Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad Phocus 2.5 includes many DSLR profiles  (Read 8038 times)
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


WWW
« on: May 13, 2010, 03:00:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I received an announcement that Hasselblad will include many DSLR set ups and even Leaf for Phocus 2.5 , available as a free update this month.

I am not such a fan of Phocus but it does has an advantage for those wanting to reduce redundancy with too many applications.

It will also process DNG, so indeed some cross over from LR is possible>
Logged
happyman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2010, 10:39:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh yes, Phocus will now open many other RAW formats, but it is by far not the claimed universal solution.

Only the standard tools are working, for example shadow and highlight recovery are greyed out.
At least with Leica M9 DNG and Nikon D3X Nef files.

Adjustments are only visible at 100%. Hasselblad caused another storm in a water glass.
For me Phocus can only be used as a first step converter for my H3D files.

Other raw software is miles ahead. Yes , i am disappointed. Again.
Logged
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2010, 10:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: happyman
Oh yes, Phocus will now open many other RAW formats, but it is by far not the claimed universal solution.

Only the standard tools are working, for example shadow and highlight recovery are greyed out.
At least with Leica M9 DNG and Nikon D3X Nef files.

Adjustments are only visible at 100%. Hasselblad caused another storm in a water glass.
For me Phocus can only be used as a first step converter for my H3D files.

Other raw software is miles ahead. Yes , i am disappointed. Again.

I have never understood why a small, basically a hardware company would devote financial resources to produce and support a full function soft ware package.  Couldn't they supply profiles, lens corrections, etc as plug-ins for other programs??  Or is that not possible?

Steve
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2010, 02:29:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: vandevanterSH
I have never understood why a small, basically a hardware company would devote financial resources to produce and support a full function soft ware package.  Couldn't they supply profiles, lens corrections, etc as plug-ins for other programs??  Or is that not possible?

Steve

Hasselblad do this because they can keep certain aspects of their image processing proprietary. There is information in the 3FR files which others, like Adobe, cannot read, but Phocus can when it converts the file to FFF which is the format which the user sees. Consequently, Hasselblad files edited in Phocus will usually have better colour, chroma and noise correction applied by default than if processed in ACR or Lightroom for example.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2010, 10:54:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
Hasselblad do this because they can keep certain aspects of their image processing proprietary. There is information in the 3FR files which others, like Adobe, cannot read, but Phocus can when it converts the file to FFF which is the format which the user sees. Consequently, Hasselblad files edited in Phocus will usually have better colour, chroma and noise correction applied by default than if processed in ACR or Lightroom for example.

John


Hasselblad do this because they can keep certain aspects of their image processing proprietary.
*******
I agree but to what end.  Do the proprietary aspects of Phocus have enough (any) value as "intellectual" property to offset the costs of developing and maintaining a "full service" software program?  Perhaps the Plug-in approach to provide the same level of raw conversion isn't technically possible.

Steved
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2010, 11:08:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: vandevanterSH
Hasselblad do this because they can keep certain aspects of their image processing proprietary.
*******
I agree but to what end.  Do the proprietary aspects of Phocus have enough (any) value as "intellectual" property to offset the costs of developing and maintaining a "full service" software program?  Perhaps the Plug-in approach to provide the same level of raw conversion isn't technically possible.

Steved


It seems obvious to me it's a valid attempt to do as Phase one back users , having one application to manage multiple raw file formats.

I don't have a Hasselblad MF other than the 39MKII they lent me for testing.  I am very happy with LightRoom for Canon files. . Yet if I could get into MF, I would think the options in Phocus 2.5 appealing.

I wish I had a way of converting the 39MKII files for processing in LR, but that isn't possible for the file formats shot into the computer.

The original Phocus had artifacts in areas that were causing moire on fabric. I haven't had time to see if it can be bettered in 2.5 or not.
Logged
MattBeardsley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2010, 05:49:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded Phocus and ran a folder of files from my Nikon D3.  It did a really nice job with them, I thought.  There are a few adjustments reserved for Hasselblad Raw files, but what is available works well.  It is certainly the best FREE converter I've seen and renders nice results.  If someone were after a free version of Lightroom, I might steer them towards it; would that be crazy?

I'm looking forward to testing a rental H3DII with it for a shoot Monday...
Logged

Matt Beardsley, Oakland, CA
The Artist:  http://mattbeardsleyphoto.com
The Nerd:  http://photoartsmonthly.com
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4217



« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2010, 06:07:07 PM »
ReplyReply

This is BS. Hasselblad were the first consumer camera company to explicitly split the lens design between optics and computer - ie. they design their 28mm lens in such a way that their computer program can correct it. This makes their lenses cheaper, but means that the software has to be very carefully tailored to the lens and vice-versa. I guess if some lens batch is different there is still metadata somewhere in the file that allows the software to correct it.

Edmund


Hasselblad do this because they can keep certain aspects of their image processing proprietary.
*******
I agree but to what end.  Do the proprietary aspects of Phocus have enough (any) value as "intellectual" property to offset the costs of developing and maintaining a "full service" software program?  Perhaps the Plug-in approach to provide the same level of raw conversion isn't technically possible.

Steved

Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2010, 06:04:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I received an announcement that Hasselblad will include many DSLR set ups and even Leaf for Phocus 2.5 , available as a free update this month.

I am not such a fan of Phocus but it does has an advantage for those wanting to reduce redundancy with too many applications.

It will also process DNG, so indeed some cross over from LR is possible>


I still don't see such an exotic camera as the Canon 5D mark II in that list. On my PC I have to run Phocus for the Hasselblad and another raw converter for the 5D mark II. Any further rumors?!

regards
nino
Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 396


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2010, 02:23:20 PM »
ReplyReply

This is BS. Hasselblad were the first consumer camera company to explicitly split the lens design between optics and computer - ie. they design their 28mm lens in such a way that their computer program can correct it. This makes their lenses cheaper, but means that the software has to be very carefully tailored to the lens and vice-versa. I guess if some lens batch is different there is still metadata somewhere in the file that allows the software to correct it.

Edmund


Okay I understand and accept that but is the corollary true in that Phocus adds nothing to images taken with HC i.e. non HCD lenses?  There is much talk about Phocus's colour conversion but having recently converted a batch of files using Lightroom taken with an HC 300m lens I am unable to see a difference.

Talking of DNG BTW please do not think it is universal - it isn't!
Logged

David Watson ARPS
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad