my request for phocus would be to structure export destinations just like they do for capture destinations, with the default being the same location as where your imports reside. change export destination by right clicking a folder in the browser and choosing export destination. i did mention this on nick's forum and to P Claesson as well
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread
- Thread starter carstenw
- Start date
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Steven
what you state is definitely right! My issue is that I am a user of C1 since 6 years now and so I really got used to it and its functionality. As Phocus (or former Flexcolor) was always only HB specific, I never got used to it. So maybe this has been a very clever strategy of Phase (C1) to support all (most) camera RAW files, because then once you get ready for MF you just want to stay with what you are used to.
I am using many different SW packages in my professional life and also in my photography life which is my passion. So I am very much used to different SW packages, different GUIs etc. etc. But this is maybe the main reason WHY I got so tired about this. I want to stay with the SW I am used to and not waste my time retraining and optimizing a new workflow again and again. And BTW I of course know this is just a dream, but at least I want to minimize any hazel on it.
So I am still waiting to see what Phocus 2.0 will be, I was really not convinced of the possibilities of current Phocus. What I am convinced is the quality of HB H system (body and lenses) in general, although as I already said again and again I am not the biggest lover of the H3D2 ergonomics and this will for sure not become a different story with the H4. And same is true for Phase cameras unfortunately.
So for me it is rather seeking the minimum in bad things about a MF system and if that can be combined with a great price then I am ready to jump and decide (for maybe the rest of my life).
And I must say that the H3D2-50 covers a lot of what I like - and also the slight crop of the 50MP back is ok, as I have all the wonderful HCD lenses. And I could not care less about any other camera system being really FF or not :grin:
carstenw
Active member
When do you plan to buy, do you know yet (whether Phase One/Mamiya or Hasselblad)?
T
tetsrfun
Guest
The more Hasselblad develops Phocus the more it bears a resemblance to Light Room in work flow ...
*********
Now that Hasselblad seems to have a working relationship with Adobe, why continue to put resources into a "full featured" software product?
Steve
*********
Now that Hasselblad seems to have a working relationship with Adobe, why continue to put resources into a "full featured" software product?
Steve
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I will buy as soon as I know I am going on my next photo trip - well of course maybe some 6 weeks earlier.
I do not really know wether Hasselblad or Phase, I am kind of thrown back and forth between these 2 vendors. As I said HB reps in Austria are somehow more friendly and supportive and this makes a BIG part of the whole choice.
Time will tell .... it can only get cheaper
G
gdwhalen
Guest
I met a couple of Hasselblad reprentatives today at Hotwire's workshop in Atlanta and I must say that they are very friendly, informative and fair people. As was John Williams. I think there is way too much angst in here towards different systems, programs and marketing strategies. The bottom line, to me, does the equipment do the job it is designed and advertised to do? if so, I am good to go. No system can do everything and any system is only as good as the people and support behind it. I came away very impressed with Hasselblad's representatives.
PeterA
Well-known member
Currently DAC and other corrections applied to the native Hasselblad files can't be saved into a DNG file. If these corrections could be directly applied to a DNG file - then a lot of the issue would be gone. However, the fact is that Phocus also processes its native Hasselblad file much better' than Adobe Raw.
Fix these two issues and Lightroom workflow works for me anyway.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Could become friend with this as well :thumbs:
It may be preferable that the DNG is untouched and the DAC etc are applied to a side car type file that is available to other more DAM aware programs...who knows what Phocus 5 Pro will have for us...it will be nice to redevelop an occasional great capture in the future.
Bob
PeterA
Well-known member
even better ..
carstenw
Active member
The DAC data can sit in a separate data block in the DNG file, and as long as the tag describing it isn't one of the standard ones, it will be ignored by other programs. I don't recall, but I think there is a way to mark a block so that it is carried along by programs which don't understand it, although the default is to strip out such data when the DNG is modified.
I don't quite see a use for treating the file with a program which *doesn't* understand the DAC corrections, and still want to keep them around for later. They should be the first step, i.e. they will be applied by the first program, or thrown away. There is no guarantee that the DAC application would still be valid if some other program gets there first.
