Topic: Hasselblad "PHOCUS" (Read 8384 times)

samuel_js · « **on:** October 30, 2007, 09:36:26 am »

Here:

http://www.yfo.se/phocus/

Graham Mitchell · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2007, 09:56:06 am »

video didn't work for me, in Firefox or Safari.

SeanBK · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2007, 09:57:46 am »

Quote

video didn't work for me, in Firefox or Safari.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It works fine on PC. I think the Phocus is quite impressive. I am also impressed with the GPS tool.

pprdigital · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2007, 10:07:52 am »

Quote

video didn't work for me, in Firefox or Safari.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Worked ok for me. It may take a while to finish streaming before you see anything.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php

samuel_js · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2007, 10:15:03 am »

Quote

video didn't work for me, in Firefox or Safari.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You have to wait for it to load a little bit. It's quite big (100 meg). It works for me both Safari and Firefox on Mac.

MattLaver · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2007, 10:55:40 am »

Sorry to be off topic; but could that be the worst choice of speaker for voice-over ever used? He sounds almost drunk. Considering the international nature of the audience perhaps someone a little more intelligible might be of benefit.

This of course is no reflection on the software being discussed, which I'm sure is very capable.

Sorry for the diversion, now back to regular programming....

Graham Mitchell · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2007, 11:04:03 am »

I tried again and it worked.

Graham Mitchell · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2007, 11:28:08 am »

Quote

Sorry to be off topic; but could that be the worst choice of speaker for voice-over ever used?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, his pronunciation is awful, especially for the word 'tool'

I liked the look of the moire tool.

Dustbak · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2007, 11:54:18 am »

The anti-moire tool is very welcomed but other than that (and the GPS) it is not that different than Flexcolor.

The thing that is really different is the GUI. More in line with todays GUI fashion.

pprdigital · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2007, 12:43:29 pm »

Quote

The anti-moire tool is very welcomed but other than that (and the GPS) it is not that different than Flexcolor.

The thing that is really different is the GUI. More in line with todays GUI fashion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The biggest differences aside from the moire tool and the GPS capability will be:

*much more advanced and flexible file management
*much more extensive metadata input and search
*full resolution previews
*side by side compare at 100% resolution

These were all either weak components or completely absent aspects of Flexcolor. Most of the advanced functionality is retained in Phocus along with these advantages.

Another plus to Phocus is that is looks and operates very much like Lightroom/Aperture which will reduce the learning curve a great deal - especially for digital techs/assistants.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php

hubell · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2007, 02:12:34 pm »

Quote

The biggest differences aside from the moire tool and the GPS capability will be:

*much more advanced and flexible file management
*much more extensive metadata input and search
*full resolution previews
*side by side compare at 100% resolution

These were all either weak components or completely absent aspects of Flexcolor. Most of the advanced functionality is retained in Phocus along with these advantages.

Another plus to Phocus is that is looks and operates very much like Lightroom/Aperture which will reduce the learning curve a great deal - especially for digital techs/assistants.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well summarized, Steve. The changes you reference are VERY welcome improvements in workflow for anyone who has worked with previous versions of Flexcolor. I do lots of bracketing for both exposure and focus with a view to compositing in post processing, and the ability to compare full resolution previews of two images side by side is essential.

wolfnowl · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2007, 02:39:02 pm »

I'm impressed by the moire tool for sure, and as has been mentioned, the new interface certainly parallels Lightroom. Looks like a great new development for Hasselblad.

As far as the narrator, one of the vagaries of language is that while he may be difficult to understand to someone from Europe or Australia, to someone from Alabama or Louisiana in the SE United States, he wouldn't seem to have an 'accent' at all...

Mike.

godtfred · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2007, 03:17:44 pm »

Also, using the 3FR file format directly, instead of converting to .fff as flexcolor does today, will speed things up considerably.

Profoto magazine in Sweden just had numbers in their recent issue about write speed to CF cards for the H3D vs. the plus backs, they where head to head with the H3D inching in front. Phocus may put the H3D in front on tethered shooting as well, not just to cards... But then again, who cares as long as they are as even as they are now (not counting Leaf...)

-axel

Quote

The biggest differences aside from the moire tool and the GPS capability will be:

*much more advanced and flexible file management
*much more extensive metadata input and search
*full resolution previews
*side by side compare at 100% resolution

These were all either weak components or completely absent aspects of Flexcolor. Most of the advanced functionality is retained in Phocus along with these advantages.

Another plus to Phocus is that is looks and operates very much like Lightroom/Aperture which will reduce the learning curve a great deal - especially for digital techs/assistants.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dustbak · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2007, 03:22:43 pm »

Yeah, you are right! That is a good thing however it is not completely clear to me yet how far that will go.

Will we get 3FR files now when shooting tethered? That would be great because FFF eats HD space like crazy.

