best in the market!!
I am waiting to receive my Hasselblad X1D and I would like to share my thoughts about my situation
We all know that Capture One is very unlikely to support the X1D just as they don't support the Leica S or the Pentax 645Z and I have learned to respect this position... but I find really sad that they intentionally don't allow the software to import DNG files from those cameras
There is absolutely no technical reason why Capture One should not be able to read those files since C1 support Adobe DNG 1.4
and the little trick below shows perfectly my point
Those are 2 Hasselblad raw files, which I exported as DNG using Phocus (at this point C1 won't even see the DNG files)
Then with an exif editor cancelled the final letter "d" from the word "Hasselblad"
See the missing "d" ?
This is not a typical hack, like those users that have changed the Exif name from Pentax 645Z in to Phase One IQ150....
here the software can perfectly read and edit the DNG 1.4 from cameras like the x1D or H6D, taking the "d" off unlocks that!
I am not pretending C1 to support those cameras natively, which is what many potential users wish
and obviously with DNG files from cameras which Phase One didn't profile there is no support for specific Lens correction or Color profile, just a generic one (which you can tweak if you know how)
As a loyal custumer I am only asking Phase One to stop filtering those DNG based on the camera brand name and allow those files to be imported
I know that there are a lot of great people at Phase One, my wife is Danish and I am in Copenhagen very often, I love the mentality and open minded approach people living there have so I hope they can consider this request that comes form people like me that love this software so much!!
Until then I don't have choice, I personally prefer to deal (time consuming) with removing that "d" then switching software and trowing away thousands of dollars and more then 10 years of work !
Thanks for listening
Ettore
-
Now you've done it. The next C1 version will filter for "Hasselbla" too.
(Sorry I don't have anything serious to add as I find P1's strategy in this area rather pathetic).
-
Hi,
Thanks for posting.
It is quite obvious that Phase One does this because they feel that supporting competitive MFD in C1 would harm their MFDB sales, but doing that harms their Capture One users.
On the other hand Lightroom is said to work vey well with the X1D. Yes, I know it is not much help for Capture One users learning curves can be steep and C1 does have some advantages over Lightroom/ACR. Worth noting is that Lightroom does not support the IQ3100MP. Some other programs do support it.
For me it doesn't matter, I am happy with LR, roll my own colour profiles and cannot afford an IQ-series Phase One camera anyway. Capture One supports both my kits Phase One P45+ and Sony A7rII and does it with no cost, so I can tinker around with it and see what I miss…
Best regards
Erik
I have been a Capture One user since version 3.7
Despite I know extremely well Aperture 3 and all itinerations of Lightroom, I still regard this software as the very best in the market!!
I am waiting to receive my Hasselblad X1D and I would like to share my thoughts about my situation
We all know that Capture One is very unlikely to support the X1D just as they don't support the Leica S or the Pentax 645Z and I have learned to respect this position... but I find really sad that they intentionally don't allow the software to import DNG files from those cameras
There is absolutely no technical reason why Capture One should not be able to read those files since C1 support Adobe DNG 1.4
and the little trick below shows perfectly my point
Those are 2 Hasselblad raw files, which I exported as DNG using Phocus (at this point C1 won't even see the DNG files)
Then with an exif editor cancelled the final letter "d" from the word "Hasselblad"
See the missing "d" ?
This is not a typical hack, like those users that have changed the Exif name from Pentax 645Z in to Phase One IQ150....
here the software can perfectly read and edit the DNG 1.4 from cameras like the x1D or H6D, taking the "d" off unlocks that!
I am not pretending C1 to support those cameras natively, which is what many potential users wish
and obviously with DNG files from cameras which Phase One didn't profile there is no support for specific Lens correction or Color profile, just a generic one (which you can tweak if you know how)
As a loyal custumer I am only asking Phase One to stop filtering those DNG based on the camera brand name and allow those files to be imported
I know that there are a lot of great people at Phase One, my wife is Danish and I am in Copenhagen very often, I love the mentality and open minded approach people living there have so I hope they can consider this request that comes form people like me that love this software so much!!
Until then I don't have choice, I personally prefer to deal (time consuming) with removing that "d" then switching software and trowing away thousands of dollars and more then 10 years of work !
Thanks for listening
Ettore
-
I think it's somewhat underhand of P1 to deliberately cripple the application when it finds particular EXIF information. Not offering camera and lens profiles - fine - but this feels tacky to me since they are deliberately breaking the product and at the same time claiming DNG compatibility.
But that's a business decision, and they're free to do what they want with their product.
Notwithstanding that, Alex Munoz developed the CaptureFix utility for Pentax 645Z files to process the header information in batch so he could use the files in C1. It may also work with Hassy files since it processes DNGs, so if you want to use C1 then it could be worth checking out.
