Hasselblad and Capture One 9 PRO DNG support

[jvpictures]

I am starting this thread to come to an eventual final conclusion. When C1 released its version 9 a new support for DNG files was marketed. Since I am a long time user of C1 and pretty newly also a Hasselblad owner (H5D-40 and 50c) I was tempted to test this workaround. I believe C1 is so much better in the handling of the workflow than Phocus, but Phocus is being said to be better in final IQ, color rendering etc. But using 2 SW for Hasselblad files (Phocus) and my Nikons (C1) is not ideal at all and cumbersome in a way.

So I did the following test workaround:

1. importing all H files to Phocus. No further adjustments here.
2. Batch exporting DNG files
3. Batch importing the DNG files into Exif Editor (OS app; 10$). Here batch removing the Hasselblad camera information in the header only (2 lines to be deleted). This works actually pretty fast, maybe 2-3 minutes for 300-400 files.
4. Import the "cleaned" files into C1. This works well and the files do not need to be physically imported anymore since they are already physically on the SSD. They must only be imported into the project/group/album and previews being generated.
5. start adjusting exposure, WB, etc. within C1.
6. Export from there using recipes etc. to TIFF, JPEG's etc.

I am using a large catalog with projects, groups and albums with referenced raw files. Thus it is compelling to have all files (my NEF's and also the Hasselblad DNG's, some Fuji files and others) in one SW application. I noticed even that the keywords entered into Phocus at the importing process are fully supported by the new keyword library functionality of C1 9. Great!

BUT, and here comes the but: I am not yet fully conclusive, but in some cases the colors and general IQ of the final output files are better when coming directly from Phocus (with adjustments done in Phocus and exports to TIFF, JPEG's) than with the workaround via C1. However, in some other cases i could not see any real differences. I also noticed that the DNG files usually became some 7-10 MByte smaller than the original H files.

By starting this thread I hope that others in a similar situation like me, i.e. using C1 for other file than Hasseblad's and Phocus for H files, will do their own testing and sharing theirs experiences and conclusions!

Juerg

 

[dougpeterson]

For more than a decade Phase One's policy has been to provide robust, highly catered, high quality support for a range of third party small-format cameras (eg Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, et all). That includes specifically profiling each camera, providing lens corrections from their own lab measurements, and adjusting under the hood parameters for the noise and detail characteristics of each camera. They also provide extremely fine tuned processing for their own medium-format cameras, the process of which begins in the prototype stage of every new Team Phase One back. They do not, and will not, provide support of any kind to third-party medium format cameras.

Therefore any manner or method of hacking Capture One or hacking raw files to trick Capture One into reading these raw files will have four major issues:
- any quirks or limitations you experience will not qualify for any support or help
- the hack may be patched at any point, rendering it ineffective
- the hand-tuned bespoke nature of the processing is not present; a great raw processor without such fine tuned support will not be as impressive, especially in the area of color (same sensor does not always mean same IR filter, Filter Array or downstream color management)
- the hacked raw files are no longer native or as-expected and may cause incompatibilities, quirks, or bugs in other software downstream (can be ammeloriated by keeping the original Raws, at the cost of additional disk space and organizational overhead)
- no tethered support (only a major limit if you sometimes tether of course)

This post should not be seen as an endorsement of Phase One's policies in this area. I do not set these policies. Nor should it be seen as a condemnation or belittling of your efforts; I am by nature a curious nerdy guy so I applaud your interest and experimentation. It should instead be seen as an advisory, given with deep knowledge of the ecosystem you are entering, that this is not a path I would advise for professional or robust/reliable/top-quality workflow.

Phocus produces great image quality results. Capture One, with its massively larger development team (funded by those paying for the pro version to use with small-format cameras) has incredible image quality, and a significantly wider gamut of tools and workflow options (I would also argue it is significantly faster, but that will of course vary on what kind of computer you have and what your workflow is). If you want the advantage of the later your surest bet is to work with Team Phase One cameras or any of the dozens of supported third party small-format cameras.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Phocus produces great image quality results. Capture One, with its massively larger development team (funded by those paying for the pro version to use with small-format cameras) has incredible image quality, and a significantly wider gamut of tools and workflow options (I would also argue it is significantly faster, but that will of course vary on what kind of computer you have and what your workflow is). If you want the advantage of the later your surest bet is to work with Team Phase One cameras or any of the dozens of supported third party small-format cameras.

Here's a better idea: pass a memo on to Phase One to add support for the other MF cameras. I have no intention of buying a Phase camera or back since my Pentax does more than I could ever ask of it already, but I would be happy to use C1 over Lightroom, and would literally install it tomorrow if the update came out. They're not losing camera sales by locking out other vendors, C1 is nice, but not that kind of premium nice; and it's free for Phase users anyway. Have them disable tethering support if they're so uptight about it, I just want to use the conversion engine.

