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!

How to process GFX files with C1.

Iktinos

Not Available
1. Convert the batch of files from RAF to DNG using Adope.

2. Use batch mode to rename the camera name to "IQ250".

Then open the files in C1, the files will be recognized like if they where IQ-250 files. You can shoot tethered using LR PRO and use the above method after downloading.
 

archivue

Active member
1. Convert the batch of files from RAF to DNG using Adope.

2. Use batch mode to rename the camera name to "IQ250".

Then open the files in C1, the files will be recognized like if they where IQ-250 files. You can shoot tethered using LR PRO and use the above method after downloading.
and you don't miss lens profiles ? curves profiles ? ... ?

I've test an Hassy CMOS 50 few months back... and now testing an IQ150... same sensor... but C1 is so much better for MY type of pictures !
 

Iktinos

Not Available
and you don't miss lens profiles ? curves profiles ? ... ?

I've test an Hassy CMOS 50 few months back... and now testing an IQ150... same sensor... but C1 is so much better for MY type of pictures !
Hassy processed with C1?

Why?

Phocus is supposed to be the best around for image quality, Hasselblad lens profiles and color accuracy. C1 is excellent, but not for Hasselblad files, definitely not for Hasselblad files!
 

DSemick

New member
I've test an Hassy CMOS 50 few months back... and now testing an IQ150... same sensor... but C1 is so much better for MY type of pictures !
Interesting.

I think Phocus has come a long way over the past year or so. It still has it's workflow weirdness for those of us who use Capture One regularly, but I've not had any issue with the quality of the files coming out of Phocus.

As far as jumping through hoops to use C1 with the GFX....I don't recommend it. Phase One has a policy in place regarding other medium format backs. What works today may not work tomorrow.

Denny
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I'll just place my generic disclaimer here that hacking raw files to force them to open in software in which they are distinctly not supported is not a good idea for a professional workflow.

- You won't have lens profiles.
- The color profile of the IQ250 may behave strangely in some cases of the GFX. The sensor is the same but there is more to color rendering than sensor response. Probably it will be pretty close, but "pretty close" may not be good enough for many people.
- You'll have to maintain two copies of all raws (native/unaltered and the hacked DNG)* and reconcile any renames or reorganization thereof
- There may be unintended issues (e.g. errors, crashes, processing bugs).
- It may stop working at any time in the future.
 

Iktinos

Not Available
- The color profile of the IQ250 may behave strangely in some cases of the GFX. The sensor is the same....
Everybody (almost) says this, however, the sensor is NOT the same, it's of the same origin alright, but Fuji has a "special" version with different shape and smaller microlenses which should improve on light perception per pixel and reduce color casts. According to Imaging resource, Fuji GFX gave them the "best results they've ever seen" out of all.
 

daf

Member
- The color profile of the IQ250 may behave strangely in some cases of the GFX. The sensor is the same but there is more to color rendering than sensor response. Probably it will be pretty close, but "pretty close" may not be good enough for many people.
.
Come on;) it is pretty easy to make an icc profil ....
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Everybody (almost) says this, however, the sensor is NOT the same, it's of the same origin alright, but Fuji has a "special" version with different shape and smaller microlenses which should improve on light perception per pixel and reduce color casts. According to Imaging resource, Fuji GFX gave them the "best results they've ever seen" out of all.
I suspect that Fuji is throwing out a lot of marketing BS about that, but if you really believe it, why would you throw that away by processing GFX files in C1 rather than running them through LR/ACR where you can take advantage of Fuji's special sauce using their film simulation profiles that are tuned for that magic microlens sensor?
 

Iktinos

Not Available
I suspect that Fuji is throwing out a lot of marketing BS about that, but if you really believe it, why would you throw that away by processing GFX files in C1 rather than running them through LR/ACR where you can take advantage of Fuji's special sauce using their film simulation profiles that are tuned for that magic microlens sensor?
I don't suggest on the O/P what processing people should use, I only state how processing in C1 is achieved. I guess thereafter, one can choose what suits him (after comparing). There is no BS in Fuji's sensor being customized, it is true, it is customized, if you know different, please enlighten us.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
I don't suggest on the O/P what processing people should use, I only state how processing in C1 is achieved. I guess thereafter, one can choose what suits him (after comparing). There is no BS in Fuji's sensor being customized, it is true, it is customized, if you know different, please enlighten us.
I assumed you were suggesting that processing GFX files in C1 may make sense, even after you noted that Fuji had a special version of the sensor. If you were not, my mistake.

And yes, I know that Fuji has done something to customize the microlenses for the Sony sensor. I have no idea as to what the real world, practical effect of this customization is on image quality. I surely wouldn't trust Fuji marketing materials for the answer. I suspect nobody here really has the sensor design expertise to KNOW the answer. Moreover, the ultimate image quality out of the GFX is the product of a multitude of factors in the whole image processing pipeline, from the sensor, to the lenses, to the raw processor, to the profiles, etc. How one would isolate the special microlenses, I have no idea.
 

Iktinos

Not Available
I assumed you were suggesting that processing GFX files in C1 may make sense, even after you noted that Fuji had a special version of the sensor. If you were not, my mistake.

And yes, I know that Fuji has done something to customize the microlenses for the Sony sensor. I have no idea as to what the real world, practical effect of this customization is on image quality. I surely wouldn't trust Fuji marketing materials for the answer. I suspect nobody here really has the sensor design expertise to KNOW the answer. Moreover, the ultimate image quality out of the GFX is the product of a multitude of factors in the whole image processing pipeline, from the sensor, to the lenses, to the raw processor, to the profiles, etc. How one would isolate the special microlenses, I have no idea.
It always makes sense to try different software and compare with other.

