Adobe + Hasselblad Cooperation

[evgeny]

David,
1. Shoot X-Rite ColorChecker Passport as normal image.
2. Open 3FR in Phocus and "Save As" to DNG, or first import to FFF and then "Save As" to DNG.
    "Save As" to DNG should also work for 3FR/FFF opened directly in the new ACR. One should check that ColorChecker Passport software will accept that DNG created via ACR, too.
3. Open ColorChecker Passport software. Drag & Drop the DNG file in ColorChecker Passport window. Press the "Create Profile" button.
4. Software will generate sensor profile. Save it. The ColorChecker will place the profile in the correct directory. I assume that Photoshop is already installed.

The sensor profile is installed in Photoshop.

5. Open other 3FR/FFF files in ACR. The new sensor profile should be available in the list of profiles in the Camera Profile Tab. But it doesn't. This is a defect in software ACR. The list of profiles contains only Standard and Matrix. To see the new sensor profile, convert 3FR/FFF to DNG via Phocus and then open these DNGs in ACR. Now you will see the generated sensor profile.

Take attention, if you use ACR instead** of Phocus to Save As 3FR/FFF to DNG, the sensor profile will not appear in the list of profiles in ACR. This is a defect in software ACR.

[madmanchan]

evgeny, I need to check further, but I think this is because the Phocus and Adobe software embed different camera model names in the DNGs. The profile popup in ACR/LR is keyed off the camera model name, so this would explain why the profiles generated from one DNG won't show up when using the other. 

As a workaround, try:

1. Opening 3FR file directly in ACR/LR.
2. Saving as DNG.
3. Feeding DNG to Passport software to build a profile.
4. This profile should be visible when opening 3FR files directly in ACR/LR, opening the DNG (as created in step 2), and FFF files exported from Phocus.

[Schewe]

This is a defect in ACR.

Actually, I suspect it's a defect in the Phocus software (as Eric says). There was an issue with P-65+ backs from Capture One as well. Saving a DNG from C1 added a space between the P and the 65+  (P 65+ instead of P65+so when ACR/LR read the device name, it's didn't match the metadata when saving a DNG from ACR or DNG Converter. Phase One had to fix C1 to make it quit adding the space in the device name. Ping the Phocus engineers about it...

[John R Smith]

Well, there certainly is a difference in 3.5, but I don't know what it means.

Before, we had Adobe Profile or Hasselblad Profile available in the Camera Calibration panel. Now, we have Adobe Profile and Camera Profile and something called "Matrix", which didn't seem to be there in 3.4.

So what the devil is "Matrix"?

John

[gss]

Well, there certainly is a difference in 3.5, but I don't know what it means.

Before, we had Adobe Profile or Hasselblad Profile available in the Camera Calibration panel. Now, we have Adobe Profile and Camera Profile and something called "Matrix", which didn't seem to be there in 3.4.

So what the devil is "Matrix"?

John

Matrix is there for backwards compatibility.  Adobe suggests you use the Camera Profile.

[evgeny]

evgeny, I need to check further, but I think this is because the Phocus and Adobe software embed different camera model names in the DNGs. The profile popup in ACR/LR is keyed off the camera model name, so this would explain why the profiles generated from one DNG won't show up when using the other.  

As a workaround, try:

1. Opening 3FR file directly in ACR/LR.
2. Saving as DNG.
3. Feeding DNG to Passport software to build a profile.
4. This profile should be visible when opening 3FR files directly in ACR/LR, opening the DNG (as created in step 2), and FFF files exported from Phocus.

I did this today after a scheduled work. It works.
Thanks
Evgeny

[DeeJay]

Well this is interesting...

[hubell]

I have been trying out Lightroom 3.5 and imported a bunch of files from a Hasselblad H3D-39 from 2006-2009. The files from 2008-2009 imported into Lightroom with no difficulty(and the image quality from Lightroom on these files is exceptional) , but the 2006-2007 files could not not be read and I received a message "Preview Unavailable for This File". I reread the fine print in the Release Notes for Lightroom 3.5 and it does state that only 3F files converted in Phocus are supported. I think Phocus was not released until March, 2008. I had to use Flexcolor prior to that. I doubt there is any plan for Lightroom to "support" the older 3F files, but is there any sort of workaround?
Thanks.

[madmanchan]

Correct, Lr does not read files exported from the older FlexColor software.  However, the workaround is that those older files can be read into current Phocus software and exported as DNG, which Lr can then read. 

[Kitty]

Hasselblad file full compatible with Adobe is one good thing.
But Adobe engine is not very good. The graduation tone in LR or ACR is not natural sometimes.
It is like it try to suppress tone to keep highlight and the result is not good.
Try to take a neon glow in the dark in both .jpg and raw you will see the neon glow differently.

[hubell]

Correct, Lr does not read files exported from the older FlexColor software.  However, the workaround is that those older files can be read into current Phocus software and exported as DNG, which Lr can then read. 

Thanks. Will LR still "read" the Hasselblad DNG file the same as if it had been a 3F file?

