Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on September 27, 2015, 02:28:07 pm
-
As the off-topic-guy I am I posted a DNG profile for the Pentax 645z in this other thread http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104101.0 To gain a bit better visibility for Pentax 645z users I post here in a new topic.
I don't own a Pentax 645z but I've seen some interest in improving on the default ACR profile, so I just made a quick DCamProf profile for demonstration. I think it's unfortunate that the Pentax with the great Sony MF CMOS sensor shouldn't have good profiles like other MF offers with the same sensor (IQ250, Credo 50).
As before the profiles attached here are made from this online CC24 shot: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-645z/645ZhVFAI000100.DNG.HTM . That shot is made in artificial daylight and suffers a bit more glare than a really high quality shot colorchecker shot would do, but I think it still did well as basis for a D50 profile. It would be great to have a Tungsten (StdA) shot too to make a dual-illuminant profile like the bundled is, but then someone needs to provide a shot. Tungsten+D65 is the standard combo for dual-illuminant, but StdA+D50 is fine too.
I've re-rendered the profiles from the original thread and added the ColorMatrix from Adobe's bundled profile. The reason for this is to avoid a white balance shift (caused by an unfortunate design decision by Adobe), discussed here: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/camera-profiling.html#white_balance_shift it won't affect color rendition, as a different matrix is used for that (ForwardMatrix). For the same reason this is a "fake dual-illuminant" profile, it says it's a StdA+D65 profile but it's in actuality only D50, this to report the exact same color temperature as the bundled profile.
The curve in the profile is Adobe's default tone curve, just as the bundled profile. I don't have Pentax's own Digital Camera Utility 5 which I otherwise would check if they have some different contrast there and match the curve with that, it's probably a better reference than Adobe, but possibly it's the same result.
The DNG files I've got have embedded JPEG in them, usually one can look at them to get the camera's own rendering. That rendering is simply the default Adobe curve with the embedded matrix (no LUT), ie very simplistic rendering. I'm surprised if that corresponds to in-camera JPEGs. Maybe the embedded preview in PEFs looks like the DCU5 output? Anyway, with the DNG files and no DCU5 software there's no ability to try relating to the camera's native rendering, unless that really happens to be matrix+acr default curve (which I doubt).
Suggested further work would be:
- Get StdA/flash/D65 shots CC24 to make profiles for other light conditions / DNG profiles
- Relate to the native DCU5 rendering, mainly the tone curve, often it's preferable to mimic at least some aspects of the in-camera/native rendering
- Fine-tune the look
- High saturation blue may have a clipping issue (I've seen it in some test pictures), can be adjusted
I have attached one with an example subtle look adjustment, as described here: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/files/custom-look.json
This look is a generic one, not made specifically for the Pentax. Looks does not necessarily need to be made specifically per camera, but for example a very subtle skin-tone hue change would likely be camera specific, while changes like warmup of green/yellow midtones are more generic.
The difference between DCamProf and software like X-rite is that quite much effort has been put into rendering colors well after the tone curve has been applied, while most (all?) commercial profile makers make colorimetric base profiles and just slam a tone curve on top and let it become what it becomes. A lengthy discussion about this can be found here: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html#tone_curves
DCamProf is probably not the best profile maker if you're going to make a reproduction profile (no tone curve), then the commercially available alternatives are probably better. But for general-purpose photography it does very well. The intention is to be able to match and exceed what the best bundled profiles provide (the bundled profiles are made with in-house software not available to consumers).
While the look can be fine-tuned, and small improvements of color checker shots can be made, if you don't like the look at all of these two profiles, then DCamProf profiles are not for you. These profiles are very close to what a "final" profile would look like, at least in lights close to D50. I would myself not doubt using them in production, especially after looking at the result of Adobe's bundled profile ;)
-
Just tried it. The results are very impressive! Thanks a lot!!!
Actually, Torger, do you happen to have the profiles for H4D-40? Because I always use Lightroom for the sake of its multiple functionalities, but the default adobe color is just far behind Phocus. It would be great if you can share the profile for Hasselblad users.. ;)
-
I have a Hasselblad H4D-50 myself for which I have hand-tuned a profile and I'm becoming pretty pleased with that, although testing is mostly for my own stuff I like to shoot (landscape). I haven't really assembled it though, maybe I can do it tonight. Both a neutral profile, and one with the hand-tuned subtle look. I doesn't look exactly like Phocus, but not so far from it. I haven't intended to copy Phocus, but we come close anyway due to that Hassy also likes neutral realistic renderings.
