Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: sanvandur on July 04, 2016, 10:56:17 am
-
If the Hasselblad X1D is as good as the specs indicate, it will be as close to ideal for my work. Lightweight, small, medium format, leaf shutter, weather sealed, etc. I love my Phase One DF/P30+ kit, but it's bulky, heavy, not weather proofed. I've been a very satisfied Capture One user for many years. It's a huge part of my workflow. So much, that I hardly use Photoshop at all anymore. The X1D is VERY tempting, but from what I've seen of Hasselblad's Phocus, it is far behind Capture One. I'm sure the image quality is great, but it's the lack of features (compared to C1) concerns me. Does anyone have a similar hesitation? Is it worth losing Capture One for the X1D/Phocus? What's it like going from C1 to Phocus? Frustrating, satisfying?
I just wish Phase One would make an AF mirrorless camera. They might lose a lot of photographers in the next few months...
-
With it's latest release with the H6D, Hasselblad added quite a bit to Phocus. You might try downloading it, I believe it's still free for Hasselblad camera use as C1 DB is for Phase One backs.
There was a review on LuLa as I remember featuring some of the newer features.
As for the 2nd part of your post mirrorless from Phase. I am sure they have something in the works, but when and how much is the question. Currently all of the Schneider lenses would need an adapter similar to one Hasselblad has announced for their legacy glass. I would settle for a EVF view finder that would attach to the XF. Just dreaming.
Paul C
-
Having used H Series cameras with Phocus the software choices would in no way impact on my decision to buy the X1D or not.
The combination of RAW conversions using Phocus and Hasselblad cameras is a marriage made in heaven. Accept Phocus for what it is before continuing in Photoshop.
Quite agree. I use Phocus as the raw converter and for tethered capture. I then export the TIFF to Lightroom - all works very well.
-
If the Hasselblad X1D is as good as the specs indicate, it will be as close to ideal for my work. Lightweight, small, medium format, leaf shutter, weather sealed, etc. I love my Phase One DF/P30+ kit, but it's bulky, heavy, not weather proofed. I've been a very satisfied Capture One user for many years. It's a huge part of my workflow. So much, that I hardly use Photoshop at all anymore. The X1D is VERY tempting, but from what I've seen of Hasselblad's Phocus, it is far behind Capture One. I'm sure the image quality is great, but it's the lack of features (compared to C1) concerns me. Does anyone have a similar hesitation? Is it worth losing Capture One for the X1D/Phocus? What's it like going from C1 to Phocus? Frustrating, satisfying?
You can download Phocus for free and I assume your local Hassy dealer can get you a sample set of 50mp Raws from one of their already shipping 50mp cameras.
Then you can evaluate speed, features, image quality and workflow yourself.
-
Hi,
Just to remind, TIFFs throw away information and they are 3-6 times fatter than raw files. If you can keep a parametric workflow you still work with the original. Raw conversion breaks parametric workflow.
Best regards
Erik
Quite agree. I use Phocus as the raw converter and for tethered capture. I then export the TIFF to Lightroom - all works very well.
-
And here is a third place that the same thread has been started on LULA. My original answer repeated here:
I have exactly the same hesitation/issue with the X1D. Simply put, unless I can work the files in C1, it's going to be very difficult for me to get an X1D. I have used the latest Phocus and it's at best a very rudimentary converter in comparison. I had asked about the possibility of converting the Hasselbald RAW files to DNG and then using Capture One in the thread about Hasselblad support in C1 here on Lula in the Capture One Forum but got told to go away in that thread by the original author of the thread... So I never got an answer if any current Hasselblad users are doing that.
-
Thanks Doug Peterson for the tip. I will give the H raw files a whirl in a downloaded Phocus. I sat through a 1hr+ YouTube Phocus tutorial to get an idea of its capabilities. It does all the basics, but that's about it. As far as features go, the current Phocus reminds me of where Capture One was about 5 years ago (give or take). The X1D on its own is remarkable, but -IMO- with only Phocus/Lightroom, it's a hard sell. Phase could really use a mirrorless w/AF right about now (no, the Alpa/P1 offering does not count). The new XF is great, but bigger and heavier than the DF. Plus, it doesn't take older Phase backs. So my future with P1 cameras hangs by a thread right now.
-
So the MF players make their own raw development SW and make this a part of the "lock-in"? I guess that making a raw developer for camera A is not significantly different from making one for camera B, and both take considerable effort. Big credits to the MF players if they are able to make something that works "better" than Adobe and friends.
But I am amazed that they do this as part of their business plan. Like Toyota making their own gasoline.