Anyway, my guess is that the DAC info in the raw file is minimal, and that the actual data needed to apply the corrections lies in Phocus, so this is all a bit hypothetical. In this case I guess no one cares whether the files are in DNG or 3F (is that right?) format out of the camera. IIRC, the issue is whether Phocus can export a DNG with the DAC applied, or is that wrong?
I don't quite see a use for treating the file with a program which *doesn't* understand the DAC corrections, and still want to keep them around for later. They should be the first step, i.e. they will be applied by the first program, or thrown away. There is no guarantee that the DAC application would still be valid if some other program gets there first.
Anyway, my guess is that the DAC info in the raw file is minimal, and that the actual data needed to apply the corrections lies in Phocus, so this is all a bit hypothetical. In this case I guess no one cares whether the files are in DNG or 3F (is that right?) format out of the camera. IIRC, the issue is whether Phocus can export a DNG with the DAC applied, or is that wrong?
yaya
Active member
Carsten I think that in reality DNG is basically another extension of the standard RAW format, which is also why Adobe products, quite easily open RAW files from many cameras without needing any special R&D work.
Some out-of-the-camera RAW files may carry specific tags that DNG cannot carry, such as DAC (David can confirm but I think in that case it's the lens's spec which Phocus can use and Adobe cannot). DNG also cannot carry an embedded ICC input profile.
The only "manufacturer" software (AFAIK) that can modify the raw data is Leaf Capture 11 with the lens calibration (colour cast and vignetting) and moire removal tools. These two will allow one to correct and save a new RAW file that can be then converted to DNG or go straight into Adobe, archived etc.
Leaf Capture also stores the input profile inside the RAW file so that if the file goes onto a machine that never saw that profile, it'll still open "as shot" and the profile will be put into the colorsync folder.
Different approaches maybe, but it partially explains why DNG after so many years still has not become a standard in the industry
Yair
Some out-of-the-camera RAW files may carry specific tags that DNG cannot carry, such as DAC (David can confirm but I think in that case it's the lens's spec which Phocus can use and Adobe cannot). DNG also cannot carry an embedded ICC input profile.
The only "manufacturer" software (AFAIK) that can modify the raw data is Leaf Capture 11 with the lens calibration (colour cast and vignetting) and moire removal tools. These two will allow one to correct and save a new RAW file that can be then converted to DNG or go straight into Adobe, archived etc.
Leaf Capture also stores the input profile inside the RAW file so that if the file goes onto a machine that never saw that profile, it'll still open "as shot" and the profile will be put into the colorsync folder.
Different approaches maybe, but it partially explains why DNG after so many years still has not become a standard in the industry
Yair
If correct, this explains why the MFD makers still support proprietary RAW formats.
A few years ago Hasselblad actually made an H2D/22 that produced DNGs from the camera. I had one. But as things progressed they were forced to abandon the idea because it was to slow as sensor size increased and more of the integrated system software corrections came on line which further supports Yair's point.
Currently, all Phocus corrections are applied to tiff or jpg conversions. All that I am asking is that they be applied to DNGs so Lightroom/Photoshop can be used. While it would be great if all Phocus corrections could migrate as DNGs, I'd accept it if the Phocus corrections could NOT be altered in LR/PS. There are other lens correction tools in P/S if needed, but once the DAC is applied I don't need to do it again. The point is to get the full benefits of the integrated system with all other RAW controls remaining intact for centralized nondestructive work in the much more sophisticated and speedy Adobe Lightroom product. For most critical jobs or select images, I store the untouched proprietary RAW files on a back-up disk anyway.
I can do this now by loading the tiffs with basic DAC, and Moiré corrections applied converted in Phocus into Lightroom and then save them back out as DNGs ... which adds two time consuming steps to the process. Make it direct Hasselblad ... please.
It will be interesting to see how Leica does using DNGs with the S2.
yaya
Active member
Adobe were (and are) always reluctant to implement other's code into theirs, which is why I think you will never see the DAC corrections migrated with the DNG files. The only solution is if Adobe develop/ implement their "own" corrections and tag them to the DNGs as they come in.