I think the Hasselblad H4D-40, H4D-50, H5D-40 and H5D-50 all use Kodak sensors with the same color filters so they should be compatible, that is my H4D-50 profile should work with H4D-40 too.
-
Just to post a quick pic to illustrate the color difference. Above is using Adobe default color profile. Below is using the one Torger provided (dcamprof-v0912-pentax-645z-look.dcp). I didn't change the white balance. I just leave it as "auto" by the camera.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/765/21166827143_975d346cca_o.jpg)
-
I have a Hasselblad H4D-50 myself for which I have hand-tuned a profile and I'm becoming pretty pleased with that, although testing is mostly for my own stuff I like to shoot (landscape). I haven't really assembled it though, maybe I can do it tonight. Both a neutral profile, and one with the hand-tuned subtle look. I doesn't look exactly like Phocus, but not so far from it. I haven't intended to copy Phocus, but we come close anyway due to that Hassy also likes neutral realistic renderings.
I think the Hasselblad H4D-40, H4D-50, H5D-40 and H5D-50 all use Kodak sensors with the same color filters so they should be compatible, that is my H4D-50 profile should work with H4D-40 too.
If you can share them, it will be great!! I think many Hasselblad users will be very happy.
Actually, I'm also wondering if the profiles for Pentax 645Z will yield some good results with Hasselblad 50C backs, as both of them are using the same sensor. Or the in-camera algorithm will lead to very different results?
To me, color profiles have always been the biggest issue when using Lightroom. And I really don't enjoy switching among LR, C1, and Phocus. It is such a pain. I looked at the DCamProf introduction you linked. Now I'm tempted to make the profiles for myself, though I think there is quite a bit of learning curve.
-
I haven't tried them on the H5D-50c, but probably the look will be very similar. I don't think they differ much in response.
Worth mentioning is the Credo 50 which is a special case though as it uses a different ICC pipeline than the Phase One backs, making it impossible to use IQ250 profile on Credo 50 back despite the same sensor. This has lead some to believe that the hardware response differs a lot, but I doubt there is much of a difference there either, but Leaf had their own ICC pipeline in their raw converter and that was incorporated to C1 when Phase One bough Leaf.
Should be said that DCamProf is a work in progress. It's at version 0.9.12 now, and when it reaches 1.0.0 that should mean it's ready for "broad" use. Today it's early adoption, and since I've seen a sharp rise in use I also get more question and also some issues.
Today I discovered I need to rework the gamut mapping algorithm. This means that DCamProf is currently a bit weak when it comes to rendering ultra-high saturation colors, so you may discover some issues there also in the posted 645z profiles. I can post updates later.
I'll focus work on fixing bugs and reaching 1.0.0, so it can take a bit more time while getting those Hassy profiles put together...
-
Thanks Torger for your work!!! ;D ;D
-
Here's updated profiles after I've fixed a clipping bug and also improved gamut compression algorithm (the look has gamut compression, the neutral has not).
-
Hi,
I would like to use the profiles, but I can somehow not install them. I am running the latest version of Lightroom on Mac OS. Can please somebody help.
Thanks
-
ManfredS wrote:
I would like to use the profiles, but I can somehow not install them.
-- well, if you're on a Mac, copy them into YourUserFolder/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Camera Raw/Camera Profiles
(when you download them, if they don't automatically expand from .zip files to .dng files, just double-click on them, then install)
If you're on Windows, someone else will have to chime in.
Good luck,
John
-
Just wanted to add my voice to JCL212's:
Thank you, torger, very much for your good work!
John
-
I've just tried these on a few recent landscape photos and compared the results to the Huelight profiles.
There is a big difference in how these render the shadows - in a much more positive way!
Where I lifted my shadow slider up by a value of 29 I could reset the slider completely and add some more contrast, because otherwise the look is quite flat...which I like better as a starting point however.
Greens have more punch due to a perceptional shift (which may not me what your eyes might be seeing, because I have a red/green weakness) towards yellow. In direct comparison, the profiles made sunlit grass and greens in general appear vivid and real. Unfortunately all the pics I've tried so far are of sunlit test shots of nature. And I love the results from the "look" profile especially.
Thanks alot for your work and for sharing this with us!! :)
-
Nice to hear.