Will it speed up conversion to DNG? Will it speed up the creation of JPG & Tiff. The pace it is now doing conversions reminds me a lot of Leaf Capture. With the exception that for the Leaf files I could switch to Iridient Raw Developer (with a lot of other options like custom input profiles and lightning fast conversions).

godtfred · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2007, 03:36:03 pm »

Quote

Yeah, you are right! That is a good thing however it is not completely clear to me yet how far that will go.

Will we get 3FR files now when shooting tethered? That would be great because FFF eats HD space like crazy.

Will it speed up conversion to DNG? Will it speed up the creation of JPG & Tiff. The pace it is now doing conversions reminds me a lot of Leaf Capture. With the exception that for the Leaf files I could switch to Iridient Raw Developer (with a lot of other options like custom input profiles and lightning fast conversions).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As far as I have understood, it will all be 3FR from now on, both in camera, and tethered. .FFF will be supported as a "legacy" format.

As you say the 3FR files are smaller, and we should see a better performance on converting to Tiff and JPG, as the files who have to be loaded into ram and "worked on" by the software will be smaller by a good margin. (If you feel this is slow now, try turning of noise reduction and sharpening completely, speeds things up quite a bit on my machine for quick conversions.)

-axel

Dustbak · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2007, 03:50:50 pm »

All 3FR file, that sounds good. For which backs will that apply, all? I would love to see my 384 deliver 3FR as well instead of FFF.

It is slow now and not just in my imagination . Converting 70 .FFF files from my CF39 to 50% JPG with noise reduction off and no sharpening takes a couple of hours on my MBP.

This is Leaf Capture 10 speed. RD is about 4 times faster. I would also love to see .3FR support with DAC in ACR.

godtfred · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2007, 04:09:34 pm »

Quote

All 3FR file, that sounds good. For which backs will that apply, all? I would love to see my 384 deliver 3FR as well instead of FFF.

It is slow now and not just in my imagination . Converting 70 .FFF files from my CF39 to 50% JPG with noise reduction off and no sharpening takes a couple of hours on my MBP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think it will apply for the older backs, but have no hard evidence on this...

The conversion speed is really slow on my MBP too, but I just did a bit over 60 files on my Mac Pro, and it zipped through makin tiff's in less than half an hour (or so i believe, I surf the web while waiting, and my timeframe gets wobbly when I'm on the web )

-axel

joern_kiel · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2007, 12:04:26 am »

Quote

The biggest differences aside from the moire tool and the GPS capability will be:

*much more advanced and flexible file management
*much more extensive metadata input and search
*full resolution previews
*side by side compare at 100% resolution

These were all either weak components or completely absent aspects of Flexcolor. Most of the advanced functionality is retained in Phocus along with these advantages.

Another plus to Phocus is that is looks and operates very much like Lightroom/Aperture which will reduce the learning curve a great deal - especially for digital techs/assistants.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Steve,
I would like to ad something to your list because these improvements are only possible with the development of Phocus as far as i know.

*iso range 50 - 800 (22+39 MP) / 100 - 1600 (31MP)
*long exposure up to 64 sec
*camera remote with focus adjustment
and
*it is for free, isn´t it ?

Last week i bought a used H3D 39 Kit from an old man who switched to Mamiya ZD because he has no printed manual with the Hasselblad and found the learning curve to high. Less then 350 picts taken. As a long time P1 / C1 user first i was shocked by the slow speed and strange interface. But after a few hours of testing i found the quality of the rendered files awesome and at least worth the time i wait. Yes, sharpening, noise handling and DAC makes it slow but the files are ready when rendered and need no or at least not much correction in Photoshop. Same with color and look. Gorgeous. And much better then converted DNG to ACR/RD for my taste at the moment.

I totally underrated this piece of software in the past.
I could only make the advice to anyone to demo this system personally.

Are there any improvements for the handling of the so called profiles (not icc)?
Is it OS X 10.4 / 10.5 only?

jørn

You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus.
Mark Twain

Natasa Stojsic · « **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2007, 12:20:53 am »

Quote

The biggest differences aside from the moire tool and the GPS capability will be:

*much more advanced and flexible file management
*much more extensive metadata input and search
*full resolution previews
*side by side compare at 100% resolution

These were all either weak components or completely absent aspects of Flexcolor. Most of the advanced functionality is retained in Phocus along with these advantages.

Another plus to Phocus is that is looks and operates very much like Lightroom/Aperture which will reduce the learning curve a great deal - especially for digital techs/assistants.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Impressive, at least one step ahead of everyone else!

Bruce MacNeil · « **Reply #19 on:** October 31, 2007, 01:27:19 pm »

Quote

Sorry to be off topic; but could that be the worst choice of speaker for voice-over ever used? He sounds almost drunk. Considering the international nature of the audience perhaps someone a little more intelligible might be of benefit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Aye - a good strong methodist brogue would come in handy in this situation.

Author Topic: Hasselblad "PHOCUS" (Read 8384 times)

samuel_js

samuel_js

joern_kiel