-h
-
Hi,
You may consider putting some work into getting LR working your way. Making you own camera profiles is a good starting point.
Phase One has chosen to not support competing MFD systems. So if you need MFD and C1 you go with Team Phase One.
For Hasselblad, Hasselblad makes Phocus that may not be a workflow solution like Lightroom or for that part Capture One. I cannot really tell about C1 as I never made friends with it.
Pentax and Leica have their own embedded DNG profiles for LR, that may be better than Adobe Standard profiles.
There are other excellent raw converters like Iridient's Raw Developer, Raw Therapee or AccuRaw but those may not be a be a workflow solution.
Personally, I use Lightroom with home made profiles. With Lightroom I feel Adobe does not do an optimal processing of non OLP filtered images, but I am a bit oversensitive to aliasing artefacts. But, Lightroom can handle 90% of the images I throw at it without doing PP in Photoshop. So it works for me.
So, if you need Capture One on MFD, buy Team Phase One.
If you can live without Capture One you can use whatever program that comes with your back.
Learning to make best use of a general purpose solution like Lightroom may be a workable solution, too.
But, please don't whine about Phase One not supporting competing backs. That is simple not a part of their business idea. Also, don't expect Phase One to support third part products at the same level as Team Phase One products. Just as an example, many users have found that using C1 with colour profiles for the IQ 250 yields better results with the Nikon D800 than using Cature One's D800 profile. How come? My guess is that Phase One puts a lot of efforts in the C1 profiles for IQ-backs.
That said, not everyone is that impressed by C1 colour handling. They add a lot yellow to skin tones and use high saturation. Not everyones cup of tea that is…
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Doug Peterson for the tip. I will give the H raw files a whirl in a downloaded Phocus. I sat through a 1hr+ YouTube Phocus tutorial to get an idea of its capabilities. It does all the basics, but that's about it. As far as features go, the current Phocus reminds me of where Capture One was about 5 years ago (give or take). The X1D on its own is remarkable, but -IMO- with only Phocus/Lightroom, it's a hard sell. Phase could really use a mirrorless w/AF right about now (no, the Alpa/P1 offering does not count). The new XF is great, but bigger and heavier than the DF. Plus, it doesn't take older Phase backs. So my future with P1 cameras hangs by a thread right now.
-
Just as an example, many users have found that using C1 with colour profiles for the IQ 250 yields better results with the Nikon D800 than using Cature One's D800 profile. How come? My guess is that Phase One puts a lot of efforts in the C1 profiles for IQ-backs.
Have you ever heard Phase One explain their process for profiling a camera? I have from several Phase One employees independently and the amount of work that they put into every camera's profiles is extraordinary and far exceeds what Adobe does.It's one of the reasons why they often don't have C1 ready for new cameras the day they start shipping as they procure actual production cameras and then profile them using a test suite that includes about 700 actual photos to zero in on their profiles.
-
Hi,
You may consider putting some work into getting LR working your way. Making you own camera profiles is a good starting point.
Phase One has chosen to not support competing MFD systems. So if you need MFD and C1 you go with Team Phase One.
For Hasselblad, Hasselblad makes Phocus that may not be a workflow solution like Lightroom or for that part Capture One. I cannot really tell about C1 as I never made friends with it.
Pentax and Leica have their own embedded DNG profiles for LR, that may be better than Adobe Standard profiles.
There are other excellent raw converters like Iridient's Raw Developer, Raw Therapee or AccuRaw but those may not be a be a workflow solution.
Personally, I use Lightroom with home made profiles. With Lightroom I feel Adobe does not do an optimal processing of non OLP filtered images, but I am a bit oversensitive to aliasing artefacts. But, Lightroom can handle 90% of the images I throw at it without doing PP in Photoshop. So it works for me.
So, if you need Capture One on MFD, buy Team Phase One.
If you can live without Capture One you can use whatever program that comes with your back.
Learning to make best use of a general purpose solution like Lightroom may be a workable solution, too.
But, please don't whine about Phase One not supporting competing backs. That is simple not a part of their business idea. Also, don't expect Phase One to support third part products at the same level as Team Phase One products. Just as an example, many users have found that using C1 with colour profiles for the IQ 250 yields better results with the Nikon D800 than using Cature One's D800 profile. How come? My guess is that Phase One puts a lot of efforts in the C1 profiles for IQ-backs.
That said, not everyone is that impressed by C1 colour handling. They add a lot yellow to skin tones and use high saturation. Not everyones cup of tea that is…
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm not whining.
