Looking like no C1 support for Fuji GFX

[Paul2660]

Not that it's official yet, but on Fuji Rumors a new post reflects a direct question to Phase One for possible support for the Fuji GFX, and the Phase One response is the usual, "no support will be offered as it's not a policy to support our competitors".

Most unfortunate and to me a bit of an oversight, but I guess time will tell.

Looking forward to the Adobe solution since the GFX has no x-trans, Adobe should be able to get a good solution, but the weak link will be tethering for sure.

http://www.fujirumors.com/phase-one-says-capture-one-wont-support-fujifilm-gfx-direct-competitor-core-business/

Paul Caldwell

[Doug Peterson]

Paul, you don't need a rumor site to tell you that.

None of the camera makers support directly competitive products in their software.

Fuji doesn't. Canon doesn't. Nikon doesn't. Hassy doesn't. Leica doesnt. Pentax doesnt. Phase One doesn't.

Phase One policy has been the same for more than a decade. They support a wide variety of small-format cameras but only their own larger-than-35 solutions.

GFX files, like Pentax 645Z files, and X1D files will be unsupported in either their native formats or if you rewrap them as dng.

[Paul2660]

Doug,

As I stated earlier, most short sighted by P1. 

Time will tell on how well both of these cameras will be adopted, but based on the current focus, I fully expect to the both the Hasselblad and Fuji offerings dominate sales in 2017.  The two cameras meet the needs of the changing market.  I am sure P1 has a mirrorless solution coming, but they have much larger issue with lenses as none of their current high dollar glass will work on any mirrorless system without an adapter, and even if they did, they so massive they would out balance and defeat the most important point of mirrorless, light weight. Not to mention, P1 will most likely price their solution considerably higher than the other offerings.

I use C1 for most of my files (it's woefully out of date on issues like HDR and pano work) but I still continue.  The sales of these two cameras will be considerable and I had hoped that P1 would re-consider this.

The rumor site, only provided the formal response from P1, I always like to show my source.

Paul Caldwell

[Doug Peterson]

Personally I'd tend to agree with you that they should support them. But they will not.

[fotagf8]

When I thought about the X1d, I looked to see whether C1 included existing Hasselblad cameras.  When I saw that it didn't it was another reason why I am skeptical about C1.  It takes an investment of time to learn a photo processing application.  If a company is licensing software, it should make it as "applicable" as possible, avoiding unnecessary "sabotage." 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

Phase One markets itself as a maker of a raw converter called Capture One. That is not the same as offering some kind of raw convertor for a makers own camera.

Best regards
Erik

Paul, you don't need a rumor site to tell you that.

None of the camera makers support directly competitive products in their software.

Fuji doesn't. Canon doesn't. Nikon doesn't. Hassy doesn't. Leica doesnt. Pentax doesnt. Phase One doesn't.

Phase One policy has been the same for more than a decade. They support a wide variety of small-format cameras but only their own larger-than-35 solutions.

GFX files, like Pentax 645Z files, and X1D files will be unsupported in either their native formats or if you rewrap them as dng.

[uptownguydenver]

I admit I don't know a lot about all the aspects of the Phase One business. I just see the XF and Capture One side because that is all I am involved in.

I can't say that Phase One is making the correct or incorrect business decision by not supporting the X1d or Fuji or others that could be a competitor.

However:

If you look at all the advertising, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and all the effort Phase One is putting into the webinars, blog posts .... you would think that Phase One is a software company. They have put a lot of effort into updating the application many times a year. Look at the effort Digital Transitions, Capture Integration and other dealers have put in touting Capture One.

Think about the 400+ cameras Capture One supports. That is not a small effort.

My wife and I shoot Nikon and I recently added an XF and some lenses to the mix. My wife can really see the difference between the Nikon and XF images. The XF is just to big and heavy for many of photography outings. When we saw information on the X1D it really pecked our interest. A smaller, lighter and less expensive MF camera.

I would think that Capture One would want to support the X1D and the Fuji so people like us do not have to move to Light Room when adding a mirrorless or other larger than 35mm camera to our camera bag.