The S2 is supposed to have a powerful on-board processor, but I don't know if this is meant to do any RAW data modifications (besides NR) or if it is there for creating JPEGs.
carstenw
Active member
Yair,
The DNG format (a slightly modified version of TIFF) can carry whatever data you want to write into it. There is provision for arbitrary data chunks as well as manufacturers private notes, and so on. The real issue is what data is described by the standard, and can therefore be handled by any conforming DNG reader. I guess this is why Hasselblad and others are reluctant to support DNG, because even if they packed all their custom data into a DNG, most programs would still not be able to interpret some of it. The danger I suppose is that some people would use other programs to read the files anyway! This would mean inferior results, and the blame would surely land at the feet of Hasselblad et al.
In general the DNG format is well thought out, but as long as companies have proprietary data, this is not going to be a replacement for manufacturers' raw developers. I don't know why people are so excited about cameras which write natively in DNG, since there is always data which can only be interpreted by programs with inside information. This was the case with both M8 and M9, although to be fair to Leica, the amount of proprietary information is minimal, related to guesstimated apertures and such (the blue dot).
The interesting (off-topic) question is what Leica will do with the S2. If Lightroom is the official solution, then I would expect that Adobe will insist that the information in the DNG is all conforming, meaning that the camera will have to do all custom processing before writing the DNG. This may be yet another reason why Leica makes the optical designs as perfect as possible, because they simply won't have the opportunity to do proprietary corrections in software, like Phocus and C1 do. This approach is both a strength and a weakness. The strength is of course that photographers may use their favorite software. The weakness is that the proprietary data that Phase One and Hasselblad use to their advantage has to be abandoned, and other solutions developed. Additionally, the lenses will be larger and more expensive, although Leica is in a perfect position to do something about the former. I presume that the Maestro chip will do vignetting correction, and I don't think that any other corrections will be applied.
It would be great if a plugin format for DNG readers would be developed, so that one could use one's favorite DNG raw developer, and download the 3F or whatever plugin from Hasselblad, for example, to do the DAC corrections. This would give the best of both worlds, and just might convince more manufacturers to support DNG and abandon the multitude of custom formats out there, thus helping to improve the future outlook of reading all this data.
The DNG format (a slightly modified version of TIFF) can carry whatever data you want to write into it. There is provision for arbitrary data chunks as well as manufacturers private notes, and so on. The real issue is what data is described by the standard, and can therefore be handled by any conforming DNG reader. I guess this is why Hasselblad and others are reluctant to support DNG, because even if they packed all their custom data into a DNG, most programs would still not be able to interpret some of it. The danger I suppose is that some people would use other programs to read the files anyway! This would mean inferior results, and the blame would surely land at the feet of Hasselblad et al.
In general the DNG format is well thought out, but as long as companies have proprietary data, this is not going to be a replacement for manufacturers' raw developers. I don't know why people are so excited about cameras which write natively in DNG, since there is always data which can only be interpreted by programs with inside information. This was the case with both M8 and M9, although to be fair to Leica, the amount of proprietary information is minimal, related to guesstimated apertures and such (the blue dot).
The interesting (off-topic) question is what Leica will do with the S2. If Lightroom is the official solution, then I would expect that Adobe will insist that the information in the DNG is all conforming, meaning that the camera will have to do all custom processing before writing the DNG. This may be yet another reason why Leica makes the optical designs as perfect as possible, because they simply won't have the opportunity to do proprietary corrections in software, like Phocus and C1 do. This approach is both a strength and a weakness. The strength is of course that photographers may use their favorite software. The weakness is that the proprietary data that Phase One and Hasselblad use to their advantage has to be abandoned, and other solutions developed. Additionally, the lenses will be larger and more expensive, although Leica is in a perfect position to do something about the former. I presume that the Maestro chip will do vignetting correction, and I don't think that any other corrections will be applied.