I'm going to rename "look" to "neutral+" or something when I release something more, because the look is so subtle it's not really intended to throw off neutral in any major way, just tune things that just seems to work better than the plain neutral.
I will release some update later, it won't change the look in any major way, but I'm still working on extreme saturaton color handling where DCamProf falls a bit short. If you shoot night scapes with lots of artificial lights it's likely you'll see some issues around the lights. In these color ranges the challenge is that the colors are so strong and narrow band that the equations become unstable and thrown into undefined space and all sorts of bad things happen. It's most easily seen in the blue range. For normal landscape scenes you won't get into that color range though so there it should work fine.
-
Anders,
Thank you for this work!
Most appreciated.
Cheers
Andrew
-
I have a Hasselblad H4D-50 myself for which I have hand-tuned a profile and I'm becoming pretty pleased with that, although testing is mostly for my own stuff I like to shoot (landscape). I haven't really assembled it though, maybe I can do it tonight. Both a neutral profile, and one with the hand-tuned subtle look. I doesn't look exactly like Phocus, but not so far from it. I haven't intended to copy Phocus, but we come close anyway due to that Hassy also likes neutral realistic renderings.
I think the Hasselblad H4D-40, H4D-50, H5D-40 and H5D-50 all use Kodak sensors with the same color filters so they should be compatible, that is my H4D-50 profile should work with H4D-40 too.
Thanks for this good work!
I do not have a P645Z however I do have a 645D :). I believe that the H4D-40 sensor may be the same Kodak chip/sensor as the 645D. Are you able to conform that or not please? If so, noting your comment above, have you shared your H4D-50 profile already?
many thanks,
David
-
Yes if we're lucky the profile would be compatible with the 645D too.
No I haven't released it yet. I'm working with the profiling software to fix some issues. I need to do some actually paid work too inbetween which is slowing progress :) . While there are issues in the software I'm not releasing as many profiles as I will need to regenerate them anyway. I'm thinking of scripting it so I can have a web page of example profiles that I can automatically re-render when the software is updated, but I haven't come that far on that yet.
For the impatient a workflow to make your own profile is here (it's basically just a copy and paste of commands so it's easier than it looks):
http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/camera-profiling.html#the_easy_way
Software builds for mac and windows can usually be found in this thread:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100015.0 (be sure to check from the back)
-
thanks for your work and thanks for sharing. I must say at skin tones I don't see an improvement. Switching from a PhaseOne P45 to the 645z the skin tones ooc in the CaptureOne Workflow are the only thing I miss. More subtle, brighter and less magenta. The profiles both push the saturation in skin tone. For my taste the profiles go into the wrong direction. ymmv
-
thanks for your work and thanks for sharing. I must say at skin tones I don't see an improvement. Switching from a PhaseOne P45 to the 645z the skin tones ooc in the CaptureOne Workflow are the only thing I miss. More subtle, brighter and less magenta. The profiles both push the saturation in skin tone. For my taste the profiles go into the wrong direction. ymmv
Less magenta means more green, so it's delicate balance :-). The provided profiles contains no skin tone hue adjustments. As it's much a matter of taste the default profiles are kept as realistic as possible, tuning it to my taste would be an exercise in frustration as you can't please everyone. Depending on light of the test shot and LUT bending etc the actual hue can differ 1-2 DE from a fixed reference.
I've noted that many profiles for higher end cameras render tones desaturated. I don't think my profiles push saturation, but rather the P45+ is rendering tones a bit low on saturation. For post-processing artists this is not really a disadvantage, it may be the other way around as it may be easier to push saturation than decreasing it.
It should be noted that DCamProf allows manual adjustment of all those aspects though for those that want to fine tune their results to their liking. For a $10k+ investment in camera gear it may actually be worth it.
However, although adjustable you can't really copy a look as that requires the profiling software be designed exactly in the same way as the profile software used for the profily you try to copy. DCamProf relies quite heavily on CIECAM02 for it's adjustment engine, while I'm quite sure that P1 and Hassy is more RGB-based.
-
thanks for your work and thanks for sharing. I must say at skin tones I don't see an improvement. Switching from a PhaseOne P45 to the 645z the skin tones ooc in the CaptureOne Workflow are the only thing I miss. More subtle, brighter and less magenta. The profiles both push the saturation in skin tone. For my taste the profiles go into the wrong direction. ymmv
Actually I think the skin color with Torger's profiles is still clearly better than the default Adobe profiles (more accurate red & orange). Nonetheless, I do agree that it looks more saturated than CaptureOne workflow and Phocus workflow (I also use a P30 & H4D-40, as well as 50C). But the real "problematic" area is saturated blue, as mentioned by Torger already.