I haven't used it since I don't relish the thought of not having camera and lens profiles, but it should be an easy thing to try.
-
Hi,
A position I may take is that if Capture One supports DNG, they should support it fully. DNG does support lens profiles and it does support DCP camera profiles. If a software claims it supports DNG, it should support both lens correction and DCP profiles.
Now, DNG is not the optimal solution to any issues ever encountered by (wo)man. But it would be reasonable that a program that claims to support DNG would also honour DCP profile data and lens correction data. After all, DNG specifications are fully open. Adobe's implementation, that is another thing. It may contain some 'secret sauce'.
If Capture One rejects legal DNG files based on EXIF information or maker's tags, I would say that make a false claim of supporting DNG.
Back in 2006, I decided on using DNG as my preferred file format. It is not that I very much like Adobe, but I strongly oppose the uncontrolled growth of undocumented raw formats. I don't say that going DNG is the optimal choice, for me it is a bit ideological.
Just to say, RawTherapee, Iridient's RawDeveloper and AccuRaw all support DNG and DCP profiles. So, I see very little reason to use any program that doesn't fully support my preferrred raw format.
Best regards
Erik
-
etto1972
I say the following with the utmost respect.
This is big business!
This is all about the selling of medium format backs.
You think that Capture One is the worlds best image processing software. Great. As you know Capture One software is the proprietary software that runs Leaf and Phase One backs and the pro version accepts smaller chip camera files as a non proprietary software. Smaller chip cameras don't compete with the selling of Phase One and Leaf digital backs. Phase One doesn't want anyone to buy a Hasselblad digital back, they want them to purchase a Phase One product, likewise Hasselblad doesn't want anybody purchasing a Phase One product. By Phase One supporting Hasselblad DNG files, as you want to happen, will be damaging Phase One's core business of selling digital backs and their long term viability as a business.
You should complain to Hasselblad that their Phocus software isn't up to par with Capture One and they should improve it rather than demanding a competing company support Hasselblad's hardware through a dng workaround.
It seems obvious to me that the Phase One forum, which is owned by Phase One, is protecting it's own business interest by deleting your topics/posts regarding Hasselblad dng file use in Capture One. The bottom line is they want consumers to purchase Phase One or Leaf backs and don't want folks shouting to the world on their own forum how to subvert the software.
Isn't it clear to you that the superiority of Capture One over Phocus is a selling point for Phase One and Leaf backs making a compelling reason to purchase a Phase One/Leaf back over a competing product?
Best,
G.A.
-
Vote with your wallet! Stop using C1. I did the same for the same reason...
-
etto1972
I say the following with the utmost respect.
This is big business!
This is all about the selling of medium format backs.
You think that Capture One is the worlds best image processing software. Great. As you know Capture One software is the proprietary software that runs Leaf and Phase One backs and the pro version accepts smaller chip camera files as a non proprietary software. Smaller chip cameras don't compete with the selling of Phase One and Leaf digital backs. Phase One doesn't want anyone to buy a Hasselblad digital back, they want them to purchase a Phase One product, likewise Hasselblad doesn't want anybody purchasing a Phase One product. By Phase One supporting Hasselblad DNG files, as you want to happen, will be damaging Phase One's core business of selling digital backs and their long term viability as a business.
You should complain to Hasselblad that their Phocus software isn't up to par with Capture One and they should improve it rather than demanding a competing company support Hasselblad's hardware through a dng workaround.
It seems obvious to me that the Phase One forum, which is owned by Phase One, is protecting it's own business interest by deleting your topics/posts regarding Hasselblad dng file use in Capture One. The bottom line is they want consumers to purchase Phase One or Leaf backs and don't want folks shouting to the world on their own forum how to subvert the software.
Isn't it clear to you that the superiority of Capture One over Phocus is a selling point for Phase One and Leaf backs making a compelling reason to purchase a Phase One/Leaf back over a competing product?
Best,
G.A.
Do you really thing that allowing DNG import from files of the X1D or GFX would effect sales of Phase One cameras???
A new user would never buy C1 if they don't support their camera, but what about the C1 costumers?
Allowing to import all DNG 1.4 files is far from being an optimal solution but at list existing users have a chance to keep their workflow!
What would you do in their place?
buying a Phase one?
I don't see a mirrorless product in their catalog and this is the reason I bought the X1D!
Best
E
-
Another way to see it that Phase One does not properly support DNG if they exclude specific makes. DNG is an open format. Phase One says they support DNGs. If they don't open a proper DNG file they don't support DNG.
Best regards
Erik
etto1972
I say the following with the utmost respect.
This is big business!
This is all about the selling of medium format backs.
