Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: wing1 on September 23, 2016, 07:11:40 am
-
With the new release of Camera Raw the Hasselblad 100 is supported but not the Phase One 100. Why in your opinion?
-
Man, that is disappointing. Appears Adobe may never support the IQ100 after all.
And it's sure not because Adobe has not been offered any images to test on.
I have made multiple attempts to get files to Adobe.
Paul C
-
Man, that is disappointing. Appears Adobe may never support the IQ100 after all.
And it's sure not because Adobe has not been offered any images to test on.
I have made multiple attempts to get files to Adobe.
P1 finds it proper to not support the backs produced by competitors, why should Adobe invest resources in supporting the hardware from a competing software company? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
P1 finds it proper to not support the backs produced by competitors, why should Adobe invest resources in supporting the hardware from a competing software company? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't know Bernard. I don't see Adobe as a direct competitor to Phase One as Hasselblad is. But views differ for sure. Gee doesn't Hasselblad also make a software platform called Phocus? Phase one for all IQ backs via BD version is free just like Phocus. Is that competition free vs Fee last time I checked my credit card statement Adobe was still charging me. Also as a Nikon user you realize for years Nikons raw converter was not free and this was also competition to Adobe. They still support Nikon. I am surprised a bit by your response. But we all see things differently.
And Adobe has made it a point of supporting all previous Phase Backs every one of them.
If Adobe has made it a point to no longer support Phase it would nice to get a statement to that effect.
Paul C.
-
I don't know Bernard. I don't see Adobe as a direct competitor to Phase One as Hasselblad is. But views differ for sure. Gee doesn't Hasselblad also make a software platform called Phocus?
Phocus is free for all, C1 clearly isn't.
I was just joking though, I agree with you that Adobe should be more clear about their policy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bad day for me. My tone was a bit harsh previously. Sorry.
But remember C1 DB Is also free for any Phase One Back user. Phocus is free also and I believe supports many other cameras then Hasselblad.
Paul C
-
Note that there is a new file format in the Phase One 100mp (the 16-bit lossless format). Given their support for every (modern) Phase One camera I suspect that's the source of the holdup. Supporting new cameras when the sensor is new but the file container is identical is easier than when the new camera has both a new sensor and a new file container. That said, I'm also surprised it's taken Adobe this long.
I'd suggest 100mp users that want to use Adobe email Adobe their request; you'd be surprised how often matters like this turn on whether 2 people request a feature/support or 20 do.
AFAIK the Hassy 100 is limited to using their previous file formats (if someone knows differently please feel free to chime in).
-
Does anybody have a good link to Adobe to use so I can complain as well.
-
Has Adobe started supporting the Acromatic Phase backs yet? Last I checked, my old files weren't working either. You'd think CaptureOne doing a better job with raw files might help get their folks in gear.
The H6D-100c files work fine for me in Lightroom 2015.6.1 CameraRaw 9.6 - not that my laptop is happy about it.
-
Is it really adobe Doug? Is phase one really sharing all the needed information so that adobe doesn't have to recreate everything from scratch?
Christopher Hauser
[email protected]
-
With the new release of Camera Raw the Hasselblad 100 is supported but not the Phase One 100. Why in your opinion?
Is there a particular reason you want to use Camera Raw if there's Capture One? (which I have been using since version 4)
I know people who went with a Phase One back so they could use Capture One.
I would also think that the company who built the back would have the best algorithm to get the maximum quality out of the back.
And isn't C1 free for Phase One back buyers?
-
Is it really adobe Doug? Is phase one really sharing all the needed information so that adobe doesn't have to recreate everything from scratch?
Christopher Hauser
[email protected]
I've heard from a pretty reliable source that Adobe is struggling because the file format changed not only to handle the 16 bit depth, but a different compression scheme. Apparently getting details and help from Phase has been less than easy and slow going.
Personally I think both pieces of software have strength and weaknesses, and would like to have the option of using the one of my choice. I can't see any reason Phase should worry about which software I choose to work on their files, I paid enough to get the back they should be pretty happy with that. would be nice if where ever the hold up is, they could move things along.
Also have to admit that there are so few users of these backs out there, Adobe maybe just doesn't want to put any serious resources there.
Hopefully someone from Adobe buys the IQ3 100 and then the priority might change ... :)
-
This story somehow sounds like the old Nikon WB encryption. ;)
Besides it's interesting how these backs have been supposed to be 16 bits devices for all these years but there is a need to change the format when a real 16bits sensor shows up. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wayne's response sums it up well. I also prefer to have more than one option for raw.
LR, does some things better than C1, namely Pano creation (single row all I do) and HDR. Sure the files are full of a lot of DR, but it's still nice to be able to go into a 2 part HDR image.