I'm also thinking if the difference in color between P45 vs 645Z is a matter of CMOS vs CCD. Without going into the CMOS / CCD debate, I do think that there is a difference in color rendition in the two types of sensors. I don't think CCD color is necessarily better overall, but the rendition of skin on CCD seems to be superior from my eyes.
But I'm not really an expert on this. Looking forward to hearing other opinions :)
-
I haven't seen any technical explanation on why CCD would be better than CMOS due to the different technologies, so my best guess is that the difference in color that some see is due to something else than that it's CCD. If there existed two cameras with the same color filters on the sensor but one CCD and one CMOS and shoot a series of portraits with those and using the same color profiles I think the results would be the same, except for pixel peeping when noise would be visible. Unfortunately I don't think there are any such cameras, so the experiment can't be made.
Anyway, to me that's a bit like discussing which way to turn the loudspeaker cables in a hifi system. Now when MFD has CMOS too there's no fanboy need to favor one or another either so it has become even less interesting I think. I'm more interested in the aspects that have large effect and that you can control, and camera profiles have very large effect and at the same time you can make very subtle fine adjustments.
-
The overall profile saturation can be controlled with one parameter when rendering the profile, so it's quite easily adjusted.
The way the profile (or rather profile software) is designed now is that first there's a normal colorimetric linear profile (no film curve). This is just the same you do for reproduction work, ie you rely on test charts and instruments rather than your eyes. The the challenge has been to construct a tone curve ("tone reproduction operator" in color science speak) which when you do an A/B switch with the flat rendering and let the eyes adapt for a second or two produces the same color appearance. That is my reference has always been the colorimetric rendering and make it appear as true to that as possible, but with the curve.
The intention of the default rendering is thus to be as "accurate" as possible, that is match a colorimetric rendering except for contrast. There are no standard models to rely on in this case (color science doesn't deal much with tone curves) so I had to develop my own model, with the help of my eyes and colleagues on the RT team. Due to that local contrast and color appearance is very much connected it's not possible to make a perfect result without using dynamic tone mapping techniques, which you can't do with a profile. In this case I (we) have chosen to let saturation be higher rather than lower in cases it's not possible to make it "correct" (since most users like that), but I guess that many in the MF audience may like a less saturated look.
For my H4D-50 I've done A/B comparisons with Phocus, and concerning saturation it's not actually any big difference. I've attached on older set of images that shows the difference between DCamProf and Phocus. A is the DCamProf neutral, B is with subjective adjustments (work in progress then, had some issues) and C is Phocus.
-
I'm also thinking if the difference in color between P45 vs 645Z is a matter of CMOS vs CCD. Without going into the CMOS / CCD debate, I do think that there is a difference in color rendition in the two types of sensors.
Well, that is the debate at times, but it remains a myth, fiction.
I don't think CCD color is necessarily better overall, but the rendition of skin on CCD seems to be superior from my eyes.
It's the same silicon that converts photons into electrons, which then cumulates into a voltage. CMOS versus CCD is basically just a different electronic layout of connectors and added transistors. Nothing about that changes the intrinsic color sensitivity of the silicon conversion into electrons. The only thing that makes the color sensitivity of any sensor vary, is the (IR filter +) CFA transmission characteristics and the profiling, and those have nothing to do with silicon as such.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sorry guys for bringing confusion into the discussion by telling about my person background with the switch from a P45 to the 645z. As a matter of fact I didn't use the P45 often within the last years. On the Hassi 503CX the technology from 2005 is missing some important features as AF, fast shooting, bright VF, real wide angle lenses etc. I just sold the P45 recently and ran a demo with the new owner. It still shines in bright light and without peeping the pixels or a tenth of dynamic range the overal image is still great, the color rendering in C1 v8 is very pleasant, last not least the 20yrs old 80mm PlanarT* and the 50mm Distagon FLE are amazing sharp and have almost no CA. *sigh*
Instead I was shooting 98% of my jobs with a 5DM3. I always liked the secret sauce of PhaseOne color science better than Adobe's. One of my clients switched to a DNG workflow (no need to discuss pro or cons) so I had always a comparison in both color renderings - and stayed for most other shots with the C1.
