Fuji GFX and Capture One

[Puma Cat]

I remain skeptical, but what is curious to me is that neither "company" has officially denied these rumors. All we are hearing from are sales reps and dealers. <SNIP>

That's not accurate. The person who made the statement at GPP was not a dealer or a sales rep (btw, many sales reps are likely to say anything to get a sale; this is why what they say has to be taken with several grains of salt) .

The person who made the statement at GPP was is a Product Manager at Fujifilm Middle East for Electronic Imaging Products; he was specifically called up to the podium a talk prior to Zack's to introduce the GFX. This is what leads me to believe he is the Product Manager for the GFX for Fujifilm Middle East, because this is how companies usually work; the product manager for the region responsible introduces the product at various trade shows and conferences in that region, because, as we say in the corporate tech world, they "own it" at the end of the day. This is exactly what Iida-san did when the GFX was announced in at Photokina in September, 2016.

Product Managers have a very different role than a sales rep or a dealer. They are the ones who forecast sales, set prices, issue quotes, work with sales to develop sales plans, determine what feature sets to offer at what prices, what "bundles" to create value in the various market offerings. They are also usually are the first word in determining what support that is offered for a product, in what ways and at what cost, including collaborations or partnerships with 3rd party OEM vendors, contactors, or providers. They also spend quite a bit of their time dealing with quality assurance (which is the not same thing a quality control.) They are ones held responsible for setting the AOP, predicting NPV, and ultimately delivering revenue for a specific product back to the company. So while some folks may say this statement was originally made by some guy off-stage; it wasn't just "some guy". It was the Product Manager. This is what gives me some level of confidence there is some level of veracity to this information.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I think never in the past representatives of a camera maker came up and declared "we will be supported by C1" before... I believe if this would have happened, P1 would have come up with a denial if it was not true (since their name has been brought up by another company's employes)... It makes sense doesn't it?

I mean if your name was brought up in public by a third party for having a deal, wouldn't you deny it in public if it was not true?

Phase One has never, to my knowledge, commented publicly about 3rd party cameras being supported or not in Capture One, in terms of an announcement or a denial. If they have, they certainly don't make a habit of it. Camera support is always handled via the Read Me document included in the Capture One releases.

It is not impossible that they would support it at some point, but highly unlikely, given any level eyed view of their prior position with regard to supporting other medium format players. And at this point, while Doug and I are simply, as Mr. Smith so warmly put it, "boxshifters", we represent 2 of the largest Phase One dealerships in the entire world, and as such, have a fairly deep relationship with Phase One in many respects. So while there is no pleasure taken in either he or I having to say so, the fact is what we have been informed of to this point has been that there currently are no plans to have C1 compatibility for the GFX.

I did think it was quite brilliant, the idea of Phocus software supporting the GFX! Do we have any official comment from Hasselblad?

I do feel that the software equation for Fuji became somewhat critical with the release of the GFX. This is a product that is clearly and directly pointed at the professional market, and there are many who want - and are used to - robust file support, and included robust tethering. It creates the potential for a competitive weakness vs the Hasselblad X1D among some professionals (and non professionals as well).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Qamaro]

Just a note that while Phase doesn’t seem to announce or not announce camera support they have a link that they update that shows which cameras are supported and what features:

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Software/Capture-One-Pro/Supported-Cameras.aspx

At the moment the GFX isn’t listed.

I also ran across this today on Fuji’s news section that they official have a free tethering solution, called - X-Acquire.

Introducing the tether shooting software ?FUJIFILM X Acquire? compatible with FUJIFILM GFX 50S | Fujifilm Global

・ FUJIFILM Tether Shooting Plug-in PRO for Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® ( Windows / Mac )
・ FUJIFILM Tether Shooting Plug-in for Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® ( Windows / Mac )
・ FUJIFILM HS-V5 for Windows®

might not mean a damn thing but, figured this would be a good place to post it... as it seems everyone is interested in seeing if C1 has support and to what degree (feature set) that support extends. This also might be the site location where Fuji makes that kind of announcement.

 

[hcubell]

I made a post on the Capture One Mac software forum last week asking Phase One to respond to the rampant rumors on the internet about Capture One supporting the GFX raw files and clarify its position. Not only did Phase One not take the opportunity to respond to my post, my post was DELETED by Phase One after a few days! Well, I guess that just further corroborates Phase's earlier statements about not supporting GFX raws and what Doug and Steve have said. Looks like "No" means "No", not "Yes" in a couple of weeks.