You think that Capture One is the worlds best image processing software. Great. As you know Capture One software is the proprietary software that runs Leaf and Phase One backs and the pro version accepts smaller chip camera files as a non proprietary software. Smaller chip cameras don't compete with the selling of Phase One and Leaf digital backs. Phase One doesn't want anyone to buy a Hasselblad digital back, they want them to purchase a Phase One product, likewise Hasselblad doesn't want anybody purchasing a Phase One product. By Phase One supporting Hasselblad DNG files, as you want to happen, will be damaging Phase One's core business of selling digital backs and their long term viability as a business.
You should complain to Hasselblad that their Phocus software isn't up to par with Capture One and they should improve it rather than demanding a competing company support Hasselblad's hardware through a dng workaround.
It seems obvious to me that the Phase One forum, which is owned by Phase One, is protecting it's own business interest by deleting your topics/posts regarding Hasselblad dng file use in Capture One. The bottom line is they want consumers to purchase Phase One or Leaf backs and don't want folks shouting to the world on their own forum how to subvert the software.
Isn't it clear to you that the superiority of Capture One over Phocus is a selling point for Phase One and Leaf backs making a compelling reason to purchase a Phase One/Leaf back over a competing product?
Best,
G.A.
-
Another way to see it that Phase One does not properly support DNG if they exclude specific makes. DNG is an open format. Phase One says they support DNGs.
Hi Erik,
A small nuance, they say they support the DNG 1.4 specification, but that still leaves the actual processing of data wide open. Due to the very different processing pipeline, they have to choose how much time and resources they want to spend on supporting a mostly superfluous file format (after all, most original Raw formats are fully supported, so why spend time on a modified variant of that same data). The conversion quality of most DNGs has improved, although it may not be quite as good (although close) as from original Raw formats.
I also find it disappointing that Capture One does not support certain camera models, but that's a choice that Phase One can make, it's their product and they have to protect their other business as well. Without having more insider data, it's hard to tell if it is a wise decision or not.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Erik,
.... Without having more insider data, it's hard to tell if it is a wise decision or not.
Cheers,
Bart
Must be very wise. As a Fuji-X-User I have to change to LR in a few weeks when my GFX arrives.
So sad, but as a victim of a wise decision I feel much better. (sarkasm off)
-
Must be very wise. As a Fuji-X-User I have to change to LR in a few weeks when my GFX arrives.
So sad, but as a victim of a wise decision I feel much better. (sarkasm off)
Hi Harald,
I agree, but I can't verify whether selling more Capture One licenses/upgrades will add up to more than selling an 'x'-number of Phase One backs/cameras. It's kind of important to allow paying for the research and development for future products.
I too have questioned the decision, because there might be more money to be made by selling more licenses to many more MF body users (Pentax+Fuji with a huge home and international market) than Phase One is ever going to sell of their Phase One products, due to the different price points. It depends on the number of Phase One products they sell, and the net profit margin of selling hardware through a dealer channel.
Someone who will never (be able or willing to) spend the money to buy a Phase One product, may well be able and willing to spend money on a Pentax/Fuji MF camera, and buy Capture One licenses+upgrades over time. The fear is of course that those who do consider buying a Phase One product, will opt for a cheaper competitive product instead, thus effectively killing their hardware division over time. That's not an simple bet. There are no second chances, once it's gone, it remains gone. There is also a lot of know-how coming from developing hardware and understanding the required software workarounds, so that's another aspect at risk of getting lost.
The competition with Hasselblad (and DJI) may have different trade-offs than with Ricoh-Pentax/Fuji.
So I do understand the difficult dilemmas that Phase One is facing, and the irritation at the (potential) user's side. But that's unfortunately how things are at the moment.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In a perfect world they would fix that issue by their pricing model. I would totally understand if they would charge a decent premium for a MF license.
-
Hi Erik,
A small nuance, they say they support the DNG 1.4 specification, but that still leaves the actual processing of data wide open. Due to the very different processing pipeline, they have to choose how much time and resources they want to spend on supporting a mostly superfluous file format (after all, most original Raw formats are fully supported, so why spend time on a modified variant of that same data). The conversion quality of most DNGs has improved, although it may not be quite as good (although close) as from original Raw formats.
I also find it disappointing that Capture One does not support certain camera models, but that's a choice that Phase One can make, it's their product and they have to protect their other business as well. Without having more insider data, it's hard to tell if it is a wise decision or not.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart
They don't have to spent resources to support DNGs from the X1D or GFX or Pentax 645Z
Once those RAW are converted as DNG 1.4 there is nothing that prevents C1 to import those files except Phase One decision to go against.
Do you realize that only thing i did to those DNG was to take off the final "d" from "Hasselblad" ?