And, Capture One actually does support MF cameras in addition to Phase One. The Leica S system, Mamiya/Leaf.
-
I would give Irident Developper a try.
It lacks the workflow capabilities of LR/C1 but still has the best raw conversion IMHO. Profiles and WB interpretatin tend to be a bit on the cool side, but the conversions are beautiful.
As far as Phocus goes, I hear that 3.1 should improve further.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The reason I started using Capture One was because I acquired a Phase One system. It makes sense to use a RAW converter made by the same manufacturer of a given camera. That is my thought process. So, if I go the X1D route, I'd go in committing to Phocus. Any "workaround", IMO, would defeat the purpose of using a high end camera.
-
Hi,
If you are looking for a workflow solution, my guess is that you won't be happy with Phocus. If you want a raw converter, that converts your images to TIFF that you process in Photoshop you will probably be quite happy with Phocus.
My experience is with a bunch of Sony cameras and a P45+ back. Neither is supported by Phocus.
With the Sony's and the P45+ I feel that Lightroom gives me much more control than C1, but I have been using LR since public beta 3 back in 2006.
I find that C1 handles aliasing better than Lightroom. But, the differences may not be visible in reasonable sized prints (say 40"x60"). Printing large I may use a different raw converter like RawTherapee, Iridient's RawDeveloper or AccuRaw and do all sharpening in FocusMagic.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104708.0
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94812.0
My personal take is a bit that it if it doesn't work with Lightroom, forget it. That said, I can achieve the results I want with my P45+ and Lightroom. Capture One has a different bias, no doubt, a great converter. It just does not work for me. Here is a short explanation:
Natural scenery often has a great illumination range, say 1:100000. Human vision handles this. Modern sensors may capture like 1:10000, but this is still beyon what we can see in print and screen. Prints are limited to say 1:200 and screen perhaps to 1:500. So going from 1:10000 needs some tone mapping. Adobe introduces content aware tone mapping in the 2012 processing pipeline. This kind of tone mapping cannot be reproduced by shifting curves, as they are dependent on modifying local contrast. Before 2012 I was experimenting with HDR techniques to map tone scales, but with LR's 2012 pipe line I could achieve pretty good results in a quite subtle manner.
C1 has added some content aware tone mapping features in C1 version 9, but I am not sure they can match LR6.
On the other hand, C1 has upper and on aliasing artefacts.
Anyway, I have all my work under LR6, around 90000 images. No way I will switch to another tool that supports my P45+ back slightly better and especially not if I get inferior results. So, yes, I am quite biased towards Lightroom, because it deliver the results I want.
I could probably invest a lot of time in C1 and learn to match the rendition I get from Lightroom, but that would be like walking past the bridge for water.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm not whining. I'm simply asking a question.
-
Have you ever heard Phase One explain their process for profiling a camera?
everything that you need to know is in http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100015.0
-
And, Capture One actually does support MF cameras in addition to Phase One... Mamiya/Leaf.
Mamiya/Leaf are part of P1 nowadays
-
Whmm,
Have you actually tried it?
I am using DCamProf with Lightroom, but using it with C1 is a bit more complex.
Best regards
Erik
everything that you need to know is in http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100015.0
-
C1 is obviously a very featured piece of software. Phocus is basically a RAW converter and not intended to compete with C1.
If you want C1 to support FFFs ask Phase One, (hint they won't).
Phocus does an excellent job converting RAW file and the lens corrections for HC and HCD lenses are better than any other software bar none.
I happen to be a fan of Hasselblad's colour solution rather than having to pick a profile based on the subject, (btw what do you pick when you have a model holding a product?).
If C1 is where you want to be then yes you could export DNGs from Phocus but you'd be sacrificing quality and losing Phocus' secret sauce.
My workflow (mostly tethered) is do the heavy lifting in Phocus then export Tiffs into Lightroom for tweaking and cataloguing.
I have to say the more I use Lightroom the more I like it, glad I didn't invest too much time learning Aperture!
Hope that helps.
-
I have started to play with Phocus a bit on my D810 files and I like the conversions. The colors are nice and the rendering of details is very natural with default settings.
Obviously I am sure it does an even better job on the Hassy files for which it was designed.
What I liked:
- clean UI
- basic functions are there
What I didn't like:
- slow performance when browsing folders with many images
- lack of some key features I often use in my C1 Pro workflow such as: vertical corrections, luminance curve to mention the 2 most obvious ones.
