Skip to main content

Comments

150 comments

  • Allan Schweighardt

    X2D is a large part of my work and Adobe and DXO fully support it. As such, I won't be upgrading C1 until it is supported. 

    1
  • Franz Huber

    thank you for all your efforts, really hope we have a chance for c1 support.. a man just can dream 

    2
  • Bob Kaolan

    Can someone help me to understand why C1 supports Leica S and the Fujifim GFX cameras but not the Hasselblad X system ?!?!

    I am old enough to remember that there was a time they wouldn't support any MF camera in competition with the Phase One system but now things have changed, so what's the problem??

    Its incredibly frustrating too see how silent they keep despite the overwhelming request from the community!

    2
  • Erik V

    Thodoris Chorianopoulos Thank you for the update. This is a clear statement, and it's better than having to speculate endlessly. Maybe the avoided workload to incorporate Hasselblad's cameras can now be used to address another problem mentioned in several posts, namely the lack of performance on Apple silicon reported by several users. This is arguably a far bigger issue, as it affects people's decisions to hold off the switch from intel Macs to the new SoC platform – or, worse, a cause of frustration leading to abandoning C1 altogether.

    1
  • ettore.causa

    Thanks Theodoris.
    My main question is, why Capture one is intensionally not allowing any DNG files that belongs to Hasselblad to be imported in the catalog? (The only way to make it work is to erase the name Hasselblad from the DNG file)
    That is more than just lucking support!
    As a longtime CO user, I feel that is unacceptable.
    Thanks
    Ettore

    3
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    ettore,

    I would guess that DNG, considered to be a RAW file, cannot be supported since proper camera support as outlined in the post at the top of the thread, is not available. It may even be that Hasselblad would forbid such activity. Who knows?

    If one re-identifies the file and accepts that there is no specific profile for C1 to use, one accepts that it is up to the user to undertake all setup and editing work, including developing a profile for the file contents. C1 will have no responsibility for anything one may do and the user would have no expectation of support from C1 for that sort of file.

    The user might be OK with that. If not they would not modify the file contents (something else that C1 does  not generally support).

    But if any of the files became "supported" in any way, a responsibility to users will be created. Something that is probably best avoided without the usual full support agreements that we all expect.

     

     

    1
  • Ned Costello

    @SFA. The DNG format was designed by Adobe to be a universal cross platform format. The work on DNG conversion is done by Adobe's software. C1 has not offered any convincing reason why C1 blocks DNGs from Hasselblad cameras.

    2
  • GJT_West

    I think Ned Costello makes a good point. The official statement put out by CaptureOne on this subject, is not very clear on why they don’t support DNG’s. Or the simple management of files via the catalog feature. I don’t need CaptureOne to edit my X2D files, but I would appreciate being able to catalog and sort by metadata and there is nothing about an X2D file stopping CaptureOne doing that.

    I def. feel this has more to do with trying to force people to adopt PhaseOne products, like the new XC. Which I imagine is designed to be a competitor to the X2D for some people.  

    1
  • Michael Morris

    GJT West, and others make excellent points.

    Oddly I have DxO which can see and edit the Hasselblad X2D files. Adobe Bridge, etc. too There are obviously others so given the clear genius of the C1 team it's not a technical issue.

    C1 is an outlier here and it seems bullheaded corporate speak rather than operational prudence. And what I might expect from PhaseOne rather than an apparently independent company.

    I value my Phase One equipment (XF/XT with IQ3/IQ4 and 6 lenses), along with the Hasselblad X2D, and the Leica M11 / M11 Monochrome. Why C1 cripples itself for apparent deference to Phase One's competitor position to Hasselblad is beyond me. 

    This is not market driven; all the amazing work of David Glover and others to help us maximise our appreciation of C1 is undercut by this corporate mentality. A pity of playground masculinity written large.

     

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Ned Costello,

    DNG is a concept for a file format. 

    A file that contains data.

    In terms of processing the file when the datastorage is used for an image file the format is not so important. The data is. 

    The data content is the IP of the company creating the data. To understand it, it is necessary to either use a common format that is made publically available or to have the information that allows it to be interpreted.

    It is the requirement to be able to understand the data and, potentially, the permission to use that understanding effectively, that matters in a RAW processing scenario. Not just the format of the file. Sure, one might be able to produce something that looks like a photo but that's not the same as the ability to process a quality image. The sort of image that the user of an expensive camera system might expect from any any softeware application that appear to support camera.

    Adobe generously made the PDF file format available as a free and widely adopted option. At one point in it life it became widely adopted by all sorts of applications on all sorts of computer systems as a "simple" way to make controlled, standard, not to be messed with, print files that could be shared across operating systems, printed consistently, an so on. A great idea.

