Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on September 24, 2015, 12:41:30 pm
-
I have Capture One 7 (as I'm not a regular user I haven't cared to upgrade to the latest). I opened a Pentax 645z DNG file there and was going to make a profile using DCamProf.
However there is something strange with the "no color correction" export. Normally the colors should then look desaturated and a fair bit off, but not too off. Instead the "no color correction" for Pentax 645z DNGs look very saturated and very off, blue colors has turned into strong purple, while purple colors are still purple. This pre-compression and pre-distortion of color makes it impossible for DCamProf, and any other profile maker, to make a good profile. I've attached how a normal "no color correction" export should look, and then how it looks from C1, both are from the same 645z file. The C1 colors are obviously broken. The file: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-645z/645ZhVFAI000100.DNG.HTM
I wonder if this is a bug in C1-7 and maybe fixed to C1-8 (someone with C18 that can confirm?), or could the conspiracy theory be true that Phase One has deliberately broken the colors of Pentax 645z files to make it impossible to profile the camera and thus avoid competition with their own medium format products?
-
the conspiracy
indeed ! but what if you try to replace some tags to present the camera model as for example a small Ricoh camera ... will C1 code make double check for image dimensions ?
-
indeed ! but what if you try to replace some tags to present the camera model as for example a small Ricoh camera ... will C1 code make double check for image dimensions ?
I'm just doing this for I've seen some interest in 645z C1 profiles with my software, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it. If Phase One really wants to shut Pentax out I'll let them do it, it's their software afterall. As a side effect of other raw conversion work I have software that can convert 645z DNG files into IQ250 IIQ files, so I could hack it that way too. I'd just like to know if there's a non-hack way to use Pentax 645z files in Capture One.
-
I can't open that file in C1 v8.3.2. It opens fine in PS6.
Leica S DNGs open in C1, but they are not supported. I don't know what is wrong with the Pentax, although Phase are clear that other MF cameras are not welcome.
--Matt
-
This is why I will never use Capture One.
-
As a side effect of other raw conversion work I have software that can convert 645z DNG files into IQ250 IIQ files
I 'd say this is way to go ! that way ACR/LR shall be able to work with them too (I mean that conversion will not render other converter workless)
-
This is why I will never use Capture One.
And P1 logic is that this is why you shall never use Pentax MF 8) ... public company shall consider divesting C1 business though, unfortunately P1 is not
-
I could be wrong, but I don't think C1 supports Pentax 645z files at all, which I understand to be a policy decision. My c1 8.3.3 doesn't even appear to see your file, unless I'm missing something here (I don't use DNG files, so I have nothing to compare it to). It opens fine in PS CS6, so there's nothing wrong with the file.
If there's another way of opening DNGs in C1, let me know and I'll have another try.
Cheers,
Malcolm
-
Ah ok... maybe it's simply just not supported by policy in the later versions then. I just realized that C1-7 is probably older than 645z, so that it opens for me is just because it's a generic DNG file, and the strange colors is probably some sort of DNG bug they had at the time.
-
C1Pro is mainly made to serve their own Medium Format Digital backs. They support a lot of smaller format cameras well, including the A7RII, because they are not direct competition to their MFDB's and a lot of PhaseOne back owners have smaller format cameras as well. Phase One has clearly stated that they will not support other manufacturer's medium format digital products. Just the way it is.
-
C1Pro is mainly made to serve their own Medium Format Digital backs. They support a lot of smaller format cameras well, including the A7RII, because they are not direct competition to their MFDB's and a lot of PhaseOne back owners have smaller format cameras as well.
C1Pro sells commercially and brings money to the table... even when you are a P1 MF owner you still have to pay to work with your small cameras 8)
-
Hi,
My experience with C1-7 was that DNG support sucks. Regarding v8 I have it but did not buy it as I don't think it fits my workflow, so I cannot tell about DNG support.
Best regards
Erik
Ah ok... maybe it's simply just not supported by policy in the later versions then. I just realized that C1-7 is probably older than 645z, so that it opens for me is just because it's a generic DNG file, and the strange colors is probably some sort of DNG bug they had at the time.