- I wasn't able to use some of the features such as highlight recovery, but I guess those only work on Hassy files
I am looking forward to version 3.1. I feel that there is a sound code base here that must be enriched in the coming releases. One thing is sure, Phocus is far from being as terrible as I had heard even if it isn't as mature as C1 Pro.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have you actually tried it?
since the very beginning (when it became public on this very site)... the author eventually created the very detailed manual/tutorial where you can see what you need to do for C1 (like "transfer function", what it is and how to get it)... naturally P1 OEM profiles (like non repro) do include some subjective manipulation (by creators) with LUT (like making skin tones more "golden" so to say) - but then it has nothing to do with the raw converter itself and where in the pipeline the part of color transform encoded in icc/icm container is applied... so apart from this subjectivity you have everything that you need in DCamProf... and even some options to do your own subjective look.
-
I have started to play with Phocus a bit on my D810 files and I like the conversions. The colors are nice and the rendering of details is very natural with default settings.
Phocus uses the Apple renderings for 3rd party files.
Obviously I am sure it does an even better job on the Hassy files for which it was designed.
Yes I would say that was the case
What I didn't like:
- slow performance when browsing folders with many images
This is not an issue I have come across, how many images? Local drive?
- lack of some key features I often use in my C1 Pro workflow such as: vertical corrections, luminance curve to mention the 2 most obvious ones.
There are new features coming :)
- I wasn't able to use some of the features such as highlight recovery, but I guess those only work on Hassy files
Yes Hasselblad files only, it needs a bit of work though, Adobe's implementation is better.
I am looking forward to version 3.1. I feel that there is sound code base here that must be enriched in the coming releases. One thing is sure, Phocus is far from being as terrible as I had heard.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree!
-
Phocus uses the Apple renderings for 3rd party files.
I'd say Phocus uses Apple supplied raw formats decoding (for non H cameras) and probably simple "camera profiles" (just like dcraw code has simple matrix color transforms inside), but you can create and use your own profiles... but the raw converter pipeline past the decoding is the same for H and non H cameras... just my understanding
-
I guess that explains why the Windows version only supports Hasselblads while the Mac version supports a bunch of cameras. Seems like an odd development choice.
-
This is not an issue I have come across, how many images? Local drive?
It was a Thunderbolt Raid 6 drive (Promise) with several hundreds of .nef file per directory connected to a 2013 MAc Pro with 8 cores, 128GB Ram and 2xD700 GPU. It is starting to be a bit dated, but should be fast enough.
The disk is a fast set up also with read speed around 500 MB/s.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard
I just tried with a folder of NEFs, 500 or so on a USB3 RAID 5 box and the performance seemed fine. There was a slight (maybe 1/3 sec) pause before each thumbnail was drawn with corrections applied, maybe that's what you are seeing? I use Lightroom for all my NEFs so no expert.
HTH
-
I guess that explains why the Windows version only supports Hasselblads while the Mac version supports a bunch of cameras. Seems like an odd development choice.
why odd - consider that H was just giving a free converter to OSX users with a minimal labor investment, because they naturally do not target non H cameras at all ...
-
Hi Bernard
I just tried with a folder of NEFs, 500 or so on a USB3 RAID 5 box and the performance seemed fine. There was a slight (maybe 1/3 sec) pause before each thumbnail was drawn with corrections applied, maybe that's what you are seeing? I use Lightroom for all my NEFs so no expert.
HTH
Thanks Nick,
I'll give it another try.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
why odd - consider that H was just giving a free converter to OSX users with a minimal labor investment, because they naturally do not target non H cameras at all ...
I just thought it was odd to make a RAW converter that services many different brands of cameras on the Mac platform and the same piece of software only services one brand of camera on the Windows platform. But now I know why they do since they are licensing Apple IP and yes, I still think it's a strange choice even though I understand the minimal labor investment part that you mention. I own both platforms by the way so this isn't intended as anything other than an aha moment for me.
-
I just thought it was odd to make a RAW converter that services many different brands of cameras on the Mac platform and the same piece of software only services one brand of camera on the Windows platform. But now I know why they do since they are licensing Apple IP and yes, I still think it's a strange choice even though I understand the minimal labor investment part that you mention. I own both platforms by the way so this isn't intended as anything other than an aha moment for me.
They aren't licensing Apple Ip, AFAIK, they are just calling the Apple built-in APIs on the Mac platform.
Apple had a prosumer converter - Aperture, they have a comprehensive set of color correction utilities and a profile engine -Colorsync- which is maintained and extended year by year together with the file ingestion tools so I consider using Apple's tools a smart way for a tiny company to leverage their time. P1 used to belong in part to Microsoft, so I assume with them it went the other way round, they may have helped Microsoft develop their Raw file readers.