    However, if one wished to have a "standard" means of access the PDF files and extracting the data to make them of even greater value things were not so easy. The "standards" required to create the file's internal structure were often ignored by third party PDF creation programs and results were unpredictable. 

    In some periods of development it was even possible to find "bad" files generated by Adobe software in office environments. 

    I used some business software back then where the developers decided to support the PDF file concept for both output and reading the file to extract data from them.  They already extracted data from many other file formats and figured it would take about 3 days of initial coding and maybe 2 weeks of testing to get a result.

    Some months of effort later they released the functionality and were swamped by problem reports form customer who had PDF files created by various "print" applications where the files looked mostly OK but the internal structure was a long way out of specification. 

    They spent about 3 years battling that problem and came to realise that several other groups of developers were seeing the same problems and facing the same battles. Ultimately they decided that doing their own development was not the best use of their resources and partnered with an independent developer team that was entirely focused on PDF file related software that was at the same level as their own (or better) and changed the internal processing engine to the third party product, letting the independent team keep up with the regular updates required to support PDF files as added functionality was delivered.

    DNG files are not, as far as I am aware, in quite the same "wild west" phase  as PDF files were at one point. It's not quite the same concept of universality, though no doubt Adobe would be happy if wider adoption was to happen.

    But the point about the data content of the files being the important factor, not just the notional structure of the format holds true for DNG files, just as it does for manufacturer RAW files.

    Beyond that consideration comes the small matter of tethering. Another situation where knowing how the camera works and what values are used is important.

    Perhaps that could be ignored for Hasselblads? Do any Hasselblad owners shoot tethered?

    They do? Hmm. 

    What could be done about that?

    1
  • ettore.causa

    Lets clarify a few points:

    For many years Capture One wouldn't support any other MF camera that wasn't Phase One, that included Fujifilm GFX, Hasselblad H and Leica S.

    I am not talking just about not "supporting" those models but doing their best to block their users from to do it!  Basically even if you converted the files in to he standard DNG format, the software wouldn't  allow to import the files, the only work around was to slightly change the metadata (maker name) of the DNG. for ex: "Hasselbla" without the "n" or "Fujifilm_" adding the "_" .....doing that, tricked the program, and one could import and read the files with the standard capture one DNG color rendering profile (obviously without the Lens correction and the color calibration done by Capture one for each specific camera)

    From September 2017 things started changing, CO started officially to support the GFX series and slowly support for the MF Pentax and Leica was added.

    Unfortunately the Hasselblad cameras are the only one not supported but worst that is that they still continue to filter the DNGs!!!!

    I have been using Capture One for more then a decade and I feel that CO own to do better, at list allow the program to import the DNG files from a Hasselblad camera without the hack!

     

    Thanks for listening.

    1
  • Ned Costello

    @sfa - I'm not sure what PDF's have to do with DNGs. However, in respect of the latter, C1 will open DNG's provided one can edit the metadata to convince C1 that the DNG does not originate from a Hasselblad camera. So C1 is fine processing DNGs provided it thinks they are not Hasselblad DNGs.

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    ettore,

    Your observations in the first paragraph of your last post are of course correct. However, things changed when a clear business relationship was formed with Fuji a few years ago and more recently something similar seems to have happened with Leica.

    Sadly, as confirmed by the second post at the top of this thread, there seems to be no such arrangement to be made at this time with Hasselblad. It seems that, despite Phase One and Capture One being split into different companies, and all three companies having different owners than were in place some years ago when issues seemed to start, nothing changes, 

    Have you asked Hasselblad recently about their wishes for their customers to have access to Capture One? 

    What other cameras does Phocus support?

    1
  • Ned Costello

    @SFA regarding Phocus other camera support - there is one "minor" difference between Phocus and C1 - Phocus is free. Which, for the avoidance of doubt, rather negates any requirement or imperative for it to support non Hasselblad cameras.

    1
  • Dalton Lim

    What a sad and disappoint day. Logged in to see if there are any updates only to see an official reply by the moderator to attach a statement by ceo.

    Hassy recently started a technical feedback chat via fb messenger. Through it , it was mentioned that hasselblad is open for it to be supported by C1. Looks like the real problem here lies with C1. As mentioned above they have for the longest time blocked all other manufacturers. Not sure why are they so worried. Users buying phase 1 and x2d are generally different target audience. While i would agree it overlaps a bit but it should not be such a big concern. Blocking hasselblad is not gonna make me buy a phase one camera.