-
This is why I will never use Capture One.
This is why I will never use any other MF camera than phamiyaleaf.
It goes both ways, you know?
-
Going back I sort of knew this, but I had forgot. Since I sold my Leaf back I almost never use C1 so it had slipped out of my mind. I've heard that Leica S DNG files are "supported" which got me a bit confused too.
I understand their policy perfectly well. By supporting Hassy and Pentax MF offers they would only sell a few more C1 licenses (it's a small market after all), but they would risk losing sales of their own MF cameras, I guess one lost MF camera sale would equal like 50 C1 licenses or so. C1 is a central part in the Phase One "eco system" and important for getting the sale.
When it comes to us users it depends on your workflow how dependent you are on the raw converter. Some simply make a base conversion and then directly move to Photoshop, which is probably the best way if you want to avoid lock-in (except for getting locked into Photoshop of course... but at least you don't need to worry about that you need to relearn post-processing techniques if you change camera brands). I switched from Leaf to Hasselblad, which normally would mean switching from C1 to Phocus, but as a programmer it meant reverse-engineering the Hassy H4D-50 calibration data format so I could continue use RawTherapee :)
If I wouldn't code that much, I'd probably use Lightroom with custom profiles (Photoshop is in most cases overkill for my post-processing needs), free from camera brand lock-in and with custom profiles you can get away from Adobe's color which I'm not particularly fond of.
-
35mm (and other small sensors): Capture One supports nearly all 35mm cameras. If a particular camera is not supported, make a support case requesting support and if they get any meaningful number of such requests it will be added.
Medium Format: Capture One only supports and will only support Team Phase One medium format cameras/backs (Phase/Leaf/Mamiya). No other medium format solutions are supported.
Note that this post is not advocating, defending, or explaining these policies... I'm just clarifying them.
-
Thanks for the clarification.
The reason for the confusion I guess is that both Pentax and Leica make generic DNG files and thus C1 versions made before these cameras were released may open the file as such, but produce bad colors, as it happened for me. Then when a later C1 version arrives the DNG files of the new cameras are detected and ignored. So I guess that the Leica S file opening I've heard about is temporary too.
-
I'm just clarifying them.
Thank you... can you clarify the following : does P1 actively blocking other MFs ? that is going out of the way to find out that DNG file is in fact from a competition and making it impossible code-wise to work with it as with generic DNG ? you are understand of course the difference between not supporting and trying your best to screw things for the user, right ?
-
Thanks for the clarification.
The reason for the confusion I guess is that both Pentax and Leica make generic DNG files and thus C1 versions made before these cameras were released may open the file as such, but produce bad colors, as it happened for me. Then when a later C1 version arrives the DNG files of the new cameras are detected and ignored. So I guess that the Leica S file opening I've heard about is temporary too.
I wonder if it's only the header in the exif data, i.e. the name of the camera being 645z. With LR I have worked around this issues (when the XT-1 was released both C1 and LR were a bit slow to get support however the files/sensor image etc were the same as from the X-E2) so I just changed the header.
It's not something you really want to so a lot of unless you have a batch conversion and being a programmer, Torger I know you might have access to one.
The sensor is the same between all 3 cameras, Hasselblad, Phase, Pentax. I agree with Michael (LuLa's Michael) that Pentax seems to have gotten the best from the sensor, in both DR and high iso. They also have focus peaking on the LCD, (getting off topic sorry),
but my point is that you might get by the issue by a file rename. I realize that the Pentax raw is in a dng format so it this might not work. I have heard that you can open Lecia DNG in C1, but of course there is no profile. Which can be worked around for sure.
Paul
-
Torger, et al,
Have you seen this guy's workaround? http://www.alexmunoz.net/capturefix/ (http://www.alexmunoz.net/capturefix/)
He wrote a Javascript, I suppose, to enable C1 to use Pentax files, even built a default ICC profile for use with them. I've tried it and it works, but C1 v.7 renders the color pretty far off and is reluctant to use the profile if modified.