A potential C1 which buy a GFX will never consider to buy this software since it would luck the specific custom made Raw support, while an existing customer like me could have in the DNG generic support a way to keep his workflow
Thanks
Ettore
-
Hi Bart
They don't have to spent resources to support DNGs from the X1D or GFX or Pentax 645Z
Once those RAW are converted as DNG 1.4 there is nothing that prevents C1 to import those files except Phase One decision to go against.
Do you realize that only thing i did to those DNG was to take off the final "d" from "Hasselblad" ?
Sure, and a basic conversion will be the result, but that's not a highly optimized conversion (profiles, colors, mapping of dead pixels, calibration of e.g. sensor tiles, noise reduction settings for different ISOs, etc., and whatever other secret sauce is hidden in the EXIF maker notes). Lens parameters will also need to be separately defined because Adobe uses its own models for that, and that might also affect things like diffraction correction and other/future features. That would require shooting hundreds of images and tweaking of many settings, so it does take a lot of additional work.
It would also require a significant number of potential licensees to make the investment of resources worth while, and the GFX might create a tipping point, who knows.
Not that the basic conversion is that bad, but when pushing things to the limit the additional refinements will pay off.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sure, and a basic conversion will be the result, but that's not a highly optimized conversion (profiles, colors, mapping of dead pixels, calibration of e.g. sensor tiles, noise reduction settings for different ISOs, etc., and whatever other secret sauce is hidden in the EXIF maker notes). Lens parameters will also need to be separately defined because Adobe uses its own models for that, and that might also affect things like diffraction correction and other/future features. That would require shooting hundreds of images and tweaking of many settings, so it does take a lot of additional work
This is exactly why I haven't bothered with C1, despite having at my fingertips the utility to allow me to load Pentax 645z files into it by tweaking the EXIF data.
The real benefit from these files doesn't come until you have good lens profiles, colour profiles, etc., and C1 without that isn't going to yield the kind of results it is (theoretically) capable of.
If they would support competitors then I'd most likely buy it, even at a premium for MF support, but clearly someone at P1 has done the math and considered that the additional revenue they could achieve from C1 sales presents too much of a risk to P1 hardware sales, at least at the moment.
It will be interesting to see how P1 responds to the mirrorless MF models from Fuji and Hasselblad though, as this could significantly open up the potential customer-base for C1. Although my guess is that they'd likely allow MF mirrorless before opening it up to all MF systems even if they were to cave into this demand.
-
Hi Bart,
I would suggest that Phase One probably have the engineering skills to use the colour conversion matrices supplied by DCP to convert any DNG image to their internal colour space. Supporting DNG has some great advantages:
- There is only need to implement a conversion for a single specification
- Tools for generating DCP profiles are automatically supported
- Access to a lot of free profiling tools
Most conversation guidelines I have read stated that open raw formats must be used for image conservation. The only open raw format having traction now is DNG.
Another small point, made by James Russel (AKA BCooter here on LuLa). He says that any time you send an image to a professional retoucher that person will open that image in ACR. James Russel used to be a strong advocate of Capture One. My impression is that he dumped it in favour of Lightroom. In part due to licensing issues, but I guess the fact that C1 did not support his favourite camera system, Leica S2 may have played a major role.
Let's put it this way. If Capture One supports Hasselblad DNGs with a minor miss-spelling of Hasselblad,but not with correct spelling, it is pitiful.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
A small nuance, they say they support the DNG 1.4 specification, but that still leaves the actual processing of data wide open. Due to the very different processing pipeline, they have to choose how much time and resources they want to spend on supporting a mostly superfluous file format (after all, most original Raw formats are fully supported, so why spend time on a modified variant of that same data). The conversion quality of most DNGs has improved, although it may not be quite as good (although close) as from original Raw formats.
I also find it disappointing that Capture One does not support certain camera models, but that's a choice that Phase One can make, it's their product and they have to protect their other business as well. Without having more insider data, it's hard to tell if it is a wise decision or not.
Cheers,
Bart
-
He says that any time you send an image to a professional retoucher that person will open that image in ACR.
Every high end retoucher for fashion/beauty/portrait I follow (e.g. Carrie Bene, Pratik Naik, Natalia Taffarel etc) uses and recommends C1. Tethering also works very reliably in C1, unlike in LR. In short, C1 is really good software, that's why P1's strategy is so disappointing from the point of view of a photographer.
-
Do you really thing that allowing DNG import from files of the X1D or GFX would effect sales of Phase One cameras???
A new user would never buy C1 if they don't support their camera, but what about the C1 costumers?
Allowing to import all DNG 1.4 files is far from being an optimal solution but at list existing users have a chance to keep their workflow!
What would you do in their place?
buying a Phase one?
I don't see a mirrorless product in their catalog and this is the reason I bought the X1D!