Edmund
-
I have just invested in a MF-system (Phase) and did an extensive compare with H and P1 over several weekends.
The real downside with H is Phocus. The highlight recovery slider is useless and renders the image completely flat (reported this to a H-representative at a demo of H6D-100c and showed him its uselessness ;) ). The new adjustments layers have extremely limited options (can't change shadows/highlights for instance). Phocus feels dated and is rather slow.
Considering what H has released so far with the H6D and the X1D I'm sure they're putting a lot of resources into Phocus and I'm sure they'll catch up soon.
However, it's fully Lightroom compatible (which is excellent), but colour rendering is not quite the same between the two software. If you do landscape this could perhaps be a non-issue, but doing portraits I'm rather peculiar about skin tones.
Hope this helps!
-
The real downside with H is Phocus. The highlight recovery slider is useless and renders the image completely flat (reported this to a H-representative at a demo of H6D-100c and showed him its uselessness ;) ). The new adjustments layers have extremely limited options (can't change shadows/highlights for instance). Phocus feels dated and is rather slow.
Considering what H has released so far with the H6D and the X1D I'm sure they're putting a lot of resources into Phocus and I'm sure they'll catch up soon.
However, it's fully Lightroom compatible (which is excellent), but colour rendering is not quite the same between the two software. If you do landscape this could perhaps be a non-issue, but doing portraits I'm rather peculiar about skin tones.
Hope this helps!
I agree about the Highlight and Shadow Tools in Phocus compared to LR and C1. They are pretty much useless in Phocus. With the dynamic range of the newer Sony sensors, these tools have become a key part of post processing. I trust that Hasselblad is aware of this.
-
Hi,
One suggestion may be that Hasselblad and Phase one could/should make good DCP profiles available for their cameras.
Best regards
Erik
I have just invested in a MF-system (Phase) and did an extensive compare with H and P1 over several weekends.
The real downside with H is Phocus. The highlight recovery slider is useless and renders the image completely flat (reported this to a H-representative at a demo of H6D-100c and showed him its uselessness ;) ). The new adjustments layers have extremely limited options (can't change shadows/highlights for instance). Phocus feels dated and is rather slow.
Considering what H has released so far with the H6D and the X1D I'm sure they're putting a lot of resources into Phocus and I'm sure they'll catch up soon.
However, it's fully Lightroom compatible (which is excellent), but colour rendering is not quite the same between the two software. If you do landscape this could perhaps be a non-issue, but doing portraits I'm rather peculiar about skin tones.
Hope this helps!
-
With the new CMOS sensors using the mative converter is less important than before in terms of image quality, as there's much less calibration data and noise reduction trickery. Using native now is basically only about the color profiles. Oh well, lens corrections probably which may be lacking in third party converters.
The importance of profiles should not be under-estimated though, but they're subjective designs which you may or may not like. I prefer Hassy color over Phase One (which is too subjective/unrealistic to be ideal for me), but both do very well-designed profiles in that someone has really put effort in them to get a certain look. Adobe mixes high with low, mostly low historically but maybe it's better now.
I have chosen to use custom profiles to avoid lockin to a native converter, plus I don't want too much subjectivity in the colors as a starting point. I was not pleased with xrite etc so I made DCamProf. With own profiles I have no issue using LR, although RawTherapee is my weapon of choice. C1 locks out competitors so I don't like to lock myself in to that tool, although it's certainly well made.
You can through hacks make a Hassy DNG that C1 accepts, like some did with the Pentax 645z, but it's messy and can stop working when C1 is upgraded, so you need to ditch C1 if you get a Hassy.
-
so you need to ditch C1 if you get a Hassy.
That would/will be painful, but there is just too much price difference for P1 to make sense in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
so you need to ditch C1 if you get a Hassy.
Incorrect, as has been covered in one of the three places this same post appears. You can't browse FFF files but if you have a Mac you can just browse in the finder or any other programme except C1. I use Aperture. The heroes just process in Phocus or Photoshop or Lightroom and save a TIFF if you want C1.
If you want the best camera then get the Hassy. You never hear of people not buying a Canon because they don't like DPP.
I hope that one day Phocus does have a DAM built in but at this stage it doesn't. It is a raw converter, tether capture tool and colour reproduction tool.
C1 and Lightroom are a jack of all trades.