I'd be curious to hear your experience if you try CaptureFix to access the files & see if that would enable using dcamprof to generate a better profile. I would try myself, but I'm Mac-based and my Unix skill set is firmly in the "for dummies" category...
John
-
Just grab a Phase Raw file, substitue the pixel data, write the stupid thing back and feed it to C1.
It's not rocket science.
Edmund
I wonder if it's only the header in the exif data, i.e. the name of the camera being 645z. With LR I have worked around this issues (when the XT-1 was released both C1 and LR were a bit slow to get support however the files/sensor image etc were the same as from the X-E2) so I just changed the header.
It's not something you really want to so a lot of unless you have a batch conversion and being a programmer, Torger I know you might have access to one.
The sensor is the same between all 3 cameras, Hasselblad, Phase, Pentax. I agree with Michael (LuLa's Michael) that Pentax seems to have gotten the best from the sensor, in both DR and high iso. They also have focus peaking on the LCD, (getting off topic sorry),
but my point is that you might get by the issue by a file rename. I realize that the Pentax raw is in a dng format so it this might not work. I have heard that you can open Lecia DNG in C1, but of course there is no profile. Which can be worked around for sure.
Paul
-
Just grab a Phase Raw file, substitue the pixel data, write the stupid thing back and feed it to C1.
It's not rocket science.
I did that just for demonstration back when the 645z was new, it works. I posted it here if I remember correctly.
Hacking C1 if P1 really don't want to support the camera seems to me to be a bit overkill though, just use some other software. You'll need to make a profile in any case.
-
Torger, et al,
Have you seen this guy's workaround? http://www.alexmunoz.net/capturefix/ (http://www.alexmunoz.net/capturefix/)
He wrote a Javascript, I suppose, to enable C1 to use Pentax files, even built a default ICC profile for use with them. I've tried it and it works, but C1 v.7 renders the color pretty far off and is reluctant to use the profile if modified.
I'd be curious to hear your experience if you try CaptureFix to access the files & see if that would enable using dcamprof to generate a better profile. I would try myself, but I'm Mac-based and my Unix skill set is firmly in the "for dummies" category...
John
Torger has software that mutates 645z DNGs to 250 IIQs as he noted above
-
Hacking C1 if P1 really don't want to support the camera seems to me to be a bit overkill though, just use some other software. You'll need to make a profile in any case.
for some people raw converters are like religion (or in case when you are heavily into DAM - like a wedding ring)... imagine somebody who for example has both P1 backs, but also uses 645* for outings in the wild... why 2 raw converters ?
-
I wonder if it's only the header in the exif data, i.e. the name of the camera being 645z. With LR I have worked around this issues (when the XT-1 was released both C1 and LR were a bit slow to get support however the files/sensor image etc were the same as from the X-E2) so I just changed the header.
It's not something you really want to so a lot of unless you have a batch conversion and being a programmer, Torger I know you might have access to one.
The sensor is the same between all 3 cameras, Hasselblad, Phase, Pentax. I agree with Michael (LuLa's Michael) that Pentax seems to have gotten the best from the sensor, in both DR and high iso. They also have focus peaking on the LCD, (getting off topic sorry),
but my point is that you might get by the issue by a file rename. I realize that the Pentax raw is in a dng format so it this might not work. I have heard that you can open Lecia DNG in C1, but of course there is no profile. Which can be worked around for sure.
Paul
I guess photoshop or some photoshop plug in should be able to do it. The other option is automator on the mac, and that do work. In the other hand I agree : I don't believe that it's worthy. So much talk about DNG.
Best regards,
-
for some people raw converters are like religion (or in case when you are heavily into DAM - like a wedding ring)... imagine somebody who for example has both P1 backs, but also uses 645* for outings in the wild... why 2 raw converters ?
Yes, I shall confess I understand this problem and I would suffer myself I was in that position. However, if you're the type of user that can switch brands depending on what the currently best on offer, getting dependent on Capture One in the first place is probably not a good idea. Lightroom is not that bad if you make profiles for it, and there's also a bunch of smaller third party software too.