Best
E
Ultimately I do think it could impact their sales. Thing is, no one knows if Phase One is going to introduce a mirrorless camera like the Hasselblad and Fuji. I think they are looking out for their business by this policy.
What would I do, I would use Lightroom or try Phocus and hope that it is better than when I used it last about three years ago. Actually I like Lightroom a lot and find myself using it for my personal photos more often than Capture One but I use Capture One daily for commercial work. I truly believe that this is about a total solution of camera and software and it should make people think before making a purchase, and I get this is a different kind of camera than what Phase One currently manufactures but who knows if they are going to introduce a camera of this type in the future.
The arguments that they don't totally support the DNG 1.4 standard because they have blocked Hasselblad files to me is absurd. Phase One is making folks in the market for a medium format camera system to really weigh the options of what RAW processor they can use with some other brand cameras and if it's worth it not being able to use Capture One.
Best regards,
G.A.
-
In short, C1 is really good software, that's why P1's strategy is so disappointing from the point of view of a photographer.
That's the issue, conflicting interests. Freedom of optimal tool choice versus longer term Return on Investment.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen for both sides, is that the Fuji GFX takes off like a Rocket and that Phase One also introduces a somewhat similar product (although differently priced to protect their 2-tier dealer distribution business model). That would make it more attractive to open up Capture One for selected other MF offerings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The arguments that they don't totally support the DNG 1.4 standard because they have blocked Hasselblad files to me is absurd. Phase One is making folks in the market for a medium format camera system to really weigh the options of what RAW processor they can use with some other brand cameras and if it's worth it not being able to use Capture One.
Best regards,
G.A.
The software can supports DNG 1.4, but the app blocks the DNG based on the exif manufacture name
I told you, you took the last "d" out and it works
Same with the DNG from the H5D, H6d and even from the 645Z !
-
etto1972
1. Phase One doesn't want anyone to buy a Hasselblad digital back, they want them to purchase a Phase One product, likewise Hasselblad doesn't want anybody purchasing a Phase One product.
2 Isn't it clear to you that the superiority of Capture One over Phocus is a selling point for Phase One and Leaf backs making a compelling reason to purchase a Phase One/Leaf back over a competing product?
1. Hasselblad actually makes cameras that support Phase backs and others as well, being the HX series. I'm not really sure why, but they do.
2. Phocus is a raw converter / tethering tool and doesn't pretend to be anything else. In this I think it far exceeds Capture One. Capture One is a jack of all trades, IMO better than Lightroom, but still master of none. I am not convinced on the reliability of the Capture One DAM, and of course it doesn't support Hasselblad files, so I don't use it. If it did support Hasselblad then I may buy it purely for the DAM. The Aperture programme I bought once ten years ago does, so that is where I stay.
-
Hi Bart,
Colour profiles, dead pixels etc are a part of the DNG specification. Sensor tiles I don't think so. Diffraction is aperture only. Lens correction parameters are also part of the DNG spec.
If you implement reading of DNG correctly, you can process any image from any camera that has been converted to DNG. It is just another raw format, except being well defined.
Anyway, the discussion is not about Capture One supporting DNG or not but about blocking certain cameras based camera names. Just changing spelling solves that problem. It may be that inferior conversion may result using DNG, but I wouldn't think that is the case.
If a Phase One customer has extensively used Capture One and plans to use a non Team Phase One MFD he needs to ditch his experience with Capture One and his frustration is understandable.
Just to check out, I took one of the few ARW images I have from my A7rII, exported to DNG. Opened both images in Capture one, made some edits, copied the adjustments, exported both images and opened them on top of each other in Photoshop. No real difference when flipping layers on.
Than I made the ultimate test, subtracting the layers. The image came up black! It was not as simple that C1 was using just the pixel data, as I tried to copy the white balance from the ARW image to the DNG image and that failed miserably. That means Capture One processess an A7rII image near identically weather shown it as ARW or DNG.
The first enclosed image shows the two images layered, with a mask applied so part is ARW and part is DNG. The second one is the difference image. The histogram shows they are not identical.
Best regards
Erik
Sure, and a basic conversion will be the result, but that's not a highly optimized conversion (profiles, colors, mapping of dead pixels, calibration of e.g. sensor tiles, noise reduction settings for different ISOs, etc., and whatever other secret sauce is hidden in the EXIF maker notes). Lens parameters will also need to be separately defined because Adobe uses its own models for that, and that might also affect things like diffraction correction and other/future features. That would require shooting hundreds of images and tweaking of many settings, so it does take a lot of additional work.
It would also require a significant number of potential licensees to make the investment of resources worth while, and the GFX might create a tipping point, who knows.
Not that the basic conversion is that bad, but when pushing things to the limit the additional refinements will pay off.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
Colour profiles, dead pixels etc are a part of the DNG specification. Sensor tiles I don't think so. Diffraction is aperture only. Lens correction parameters are also part of the DNG spec.
