New H3D full frame!!!

[izaack]

Making software proprietary has nothing to do with the fact that the same processing could be handled on a PC and therefore the closed system IS NOT NECESSARY. This is a simple fact obvious to anyone who understands digital electronics. Not trying to flame you but this obviously isn't your field of expertise so why pretend it is?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Prove it, foto-z. Show me that I am ignorant. You cannot prove your claim, can you, except to make sweeping statements. That is not proof.

How would you know what is necessary for Hasselblad? How do you know what it takes to implement Hasselblad's DAC except that YOU feel that it is not necessary?

It is quite clear to me that it is NOT your field of expertise either so why do you pretend to know anymore than you really do? Your remarks, my friend, is borne out of sheer naivety and ignorance of real software engineering issues and nothing else.

[Graham Mitchell]

This is a photography forum, not an electronics forum. I suggest you get a few books and learn something. I could point out that I studied electronic engineering at university level but I doubt you'd listen anyway and I'm not about to reproduce a 500 page book on electronics in this forum. Geez... My last post on this diversion. Believe Hasselblad's marketing BS if you want, what do I care.

[eronald]

This is a photography forum, not an electronics forum. I suggest you get a few books and learn something. I could point out that I studied electronic engineering at university level
---snip---
Believe Hasselblad's marketing BS if you want, what do I care.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a Ph.D, and a couple of undergrad degrees in related subjects. foto-z is right as far as image processing is concerned.

HOWEVER, I did have an interview with the Hasselblad CEO, where he indicated that he was now intending to make "dumb" cameras with "smart" backs that talk directly to the lens, because the back processors are getting more and more powerful. In this *future* scenario, where the back processor potentially takes over focus, exposure, diaphragm and shutter control third party backs are obviously not going to cut it.

Whether doing this or not makes sense I don't know, but clearly one could imagine the body becoming a cheap and dumb piece of hardware. Easy to imagine because that's exactly what the 500 bodies were.


Edmund
Edmund

[izaack]

This is a photography forum, not an electronics forum. I suggest you get a few books and learn something. I could point out that I studied electronic engineering at university level but I doubt you'd listen anyway and I'm not about to reproduce a 500 page book on electronics in this forum. Geez... My last post on this diversion. Believe Hasselblad's marketing BS if you want, what do I care.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read physics and mathematics. I have already read the books. Sweeping statements are the result of braggadoccio. You should know that by now.

You made a claim that you cannot prove. You do not know. You made a simplistic claim and imputed that Hasselblad was somehow being deceiving by keeping its system closed unnecessarily. I argued that you do not know what is necessary for Hasselblad and it is clear to me now that you don't.

Why reply if you do not care?

That is a cop out, if there ever was one.

[michael]

Please reduce the heat under the personal attacks. Keep the discussion on topic and don't allow it to become personal.

Michael

[izaack]

Please reduce the heat under the personal attacks. Keep the discussion on topic amd don't allow it to become personal.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78645\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let me be the first to apologise to you, Michael.

[hubell]

Making software proprietary has nothing to do with the fact that the same processing could be handled on a PC and therefore the closed system IS NOT NECESSARY. This is a simple fact obvious to anyone who understands digital electronics. Not trying to flame you but this obviously isn't your field of expertise so why pretend it is?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please understand that there is a large population of photographers who do not want to use DXO-type software as a separate step in post-processing to correct for lens aberrations, and would love to have the corrections applied automatically in camera. Post-processing of raw files is completely unappealing to me. I would prefer to spend my time taking  photographs and making prints.

[pprdigital]

Steve:
While the intense  opinions on the morality and marketing  savvy/stupidity  behind Hassleblad's approach with the  H3 are all well expressed and heartfelt, I would  be very interested in more practical observations from you and others about the plusses/minusses/differences in the file quality and workflow with the Hasselblad 39MP backs compared  to the P1 P45 and the Aptus75. I recall you are a Hasselblad and Leaf dealer.
Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hasselblad (Imacon) trailed Leaf and Phase One in single shot image quality when they dove into digital capture by aquiring ColorCrisp (Carnival Back makers) in 2001. The biggest issue for them was their color engine, which had a pronounced yellow color bias (not to be confused with recent posts - more on that later). That being said, the overall file was still outstanding, and we have many satisfied Imacon digital back users who purchased Imacon digital backs within the 2003-2004 period, who may have a bit more post-tweaking than their Leaf/Phase cousins.