 

[etto72]

I made a post on the Capture One Mac software forum last week asking Phase One to respond to the rampant rumors on the internet about Capture One supporting the GFX raw files and clarify its position. Not only did Phase One not take the opportunity to respond to my post, my post was DELETED by Phase One after a few days! Well, I guess that just further corroborates Phase's earlier statements about not supporting GFX raws and what Doug and Steve have said. Looks like "No" means "No", not "Yes" in a couple of weeks.

Apparently they seemed to adopt a sort of "Trump like" :loco:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...029-phase-one-forum-not-right-way-behave.html

 

[dougpeterson]

I wrote to Fujilfilm Middle East for a confirmation for the statement (answer to Gerald's question) made at GPP Dubai that Capture One would support GFX RAF files, and they wrote back and said, "Yes, we can confirm it.

Then they are also incorrect. It will not.

 

[Paul2660]

I guess we can move on. This post has shown that there are times that some companies are unwilling to change their positions. Odd situation however as it sure seems like a lot of highly placed Fuji representatives have the wrong info for sure.

No point in beating a dead horse the powers that be have spoken. Done.

There will always be solutions that are willing to work with others.

I hope P1 continues to do well in this market segment.

Paul Caldwell

 

[jerome_m]

I did think it was quite brilliant, the idea of Phocus software supporting the GFX! Do we have any official comment from Hasselblad?

Actually, on OS X, Phocus supports all files supported by OS X derawtising subsystem. I expect Apple to support the GFX and then Phocus will be able to read GFX files.

 

[hcubell]

Then they are also incorrect. It will not.

Doug:
It has become totally apparent that nothing will convince the true believers. Capture One support for Fuji GFX files is one of those rumors/stories that some people want to believe so badly that NOTHING can convince them otherwise.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Actually, on OS X, Phocus supports all files supported by OS X derawtising subsystem. I expect Apple to support the GFX and then Phocus will be able to read GFX files.

That's true! Hadn't thought of that, Jerome. So Phocus is an open image editor for any image file that can be read by the Mac OS subsystem. I'm currently on the last version of El Cap, so checked the raw support and I see Leaf support (but only through Aptus-II 7) and no Phase support. No Sinar support! Not sure who's court the ball is in there. At any rate, I don't think I'll be using Phocus to edit my Leaf Aptus files any time soon. Many advanced tools are not available and results are ... not desirable (with Leaf files). Seems to be ok with other cameras.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205272

Attached is .mos file and tiff output from that file developed in Capture One. The file was underexposed about 4 stops. The subject name has been withheld to protect the innocent!


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[jerome_m]

So Phocus is an open image editor for any image file that can be read by the Mac OS subsystem. I'm currently on the last version of El Cap, so checked the raw support and I see Leaf support (but only through Aptus-II 7) and no Phase support. No Sinar support! Not sure who's court the ball is in there.

Apple and Phase, obviously. Apple writes the raw support, but need data from the camera manufacturer. I am pretty convinced that Phase One could arrange for better support, but is not interested in spending ressources, given that they offer a perfectly workable solution with Capture 1.

As to the posted image sample, we all know who you work for, but I am sure you could find another sample where the difference is not as obviously stacked in favour of C1 as this one.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Apple and Phase, obviously. Apple writes the raw support, but need data from the camera manufacturer. I am pretty convinced that Phase One could arrange for better support, but is not interested in spending ressources, given that they offer a perfectly workable solution with Capture 1.

As to the posted image sample, we all know who you work for, but I am sure you could find another sample where the difference is not as obviously stacked in favour of C1 as this one.

Well, obviously, yes, I meant Apple or Phase One. But I agree that the lack of interest is surely on the part of Phase One (although it is ironic since I believe the former VP of RD - Claus Mølgaard - left to take a principle position in the Apple iPhone Camera Division around 2012 - ish).

Yes, I am hopeful you know not just who I work for, but who I am. For the most part, I am going to call it like it is, and everyone that actually does know me, knows how I view Hasselblad as a company, considering I am a former employee of both Hasselblad (well, Imacon anyway, which is what largely became Hasselblad) and Phase One, and count many respected long time friends and allies at Hasselblad to this day. And in fact CI does sell some Hasselblad products.