Hi Erik,
DCP profiles are not compatible with ICC profiles and vice versa. Anders Torger explained some of the technical differences in the thread about his DCamProf tool. A simple observation of the reported WhiteBalance parameters in LR and C1 alone will usually show different values of Temp and Tint, not that that matter for using the applications, but it shows that under the hood there are differences in the colourmodels used. Diffraction is wavelength, aperture, and sensel pitch dependent if you want to process at the pixel level. The DNG lens profile information is in a different format than what C1 requires, so they cannot be used. They may also not cover some of the MF Lenses that C1 might have a profile for, including shifted lens data.
If you implement reading of DNG correctly, you can process any image from any camera that has been converted to DNG. It is just another raw format, except being well defined.
Good Raw conversion is more than simply extracting the sensor's ADUs or DNs per pixel. I can also tell you that for a programmer it can be very frustrating having to redo part of your prior work, when a file format standard is changed by another party. A Raw file will remain as it was shot, but a change in the DNG specifications may require a lot of checking whether new or changed fields can wreak havok.
Anyway, the discussion is not about Capture One supporting DNG or not but about blocking certain cameras based camera names. Just changing spelling solves that problem. It may be that inferior conversion may result using DNG, but I wouldn't think that is the case.
If a Phase One customer has extensively used Capture One and plans to use a non Team Phase One MFD he needs to ditch his experience with Capture One and his frustration is understandable.
Yes, and I understand the frustration, but I also see the commercial risks involved for C1.
Just to check out, I took one of the few ARW images I have from my A7rII, exported to DNG. Opened both images in Capture one, made some edits, copied the adjustments, exported both images and opened them on top of each other in Photoshop. No real difference when flipping layers on.
Than I made the ultimate test, subtracting the layers. The image came up black! It was not as simple that C1 was using just the pixel data, as I tried to copy the white balance from the ARW image to the DNG image and that failed miserably. That means Capture One processess an A7rII image near identically weather shown it as ARW or DNG.
The first enclosed image shows the two images layered, with a mask applied so part is ARW and part is DNG. The second one is the difference image. The histogram shows they are not identical.
Sometimes the differences are larger sometimes smaller. I wouldn't be surprised if having a camera model like the A7rII in the database would help in getting better results from the DNG as well, because there is more knowledge about specifics like non-linearities of tonecurves, CFA transmissions, noise, etc. .
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
I am obviously aware that DCP profiles are not compatible with ICC profiles. On the other hand, I would presume that Phase One engineers are capable of doing a couple of matrix multiplications to convert DCP conversion matrices to C1 internal format. That jobs needs to be done only once, as DNG/DCP would use similar matrices for any camera. It does not encompass reverse engineering, as all bits are documented. Same applies to distortion correction Adobe uses different parameters and they are well documented. I am pretty sure Phase one can convert between the data.
What my little experiment with the Sony indicates is that Phase One has actually done quite a bit of that job. Their handling of a DNG converted picture gives indentical results to ARW conversion. It could be that Phase One doesn't use DCP information, but handling of WB is obviously different between the files.
Much of colour handling is simple linear algebra. Once the colour is converted to a working colour space, ICC profiling is applied to it. In the A7rII image, the very same ICC profiles seems to be applied both to ARW and DNG, which explains that the results are extremely close. But it also means that prior states match up really well.
It is quite possible that DNG conversion of Hasselblad files would not give optimal results, but it seems that just removing the "d" from Hasselblad in the EXIF is enough to have C1 to be able to process the DNG files. So it is not engineering that is the issue at hand. C1 seems gladly accept DNG from a "Hassebla" but not from a "Hasselblad". How many hourse has Phase One invested in "Hasselbla" support?
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
DCP profiles are not compatible with ICC profiles and vice versa. Anders Torger explained some of the technical differences in the thread about his DCamProf tool. A simple observation of the reported WhiteBalance parameters in LR and C1 alone will usually show different values of Temp and Tint, not that that matter for using the applications, but it shows that under the hood there are differences in the colourmodels used. Diffraction is wavelength, aperture, and sensel pitch dependent if you want to process at the pixel level. The DNG lens profile information is in a different format than what C1 requires, so they cannot be used. They may also not cover some of the MF Lenses that C1 might have a profile for, including shifted lens data.
Good Raw conversion is more than simply extracting the sensor's ADUs or DNs per pixel. I can also tell you that for a programmer it can be very frustrating having to redo part of your prior work, when a file format standard is changed by another party. A Raw file will remain as it was shot, but a change in the DNG specifications may require a lot of checking whether new or changed fields can wreak havok.
Yes, and I understand the frustration, but I also see the commercial risks involved for C1.
