What are the prefered C1 settings when creating ICC profiles?

[Nino Loss]

I was wondering what the correct Capture One settings for output to a profile maker would be? What is your practice?

 - Base ICC: COLOR VIEW (former "Phase One - No color correction")

 - STANDARD curve or LINEAR (as the latter does not seam to be real Linear, do you apply an additional curve)?
 - Everything ZEROED (incl. sharpening, NR, lens correction ...) ?

 - Processing with EMBEDDED CAMERA PROFILE
 - 16bit, Tif

I am trying to find documentation on that subject, but can't find much. Maybe you have a link...

Once again, thank you very much in advance for any help with this!

regards
nino

[tho_mas]

- Base ICC: COLOR VIEW (former "Phase One - No color correction")

yes.

- STANDARD curve or LINEAR (as the latter does not seam to be real Linear, do you apply an additional curve)?

linear.
no other curve applied (you can't create a "film curve" by yourself in C1 anyway... only a regular contrast curve in the "curve tool")
when you are using your custom profile in C1 you also have to set the film curve to "linear" (as the profile is based on the linear curve).

- Everything ZEROED (incl. sharpening, NR, lens correction ...) ?

yes
edit: no, not everything - white balancing is useful

- Processing with EMBEDDED CAMERA PROFILE

yes

- 16bit, Tif

yes (though 8bit will also do... the image is just a reference)

I am trying to find documentation on that subject, but can't find much.

you don't need one :-)
somewhere hidden in the "knowledge base" at phaseone.com there is a short writeup ... but I don't know where.

[Nino Loss]

Thanks for that quick reply, Thomas!

what's with exposure and white balance?

Exposure set to make the white just under 245 (and in any case above 235)? That's for all charts?
For WB I use the Babel Color Target instead of the suggested patches on the targets.


EDIT: BTW why not set the curve to STANDARD and than always use STANDARD with the custom profiles?

[tho_mas]

Exposure set to make the white just under 245 (and in any case above 235)? That's for all charts?

that's good if the blacks are still within the histogram. In any case you should take care that you don't introduce any clipping in the histo... neither in the whites, not in the blacks.

For WB I use the Babel Color Target instead of the suggested patches on the targets.

yes, why not. Don't know the target you are using...

BTW why not set the curve to STANDARD and than always use STANDARD with the custom profiles?

the standard curves are contrast curves that are optimized to work in conjunction with Phase One's input profiles (which are based on Gamma 1..
You can give it a try but I would also make a profile based on the linear curve.

[Nino Loss]

that's good if the blacks are still within the histogram. In any case you should take care that you don't introduce any clipping in the histo... neither in the whites, not in the blacks.

I attached a C1 screen shot of a cc24 with "read outs" for evenness of illumination, as well as for the black and the white. Please do have a look and tell me your thoughts (also on other things you notice! Thanks!)

yes, why not. Don't know the target you are using...

I tried a lot of targets and was/am not happy with them (see this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47189.0). Till I heard of the BabelColor target. I have absolutely no connection to them (and to no other company etc. BTW). It's a piece of Teflon! The whitest white there is, and with no reflections! One of my best piece of equipment http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/White_Target.htm

the standard curves are contrast curves that are optimized to work in conjunction with Phase One's input profiles (which are based on Gamma 1..
You can give it a try but I would also make a profile based on the linear curve.

Very funny, your 1.EIGHT gamma became 1.8 (smiley). I started to read some meaning into it. When quoting I saw it you wrote Gamma 1.eight

[Nino Loss]

Here is what I got out of this file with PhaseOne's Capture One 6.0.1 everything zeroed (incl. sharpening, NR, ...):

- with basICColor input with "keep camera gray" and illuminant D55: crushed blacks, posterization, ...
- in Argyll with "colprof -qm -am" for a linear profile and "-u" to keep absolute color values: Argyll reports a peak error of 15.48, and an average of 8.22
- I also had an opportunity to access ProfieMaker with "General Purpose" Photo task (default settings): see yourself

It is not Jpeg at fault, no it's really that bad! What am I doing wrong? Please help me to understand!:

[tho_mas]

It is not Jpeg at fault, no it's really that bad! What am I doing wrong? Please help me to understand!:

honestly... I can't. It's a long time ago I played around with BC input. And back then I skiped the whole adventure as the outcome was not really usable for me. On the other hand it looked reasonable under the respective lighting conditions.
There are several settings and/or presets in the software you can try to gain better results. If I remember correctly I've selected Gamma 1.8 as target grey scale (i.e. not the non-linear grey scale of the camera).
The main issue is probably the gretag chart. The BC Dcam chart (and others possibly as well) has a much larger number of color patches; certain patches (especially whites, greys and blacks) are repeatedly distributed all over the chart. This is usefull as the software can compensate uneven lighting.
Sorry, but I really can't help you here...

[Nino Loss]

Thank you for trying!

Regarding evenness, I don't think that is the problem as you can see from the above attached readouts on the cc chart.

The lighting conditions are not absolutely the same you are right. When I just replace the target with my face than everything look really great ;-)



ICC profiles are not supposed to behave like that. Who could I ask? Where can one learn?

EDIT: PS maybe that's why everybody left ICC for Adobe's DNG

[tho_mas]

Who could I ask? Where can one learn?

I could name you some guys in Germany... but I don't think it makes sense ...?

[Nino Loss]

I could name you some guys in Germany... but I don't think it makes sense ...?

why not? language is not a barrier, I speak very well German and French

[tho_mas]

why not? language is not a barrier, I speak very well German and French

where are you located?

[Nino Loss]

where are you located?

in a very remote and small place. I'll tell you in a PM

[deejjjaaaa]

maybe that's why everybody left ICC for Adobe's DNG

do you know any normal raw converter outside of Adobe's LR/ACR that is using dcp profiles (not counting using embedded profiles when they can work w/ DNG raw files - native or converted) ? C1 ? Bibble ? SilkyPix ? LightZone ? DxO ? RPP ? Aperture ? Iridient Raw developer ? OEMs raw converters from Nikon or Canon or others ? none...

[Chris_Brown]

maybe that's why everybody left ICC for Adobe's DNG

I've made both ICC profiles and DNG camera profiles for my cameras. For ICC profiles I used ColorEyes Camera. Even with their documentation the process was ambiguous (and I've profiled printers, scanners and monitors), and their response time on their forum was poor. With the ACR/DCP process the online instructions were very clear and unambiguous. The Adobe forums and others (like this one) provided excellent help, too.

I'm waiting to see what X-Rite's i1 Photo Pro offers.