It's not a question of CCD vs CMOS, most of all it's a question of how the software translates the sensor read out. You find the same discussion in the film business about the pleasing ARRI colors and the videoish Sony look. An experienced operator gets great results of both, but my main aim is to get it quick and as close as possible out of camera. A camera profile would be a great step.
Maybe it's correct by the math that skin tones get more magenta and more saturated. This is something I cannot judge, but what matters is my eye.
-
Maybe it's correct by the math that skin tones get more magenta and more saturated. This is something I cannot judge, but what matters is my eye.
Yes, it's nothing wrong in that, I may have sounded defensive but I was just describing how the design process has been made and the motivation behind it. If I get a lot of time at some point I'll maybe try to involve more people in a look design and see if we can come to a broadly accepted high end look, much what Hasselblad and Phase One has been doing with their profiles. It would be interesting to do, but currently I have too much work left in the software itself.
Hasselblad looks quite different from Phase One though, so surely it will be hard to get a consensus. Personally I like Hasselblad's look design better than Phase One. I think Hassy is a bit more neutral, broadly speaking Phase One is too yellow for my taste. But that's just my taste.
-
Overall i'm liking what your profile is doing with some of my recent images I'm working on. In fact, I prefer the post processing "play" i get when your profile is applied. However, I ran into an image where some odd blocky color artifacts are visible when your profile is being used. You can private message me and I can send you the raw file that is giving me this issue. I'm using Lightroom 5.7.
-
PM sent, it would be nice to have the file to debug. Thanks for testing it out.
Progress is a bit slow now though so it can take a while before I can have a look on it. I'm changing quite large aspects of the program (won't affect normal look) and I want to be finished with that before debugging, as it might disappear by itself thanks to the changes I'm working on now.
-
I can't recreate the blockiness artifact on RawTherapee. I've got another user report on blocky artifact too, which I couldn't recreate either. I'll check on Lightroom 4 when I get to such a box.
Adobe does some heavy optimization in their raw pipeline, it's probably related to that. It's not the first time I've run into situations where the DNG profile works with the reference code but not in Adobe Lightroom due to their optimizations. Likely some difference in clipping behavior. Probably the profile contains something strange which robust reference code handles, but not the optimized Adobe code.
-
Here's new version of the profiles;
It's generated by the upcoming next release of DCamProf v0.10.0. The software is much changed under the surface to better handle extreme range (clipping, gamut compression etc). The basic "look" stays the same though.
However there's one big visible change, (deep) blues are now rendered much lighter than before. There's both a subjective and a technical reason for this. Many Sony sensors have a sensitive blue channel with large overlap. The human eye on the other hand is not so sensitive on blue, so to render blue colors realistically dark we need to subtract a lot of blue which leads to all sorts of clipping problems. Other sensors, like a few Canons I've tested, have less sensitive blue and thus have less issues when rendering a realistic blue. Why Sony have designed the response like this I don't know, but I assume it is to improve ISO performance.
Anyway to avoid issues with "extreme blues" one cannot render normal blues realistically dark, or you would get very aggressive bends in the LUT towards the gamut edges. The solution is either to not care, or to render lighter blues. I've chosen the latter here, and the good news is that this is a subjective adjustment that many like, the reason being that lighter blues make tonality better, as we move blues into an area where the eye is more sensitive.
There are two versions of the profiles. Neutral and Neutral+. The latter is supposed to be a "better neutral than neutral", at first glance you won't see any difference, but there are some very subtle adjustments, of the same type as discussed earlier in this thread. I've fixed some artifacts that could occur in the earlier versions though.
I've had quite large interest of the Pentax 645z profiles. These ones are still generated from a CC24 shot from Imaging Resource web site. It doesn't necessarily make the profile bad (large patch sets are a bit over-rated when it comes to general-purpose profiles), but it's only single-illuminant for D50. A CC24 shot for 2856K StdA tungsten would be nice, and a D65 shot (overcast), then I could render a dual-illuminant profile which would work better as a drop-in replacement for Adobe's bundled profile. (My main focus is the software itself though, not making profiles.)
Oh, the Adobe-specific profile bug reported a few posts back should be fixed now. Didn't have time to test this last rendering (I rarely use Adobe Camera Raw / Lightroom, I do most my stuff in RawTherapee) so let me know if there are problems.
