David Klepacki
New member
I think I have beaten to death the flexibility of the open (non-fixed mount) capability of the Hy6. So, I will not repeat those arguments.
The other part of the story is LONGEVITY of your images, which some people care about. The ONLY open standard that guarantees the longevity of your images is DNG. It is a clearly defined specification that is non-proprietary, open and available to anyone. With such a specification, there is always guaranteed a DNG converter for ANY computer platform, now or in the future.
As an example of its importance, let's say Hasselblad unexpectedly goes out of business some day (maybe like Contax). And, let's say that Windows or MacOS evolves to the point where it no longer supports "old" applications. (like today where applications that ran on Mac Classic no longer can work with the advent of Mac Leopard). Eventually, this kind of thing will happen, as backward compatibility cannot be maintained indefinitely, especially with computing systems.
Where would this leave such Hasselblad users? Only two choices: never being able to go back to the raw data, or reverting back to DNG. In the first case, for whatever reason (maybe newer and better ways of interpolating the raw data), there may be a need or preference to work with the raw data. In the second case, the DNG file would lose all of the
(DAC) lens correction information and the images would be left with CA and vignetting issues that the Hasselblad DAC otherwise removed.
Basing your workflow on DNG from the beginning, will never cause you to face such a dilemma. The entire industry is indeed supporting the DNG standard, for longevity and archival purposes. For more information on long term archival issues, take a look at "The DAM Book", by Peter Krogh. It is a bit dated, but the concepts are still valid.
The other part of the story is LONGEVITY of your images, which some people care about. The ONLY open standard that guarantees the longevity of your images is DNG. It is a clearly defined specification that is non-proprietary, open and available to anyone. With such a specification, there is always guaranteed a DNG converter for ANY computer platform, now or in the future.
As an example of its importance, let's say Hasselblad unexpectedly goes out of business some day (maybe like Contax). And, let's say that Windows or MacOS evolves to the point where it no longer supports "old" applications. (like today where applications that ran on Mac Classic no longer can work with the advent of Mac Leopard). Eventually, this kind of thing will happen, as backward compatibility cannot be maintained indefinitely, especially with computing systems.
Where would this leave such Hasselblad users? Only two choices: never being able to go back to the raw data, or reverting back to DNG. In the first case, for whatever reason (maybe newer and better ways of interpolating the raw data), there may be a need or preference to work with the raw data. In the second case, the DNG file would lose all of the
(DAC) lens correction information and the images would be left with CA and vignetting issues that the Hasselblad DAC otherwise removed.
Basing your workflow on DNG from the beginning, will never cause you to face such a dilemma. The entire industry is indeed supporting the DNG standard, for longevity and archival purposes. For more information on long term archival issues, take a look at "The DAM Book", by Peter Krogh. It is a bit dated, but the concepts are still valid.