If we do a hack now that becomes popular, there's a risk that P1 blocks that, and then we need to do another hack etc... a cat and mouse game I would not enjoy spending time on. So my recommendation would still be -- if you're a MF shooter and don't like brand lock-in then ditch Capture One, it will be painful to start with due to the relearning process but then you're free to play with any camera you like.
While C1 certainly has some features many other raw converters don't have, I think their main attraction is their color profiles. Investing some time in learning how to make our own profiles is also a way to break free, then you can get your desired color in any raw converter. That's one of the key reasons I started the camera profiling project DCamProf.
-
Not professing to be an expert or anything, but if you want to batch export images with certain settings straight into photoshop or any other editing tool of your choice, C1P does it just as fast as any other tool. You can also export high res tiffs into photoshop and generate web thumbnails at the same time, which afaik, LR cannot do.
Where it does lag behind is in catalog management, where LR is a lot better. Personally, this is not a problem for me as I now strictly work on project basis, so sessions are a better option for me. Also, this allows me to move files from one computer to another with edits intact, much easier than in a catalog based software. LR's catalogs make vacation photo management a hoot though.
One of the underrated yet very important actors that swing me towards c1p is that when I set star ratings on camera, they show up in the software. This makes my workflow a lot faster as I can get working on the keepers straightaway.
Lastly, regarding costs, if you're staying within the phamiyaleaf universe, you don't need to pay a dime for upgrading the software. I just do it for my Nikon cameras.
Also, you don't really NEED to buy a new software every time a new camera is out. For months after the D800's launch, I used adobe's DNG converter as I had not upgraded my software.
But the thought that a full time pro can spend 4 or 5 figures on hardware, but not justify one tenth of that on software is Interesting though.
-
J,
I'm going to be a bit rude; you can dial down the saturation while reading.
You're managing an industrial process. It's industrial "art" because you get paid on time, and you negotiate the rate ahead of creating the piece. If you are having toothache, or the talent wakes up on location with alcohol food poisoning or boyfriend issues of the crying sort, you still need to wrap, give the rental stuff back and take the plane out to the next shoot. So for you it's ALL ABOUT WORKFLOW and schedule. It HAS TO BE. You need to get paid. Or rather you've decided that your photographic lifestyle is about running teams, working to deadline, and getting paid up front. If the most important thing is the deadline, what counts most is workflow.
I guess industrial "art" is like industrial cooking. If you go to a banquet, the hotel may have the best cook in the world but when he has to feed 500 people at the same time the food tastes REWARMED. The chef may know the bought-in stuff isn't so good, but he can't say - "well guys, the fish we got in today is not so fresh, so the main course tastes as much of shoe as of sole. And anyway, your speaker ran late, so I had to put everything on the warmer for 30 minutes. I'm sorry guys, but yesterday we had some of the best beef we've seen this year, today you're out of luck" .
Everybody here AGREES WITH YOU that Adobe has the BEST WORKFLOW. But the sh*t gunk which comes out of their converter is still like factory-frozen fish. You can make a meal from it, but it will NEVER TASTE LIKE THE STUFF WHICH JUST GOT PULLED OUT OF THE SEA.
For some of the guys here, it's all about image quality, not workflow. They want good food, in small helpings. They're crazy about their shots precisely because often time constraints in their day jobs mean they get do so few of them. Or because their setup time is so long that they just don't care about speed in post (thinking of the architecture guys here). So they don't share your casual attitude of "if it's not so good, the retoucher gets paid to fix it in post".
Somebody should give Adobe a smart kick where it gets results.
In the mean time, we either use something else or close our eyes and think of England :)
Edmund
PS. The Japanese — I don't mean US citizens, I mean the inhabitants of the archipelago of 日本, subjects of his Imperial Majesty the 天皇, descendant of 天照大神 — like eating fresh fish, in fact it is an essential part of their diet, and they have set up a very effective market system that makes sure that fresh produce reaches the consumer in record time. You can have quality and workflow combined, but you need to ask for it very firmly.
For a long time I felt c-1 was the best raw convertor, even went so far a to buy our retouchers c-1 licenses.