Sometimes the differences are larger sometimes smaller. I wouldn't be surprised if having a camera model like the A7rII in the database would help in getting better results from the DNG as well, because there is more knowledge about specifics like non-linearities of tonecurves, CFA transmissions, noise, etc. .
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am obviously aware that DCP profiles are not compatible with DCP profiles. On the other hand, I would presume that Phase One engineers are capable of doing a couple of matrix multiplications to convert DCP conversion matrices to C1 internal format.
you absolutely do not need to use or support or even know about any dcp profiles to support raw conversion of DNG files in C1... just treat DNG like any other raw format and use own profiles in icc/icm format... and if DNG has some embedded dcp profile(s) - ignore it
-
you absolutely do not need to use or support or even know about any dcp profiles to support raw conversion of DNG files in C1... just treat DNG like any other raw format and use own profiles in icc/icm format... and if DNG has some embedded dcp profile(s) - ignore it
Correct, one could ignore everything but the Raw sensor ADUs themselves, but that would then still require a serious additional effort to obtain a quality conversion. In addition, the idea that some have that a conversion from one (DCP) color system to another (ICC) is easy, is a bit too simple.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Correct, one could ignore everything but the Raw sensor ADUs themselves, but that would then still require a serious additional effort to obtain a quality conversion.
what P1 is asked to do is at least not to do anything different for /converted/ DNG raws vs non DNG raw files ... then 3rd parties will take care about the rest in terms of "camera profiles" and /pre/ processing of DNG raw data read from sensor if it is required to address certain MF related issues with sensors.
-
Hi,
My understanding is that all raw converters use matrix multiplications to to convert RGBG channel data to an internal colour space. My understanding is that Adobe uses XYZ and it may be that capture uses some other colour space. At this stage, colour spaces are just a matrix multiplication apart. So Phase One does not need to reinvent any wheel. At this stage they can use a simple matrix multiplication to cast XYZ into their internal colour space.
My understanding is that the ICC profile is generated from and applied at this stage. But, at this stage we have pretty decent basic image. The profiles applied at this stage may be a kinf of secret sauce. Obviously it is quite possible to use the no so secret sauce from the DCP profile embedded in the DNG file. So, for generic DNG support the route to take would be:
Use DCP colour matrices for mapping RGBG data into XYZ colour space. After that apply DCP LUT tables correctly on that colour space and remap the image to internal colour space.
On another thread a poster has posted a Pentax 645Z image processed in Capture one after some manipulation of EXIF data and he has also posted the DNG image. That image may arguably look better than the same image processed in LR using AdobeStandard DCP, but if you use the DCP embedded in the file you get an image very close to the C1-conversion.
I don't know if Phase One has spent a lot of development time on a camera they never intended to support, but their default conversion on that unsupported camera is very close to Adobe Conversion using the embedded profile.
So, I guess that Phase One has made some work on properly supporting DNG.
In the attachements below Capture One is left side and LR is on right side.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. I cannot do these type of comparisons on my own images because all systems I own are officially supported by Phase One :–)
what P1 is asked to do is at least not to do anything different for /converted/ DNG raws vs non DNG raw files ... then 3rd parties will take care about the rest in terms of "camera profiles" and /pre/ processing of DNG raw data read from sensor if it is required to address certain MF related issues with sensors.
-
So, for generic DNG support the route to take would be
absolutely not - for generic DNG support read the camera model from DNG, if P1 has already their own icc/icm profile (one or many) for that camera model - then apply as usual as if it is a regular raw file... if not (unsupported camera model) - just apply some absolutely generic matrix+trc profile (actually P1 has one) and that's it - let that user deal with camera profiles themselves - create, borrow, buy, whatever - plain and simple... any attempt to support DNG files differently (by using parts or whole embedded DCP) in that aspect just complicate things
-
Those pushing the DNG path for Hasselblad files should read and study the images of the girl on the other thread on the similar thing.
Converting a Hasselblad file to DNG seriously alters the colour, the histogram and possibly other factors of the image compared to processing in Phocus.
-
For those interested in going down the route of modifying the camera name in DNG files to fool Capture One, I've updated DNG Cleaner (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dng-cleaner/id1205138449?mt=12) to be able to do this easily.
-
Those pushing the DNG path for Hasselblad files should read and study the images of the girl on the other thread on the similar thing.
Converting a Hasselblad file to DNG seriously alters the colour, the histogram and possibly other factors of the image compared to processing in Phocus.
No exactly
Yes the Hasselblad fff raw looks great on Phocus but its pretty disappointing on ACR
The converted hacked DNG in C1 is in between, not as good as the Phocus but clearly better then the original Hasselblad raw in ACR
D
-
Converting a Hasselblad file to DNG seriously alters ... the histogram...
seriously ? histogram ;D ... indeed the displayed histogram is so important for raw conversion
-
Yes the Hasselblad fff raw looks great on Phocus but its pretty disappointing on ACR
make the better DCP profile then ...