Both of these can be done from converted tif's but I find raw files work better. Especially pano's where you have moved across a near pure blue sky, no matter what I try, the imported tifs will create a darkened edge where the joins are made, where as a raw file blends much better. LR also has a much much better auto mask implementation currently. C1's auto mask works fine on solids like buildings etc, but can't handle a tree lined horizon at all. LR does this much better. Dehaze? another great LR tool, which works best on a raw file, and again nothing like that in C1 currently.
No it's not a show stopper by any means, but sad that two companies just can work it out. As if Phase is worried that someone else could possibly make a equal or better conversion. ( petty ). C1 has plenty of issues right now, in just operation at least on the windows side and Phase could spend more time on fixing those, mainly issues around GPU use and GPU is important on these larger files.
And it's not that Adobe has not been offered raw files, as I have several times. But I can see that the process of converting them can be difficult if the internal layout can't be determined. I thought that raw digger could open the Phase One IQ100 files, but may have that wrong. If so, then it can't be that hard to figure out.
Paul C
-
For me it's pretty simple --> raw conversion there is no question. Capture one is better for phase backs. However, I have a large catalog and here Lightroom is just far superior. Now currently it's annoying that all my 100Mp shots cannot be found with all the rest.
Christopher Hauser
[email protected]
-
Not being able to use my raw IQ100 images in LR is my single biggest complaint with Phase One. I hate that it complicates my workflow. Since I frequently do long exposures the dark frame subtraction can only be handled in C1. If I had to guess this is an issue created by Phase One not Adobe.
-
I hope that the support for the H6D-100c is a high quality one where Hassy has shared whatever they had to to help Adobe.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have never been sure just what is going on with the dark frame process.
LR has never had any problems worth IQ150/250/260/160/180 long exposure shots I have taken. I always assumed the the dark frame is being done by the back during the time the back times out while it takes the dark frame and apples it to the file in camera.
Paul C
-
I have always had a problem with the dark frame subtraction. I actually corresponded with Julieanne Kost at Adobe and I was told by her that it could not be done properly in LR. She was told by their engineers that Phase One would not share their algorithm with them. At least this is the story they told me - who knows the truth!
-
LR does not work as well on the LCC process at least in my experience. So all tech camera shots have always been C1 at least for the start. Since I moved back to the XF not an issue anymore.
Paul C
-
I will try again with the XF - thanks
-
I just realized my last post is a bit ambiguous.
With the XF I don't need the LCC shot anymore. Mirror box keeps the lens far enough away that color cast issues don't exist.
Where LR always had a stranger or at least less straightforward workflow was with the tech camera shots that always need a corresponding LCC for color cast issues. For me at least.
Paul C
-
Is it really adobe Doug?
One need only look at Iridient Digital Raw Developer (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/) which supports the IIQ-L 16 bit and IIQ-L formats from the IQ3 100mp, and has done so from a couple days after the IQ3 100mp shipped. That's literally a one-man shop - though obviously quite a smart guy at that :)
Again, if you're seeking support for this back from Adobe... contact Adobe.
-
One need only look at Iridient Digital Raw Developer (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/) which supports the IIQ-L 16 bit and IIQ-L formats from the IQ3 100mp, and has done so from a couple days after the IQ3 100mp shipped. That's literally a one-man shop - though obviously quite a smart guy at that :)
So we are back with the initial theory I guess.
Abode could if they wanted to, so it means that they don't want to, either because of other priorities or for other reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Paul,
I don't have the slightest idea. When the IQ3-100 MP was released we were puzzled the files contained only 14 bit data in RawDigger but that was corrected by Anders Torger within days.
Phase One used to have a lot of calibration data in their raw files and it may be that Adobe cannot handle that for some reason. But I am under the impression that CMOS needs less calibration data.
It may be that there is a sample variation on the 100 MP sensor chips that needs more of individual calibration data. If so, it may be that early samples are used.
Sony's production was crippled by the earth quaqe and It may be that MFD sensor production is not their first priority. Hasselblad shipped any 100 MP backs yet?
I read somewhere that it takes something like two months to build an sensor, from input to output.
Best regards
Erik
I don't know Bernard. I don't see Adobe as a direct competitor to Phase One as Hasselblad is. But views differ for sure. Gee doesn't Hasselblad also make a software platform called Phocus? Phase one for all IQ backs via BD version is free just like Phocus. Is that competition free vs Fee last time I checked my credit card statement Adobe was still charging me. Also as a Nikon user you realize for years Nikons raw converter was not free and this was also competition to Adobe. They still support Nikon. I am surprised a bit by your response. But we all see things differently.
And Adobe has made it a point of supporting all previous Phase Backs every one of them.
If Adobe has made it a point to no longer support Phase it would nice to get a statement to that effect.
Paul C.
-
Hasselblad shipped any 100 MP backs yet?
There is at least one photographer at GetDPI forum who reported having received his, so the answer is yes.
But I hear from Hasselblad in Japan that they have not yet finalised the H6D-100c firmware, probably because their resources are focused on limiting the delay of the X1D (just guessing this part).
Cheers,
Bernard