-
I will give those a try with the same image that had the previous issue. Thank you very much for doing the profiles, they are very much appreciated. If there is anything I can do to help you with more 645Z files, PM about it and I will see what I can do. I also have the 645D which has a very different sensor, but seems to be more pleasant out of the box when using adobe standard profiles.
-
So I tried both profiles on the image that was exhibiting the artifacts, and the neutral profile fixes the issue. The neutral+ version of the profile seems to keep the artifacts the same as the previous version of the profiles.
-
So I tried both profiles on the image that was exhibiting the artifacts, and the neutral profile fixes the issue. The neutral+ version of the profile seems to keep the artifacts the same as the previous version of the profiles.
Thanks for testing... I should have pre-tested that but I thought it would have been fixed through the many changes in clip handling. I had only tested the neutral one. I never found out what the problem was, so I need to make a deep dive on that :-/. The problem only occurs on Adobe software (not their DNG ref code though) which I don't normally use.
I'll publish new profiles here when I (think) I've fixed the problem yet again :)
-
It seems to be related to Adobe's noise reduction algorithm. Try turning off noise reduction and see what you get.
I'll investigate some more, but it seems like it's not the interpretation of the profile itself that is the problem, but how it interacts with the noise reduction.
I've managed to reproduce a similar but less ugly problem with RawTherapee now by increasing chroma noise reduction to maximum. Now when I can reproduce it in "my" raw converter it will be simpler for me to isolate the reason.
Meanwhile try re-adjusting noise reduction or change to the neutral profile on the problem images.
EDIT: found and solved the problem, will post update soon(ish). The reason is that some of the look tunings go all the way down to neutral, and even if very very minor it disturbs some noise reduction algorithms. I'll think I'll change the software a bit so it becomes easy to always fade out a look towards neutral to globally avoid this issue (now one need to fade out each operator, I'd done that for most, but not all, and that one caused the issue).
-
Here's a fixed version. Replace the old file and restart Lightroom.
Let me know if it works.
-
All seems to be fixed now, awesome. Thank you so much, i'm really liking what the profiles are doing compared to some of the others I have tried.
-
Thanks again Torger! you made my 645z a far better camera now!!
-
Hi, I know it is a stupid question, but I couldn't googled any answer. Hope you guys can help me on this.
My question is: Now Torger made the new profiles for Pentax 645Z, which I love. I would to use those profiles for my Hasseblad CFV 50C. But in lightroom, the new profiles only pop up with the corresponding cameras, i.e. to 645Z only. How can I "convert" the 645Z profiles to Hasselblad CFV-50C compatible one?
-
Hi, I know it is a stupid question, but I couldn't googled any answer. Hope you guys can help me on this.
My question is: Now Torger made the new profiles for Pentax 645Z, which I love. I would to use those profiles for my Hasseblad CFV 50C. But in lightroom, the new profiles only pop up with the corresponding cameras, i.e. to 645Z only. How can I "convert" the 645Z profiles to Hasselblad CFV-50C compatible one?
Lightroom looks for the camera name and it must exactly match. So replacing the name would be the way to do it. You can do this with dcpTool I think, or using dcamprof:
1. dcamprof dcp2json p645z.dcp profile.json
2. edit profile.json in a text editor and change name to *exactly* what Lightroom expects.
3. dcamprof json2dcp profile.json hassy.dcp
(the Pentax profile is still "beta". I have some fixes to do still, will post updates later)
-
Here's updated profiles. They've been updated due to generic fixes in the DCamProf tone reproduction. The base profile remains the same, and it's probably best to keep it that way while updates are related to tone reproduction operator rather than anything Pentax 645z specific.
(The tone reproduction operator is the thing that applies contrast to the flat colorimetric "reproduction style" profile, and modulates colors so they appear accurate despite the changed contrast)
Anyway what's fixed here is a shadow over-saturation issue, most evident in deep blues. Blue has got some additional special treatment. Why blue is so special and has needed so much special care is because it's weak in luminance and CIECAM02 is weak in high saturation blues.
-
Lightroom looks for the camera name and it must exactly match. So replacing the name would be the way to do it. You can do this with dcpTool I think, or using dcamprof:
1. dcamprof dcp2json p645z.dcp profile.json
2. edit profile.json in a text editor and change name to *exactly* what Lightroom expects.
3. dcamprof json2dcp profile.json hassy.dcp
(the Pentax profile is still "beta". I have some fixes to do still, will post updates later)
Thanks Torger for the help! I have now successfully converted them for the use for 50c :)