-
Have you ever heard Phase One explain their process for profiling a camera? I have from several Phase One employees independently and the amount of work that they put into every camera's profiles is extraordinary and far exceeds what Adobe does.It's one of the reasons why they often don't have C1 ready for new cameras the day they start shipping as they procure actual production cameras and then profile them using a test suite that includes about 700 actual photos to zero in on their profiles.
This sounds a bit strange, you can't just have 700 photos laying around and profile any camera against that, you need to shoot those 700 scenes with the new camera then. Or you measure the camera's SSFs and you have 700 photos captured with a full spectrum camera and render virtual raws from that which is theoretically possible (that feature exists in DCamProf by the way) but I doubt they do that. Or maybe they just shoot prints of 700 photos in a viewing booth, I guess that would sort of work but it's not true to the spectrum so it seems to me to be a poorer method than simply shooting a smaller number of real scenes plus some fixed reference test target scenes.
It's also the case that a camera profile is global and static, you will need to make tradeoffs. You can't make a profile that's best for all types of subjects, so to make it better for skin you may need to make it worse for landscape. So testing it on 700 photos doesn't mean that you can make it perform at the same excellent level on all those 700 (unless it's 700 photos of the same subject), but you need to pick and choose what you think is more important and what is less.
I also assume that they put a lot more manual tuning effort into say a IQ3 100MP profile than say a Canon 1DX profile.
Finally it's a lot of subjectivity involved in these profiles, and if your personal taste happen to not match the profile designer's it doesn't matter how much time that has been spent with the profile. I find this true with Phase One's look, sure the profiles are extremely well-made and robust, but I just don't like the yellow cast (which is there by design as Phase One likes that look) so to me a custom profile made using simpler methods than they use suits me better. Many like Phase One's look though obviously, but my point is that camera color is not a linear scale from bad to great, there's a lot of subjectivity and tradeoffs involved which means that the complexity of the design method does not really say that much of how well the profile will work out for a particular user.
-
All I can tell you torger, is that I think Phase 1 knows what they are talking about. Of course they do not share details of exactly what all those shots are or how they are done. Comparing their profiles versus Adobes for any of the cameras I shoot with including the Nikon D810, Nikon D7200, Sony a7R Mark II, Sony a 7R, Sony a6000, Sony a6300, Phase 1 IQ 160, Phase 1 IQ 260, phase 1 IQ280, phase 1 IQ3–100, the capture one profiles for each and every one, to my eyes is superior to any of the profile choices from Adobe for any of those cameras, so implying that they don't take great care in creating those profiles just does not ring true to me. Certainly I agree that they give extraordinary care to creating their own IQ profiles, but I do not believe that the profiles for other cameras that are supported are done Willy Nilly as would be the implication in some of the previous statements.
I do realize that all of this is very subjective though and tastes vary.
-
Hi E. J.,
You could of course try Anders Torger's profile instead of Adobe's and see if you like it better. I know he has a couple of profiles for the A7rII for download.
Best regards
Erik
All I can tell you torger, is that I think Phase 1 knows what they are talking about. Of course they do not share details of exactly what all those shots are or how they are done. Comparing their profiles versus Adobes for any of the cameras I shoot with including the Nikon D810, Nikon D7200, Sony a7R Mark II, Sony a 7R, Sony a6000, Sony a6300, Phase 1 IQ 160, Phase 1 IQ 260, phase 1 IQ280, phase 1 IQ3–100, the capture one profiles for each and every one, to my eyes is superior to any of the profile choices from Adobe for any of those cameras, so implying that they don't take great care in creating those profiles just does not ring true to me. Certainly I agree that they give extraordinary care to creating their own IQ profiles, but I do not believe that the profiles for other cameras that are supported are done Willy Nilly as would be the implication in some of the previous statements.
I do realize that all of this is very subjective though and tastes vary.
-
It was a Thunderbolt Raid 6 drive (Promise) with several hundreds of .nef file per directory connected to a 2013 MAc Pro with 8 cores, 128GB Ram and 2xD700 GPU. It is starting to be a bit dated, but should be fast enough.
The disk is a fast set up also with read speed around 500 MB/s.
Cheers,
Bernard
I've also been experiencing slow performance lately in Phocus with a similar setup. I'm using Phocus 3, 2013 Mac Pro (6-core, 64GB RAM, 2xD700 GPU), Promise 2 RAID 5 (~500mb/s read/write) over thunderbolt 2. Also a little dated but should be fast enough to handle my H4D-40 files. Doing things like zooming in/out and panning around while zoomed seem to take a lot longer than it did with previous versions of Phocus, and sometimes it feels like it takes a second or two for changes to appear on the photo after slider manipulation. Maybe there's more optimization that needs to be done with Phocus 3? It could be an issue with my system too I suppose but I don't have any speed issues with LR. My 2012 retina MacBook Pro also used to handle the Hassy files just fine, I haven't tried it with Phocus 3 yet but I suppose I could to compare. FWIW my workflow is also to use Phocus as a RAW converter and then export to LR.