[madmanchan]

Thanks. Will LR still "read" the Hasselblad DNG file the same as if it had been a 3F file?

Essentially, yes.  Of course, the file format is different, but the image data inside is still raw data so you can do the usual things (white balance, change color profiles, apply denoise, sharpening, etc.).  And the metadata should be intact. 

[hubell]

Essentially, yes.  Of course, the file format is different, but the image data inside is still raw data so you can do the usual things (white balance, change color profiles, apply denoise, sharpening, etc.).  And the metadata should be intact. 

Sorry if this is a stupid question. Does LR 3.5 have access to the same raw data when it is a DNG converted in Phocus as opposed to a 3F file that has been imported in Phocus and LR can open directly, so the default settings, camera profile, etc. in the Develop Module that LR 3.5 uses are the same, i.e., there is no difference in the way LR 3.5 handles the file if it is a DNG as opposed to a 3F file?

Thanks.

[BrendanStewart]

Great great news....

David, i don't see your attachment... are all the DAC Corrections there?

[madmanchan]

Sorry if this is a stupid question. Does LR 3.5 have access to the same raw data when it is a DNG converted in Phocus as opposed to a 3F file that has been imported in Phocus and LR can open directly, so the default settings, camera profile, etc. in the Develop Module that LR 3.5 uses are the same, i.e., there is no difference in the way LR 3.5 handles the file if it is a DNG as opposed to a 3F file?

Correct.

[Schewe]

Jeff,

So probably mean, its?  or maybe, its?

I am from mars, in I like to learn American English.

As a followup to the Phase One/Adobe cooperation if you install ACR 6.6 or LR 3.6 RC's you'll note the addition of 16 lens profiles for Mamiya, Phase One & Schneider lenses for Phase One. So it appears that the cooperation between Adobe and Phase one is indeed going on. (Of course I knew that but couldn't say that at the time).

[hubell]

As a followup to the Phase One/Adobe cooperation if you install ACR 6.6 or LR 3.6 RC's you'll note the addition of 16 lens profiles for Mamiya, Phase One & Schneider lenses for Phase One. So it appears that the cooperation between Adobe and Phase one is indeed going on. (Of course I knew that but couldn't say that at the time).

I wonder how far the "cooperation" between Phase and Adobe goes. Hasselblad has publicly stated that the quality of the raw conversions of Hasselblad digital files coming out of LR 3.5 are as essentially as good as the conversions out of Phocus, the proprietary Hasselblad software. Phase One has been notably silent as to the quality of the raw conversions of Phase One IQ 160 and 180 files through LR compared to Capture One. What are your observations? Do you use LR for your Phase One P65+ raw conversions in lieu of Capture One?

[Schewe]

What are your observations? Do you use LR for your Phase One P65+ raw conversions in lieu of Capture One?

I think that Hasselblad overstepped with their discussion of Adobe/Hasselblad "cooperation". Adobe works with many camera companies and tends to keep their mouths shut about what work is done with what companies. (you'll note the original posted PDF has now been removed–that says something).

Personally, I've been using ACR/Lightroom with my P65+ and IQ180 backs from the beginning. I do use Capture One when I'm shooting tethered but everything I shoot ends up in Lightroom (250K image and counting). I think if you know how to use the application on an expert level, you can get excellent results from pretty much any raw converter (well, except Nikon & Canon's software :~).

I'm pretty good at using ACR/LR...heck, I wrote a book on Camera Raw. I used ACR before the P65+ was officially supported from Adobe. But I had the benefit of having sent samples from my camera to Eric Chan for testing. That kinda helps when you are looking for camera support.

I think Capture One is clearly better at "default" than ACR/LR. But I think ACR/LR's sharpening and noise reduction is superior. Getting optimal color is really a question of mastering the tools each app supplies. I like ACR/LR's global and local controls a bit better (C1 doesn't have a gradient tool for example).

Look, there are no magic bullets...getting the best possible image takes good photo technique as well as good post processing.

[EricWHiss]

Jeff or anyone,
How do you get LR/ARC to handle the transition from say a models hair to a light or back lit background?  I find this one circumstance where clearly Phocus is better.  In LR the same file ends up missing hair or having purple fringes or both where in Phocus there are none.   I also find Phocus' shadow lifting tool superior.   I don't consider myself an expert in LR nor an amateur.  But with much less knowledge and time I can produce a better looking file out of Phocus and actually C1 for that matter.    It's great that one can use the DNG files in Lightroom since this makes cataloging much easier, but I'm not at all convinced LR can produce an equal file.  Definitely not in the case of using either LCC or Intensity leveling features as far as I know.  If someone out there knows of a way, I'm all ears.
Eric

[David Grover / Capture One]

Great great news....

David, i don't see your attachment... are all the DAC Corrections there?

Sorry - not sure what happened there?  I edited my post a while ago as there was a graphics error on the last page.

When I try to upload it says the document is too large, so Ill need to fix that in the morning.

If you PM me your email address, ill happily send it out.

David