From 2005, through today, Imacon (Hasselblad) has made significant strides in their software and in their image quality. In addition to Hasselblad and Leaf, I also sell Sinar. Today, the difference between a single shot capture between them is really hard to quantify as the differences have become so very slight.

I will say this about the Flexcolor software; it gets demonstrated inadequately on a regular basis and is under-appreciated. It has a wealth of features, is stable, quick and reliable.

I have seen the DAC (Digital APO Correction) work, although I haven't spent enough time with it to make it not work. The new distortion correction capability being discussed with the H3-D, also looks encouraging. What I've been told regarding these "corrections", is that due to the enhanced communication between sensor and lens, and the resulting exchange of capture data, including distance to subject, for example, DAC and Distortion Correction will perform better than, say Photoshop or another software solution like DXO, because of the difficulty in extracting all of the capture data that Flexcolor has available in the raw file.

Regarding the whole H3-D system and closed systems, etc. I don't have a conclusion there as yet. I'll be having a discussion with Hasselblad Monday to get some more insight into why they've gone in this direction, and we'll see if it makes sense.

But everyone has a right to be concerned - closed anything is generally disturbing, expecially when large investments are involved.

Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital

[Fritzer]

Tell me how well Rollei. Sinar, Leaf and Phase One have been marketing themselves over the last five years and I will gladly concede that I miss the crucial point. These are not exactly companies well known for their marketing savvy. Hasselblad however, is.

Rollei, Leaf, Phase One and Sinar combined cannot match the marketing muscle of Hasselblad USA. At the end of the day, whoever provides the most complete all-in-one solution takes the market.

Why would rental houses who would not take a second look at the Rollei 6008 system all these years, all of a sudden take an interest in the Hy6?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe you overestimate Hasselblad a little.... The H1/H2 have been the only digital MF systems for just a short time. While that gives them an advantage, it doesn't mean a decent contender can't take their place in the near future, especially one that is open-platform.
In the meantime, existing cameras like the RZ, Contax and others work just fine with digital backs, no need to jump on the bandwagon right now.

As for rental houses, the Mamiya RZ has many years ago replaced Hasselblad as a work horse for pro photographers, and Sinar is still the market leader in view cameras, regarding world wide availability.
It's a shame Mamiya failed to come up with a promising solution, they sure have the infrastructure and marketing philosophy to rule the market.

Hasselblad approached the DB market quite agressively, yet it remains to be seen how successful a brand will be which has been living on a long gone reputation for the past 10-15 years .

[Morgan_Moore]

Steve  when you see Hassy on Monday can you put them my theory that the 3 will be no more 'closed' than the 1 or 2

There is a difference between 'supported' and 'closed'

It is obvious that the lens data will add to the H system if used with an H back that is not the same as the body not working on 'regular backs'

I think people here are getting in a twist between 'supported' and 'closed'

Also I note that the 2 is still on the hassy website advertised with the multishot backs maybe they will run D and non D in parrallel

[SeanFS]

Very nice potted history Steve.

 I think possibly the problem with Flexcolour is the documentation is very poor - particularly compared to capture one, which I use with my Canon. It certainly is capable of stunning ( and fast )results but it takes time to learn that many don't have - and some of the recent upgrades haven't  helped matters - the film response settings in particular I find quite useful as it seems to extend dynamic range but I read a lot of negative comments about how it has removed a stop of sensitivity from the old settings - which isn't the case when its worked out correctly but at first glance looks rather alarming.

I'm looking forward to your report from Hasselblad - being the improbable budget kind of hasselblad /Imacon kind of guy it probably won't concern me either way too much but I like to keep abreast of it .You never know when it will impact down the line and its good to be able to plan ahead.

Hasselblad (Imacon) trailed Leaf and Phase One in single shot image quality when they dove into digital capture by aquiring ColorCrisp (Carnival Back makers) in 2001. The biggest issue for them was their color engine, which had a pronounced yellow color bias (not to be confused with recent posts - more on that later). That being said, the overall file was still outstanding, and we have many satisfied Imacon digital back users who purchased Imacon digital backs within the 2003-2004 period, who may have a bit more post-tweaking than their Leaf/Phase cousins.

From 2005, through today, Imacon (Hasselblad) has made significant strides in their software and in their image quality. In addition to Hasselblad and Leaf, I also sell Sinar. Today, the difference between a single shot capture between them is really hard to quantify as the differences have become so very slight.

