H4D-40: Sample files

[MichaelEzra]

I visited yesterday Hasselblad's event in New York and had an opportunity to make a few snapshots with H4D-40 under strobes.
If anyone finds this useful, I have the JPG files that I created from lossless compressed raw files using ACR5.6.
No sharpening. Color noise reduction - standard value of 25. No lens corrections. JPG quality: 12
Lenses 100, 80 and 28mm

My max single upload file size here is 2 MB. All files size is 70 MB (about 14MB each) but I have no place to host at the moment...
If anyone could host the Zip file I can provide it.


EDIT: Download location: http://drop.io/39xh9wg
Filename: H4D40_SampleFiles.zip

[Jeremy Payne]

I visited yesterday Hasselblad's event in New York and had an opportunity to make a few snapshots with H4D-40 under strobes.
If anyone finds this useful, I have the JPG files that I created from lossless compressed raw files using ACR5.6.
No sharpening. Color noise reduction - standard value of 25. No lens corrections. JPG quality: 12
Lenses 100, 80 and 28mm

My max single upload file size here is 2 MB. All files size is 70 MB (about 14MB each) but I have no place to host at the moment...
If anyone could host the Zip file I can provide it.

Check this out ... let's you drop up to 100MB for free ...

http://drop.io

[tho_mas]

here you can upload for free: http://drop.io/

[MichaelEzra]

Thanks,

Download location: http://drop.io/39xh9wg
Filename: H4D40_SampleFiles.zip

[Quentin]

Thanks,

Download location: http://drop.io/39xh9wg
Filename: H4D40_SampleFiles.zip

Look pretty good to me.  4416 looks slightly out of focus, but the files are clean and look good even at 200%.  I want one.

Quentin

[MichaelEzra]

Look pretty good to me.  4416 looks slightly out of focus, but the files are clean and look good even at 200%.  I want one.

Quentin

FYI, I used "True Focus" feature to focus all captures. Focusing was targeted on eyes.

[arashm]

Michael
Thank you for the upload
I think these files would look even better in Phocus.
am

[bwphoto]

As a Nikon D300 user right now, I am seriously thinking about MF in the next couple of months.  I have been shooting for 25 years, the first 15 was 100% with an RZ67 and Bronica 6.45, never owned a 35mm until I went completely digital 10 years ago.  I much prefer the crop of these files compared to 35mm for studio work and can't wait to get back to that.

The files here are clean and the close ups are sharp.  The full lengths seem a little soft to me.  They also look a little underexposed to me and lack a little contrast.  Would love to play with the raws in Phocus.  Being able to zoom in this close for retouching is amazing.

[gwhitf]

The files seem very blah to me. Flat and emotionless. Yes, maybe Phocus would have pulled more out of them. And yes, the full length seems soft. So much for the Focus Thingie. I just don't get the big whoop about these crop chip cameras. My feeling: Either buy a p65 and get full frame, or buy a Nikon/Canon and have an easy workflow. For $20k, you better knock my socks off; these files do not do it.

Or, in the case of these pictures, maybe it was just the bad model, the bad makeup, and the bad set. That'll do it to you.

[pixjohn]

I am a little disappointed with the quality of the images. Soft, flat and just look amateur. I know it just a set  by Hasselblad, but please set up better lighting. I am looking to buy a new H4 in the next few weeks. I think Hasselblad needs to impress, not go backwards.

[marc gerritsen]

I am a little disappointed with the quality of the images. Soft, flat and just look amateur. I know it just a set  by Hasselblad, but please set up better lighting. I am looking to buy a new H4 in the next few weeks. I think Hasselblad needs to impress, not go backwards.

lighting set up, model, location and actual photo are all substandard
but you can still see this camera delivers a photo which is tack sharp where it needs to be, see atatchment.
thanks for uploading the photos Michael! Hopefully see some studio shots of yours with this camera!!
marc

 

[ziocan]

lighting set up, model, location and actual photo are all substandard
but you can still see this camera delivers a photo which is tack sharp where it needs to be, see atatchment.
thanks for uploading the photos Michael! Hopefully see some studio shots of yours with this camera!!
marc

thank you for uploading the images.

Actually the set up is great, because it allows to see what the camera can do with subpar lighting, processing and adverse conditions.
From there it can only get better.  

For being sharp, it is sharp, but processing sucks big time. It is hard to judge colors and tonal range.

[arashm]

Michael:
would you consider uploading the raw file of the first file?
so we can have a peek at it in Phocus?
thank you.
am

[MichaelEzra]

Here is a link to the raw files:

A1214409: drop.io/A1214409

A1214412: http://drop.io/4adcl5v#

The JPG files were processed to deliver very plain, "raw-like" look of the images, not to impress with post processing.
XMP files are attached as well, if needed.