Then moved to other cameras and I found c-1 to be less intuitive than light-room, which we use for batch galleries and photoshops arc for single final conversions.
I just think lightroom is faster to use and more intuitive and since I'm going to finish in photoshop it's just faster to drag a raw file into arc and stay in the program.
To a retoucher that works fast and does lot of volume, most do everything in adobe and in regards to raw conversion, that's just the first early step of the process.
IMO
BC
-
I don't want to jump into the mud slinging contest (Edmund is talented enough to hold his own fort on that front), just wanted to point out that:
- I use Nikons and Leaf (And some other files form time to time) and I can't possibly see how moving from C1P will save me time (My personal expectations of quality notwithstanding).
- I respect your work very much BC, but there are plenty of other professionals who extensively invlove retouchers who are more than happy with a workflow that involves C1P. Drew Gardner is one name I can pluck form the top of my head.
- Regarding the topic of propreitary files, it's funny, because I used to work in post production for a long time and I always remember transfering files form 3Ds Max to Maya or Shake to AFX or Premiere to FCP all being nearly impossible or major pains in the ass at the least. The whole industry is full of propreitary formats. What matters is having industry standard intermediate files that can be pushed through the workflow. C1P is fully capable of generating 16 bit TIFs in any color space you want, so I don't really get this problem. That is a perfectly workable file for any retoucher. I know, because I have done it for quite a few people in the past.
- I have watched quite a few webinars by P1 and they have mentioned several times that if enough users ask for it AND if the camera companies provide a proper API, they are more than happy to build a tethering module for those cameras (Except the MF competition of course).
-
J,
A good Raw converter is like a different camera. Don't believe me? Take your assistant's Canon and spend an hour with Canon's own free DPP. Just try it, look at the color and sharpness, rather than saying I speak from the outside.
As for accusing me of being a Phase fanboy ROTFL. I think half the forum will be holding their belly in and hoping they don't break a rib from laughing. But C1 *will* squeeze incredible results from a Phase back just as DPP works well with Canon. The reason is that both P1 and Canon have proprietary information about the camera which they never share with third parties, and algorithms which are tuned specifically for their hardware. In the engineering world this is called "codesign" when you design software and hardware to cooperate on a job.
As for people on this forum being fanboys of C1 the software, well that can be attributed to the fact that either C1 is incredibly pleasant to use (which I doubt) or that almost everyone here is an idiot (statistically unlikely) or that everyone here has a Phase back (oh the happy few) or that Beezelbub has incredible evangelical ability (but if he's so smart why ain't he President) , or -here comes Ockham - that CAPTURE ONE OFTEN MAKES LESS OF A MESS OF THIRD PARTY FILES THAN ADOBE'S CONVERTER AND PEOPLE HERE LIKE IMAGE QUALITY (this may make sense).
Adobe make extremely useful solid software; but ALL of it is NOT the best available. You know better. The converter core itself is the weak point of Lightroom, while the Lightroom workflow tools are superb, and Photoshop itself is the industry standard.
Your fashion clients would hate the idea that a sneaker is a sneaker is a sports shoe, and that only one company makes good shoes. Why should we think that only the largest company makes good software?
In the old analog film world, people spent a lot of effort choosing an emulsion, and getting development just right for a certain BW film. Of course with color eg. Kodachrome there was no choice - it was proprietary all the way. And nobody complained. You have forgotten that when you call it "just an intermediate step" and talk about "inclusionary tools".
As for my professional skills, here is the talent emoting while I lense :)
Let's not lose our cents of humor.
Edmund
PS. They seem to have found water on Mars. Now, life on Mars, that would be more interesting than C1 vs. ACR.
My point is c-1 ACR, DPP, Raw developer, lightroom, in the real world there is little difference (most just personal) and in film world terms digital processing is just the intermediate step anyway,
Professional finish requires professional skills and inclusionary tools. No one would buy After Effects, Photoshop, Resolve, Baselight, Autodesk Smoke (it's a long list) if they only worked with proprietary files.
Your view is 180 degrees from mine.
BC