I will say this about the Flexcolor software; it gets demonstrated inadequately on a regular basis and is under-appreciated. It has a wealth of features, is stable, quick and reliable.

I have seen the DAC (Digital APO Correction) work, although I haven't spent enough time with it to make it not work. The new distortion correction capability being discussed with the H3-D, also looks encouraging. What I've been told regarding these "corrections", is that due to the enhanced communication between sensor and lens, and the resulting exchange of capture data, including distance to subject, for example, DAC and Distortion Correction will perform better than, say Photoshop or another software solution like DXO, because of the difficulty in extracting all of the capture data that Flexcolor has available in the raw file.

Regarding the whole H3-D system and closed systems, etc. I don't have a conclusion there as yet. I'll be having a discussion with Hasselblad Monday to get some more insight into why they've gone in this direction, and we'll see if it makes sense.

But everyone has a right to be concerned - closed anything is generally disturbing, expecially when large investments are involved.

Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[pss]

hands on report with the Hy6:
here
this should answer most questions....

[BernardLanguillier]

I have seen the DAC (Digital APO Correction) work, although I haven't spent enough time with it to make it not work. The new distortion correction capability being discussed with the H3-D, also looks encouraging. What I've been told regarding these "corrections", is that due to the enhanced communication between sensor and lens, and the resulting exchange of capture data, including distance to subject, for example, DAC and Distortion Correction will perform better than, say Photoshop or another software solution like DXO, because of the difficulty in extracting all of the capture data that Flexcolor has available in the raw file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Steve,

Thanks for these interesting comments, as always.

This subject is very interesting.

- Phaseone claimed in the past the their back couldn't produce a DNG file because they RAW file contains some callibration information related to the characteristics of every single back,
- Some people interpreted the Nikon move as far as auto white balance "encryption" as being also related to some sort of callibration of the sensor,
- Now Hassy also claims that they are able to do things better than the competition thanks to "insider" information about the lens and back.

There are differences between these 3 cases, but there are also things in common, namely that a manufacturer has access to some information that provides them with an advantage compared to the competition, and that they claim that this information is technically difficult to share with other players (whether this is true or not).

It is obvious to me that there is some truth to their statement, but it is also obvious to me that they are trying to make use of that to sell more of their stuff instead of letting customers choose freely the best option for every single segment of the chain.

From a technical standpoint, it seems very possible to me to define standard interfaces between segments that would let a lens communicate its characteristics to the body/back, and a soft interface that would let a back/sensor com
municate its characteristics to a downstream conversion software on a PC.

However:

- Today, these interfaces do not exist, and it is therefore likely true that a closed system has the potential to deliver better performance in the short term,
- The photographic industry has a deeply closed system culture that starts with non compatible lens mounts and extends to basically every area of the field (SLR flash, accesories,...),
- Opening completely the chain to competition has the potential to leave us with a situation where only the intially dominant player survives in each niche,
- Besides a few photographers who care - and who are currently discussing on this board and on others, most photographers don't care much about this, and are in fact not informed about these issues,
- There is always a trade off between openess and performance. Stating that openess is always the best option is over-simplistic and does not address the real concerns of the players involved. A more ellaborate approach is needed to progress on this topic. The success of Apple is a good example of a player that is striving on top of a closed approach,
- Fully opened systems where customers shop themselves for components pause some issues in terms of liability and support - what happens when the components don't interact well? The PC model is probably an interesting one here - OEM assemble components and take responsability for the system as a whole. This could be what Rollei is headed towards. Leaf plays the role of the OEM for assembling its back with the camera, and takes responsability for possible problems,

All in all, we have been dreaming for a few years about openess for the first time in the history of photography in the niche MFDB segment, it isn't very surprising that our favourite manufacturers are trying to step back to the situation that we - photographers and customers - have been tolerating for decades...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Nemo]

The Hy6 platform is not an open platform meaning that a camera has an "open" mount (to every lens manufacturer) and "open" back connections (to any digital back manufacturer).

I think Rollei sells the camera to digital backs manufacturers, and they adapt the body to their backs. The Leaf cameras only work with Leaf backs... This implies that we will have many "mini-Hasselblads": Leaf camera and Leaf back; Sinar camera and Sinar back; Rollei camera and Rollei back... This would be nonsense! Perhaps Hasselblad can do it, but Rollei/Sinar/Leaf don't.