It would be great if a plugin format for DNG readers would be developed, so that one could use one's favorite DNG raw developer, and download the 3F or whatever plugin from Hasselblad, for example, to do the DAC corrections. This would give the best of both worlds, and just might convince more manufacturers to support DNG and abandon the multitude of custom formats out there, thus helping to improve the future outlook of reading all this data.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Carsten getting the manufacture to support DNG has been the impossible task. Nikon, Canon, Olympus and others have been fighting this one for several years now and if you google this you may see all those discussions on this topic. It's pretty interesting, I did not get that involved with it at the time but WWWIII type stuff about DNG. So really it was a lot more of the major players in this battle than the Hassy and Phase folks. Also we don't truly know what Leica is doing on the S2 and all we get is perfect optical formula's we don't need outside software. Obviously it was directed squarely at Hassy in those marketing materials. My guess is a lot of processing going into the Raws and making corrections before it even hits a raw processor . Look at Oly and Pana today with Micro 4/3rds there lenses distort like crazy . They have corrections built into there files that correct the distortion when brought into a program that can read it . So it is being done and actually done well. No doubt the Leica S2 lenses will be great but I think there is some over exaggeration on some of that corrected glass talk as well. Of course we will never hear about any of that and honestly we never will and that is fine because to them it will be intellectual property. Let's see how that works in the real world than on paper.
Re: DNG updated to allow RAW corrections
as announced by Adobe on 24 June 2009. The following is a summary taken fm dpreview on that date.
Wouldn't this mean that with the DNG upgrade, Phocus may include the additional information necessary for DAC etc, during conversion of files to DNG.
The summary follows:
Adobe has updated its DNG digital negative specification to allow a series of image corrections to be embedded in the file. Version 1.3 of the non-proprietary RAW file format allows a series of 'corrections and enhancements', which Adobe is calling opcodes, to be defined in DNG files. These opcodes include the ability to specify corrections for lens aberrations such as geometric distortion and lateral chromatic aberration that should be made to the RAW data when it's processed.
Adobe has this to say about opcodes:
"DNG 1.3 now includes opcodes, a defined list of operations and their parameters for performing complex activities in the raw file conversion process. These activities include corrections and enhancements that are beneficial when performed prior to the demosaic process but are difficult due to a camera's limited processing power. They also include corrections and enhancements that can only be performed after the demosaic process such as lens correction. By utilizing opcodes, photographers can maintain the advantages of raw mosaic data, giving them increased opportunity to improve their photographs with the maximum amount of image data preserved. The DNG SDK has also been updated to reflect the changes to the specification."
Have a nice weekend.
Seyhun
as announced by Adobe on 24 June 2009. The following is a summary taken fm dpreview on that date.
Wouldn't this mean that with the DNG upgrade, Phocus may include the additional information necessary for DAC etc, during conversion of files to DNG.
The summary follows:
Adobe has updated its DNG digital negative specification to allow a series of image corrections to be embedded in the file. Version 1.3 of the non-proprietary RAW file format allows a series of 'corrections and enhancements', which Adobe is calling opcodes, to be defined in DNG files. These opcodes include the ability to specify corrections for lens aberrations such as geometric distortion and lateral chromatic aberration that should be made to the RAW data when it's processed.
Adobe has this to say about opcodes:
"DNG 1.3 now includes opcodes, a defined list of operations and their parameters for performing complex activities in the raw file conversion process. These activities include corrections and enhancements that are beneficial when performed prior to the demosaic process but are difficult due to a camera's limited processing power. They also include corrections and enhancements that can only be performed after the demosaic process such as lens correction. By utilizing opcodes, photographers can maintain the advantages of raw mosaic data, giving them increased opportunity to improve their photographs with the maximum amount of image data preserved. The DNG SDK has also been updated to reflect the changes to the specification."
Have a nice weekend.
Seyhun
As I recall some of the older discussions when DNG was being rolled out, what Carsten is commenting on is correct. The DNG file format can hold whatever the camera maker wants it to hold, with respect to both the RAW file and any other notes and information, even proprietary stuff that the manufacturer wants to include. That is sort of where the sticking point comes in. In order to make use of any of that proprietary information contained within the file, there has to be something to decode, read and apply it. Essentially, that means the camera makers would need to provide how their recipes for processing are to be handled in the larger DNG world, otherwise, you just get the same RAW file as you do now with a more generic conversion. To me this has always been the problem of the design. As Marc points out, the only way to get to a more universal use is for the camera makers to have all of their secret sauce corrections done in the camera and written to the RAW file that is then just held in the DNG container in a format that is readable by a one size fits all DNG converter. That is about the only way it can work.