    1
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Ned,

    The point about PDFs and DNGs is that they are both file formats in which data is stored in a certain fashion an both are the products of Adobe. Note also that TIFF standards and any development that may occur is also, as I understand, in the care of Adobe.

    DNG file are just data silos. If people writing software to create them are completely  following the specifications they will be reliable places to store data and share between applications. If the rules are not completely follows, as in the case of PDF observations, things can become a mess very quickly.

    The Silo is not the important factor. The data in the Silo is. Especially for "RAW" data. 

     

    My PDF example was related to the content being there and, in certain circumstances, producing on screen and even in print, the document as it was supposed to look. But many reader programs could fail to do that with many files if the "standards" had not been accurately applied or, worse some undocumented standards had been accepted at some point and had the been replicated in report output creation code applets from many report writer tools built into many applications. Faulty interpretations were common enough to be a serious problem for users.

    DNGs should be simpler than PDFs but the potential for mishandling is still there and in any case they are still just holders of RAW data from a RAW editor point of view. File file structure box is not important. The contents are, including knowledge about how to best use the contents. Which comes from the content creator's shared technical information and their offer a right to use it.

    JPGs and other fully processed formats are a different story.

    When C1 processes DNG file as produced for a supported camera it expects to find RAW data that can be used and adjusted to produce a refined, usable image based on a full knowledge of what the data values are and how they can best be used. This will have been assessed with full knowledge of the data contents and the development of a profile for that data.

    Any non-identified DNG file are given a generic profile that usually produce a visible image but with no dedicated interpretation for the particular device that created the data. I have this with RAW files from my phone. I get a file I can see and edit - but all of the editing adjustments are up to me. If it was important to me  (My phone images are not images I expect to do more than make a record of something) I would need to spoend some time generating some profiles to improve the colour balance and general rendition.

    For a phone that's acceptable. If I had spent a considerable amount of money on a high-end camera it would not be acceptable to me. I would always feel that my efforts probably did not get the best possible results from the camera.

    I would use an application that supported the camera  - or not buy the camera.

    That C1 can read the contents of the file and produce an image is not the same as it being able to read the contents and produce an especially fine interpretation of the data to present as an image. But if you are happy that you can produce a profile that satisfies your needs and any other body-specific image refining data that might be useful can be ignored, then thats fine for you.

    I doubt that most Hassleblad owners would settle for that. And I suspect that lack of full tethering would rankle as well. And then there would be lenses to support, and so on.

    If it is not possible to offer a full service for a camera at the level it may be best to make it clear that there is no service at all. Which is what has happened now for several years. 

    Since it seems unlikely that things are going to change imminently, based on the C1 post at the top of this thread, maybe it's time for Hasselblad owners to get a statement from Hasselblad that describes their current corporate position. I think it must be around 2 years since I last saw anything. But I don't seek to follow the executive-level details of the apparent impasse.

    I do find quite interesting the efforts of owners, both long-term and new owners, to get some movement on the subject. 

    Kudos for the persistence but I think you may need to look elsewhere to make progress or maybe wait a few more years for the next twists and turns in the development of the world of photography to have their effects then see if the landscape looks different. 

    1
  • Ned Costello

    @SFA, Thanks for your lengthy reply about DNGs. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning in detail. Personally, I'd be quite happy to take an unreconstructed DNG and work in it in C1. HOWEVER!! To be clear, the request for DNG support is based on a Hobson's choice between being able to work on Hasselblad- sourced files in C1 and not being able to do that at all. Full support for Hasselblad's RAW files is what we should be getting. Most of my work is with Fujifilm GFX's and it is utterly frustrating not to be able to use the same editing software for my X2D files. I'm putting a moratorium on purchasing any C1 upgrades until DNG support, at a minimum, is provided.

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Ned Costello

    Phocus might be free but so is C1 for Phase users (limited to phase cameras and backs).

    Until recently there used to be a free Express version of C1 open to all but it seems that is now only available under the terms of the Fuji business arrangement.

    My historic understanding is that it got to a point where the underlying technology would need to be shared between the companies and neither thought sharing their IP with an obvious direct competitor in the early days of digital imaging was a good idea.

    I cannot imagine that C1 would be able to get away with providing partial support without Hasselblad users filling the forums to explain how stupid such a decision would be. That would probably extend to supporting DNG files without being able to use any embedded RAW settings. 

    You see it as a convenience that you would be happy to live with in terms of limitations. 

    I doubt the majority of Hassleblad users would share your appreciation. 

    Then there is the question about whether, legally, they could open up the files to users without transgressing some sort of legal constraint.