-
For those interested in going down the route of modifying the camera name in DNG files to fool Capture One, I've updated DNG Cleaner (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dng-cleaner/id1205138449?mt=12) to be able to do this easily.
Unfortunately it doesn't work wit the Hasselblad X1D DNG files :(
but Exif editor works !
-
For those interested in going down the route of modifying the camera name in DNG files to fool Capture One, I've updated DNG Cleaner (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dng-cleaner/id1205138449?mt=12) to be able to do this easily.
I love the concept of this piece of software. Any plans for a Windows version?
-
seriously ? histogram ;D ... indeed the displayed histogram is so important for raw conversion
Thanks. Yes it is. The tonal range and the colour dispersion are shown there. In both the ACR and DNG conversions the highlights are noticeably clipped almost vertically.
I can't read the histogram but you can see the result is that the skin colour is green. That is more obvious in the pics on the other post.
Phocus allows you to set the levels and colour balance exactly with built in camera calibration. Making a camera profile after the shot is much more difficult.
-
Unfortunately it doesn't work wit the Hasselblad X1D DNG files :(
but Exif editor works !
Yes, there is still the Brand: Hasselblad :(
-
In both the ACR and DNG conversions the highlights are noticeably clipped almost vertically.
just fix the dcp profile for a start
-
How many hours has Phase One invested in "Hasselbla" support?
I think that is a very valid point.
All camera raw files contain proprietary information that needs to be worked out. Adobe will want to do that eventually and Phase probably not.
For X1D files there will be a while before good results can be expected. I just did a comparison using H3DII files ( released 2008) converted to DNG and the results were much better than the X1D files. A little darker but nothing major. They should work well in either ACR or DNG process.
ACR and DNG are both Adobe so you would expect similar results, but you would not expect them to be as good as the manufacturers converter in both results and ease of process, and they aren't.
-
ACR and DNG are both Adobe so you would expect similar results, but you would not expect them to be as good as the manufacturers converter in both results and ease of process, and they aren't.
Apparently, you have not seen the Silkypix software that Pentax cameras ship with.. :)
Taught me to not even bother with Canon's software either.
-
Hi,
Have you tested the 'embedded profile' in Lightroom? Or these ones? http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/56517-new-custom-dng-profile-pentax-645z.html
I also enclose one of my profiles built by Adobe DNG Profile Editor.
Best regards
Erik
-
Yes, there is still the Brand: Hasselblad :(
The brand name Hasseblad is present in 4 tags and the utility provided by Sandy seems to correct only two tags:
Make : Hasselblad
Camera Model Name : Hasselbla
Unique Camera Model : Hasselbla
Localized Camera Model : Hasselblad X1D-50
-
Apparently, you have not seen the Silkypix software
I was referring to Hasselblad.
Capture One supports most non MF cameras.
-
Unfortunately it doesn't work wit the Hasselblad X1D DNG files :(
but Exif editor works !
Based on feedback, I've updated DNG Cleaner to be able to set the Make and Model fields separately. So you can now set e.g., "Fujifilm" and "GFX 50S" independently. That should resolve the problems that some users have been having.
The revised version should be on the App Store in 24-48 hours.
Sandy
-
I love the concept of this piece of software. Any plans for a Windows version?
Maybe - depends on whether there's enough interest.
Sandy
-
Maybe - depends on whether there's enough interest.
Sandy
I'm interested :D
-
I'm interested :D
Noted :)
Sandy
-
Based on feedback, I've updated DNG Cleaner to be able to set the Make and Model fields separately. So you can now set e.g., "Fujifilm" and "GFX 50S" independently. That should resolve the problems that some users have been having.
The revised version should be on the App Store in 24-48 hours.
Sandy
Thanks!
-
Must be very wise. As a Fuji-X-User I have to change to LR in a few weeks when my GFX arrives.
So sad, but as a victim of a wise decision I feel much better. (sarkasm off)
Have you tried Iridient? Still supposed to be the best converter for X-trans. I love C1 and detest LR!
-
If you like LR, but hate the Adobe raw conversion for X-trans, use the Iridient transformer x. Converts the files with Iridients democasic and sharpening to dng which you can then open in LR and still take advantage of being a raw file.
Now supports the GFX files also.
However as the GFX is not x-trans I would surprised if LR/ACR doesn't have a good solution for it when it's released. My main wish for C1 support was not raw conversion but tethered support as I feel that C1 does the best here.
Paul Caldwell
-
If they really don't want us other MF camera users to use their product then I'm just going to use something else.
It's not worth the bother and Lightroom generally does the trick for me.