When I think about (my small view) it there is no way that the X1D or the Fuji would take a lot of business away from the XF system. The XF is just too far advanced in it's features and functions and has plenty of room to grow. And having the hardware and software development under the same roof can't be equaled. Also from what I have seen Phase One only announces when they have a product ready to ship rather than announcing and not delivering.

Anyway, I will just sit back and see where these other camera manufactures go. Maybe Phase One will make a mirrorless camera.

[Doug Peterson]

Phase One markets itself as a maker of a raw converter called Capture One. That is not the same as offering some kind of raw convertor for a makers own camera.

I think that's a reasonable point. In a perfect world I think all camera makers would make raw processing software and all that software would work with everyone's raws. That would be great for competition! But as it stands no camera maker makes raw processing software that works with directly competing products.

I think the most productive thing to do with that frustration is write to Adobe and encourage them to invest in making their color engine and processing pipeline closer in quality to Capture One's, and to encourage them to focus on pro features like tethering rather than push their product in the direction of pro-sumerism. That seems to me to be more likely to happen than for Phase One to reverse a decade plus policy of supporting all small-format cameras but only their own medium-format cameras.

I'm just making sure there isn't needless confusion or uncertainty, which there seems to be. The GFX will not be supported in any form (native raw, or DNG repackaging of that raw).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

A great way of improving colour is to use Anders Torger's DCamprof, especially as he is developing a human compatible version of it. Colour handling in ACR/Ligtroom is fully open, and almost any raw converter on the planet will gladly use DCP-profiles. Iridient, AccuRaw, RawTherapee. There is a great exception called Capture One.

The area that I feel Adobe would need to address is foremost demosaic.

Camera vendors like Leica and Pentax can supply their own camera profiles to Lightroom/ACR, they actually do.

Best regards
Erik

I think that's a reasonable point. In a perfect world I think all camera makers would make raw processing software and all that software would work with everyone's raws. That would be great for competition! But as it stands no camera maker makes raw processing software that works with directly competing products.

I think the most productive thing to do with that frustration is write to Adobe and encourage them to invest in making their color engine and processing pipeline closer in quality to Capture One's, and to encourage them to focus on pro features like tethering rather than push their product in the direction of pro-sumerism. That seems to me to be more likely to happen than for Phase One to reverse a decade plus policy of supporting all small-format cameras but only their own medium-format cameras.

I'm just making sure there isn't needless confusion or uncertainty, which there seems to be. The GFX will not be supported in any form (native raw, or DNG repackaging of that raw).

[Chris Livsey]

This rather hinges on that statement they have used previously: "no support will be offered as it's not a policy to support our competitors".

Some cameras are obviously direct competitors such as the H series Hasselblads but should another maker say Nikon release a D900 with 50MP would that be covered by the statement? Many users of in particular legacy Team Phase One backs would probably consider it so. Even more so should Team Phase One release a mirrorless where they currently explicitly with tailored software support Sony mirrorless that would be a conflict but of course they can decide who they are competing with.
As legacy 35mm goes larger and medium format goes smaller as pixel counts converge we are reaching a fuzzy area in the middle where Capture One will need to make more specific decisions on what and who they will support.
If C1 is a profit centre, and the marketing alluded to above would support this as being the case or wishing it to be so, would it make sense to spin off the software arm to broaden the market available to the product whilst of course retaining in house priorities? Without "outside" sales would the resources have been there to develop C1 to the extent it has been just for their Team products?

[Doug Peterson]

This rather hinges on that statement they have used previously: "no support will be offered as it's not a policy to support our competitors".

Some cameras are obviously direct competitors such as the H series Hasselblads but should another maker say Nikon release a D900 with 50MP would that be covered by the statement? Many users of in particular legacy Team Phase One backs would probably consider it so. Even more so should Team Phase One release a mirrorless where they currently explicitly with tailored software support Sony mirrorless that would be a conflict but of course they can decide who they are competing with.
As legacy 35mm goes larger and medium format goes smaller as pixel counts converge we are reaching a fuzzy area in the middle where Capture One will need to make more specific decisions on what and who they will support.
If C1 is a profit centre, and the marketing alluded to above would support this as being the case or wishing it to be so, would it make sense to spin off the software arm to broaden the market available to the product whilst of course retaining in house priorities? Without "outside" sales would the resources have been there to develop C1 to the extent it has been just for their Team products?