With that said, it's not as easy as you might think coming up with compatible files. I do have an assortment of Aptus legacy files on my hard drive, but even though Aptus 22 and Aptus 75-S showed on the compatible list, I could not get them to recognize in the Apple OS or Phocus. So I do have several Aptus-II 7 files and those do show up. Below is another example, a much easier file to tame. However, even in this case, there are still challenges with color out of the box, and even if I introduce the next capture taken with an Xrite CC and attempt to color balance the file, it just turns green. More so, if I yank the brightness up in Phocus and then take the same un-extreme file and yank it up in C1, the side by side shows that Phocus is still making a mess of it. Or maybe more accurately, the Apple OS made a mess and Phocus could not clean it up.

It's silly, really, since it makes zero sense for anyone to use Phocus as their Leaf raw converter, but nonetheless I don't think Phocus can earn any points for supporting Leaf files via the Apple OS. Now the real question this has pushed into my brain is how well Phocus handles other camera files say, from Canon vs Lightroom (or even Capture One). My quick glance is that it renders reasonably nicely, but the lack of the more advanced editing tools from Phocus seem to make it a pointless exercise vs using Lightroom or Capture One for those files.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[bdp]

Steve is right - Although Phocus supports files that OS X can read, not all the tools in Phocus will work. Recovery, Shadow Fill, Clarity are greyed out, as are noise reduction, lens corrections, adjustment layers.

So it only 'sort of' supports them, don't get too excited.

Having said that, with well exposed files you can often get very close to where you want with the tools that do work (WB, EV, colour correction, curves), and the colour rendering in Phocus is so much better than LR that it might be worth it.

Ben

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve is right - Although Phocus supports files that OS X can read, not all the tools in Phocus will work. Recovery, Shadow Fill, Clarity are greyed out, as are noise reduction, lens corrections, adjustment layers.

So it only 'sort of' supports them, don't get too excited.

Having said that, with well exposed files you can often get very close to where you want with the tools that do work (WB, EV, colour correction, curves), and the colour rendering in Phocus is so much better than LR that it might be worth it.

Ben

I've liked the Hasselblad color since they modified the color engine with Natural Color. Although in this instance I don't know that it is really Hasselblad color rendering - if I view the same Canon file in Preview and Phocus the color looks identical. But - if you prefer that to the color of Lightroom, then if nothing else, yes, you could use Phocus only to raw convert, export to Tiff and do your heavy lifting in Photoshop (but out of raw).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[jerome_m]

Steve is right - Although Phocus supports files that OS X can read, not all the tools in Phocus will work. Recovery, Shadow Fill, Clarity are greyed out, as are noise reduction, lens corrections, adjustment layers.

So it only 'sort of' supports them, don't get too excited.

Certainly. Phocus is not very useful if you don't have an Hasselblad camera. Phocus is also a generally less capable software then Capture 1. But I just wanted to point out that, on OS X, Hasselblad does not make any effort to exclude other MF cameras from using it.

 

[Satrycon]

fuji GFX raw files > https://www.dpreview.com/samples/2109992390/fujifilm-gfx-50s-first-shots

i use LR but perhaps someone with C1 could try them out with the metadata "fix"

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Certainly. Phocus is not very useful if you don't have an Hasselblad camera. Phocus is also a generally less capable software then Capture 1. But I just wanted to point out that, on OS X, Hasselblad does not make any effort to exclude other MF cameras from using it.

Certainly. Phocus is not very useful if you don't have an Hasselblad camera. Phocus is also a generally less capable software then Capture 1. But I just wanted to point out that, on OS X, Hasselblad does not make any effort to exclude other MF cameras from using it.

That's true - I think it's fair to say that Hasselblad doesn't make any effort at all with regard to 3rd party medium format files.

But then they don't have any dog in the fight while Phase One does. For sure, no one is going to purchase Hasselblad cameras based on how Phocus would handle Phase One or Leaf files. While, for many, Capture One is very much a factor in the decision. It's unfortunately a complex case, and I can understand the bewilderment some feel at why there is no 3rd party MFD file support in Capture One, but I also respect Phase One's position with regard to how they wield a very important asset and competitive advantage.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul2660]

:deadhorse::deadhorse:

Paul Caldwell

 

[Iktinos]

IMO, I don't see how C1 exclusive access to P1 users can "protect" P1 sales anymore among MF users, no matter how superb it may be (and is) as a software to use. Perhaps it could protect some of the sales from Pentax or Leica due to both having not a "pro-level" software support, but certainly this can't be the case with Hasselblad or Fuji.