     

    Dalton Lim posted above that he saw something where a Hassleblad representative suggested they were open to working with C1 now. However, the official statement at the top of this thread seems to suggest that, for some reason, this is still not likely to happen.

    Both sides (as is always the case these days in such exchanges) seem to be suggesting that the other side may be the cause of the lack of movement in a direction that would satisfy users.

    C1, as a stand-alone company separate from the Phase operation, would seem to have no obvious strategic reason for not wishing to work with Hasselblad files so there must be some other reason.

    Maybe Hasselblad users could discover from Hasselblad what they see as the problem with a view to coming up with a strategy to get the 2 parties talking again.

    I don't feel I can justify affording either manufacturer's cameras and lenses so it's not a cause close to my heart but others may want to pick it up try to move things forward. But I hope others will find an effective solution.

    1
  • Alan Brandt

    I didn't upgrade this year due in large part to lack of Hasselblad support.

    3
  • harold barker

    Same here, I see no reason to upgrade when 16.2 works just fine for my no Hasselblad equipment and I can use it for as long as I want.  This is why I did not jump on the subscription bandwagon.  The price I paid was fair and it is mine, well sort of.

    2
  • Allan Schweighardt

    I'm done with upgrades unless there is support for Hasselblad. 

    3
  • Bob Kaolan

    I am with you!!
    I am so tired of this charades 🤬

    1
  • FirstName LastName

    The upgrade price for the "current" version is a joke. And for what? AI mask selection, which Adobe did ages ago and can select better either.

    I've paid USD 199 for Capture One 22 with free upgrade to 23. And now the upgrade cost almost the same? In your dreams.

    1
  • Ned Costello

    C1 Has pretty much structured it's pricing so that a major version upgrade costs the same as paying for 12 months of rolling upgrades.

    I think one would certainly need full cross platform support to be putting up with that!!

     

    1
  • Vincent Toussaint

    Same thing here. I just cancel my subscription.

    1
  • FirstName LastName

    I have let my subscription lapse and am going over to photoshop/lightroom as a result of this....silly, petty move.   I get it....but at some point the important thing to do is be open....the X2D is an amazing, achievable camera. The Phase Ones are amazing but not achievable. It is that simple. That is not likely to change...so it is just leaving money on the table from my perspective.   Now if Phase one did a cost benefit camera under 8k dollars that used achievable lenses.....until then, the "bad guy" here is Phase One. 

    1
  • Ken Bowen

    Please look beyond past differences and create what would obviously be a FANTASTIC pairing.

    1
  • Dalton Lim

    Have started to accepted the fact that c1 will never support hasselblad file so i've officially migrate all my post processing into LR. Wont be renewing my subscription once it ends. Pricing of subscription for C1 is nearly double of LR and doesn't support hasselblad files. Just not practical to keep C1 active just for my Leica files. While C1 icc profiles for the Leica files look better than in LR it is not day and night to make it worth keeping. So LR will be the one software to rule them all for me. Thankfully hasselblad's embedded icc profile is really good as it is that there isn't anything to complain about. While I will be slightly losing out in terms colours LR's AI tools are on a way better than C1's current implementations. Goodbye C1.

    0
  • Walter Rowe
    Moderator
    Top Commenter

    For Capture One to support a given camera platform I imagine they have to establish a relationship that grants them access to the proprietary sensor technology information so they can craft the raw processing engine to get the best quality out of their images and to be able to integrate tethering at the level we have come to expect from Capture One.

    Capture One once was part of PhaseOne. There was a lot of rivalry between Hasselblad and PhaseOne. Even with Capture One being a separate company now you can imagine that it could take a long time for them to establish any kind of trusting relationship with Hasselblad. PhaseOne and Capture One are owned by the same private equity company. There may still be a lack of trust by Hasselblad to come to the table and open up their proprietary technology to enable Capture One to support their cameras.

    I would not assume that lack of support for Hasselblad is due to Capture One's lack of interest. It could very well be that Hasselblad is not willing to participate.

    0
  • Ned Costello

    @ Walter Rowe - Phase One competes with all kinds of camera manufacturers for high resolution business in the 45-100mp range. Arguably, Fujfilm's GFX 100 cameras are a closer competitor to Phase One than Hasselblad as the GFX system is far more extensive than Hasselblad's and it hasn't stopped C1 from supporting the GFX. If the issue is lack of cooperation from Hasselblad, then C One should just come out and say that. It may be the case and if so then C1 should make the position clear. But even if that is the case, then the should remove the internal flag that stops C1 reading DNGs sourced from Hasselblad RAWs.

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.