-
All I can tell you torger, is that I think Phase 1 knows what they are talking about. Of course they do not share details of exactly what all those shots are or how they are done. Comparing their profiles versus Adobes for any of the cameras I shoot with including the Nikon D810, Nikon D7200, Sony a7R Mark II, Sony a 7R, Sony a6000, Sony a6300, Phase 1 IQ 160, Phase 1 IQ 260, phase 1 IQ280, phase 1 IQ3–100, the capture one profiles for each and every one, to my eyes is superior to any of the profile choices from Adobe for any of those cameras, so implying that they don't take great care in creating those profiles just does not ring true to me. Certainly I agree that they give extraordinary care to creating their own IQ profiles, but I do not believe that the profiles for other cameras that are supported are done Willy Nilly as would be the implication in some of the previous statements.
I do realize that all of this is very subjective though and tastes vary.
Yes they do them well, I agree. I could be largely automated though for the common cameras, while the hand-tune in detail for their medium format cameras. Automated doesn't necessarily mean that it would be bad. The reason Adobe's profiles isn't that good to many of us is not that they're automated but that they've made some design choices in terms of look that doesn't yield the best results. For example they have their special tone curve a HSL-hue-constant RGB curve that gives highs a special look. You can however make a perceptual model of how a curve should be applied and get a different (and to me better) result which still makes it quick and easy to make a profile but with a better result.
Regardless how they do it the situation is that many do think that C1 gives superior color compared to LR (as that's basically what people compare to, not the manufacturer's own quirky converters which usually have very good color too), and I think it's a real advantage for Phase One, so I fully understand why they shut out the competing MFD products, C1 is a pretty strong selling point for spending the huge premium that a Phase One system is. If I were them I'd consider shutting out high res 135 cameras too, but I guess to many of their MFD customers also have a high res 135.
To say something about Phocus is that they also have very well-designed color profiles and their own multi-illuminant proprietary format (plus ICC for custom) for their Hassy cameras, the third-party cameras doesn't have any special profiles though AFAIK, just standard stuff coming with the OSX APIs. Personally I prefer Hasselblad's color over Phase One's, but to get that color you need to run Phocus... as their profile format is multi-illuminant and entirely different from DNG profiles it's probably not easily ported to LR, but if they tried their best I think the result would still be really good. AFAIK the colors of Hassy cameras in LR is far from being as good, but I haven't personally made a comparison (despite that I can I have a H4D-50, just haven't been curious enough about it...). I use a custom DNG profile myself for my Hasselblad, so I don't use Phocus, not so much because I don't like it but because I've always used RawTherapee both for my Leaf back and now my Hasselblad.
Phocus is fine if you have a "tradititional" shooting style where you don't need to apply that much post-processing, but is a bit frustrating otherwise.
-
If I were them I'd consider shutting out high res 135 cameras too, but I guess to many of their MFD customers also have a high res 135.
Wouldn't that be seen as an admissin that the gap isn't as large as they claim? ;)
Besides, C1 pro is an important revenue stream for P1 that would completely die out if they stopped supporting high end DSLRs.
It also increases the number of beta testers significantly. Anyway you look at it, the higher the number of software users the higher the quality of the software.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wouldn't that be seen as an admissin that the gap isn't as large as they claim? ;)
Besides, C1 pro is an important revenue stream for P1 that would completely die out if they stopped supporting high end DSLRs.
It also increases the number of beta testers significantly. Anyway you look at it, the higher the number of software users the higher the quality of the software.
Good points. I would have to look at the numbers first to make such a decision of course :-). As a user I certainly don't like when companies lock out like this, and I sort of boycott C1 because they do, but I do see there may be some strong business reasons to shut out mainly Hasselblad which is a direct competitor in the same segment.
-
Besides, C1 pro is an important revenue stream for P1 that would completely die out if they stopped supporting high end DSLRs.
a public company 'd be pressured to spin off C1 business, no ? anybody taking P1 public ?
-
a public company 'd be pressured to spin off C1 business, no ? anybody taking P1 public ?
I don't think they would be.
Capture One and Phase One are extremely synergistic. Almost as if they were made for each other ;). They are two of the three main legs on which Phase One medium format solutions sit (the third being dealer service/support). It's all part of one cohesive plan to provide the best medium format experience possible.