Hasselblad users now use Phocus, which other than having advanced considerably lately having continuous up-grades (and its advancement promised to accelerate further by the new Hasselblad leadership), offers superb color accuracy and calibration method which is second to none out of the software options. OTOH, Fuji came up with a PRO plug in for LR (other than the expected tethered "standard" plug in) which gives access to faster tethering, LV and tethered camera control on functions like camera controls which include exposure settings, interval captures, bracketing , overlay check and back-up/restoration of camera settings.

Therefore it is clear that Fuji payed a lot of attention to support the camera (one wouldn't expect anything less to be the case with Fuji anyway) in its introduction with software support that would satisfy the most demanding out of photographers and then, the product planning manager of Fuji said in an interview of his the other day answering on a question about housing the Sony 100mp "FF" 54x40,5mm sensor in the GFX body, that "they have been too busy with the GFX introduction as to give priority on the matter, but they'll consider it later on, depending on marketing demand" (thus confirming that the GFX is compatible with 54x40.5mm size sensors as a provision in the original design).

Given all the above, I don't see how P1 can protect Hardware sales given that the alternatives do offer "pro level" processing quality and then they cost considerably less and are specified at a higher level by including features like HD video (to say the least) on their alternative products.

What would they expect in P1's headquarters after the GFX-100 hits the market at a price that can be as low as 10k (for the body only)? Would it be "to ask 5 times the price because C1 is still (a little) more capable than the LR+Fuji PRO plug in"?

I don't think it will be a wise policy if that's the path they'll choose to follow.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

IMO, I don't see how C1 exclusive access to P1 users can "protect" P1 sales anymore among MF users, no matter how superb it may be (and is) as a software to use. Perhaps it could protect some of the sales from Pentax or Leica due to both having not a "pro-level" software support, but certainly this can't be the case with Hasselblad or Fuji.

Hasselblad users now use Phocus, which other than having advanced considerably lately having continuous up-grades (and its advancement promised to accelerate further by the new Hasselblad leadership), offers superb color accuracy and calibration method which is second to none out of the software options. OTOH, Fuji came up with a PRO plug in for LR (other than the expected tethered "standard" plug in) which gives access to faster tethering, LV and tethered camera control on functions like camera controls which include exposure settings, interval captures, bracketing , overlay check and back-up/restoration of camera settings.

Therefore it is clear that Fuji payed a lot of attention to support the camera (one wouldn't expect anything less to be the case with Fuji anyway) in its introduction with software support that would satisfy the most demanding out of photographers and then, the product planning manager of Fuji said in an interview of his the other day answering on a question about housing the Sony 100mp "FF" 54x40,5mm sensor in the GFX body, that "they have been too busy with the GFX introduction as to give priority on the matter, but they'll consider it later on, depending on marketing demand" (thus confirming that the GFX is compatible with 54x40.5mm size sensors as a provision in the original design).

Given all the above, I don't see how P1 can protect Hardware sales given that the alternatives do offer "pro level" processing quality and then they cost considerably less and are specified at a higher level by including features like HD video (to say the least) on their alternative products.

What would they expect in P1's headquarters after the GFX-100 hits the market at a price that can be as low as 10k (for the body only)? Would it be "to ask 5 times the price because C1 is still (a little) more capable than the LR+Fuji PRO plug in"?

I don't think it will be a wise policy if that's the path they'll choose to follow.

You can say whatever you wish.

The fact is that there are many users who are die hard Capture One users that would never accept Phocus (or a Fuji tethering plug in to Lightroom, etc). There are enough of them - apparently - to make it worthwhile for Phase One to value the restriction of Capture One compatibility in the way that they have. For a landscape shooter looking to edit files, there are reasonable alternatives to consider outside of Capture One. But for many, Capture One is not just an image editor, it represents a much larger part of their software workflow.

Capture Integration has developed its own software product that integrates with Capture One, called ShotFlow. This unique product is primarily aimed at high volume studios tasked with managing many many visual assets. In-house retail would be one very common example.

ShotFlow One – Optimized Production, Smarter Assets

We've had meetings with the majority of in-house corporate studios that fit this description, and already have significant clients on board. Typically they have anywhere from 10 - 20 in house shooting bays. Over 90% of them are using Capture One. In many cases DSLR's are being tethered, but there are still a lot of Phase One digital backs being used as well. There is zero preference from these studios for shooting tethered with the alternative software options.


Steve Hendrix/CI