The Hy6 platform must be based on a set of public specifications open to everyone, lens manufacturers and back manufacturers. I should be possible to use a Phase One back on a Leaf-branded camera, or a Leaf back on a Sinar camera, and any lens on any camera.

I hope to see this platform well-defined and really open. Potential buyers will not accept tricks. People looking for a closed platform will have Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Pentaxes... and Canons... Rollei, Sinar and Leaf cannot win in that game. They have the opportunity to offer something different.

[mcfoto]

I think Rollei sells the camera to digital backs manufacturers, and they adapt the body to their backs. The Leaf cameras only work with Leaf backs... This implies that we will have many "mini-Hasselblads": Leaf camera and Leaf back; Sinar camera and Sinar back; Rollei camera and Rollei back... This would be nonsense! Perhaps Hasselblad can do it, but Rollei/Sinar/Leaf don't.


Huh?! Is that why Leaf has their own badged camera? Mamiya would be the only camera system of choice under those conditions becuase then you could rent various digital backs depending on the output required for the finished job. If Phase & Mamiya merge, I hope that Mamiya will accept Leaf & Sinar backs as well.  My concern is that with all these mergers, Medium Format is going to do it's self in, we users are not that big of a segment of the market share.
Cheers, Denis

[Graham Mitchell]

I think Rollei sells the camera to digital backs manufacturers, and they adapt the body to their backs. The Leaf cameras only work with Leaf backs... This implies that we will have many "mini-Hasselblads": Leaf camera and Leaf back; Sinar camera and Sinar back; Rollei camera and Rollei back... This would be nonsense! Perhaps Hasselblad can do it, but Rollei/Sinar/Leaf don't.

I hope this isn't how it will be. The market doesn;t need a bunch of new mounts. It would be simpler for everyone to introduce a universal digital back mount. Then consumers can proceed with confidence, and confidence is lacking at the moment and hurting ALL the players.

[jpop]

I think Rollei sells the camera to digital backs manufacturers, and they adapt the body to their backs. The Leaf cameras only work with Leaf backs... This implies that we will have many "mini-Hasselblads": Leaf camera and Leaf back; Sinar camera and Sinar back; Rollei camera and Rollei back... This would be nonsense! [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78732\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't believe this to be the case as the mounting method for the backs looked to be the same at Photokina.  The technology agreements between Leaf/Sinar and Jenoptik are likely just for the proprietary pin out information and data coming from the camera body.  Actually slightly humorous as Hasselblad initially had licensing agreements with other back manufacturers that were balked at as they upgraded their platform.  No one was very keen about having to pay another manufacturer for the right to attach their back to a camera.

[Nemo]

hands on report with the Hy6:
here
this should answer most questions....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many thanks.

I hope this isn't how it will be.

I hope so too.

Maybe we have some answers to our questions soon.

A really open platform must be based on open-to-all specifications.

The closed model of Hasselblad, Pentax and Mamiya can work for them. I only points to the possibility of a different offer for those who want to or like to have choices: the lens, the body and the back. Any combination should be possible: Schneider lens/Rollei body/Sinar back; or Zeiss lens/Leaf body/Phase One back.

The Hy6 is an unique opportunity for a real open platform for MF, but the proponents have not marketed the Hy6 in this way at Photokina.

I think people will prefer Hasselblad, Mamiya or Pentax to Leaf or Sinar, small brands which will not resist the pressure in the long run if they play separately (I am not sure about Mamiya or Pentax either).

[Dustbak]

Please understand that there is a large population of photographers who do not want to use DXO-type software as a separate step in post-processing to correct for lens aberrations, and would love to have the corrections applied automatically in camera. Post-processing of raw files is completely unappealing to me. I would prefer to spend my time taking  photographs and making prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78649\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, that is true but I think should not be a reason to rule external post processing out. Other people would not mind and when it is optional you have the choice now haven't you?

[pss]

am i missing something here? how can anyone expect the Hy6 to accept ALL backs all of a sudden? we all know that every back has different connections and different software! rollei can't change that! they can offer different manufacturers to build bodies to fit their backs and they can sell bodies with adapters for different backs...same as before and just like any other company like mamiya, contax and hasselblad (up to now...) in which ways can they be more open?
this is the most open platform i have ever seen in photography and people are still complaining? this is crazy!
i am assuming that the leaf Hy6 will pretty much be free with the Aptus 75s, the sinar with the emotion75.....if you want to switch backs, just get the rollei version and the adapters and buy an aptus, a phase and a sinar...no problem...