This is sort of the way folks are trying to use it now....do the processing with all the corrections and then embed that more final version into a DNG container for longer term storage and more "universal" access. Problem is that does not really work that well. Programs like Phocus from Hassy that have built their own corrections that may be lens and camera specific, can only apply those corrections after the RAW file is converted, but before it is output. If the corrections could be made before the RAW version is written, such as in the camera, a DNG file would be easy to produce, since it would just be a more universally readable RAW file.
As it now stands, there are so many different iterations of RAW files from so many manufacturers, that it is hard to keep up with. The basic algorithm for reading and converting the file is really not that complex.....IF the RAW file is written to DNG and contains all of the corrections and adjustments from the start. The easiest way to do this would be to have the camera write a RAW file into a DNG format that already makes all the corrections. The problem there becomes larger lookup tables and faster processor needs built into the camera to accommodate those corrections before the file is written.
In the case of the S2, as is mentioned, the size of the lookup tables needed to make the corrections is very small right now, since there are few lenses involved. In the case for others, where there are lots of different lenses needing different adjustments that are easy to do in software with a bigger computer, the requirements to stuff all of that into the camera are less attractive. The only other option would be for the camera makers to somehow supply their proprietary processing adjustment data to anybody wanting to put out a RAW development algorithm for more universal file conversion use. That would mean Hassy, Leica, Phase, Nikon, Canon and the rest supplying a continuously updated proprietary processing formula to anybody that asked for one in the DNG program group, so that their files could be read and converted properly. The more corrections the camera makers start to introduce, the more complex that becomes. It is far easier for them to build their own software and supply and update just that, even if it is not ideal for workflow. They then have the freedom to build in the more complicated changes and correction needs into their app, rather than having to supply that information, even if proprietary, for use in all DNG conversions by others.
This is how I have grown to understand the entire DNG problem. When DNG was first proposed by Adobe, there were almost no exotic tweaking of things as we have today. The general RAW conversion algorithm pretty much worked for all files, only needing camera specific profiles to make things correct with respect to colors and stuff. Things have gotten a whole lot more complicated and demanding now with the plethora of cameras, versions, lenses, and contant tweaking and updating by manufacturers as new tech and methods become available. The basic RAW conversion algorithms have not changed a whole lot from the start, but all the potential sauces that can be used have grown nearly exponentially. How and when those sauces get applied has now become the bigger issue. As mentioned above, the best place to do that for the most universal file usage is in the camera at the time the RAW file is being written, but that requires more horsepower in-camera.
We are actually probably closer to a point now where things like that are more possible, but almost all camera makers already have their own software divisions that are easier to control and make updates on their own on the fly, than to be constantly releasing stuff for all DNG program subscribers to incorporate into their stuff. I still think the best way is to write all the corrections to the RAW file at time of capture, but that can create problems beyond just in-camera processing needs. It would not permit any minor user preference adjustments as is now possible in many apps. It might also cause some file distortion that could not be undone if so desired. Things like that.
Bottom line from how I see things now....DNG is a very good concept, but things have advanced quite a bit since its inception. The information needed now to get the best results are not as easily incorporated and could compromise some of the "competitive advantage" that some camera makers now have over doing the best conversions for their files. Most of this could have been avoided had more manufacturers really signed on and helped push DNG from the start, but the security and uses at that time were very unknown and questionable. The advances in in-camera processing are making it now possible to do a lot more to files before they are written, but do not permit much user adjustment if needed yet. This is all evolving in ways that few could have really predicted when DNG was introduced. The entire transition to digital is not directly comparable to how film was shot and processed, where one had a few film types and their favorite processing labs that could soup things the way they preferred, yet that seems be the model that DNG is trying to follow....one universal development formula that could be tweaked a bit with some proprietary input. Things are much more complicated than that at this point.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on this before I have that next espresso ;-)
LJ
This is sort of the way folks are trying to use it now....do the processing with all the corrections and then embed that more final version into a DNG container for longer term storage and more "universal" access. Problem is that does not really work that well. Programs like Phocus from Hassy that have built their own corrections that may be lens and camera specific, can only apply those corrections after the RAW file is converted, but before it is output. If the corrections could be made before the RAW version is written, such as in the camera, a DNG file would be easy to produce, since it would just be a more universally readable RAW file.