Are you asking as a philosophical/intellectual matter or as a practical one?

As a practical matter Phase One considers the size of the sensor to be the sole determinant of whether the camera is "directly competitive". Not pixel count. Not brand. As a result they have, and will continue to, support all small-format cameras, but only their own larger-than-35mm cameras.

Whether this philosophically makes sense is an interesting question, but one not relevant to answering the practical question of whether a given camera will or will not be supported.

[Chris Livsey]

Are you asking as a philosophical/intellectual matter or as a practical one?

As a practical matter Phase One considers the size of the sensor to be the sole determinant of whether the camera is "directly competitive". Not pixel count. Not brand. As a result they have, and will continue to, support all small-format cameras, but only their own larger-than-35mm cameras.

Are you asking as a philosophical/intellectual matter or as a practical one?

Why? Does that affect the answer? Should it?

As a practical matter Phase One considers the size of the sensor to be the sole determinant of whether the camera is "directly competitive"

I and I am sure many others will appreciate that clarification to the policy statement.
I have not seen that stated elsewhere, but the web is a big, big place and I but one curious enquirer.

As always your response is appreciated.

[scyth]

and almost any raw converter on the planet will gladly use DCP-profiles. Iridient, AccuRaw, RawTherapee. There is a great exception called Capture One.

Iridient, AccuRaw and RT have miniscule share - hence irrelevant... now consider that OEM raw converters of Canon, Nikon, Sony, m43 (Olympus & Panasonic) and 3rd party like SilkyPix, DxO, etc do not work with DCP profiles... C1 is in great company here... plus the issue is the pipeline... dcp profile (in general - you can't seriously consider only partial support) means that some parts of it applied before the UI-user driven adjustments like "exposure" and some after... C1 pipeline means that color transform guided by the content of icc/icm container is applied after the UI-user drive adjustments like "exposure" ... C1 operates (above mentioned UI-user driven adjustments) on un-color-transformed data with profile applied at the end... ACR/LR operate (above mentioned UI-user driven adjustments) on color-transformed data... marrying means quite a code rework to satisfy few users (plus you actually have a lot of tools to make camera profiles for C1)

[scyth]

Think about the 400+ cameras Capture One supports. That is not a small effort.

most non brand-locked raw converters do support so many cameras - it is really not something one shall boast about nowadays...

[scyth]

Personally I'd tend to agree with you that they should support them. But they will not.

sometimes market forces (greed) lead to divestitures... may be one day C1 software business of P1 will be separated and freed from the ties of P1 hardware business...

[scyth]

since the GFX has no x-trans

this was the sane move by Fuji... hopefully their post 24mp-generation sensor in their APS-C cameras will also be finally X-Trans BS free.

[FelixWu]

That sucks! Looks like I will have to buy an XF camera so that I could continue using C1.....or not.

Doesn't Hasselblad Phocus support everything?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Phocus can use operating system support for raw data, but raw conversion is done by the OS in that case and Phocus is not very useful. It is just a dumb interface to Apple's routines.

But, Phocus is not a generic raw converter like Lightroom or Capture One. It is a tool to convert Hasselblad raw files into TIFFs or JPEGs.

See it this way: Phase One wants to sell Phase One backs. They would need sell a couple 100 Capture One licenses to replace a a single sale of a Phase One back.

Best regards
Erik

That sucks! Looks like I will have to buy an XF camera so that I could continue using C1.....or not.

Doesn't Hasselblad Phocus support everything?

[BernardLanguillier]

This problem would be solved if we all admitted once for all that the tiny sensors used by these cameras are closer in size to 35mm than they are to medium format.

Cheers,
Bernard

[rgmoore]

Bernard,

How are you finding your H6D-100c compared to D810 with Otus lenses?

Thank you,

Richard