 

[torger]

I think it would be a mess to rely on hacks to use Hassy/Pentax in Capture One. They don't want to support the cameras, so I wouldn't bother.

Anyway if you do it anyway your main problem is that you won't have a (good) camera color profile. You can make one with DCamProf for example if you spend some time getting into it. I think that results is better than Capture One's own as you can design according to your taste. But then again I wrote the software

You can't expect to get the exact color from Phocus as they have a custom multi-illuminant profile format which only works inside Phocus. Hasselblad's color is closer to my personal taste than Phase One's. Hasselblad's is pretty neutral, while Phase One seems to like that warm tone.

Drop the idea of copying the look from the manufacturer and instead make your own. If you don't have the confidence that you can make as good or better color as the manufacturers, then you should use the native raw converter, always.

I assume you'll have the problem that you won't have any lens correction profiles. I don't know if you can make your own for C1 like for Lightroom. Probably quite some work in any case.

In addition to color profile and lens corrections there can be stuff like tuned noise reduction and demosaicers, but the "default" action should be fine there, especially for the CMOS which isn't very noisy in the first place. I wouldn't worry about those. If you use a tech cam the LCC algorithm is important, but since you don't do that you don't need to worry about that either.

The lens corrections I would guess is the hardest part to get around, if you accept the challenge to make your own color profiles.

Another idea is to make a Photoshop-centric workflow where you only do a basic conversions in the native raw converters, and then all adjustments is made in Photoshop. You then get the native color and lens corrections, but still have a unified adjustment interface for all your files.

I've heard some use Lightroom for managing their multi-brand files as its fast to browse etc, but then switch to native raw converters + photoshop when they develop files.

 

[Giorgio]

Long time H user.

Just use Phocus to process into fff file then convert to a DNG or Tiff.

Phocus is the best software for H camera files...

 

[T.Dascalos]

Capture one is undeniably an excellent RAW processor, the only other processor that can compete in processing parameters and tools available is LR, but LR visibly lucks the DR extension and the detail that C1 provides.... There is a way around the problem for other users than P1/Mamyia/Leaf backs if they ever need the extra tooling that C1 provides.... If one uses Phocus (or Captureshop for Sinar users) and just exports DNG, he'll find that the DNG "curries" the properties of detail and DR that the fff file exhibits if processed with Phocus (which equals if not slightly beats C1 for detail and DR).... then, he can process the files with LR (or ACR) and have the extra tools needed... For testing purposes, I suggest for one to compare an fff file processed in LR from start and then use the same file in DNG form exported out of Phocus... I believe the superiority of the DNG file in detail and DR extension, will be easily spotted by anyone...

OTOH... the deal breaker for some pros as to integrate C1 in their work, is the absence of ...multishot ability! Never the less, usually pros and experienced photographers try to achieve as much perfection as possible when capturing an image and rarely (if at all) use more tooling than the basic part out of the Phocus software... Some others, prefer to use Flexcolor than Phocus as the processing engine is the same, but they prefer the ergonomics of it...

 

[dougpeterson]

If one uses Phocus (or Captureshop for Sinar users) and just exports DNG, he'll find that the DNG "curries" the properties of detail and DR that the fff file exhibits if processed with Phocus [...].... then, he can process the files with LR (or ACR) and have the extra tools needed...

This is not correct.

Repackaging raws to DNG using a raw processor does not include any processing.

Unless you elect create a "linear DNG" which is just a repackaged TIFF (in which case you've lost all the pliability/flexibility of the original raw file, entirely defeating the point of a raw workflow.

 

[T.Dascalos]

This is not correct.

Repackaging raws to DNG using a raw processor does not include any processing.

Unless you elect create a "linear DNG" which is just a repackaged TIFF (in which case you've lost all the pliability/flexibility of the original raw file, entirely defeating the point of a raw workflow.

Doug, you seem to alter what I'm saying... I never said that repacking Raws to DNG includes any processing... All I'm saying is that if one converts the file to DNG in a dedicated processing software of the same maker as the camera, the detail & the DR range of the DNG file is superior on a third party software (LR in this case) than if one processes the original Raw file with LR... It doesn't apply to Phocus only, it applies with C1 too (try it...). If you import P1 files in C1 software and just convert them to DNG and then process the DNG with LR, the DNG file will exhibit superior DR and detail characteristics than if one processes the original RAW with LR...

EDIT: Obviously this is due to LR being able to recognize the full captured data when packed in DNG form, but it is unable to decode the full information of the file when it is decoding a RAW file captured by any maker's MFDB....