Apple hardware is great. Apple software is great. But it's the combination and control of both that really stands out. You get the software for free with the hardware (i.e. all iOS updates with your iPhone) and you can use a lot of third party software on their hardware (e.g. apps via the app store) with some notable competitive exceptions. It's not a perfect analogy - they rarely are.
And no one fear lockouts of high end small-format cameras. Phase One's policy has been crystal clear and consistent since day one:
1) they support high-end small format cameras in C1 as paid software*
2) they provide C1 for free as part of their own medium-format solutions
(1) pays for (2) which means Phase One users get to use raw software made specifically for their hardware and developed by a team significantly larger than any other camera company has for their software.
*Based on popularity and applicability of the camera to their core market of high-end pros and enthusiasts, balanced against the difficulty of support (e.g. harder to support cameras that use a new/unusual sensor). More than 400 are currently supported.[/quote]
-
Hi,
I have a P45+ and a bunch of Sonys. One major issue with the P45+ is white balance. Sony has decent automatic white balance, P45+ has not.
I have mostly used the P45+ with Lightroom and self made profiles. My experience with LR goes back to Beta 3 in 2006. LR introduced a new processing pipeline in 2012, that does some content aware tone mapping. I think that C1 does something similar in version 9.
I am quite happy with LR6 and my own profiles and I don't feel it is worth the effort to try to duplicate that in C1. That said, I see significant advantage in demosaic on non OLP filtered files in C1. But, I can use other tools like AccuRaw, Raw Therapee or Iridient's RawDeveloper with the same DCP profiles I use in Lightroom.
So, my clear preference is Lightroom with self made DCP profiles. When Lightroom runs into aliasing problems I can revert to RawTherapee that has a decent choice of demosaic methods and do my sharpening in FocusMagic.
It could be said that I have a strong bias towards Lightroom. So I try to find solutions for it's weaknesses. The great weakness of LR is demosaic with non OLP filtered images, in my experience.
Regarding C1, I have tested and bought licenses for both v7 and V8. It doesn't ring the bell for me. I skipped v9 as I don't want to pay for stuff I don't want to use.
I can use the DB version with my P45+, or a special license with my Sony A7rII. But, as I am quite happy with LR 6 and I can use my own profiles with that software I don't feel a need to work with C1.
That is not saying that C1 is not a great raw converter. But I am far more interested in getting LR6 working well for me than trying to get C1 working like LR6.
Best regards
Erik
Yes they do them well, I agree. I could be largely automated though for the common cameras, while the hand-tune in detail for their medium format cameras. Automated doesn't necessarily mean that it would be bad. The reason Adobe's profiles isn't that good to many of us is not that they're automated but that they've made some design choices in terms of look that doesn't yield the best results. For example they have their special tone curve a HSL-hue-constant RGB curve that gives highs a special look. You can however make a perceptual model of how a curve should be applied and get a different (and to me better) result which still makes it quick and easy to make a profile but with a better result.
Regardless how they do it the situation is that many do think that C1 gives superior color compared to LR (as that's basically what people compare to, not the manufacturer's own quirky converters which usually have very good color too), and I think it's a real advantage for Phase One, so I fully understand why they shut out the competing MFD products, C1 is a pretty strong selling point for spending the huge premium that a Phase One system is. If I were them I'd consider shutting out high res 135 cameras too, but I guess to many of their MFD customers also have a high res 135.
To say something about Phocus is that they also have very well-designed color profiles and their own multi-illuminant proprietary format (plus ICC for custom) for their Hassy cameras, the third-party cameras doesn't have any special profiles though AFAIK, just standard stuff coming with the OSX APIs. Personally I prefer Hasselblad's color over Phase One's, but to get that color you need to run Phocus... as their profile format is multi-illuminant and entirely different from DNG profiles it's probably not easily ported to LR, but if they tried their best I think the result would still be really good. AFAIK the colors of Hassy cameras in LR is far from being as good, but I haven't personally made a comparison (despite that I can I have a H4D-50, just haven't been curious enough about it...). I use a custom DNG profile myself for my Hasselblad, so I don't use Phocus, not so much because I don't like it but because I've always used RawTherapee both for my Leaf back and now my Hasselblad.
Phocus is fine if you have a "tradititional" shooting style where you don't need to apply that much post-processing, but is a bit frustrating otherwise.
-
@Doug: Are you under any NDA regarding potential new products from Phase One ;-)?
P.S: I'm sure you not under NDA about being under NDA, arent you?