I'd be curious to see what Phocus can do. It would be fair to compare JPGs without sharpening.
Have fun!

[gwhitf]

A1214412: http://drop.io/4adcl5v#

Random:

* The file is out of focus.

* What is the workflow with Phocus and Hasselblad? When I opened this file in Phocus 2.1 it first made me "import" it. Does it require this extra step with every picture you shoot? What if you shot a job with a couple thousand frames? You'd have to import them all first, before you could actually begin working on them? Why? Can you set the camera to avoid this extra step? If it's a Hasselblad RAW and Hasselblad software, why doesn't the software just automatically "see" the RAW?

* I am on a PowerPC tower. This file imports, but then it turns into a corrupted looking yellow-lined preview after a few seconds. Does Phocus 2.1 require an Intel chip?

Thank you.

[arashm]

Michael thank you for the upload of the Raw files
the full length image is soft so didn't really spend much time on it.
The other file *IF* (so we read this if part).... it was my file this is probably how I would process it out in Phocus.
I'm sure others would probably process it out to their liking.

http://public.me.com/arashmoallemi

Look for "michael H4D 40 File"
There is a full size Jpeg and a snap shot of the corrections if your interested.

@ gwhitf
Yes if you shoot to Card you get a 3FR file, and you have to import it into Phocus, but this is no different than LR or other Apps, For me it's part of importing from a CF Card to my capture folder.
When you shoot Tethered the files come into your capture folder with out any other steps.

Actually come to think of it, at least with my workflow, I'd never end up with a 3FR file, they are imported to FFF from the very start.
So this extra step is not really seen.

- Yes I do believe Phocus is an intel affair only, but it runs great on my MacPro (2.8 x 8 Harpertown + 6gig Ram, 512 V-ram) and MacBook Pros (both 2.4 with 4 gig ram, 256 V-Ram)

Thanks
am

[bwphoto]

That is a huge improvement.  Exposure is up a little, contrast is there and great sharpness.  You can zoom this up to 300% and still work on just the eye if you like.  Great for retouching.

[gwhitf]

@ gwhitf
Yes if you shoot to Card you get a 3FR file, and you have to import it into Phocus, but this is no different than LR or other Apps, For me it's part of importing from a CF Card to my capture folder.
When you shoot Tethered the files come into your capture folder with out any other steps.

Actually come to think of it, at least with my workflow, I'd never end up with a 3FR file, they are imported to FFF from the very start.
So this extra step is not really seen.

- Yes I do believe Phocus is a intel affair only, but it runs great on my MacPro (2.8 x 8 Harpertown + 6gig Ram, 512 V-ram) and MacBook Pros (both 2.4 with 4 gig ram, 256 V-Ram)

Maybe if you used Phocus 2.1 every single day, you'd just get used to this workflow, but with Canon RAW, it's just so easy with DPP. A picture is a picture -- it just lives on the drive as a CR2 RAW, and you open DPP, and there it is, ready to work on, and FAST. Maybe that's why I've resisted Lightroom -- it seems so bloated and slow, when there is a deadline looming, and you just need it fast and easy.

I'll try to download Phocus 2.1 on my Intel 17 laptop and play with it. But for me, to think about a Hasselblad purchase, it now requires another investment from my solid G5 PPC tower, to an Intel. So add a few more thousand dollars to the investment line. Again, Canon and DPP do not require that. Again, advantage Canon, for being fast, not bloated, and easy to work with.

Thanks.

[MichaelEzra]

The focusing error may be due to miscalculation of the True Focus feature.
Focus was supposed to be retained on the eyes.

[arashm]

Maybe if you used Phocus 2.1 every single day, you'd just get used to this workflow, but with Canon RAW, it's just so easy with DPP. A picture is a picture -- it just lives on the drive as a CR2 RAW, and you open DPP, and there it is, ready to work on, and FAST. Maybe that's why I've resisted Lightroom -- it seems so bloated and slow, when there is a deadline looming, and you just need it fast and easy.

I'll try to download Phocus 2.1 on my Intel 17 laptop and play with it. But for me, to think about a Hasselblad purchase, it now requires another investment from my solid G5 PPC tower, to an Intel. So add a few more thousand dollars to the investment line. Again, Canon and DPP do not require that. Again, advantage Canon, for being fast, not bloated, and easy to work with.

Thanks.

I agree with you
The extra steps and stuff, I just chuck it up to the price of admission for that camera/software.
EVERY software that I use (PS, Phocus, C1-5, FCP... ) has some sort of "thing" I would like changed/fixed, but I'm too young to already have this much white hairs on my head, so I've learned to just not frat over it anymore
am