Fuji's design of microlenses should mean that there is less "cross talking" between neighboring pixels and therefore, less color casts and artifacts.

Fuji's reputation and tradition for being of exceptional quality with respect to competitors as well as being a company that "dares" where others "chicken out", is among the highest (if not stand alone) among photographers that have used their products in the past, or currently do.
 

algrove

Well-known member
Interesting.

I think Phocus has come a long way over the past year or so. It still has it's workflow weirdness for those of us who use Capture One regularly, but I've not had any issue with the quality of the files coming out of Phocus.

As far as jumping through hoops to use C1 with the GFX....I don't recommend it. Phase One has a policy in place regarding other medium format backs. What works today may not work tomorrow.

Denny
Then why not talk to your rep and have him ask DK why they do not support other MF images if the owner of CI got it through purchasing many thousands of dollars of PO gear. Why should we not have access to CI with other MF gear?

Ask them. I would like to hear what they have against that situation where C1 is purchased along with Phase gear purchases and a Phase owner just wants to be able to process GFX files with the same software he uses with his XF+100 files where the GFX is used as a backup device.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My opinion only. I think a good business model for Phase is split the company. Have the typical camera sales as one take C1 to another level and company. As that business go after the likes of Adobe add PS functions to C1 like air brushing for instance. Make profiles for all cams and support all cams charge accordingly as well. I paid 500 for it years ago for my Canon. Now give it free to phase buyers for their backs and cameras. That's there bonus for buying Phase but open the doors to everything and charge 299.00 for a full package supporting all OEM brands. They could also sell it for 129 as a basic software supports nothing until you add a camera model like say Nikon which cost let's say 59 dollars you get support for every Nikon made and lenses. Do the same for every OEM. Here is the key you open the doors the revenue stream could be huge. Really need to get out of this mindset of being closed software. We all know Hassy has done this for years with a closed system. That was not always a good decision either. Also they could offer more services like custom profiles for your cam. Charge 99 for it. You send in a test chart they profile your cam for you. I would pay for all of this

Just some thoughts
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
My opinion only. I think a good business model for Phase is split the company. Have the typical camera sales as one take C1 to another level and company. As that business go after the likes of Adobe add PS functions to C1 like air brushing for instance. Make profiles for all cams and support all cams charge accordingly as well. I paid 500 for it years ago for my Canon. Now give it free to phase buyers for their backs and cameras. That's there bonus for buying Phase but open the doors to everything and charge 299.00 for a full package supporting all OEM brands. They could also sell it for 129 as a basic software supports nothing until you add a camera model like say Nikon which cost let's say 59 dollars you get support for every Nikon made and lenses. Do the same for every OEM. Here is the key you open the doors the revenue stream could be huge. Really need to get out of this mindset of being closed software. We all know Hassy has done this for years with a closed system. That was not always a good decision either. Also they could offer more services like custom profiles for your cam. Charge 99 for it. You send in a test chart they profile your cam for you. I would pay for all of this

Just some thoughts
I agree wholeheartedly with this. They clearly see and hear the feedback from many users and potential users. I often see some Phase One dealers being up the "entry level models" to compete with some of the newer MF options that are all in one cameras and it's not really a direct comparison. The CCD IQ series is great for landscape and studio no doubt but it is a more cumbersome package than many who buy into the X1D, GFX, Leica S, or Pentax 645 series are willing to choose in many cases.

Capture One is hands down the best tethering software I used but I still use Adobe CC for print profiling, stitching, detailed edits, batch processing in many cases, etc. I'm good with either software now that Capture One has gotten more stable on Mac and matured as a more comprehensive RAW converter DAM. That being said I will not choose my hardware solely on the software.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I agree with you both. I regretted leaving C1, but had no choice. I would probably keep PS, but would much rather be using C1 than LR. Still, no software is eternal. Companies get bought. Divisions get shut down. We'll have different choices to make in the future.

--Matt
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I just think if they had their own division or company it would greatly improve its revenue stream with some ideas I suggested or some other ways to get more folks to use it. It is the best tethering I ever used. For folks that make a living at this I really don't think we mind paying a couple hundred dollars for a full package. Or buy modules for the system you own idea.

From a personal point of view I won't buy hardware that can't use it but that does not mean I'm buying Phase gear either. So I lose that ability. So Fuji is out and so is Hassy although I could use a Phocus there. But as you can see that limits me right out of the gate. I understand their policy and really don't disagree with them either . But as a end user I wish they would consider a idea like this.
 
I just think if they had their own division or company it would greatly improve its revenue stream with some ideas I suggested or some other ways to get more folks to use it. It is the best tethering I ever used. For folks that make a living at this I really don't think we mind paying a couple hundred dollars for a full package. Or buy modules for the system you own idea.

From a personal point of view I won't buy hardware that can't use it but that does not mean I'm buying Phase gear either. So I lose that ability. So Fuji is out and so is Hassy although I could use a Phocus there. But as you can see that limits me right out of the gate. I understand their policy and really don't disagree with them either . But as a end user I wish they would consider a idea like this.
Guy,
I totally agree with this idea about splitting the company into two parts and made a similar post in another thread about the revenue they could make by opening up the software to other medium format cameras. I also strongly suggest you DO NOT ever put an X1D in your hands, they may not let go... :ROTFL:
 
Top