As it now stands, there are so many different iterations of RAW files from so many manufacturers, that it is hard to keep up with. The basic algorithm for reading and converting the file is really not that complex.....IF the RAW file is written to DNG and contains all of the corrections and adjustments from the start. The easiest way to do this would be to have the camera write a RAW file into a DNG format that already makes all the corrections. The problem there becomes larger lookup tables and faster processor needs built into the camera to accommodate those corrections before the file is written.
In the case of the S2, as is mentioned, the size of the lookup tables needed to make the corrections is very small right now, since there are few lenses involved. In the case for others, where there are lots of different lenses needing different adjustments that are easy to do in software with a bigger computer, the requirements to stuff all of that into the camera are less attractive. The only other option would be for the camera makers to somehow supply their proprietary processing adjustment data to anybody wanting to put out a RAW development algorithm for more universal file conversion use. That would mean Hassy, Leica, Phase, Nikon, Canon and the rest supplying a continuously updated proprietary processing formula to anybody that asked for one in the DNG program group, so that their files could be read and converted properly. The more corrections the camera makers start to introduce, the more complex that becomes. It is far easier for them to build their own software and supply and update just that, even if it is not ideal for workflow. They then have the freedom to build in the more complicated changes and correction needs into their app, rather than having to supply that information, even if proprietary, for use in all DNG conversions by others.
This is how I have grown to understand the entire DNG problem. When DNG was first proposed by Adobe, there were almost no exotic tweaking of things as we have today. The general RAW conversion algorithm pretty much worked for all files, only needing camera specific profiles to make things correct with respect to colors and stuff. Things have gotten a whole lot more complicated and demanding now with the plethora of cameras, versions, lenses, and contant tweaking and updating by manufacturers as new tech and methods become available. The basic RAW conversion algorithms have not changed a whole lot from the start, but all the potential sauces that can be used have grown nearly exponentially. How and when those sauces get applied has now become the bigger issue. As mentioned above, the best place to do that for the most universal file usage is in the camera at the time the RAW file is being written, but that requires more horsepower in-camera.
We are actually probably closer to a point now where things like that are more possible, but almost all camera makers already have their own software divisions that are easier to control and make updates on their own on the fly, than to be constantly releasing stuff for all DNG program subscribers to incorporate into their stuff. I still think the best way is to write all the corrections to the RAW file at time of capture, but that can create problems beyond just in-camera processing needs. It would not permit any minor user preference adjustments as is now possible in many apps. It might also cause some file distortion that could not be undone if so desired. Things like that.
Bottom line from how I see things now....DNG is a very good concept, but things have advanced quite a bit since its inception. The information needed now to get the best results are not as easily incorporated and could compromise some of the "competitive advantage" that some camera makers now have over doing the best conversions for their files. Most of this could have been avoided had more manufacturers really signed on and helped push DNG from the start, but the security and uses at that time were very unknown and questionable. The advances in in-camera processing are making it now possible to do a lot more to files before they are written, but do not permit much user adjustment if needed yet. This is all evolving in ways that few could have really predicted when DNG was introduced. The entire transition to digital is not directly comparable to how film was shot and processed, where one had a few film types and their favorite processing labs that could soup things the way they preferred, yet that seems be the model that DNG is trying to follow....one universal development formula that could be tweaked a bit with some proprietary input. Things are much more complicated than that at this point.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on this before I have that next espresso ;-)
LJ
Re: DNG updated to allow RAW corrections
Marc, have a nice weekend anyway
I think the problem is that, even if manufacturers include the additional information in the DNG files, would LR or ACR be revised to perform these operations, and that is in the hands of Adobe. I think only if "willing" parties want to collaborate, this may happen.
ACR still sucks with my Ricoh GRDII raw files.. And it's DNG.
Seyhun
Marc, have a nice weekend anyway
I think the problem is that, even if manufacturers include the additional information in the DNG files, would LR or ACR be revised to perform these operations, and that is in the hands of Adobe. I think only if "willing" parties want to collaborate, this may happen.
ACR still sucks with my Ricoh GRDII raw files.. And it's DNG.
Seyhun
Well Seyhun, if that is true then I WILL have a nice week end!
Let's see if Hasselblad read that announcement ...
-Marc