Skip to main content

What is the truth about Phase One camera profiling?

Comments

60 comments

  • dee jjjaaaa
    here we go again - use free or cheap software by A.Torger along with instructions how to create profiles specifically for C1

    ---

    free command line dcamprof:

    http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html
    http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photogra ... iling.html

    commercial (not expensive vs BasiCColor) LrPD

    http://www.lumariver.com/#LumariverPD
    http://www.lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/

    megathread @ LuLa = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/ind ... pic=100015
    new thread about LrPD = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/ind ... pic=118075

    and my raw cgats files for A7R2 that will allow you avoid shooting targets while creating profiles using either dcamprof or LrPD at all - download for CC24 target from the following post = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/ind ... #msg980902
    and the next post has for CCSG target

    for C1 you need files for D50 illuminant, for DCP (ACR/LR) = StdA and D65
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    And it does indeed appear, that the two Sony A7RII profiles, "generic" and "standard", are exact copies of the Sony A7R profiles "generic" and "standard", because switching between these profiles does not change look, color or tonality one slightest bit.


    you need to compare compare data inside .icc/.icm containers to be sure ... for example A2B0 tags in profiles for both cameras
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    here we go again - use free or cheap software by A.Torger along with instructions how to create profiles specifically for C1

    ---

    free command line dcamprof:

    http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html
    http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photogra ... iling.html

    commercial (not expensive vs BasiCColor) LrPD

    http://www.lumariver.com/#LumariverPD
    http://www.lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/

    megathread @ LuLa = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/ind ... pic=100015
    new thread about LrPD = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/ind ... pic=118075

    and my raw cgats files for A7R2 that will allow you avoid shooting targets while creating profiles using either dcamprof or LrPD at all - download for CC24 target from the following post = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/ind ... #msg980902
    and the next post has for CCSG target

    for C1 you need files for D50 illuminant, for DCP (ACR/LR) = StdA and D65


    Thanks,
    Here we go again indeed! I'm starting to doubt this 'each camera is profiled individually' mantra more and more and with the A7rII it is not just about the colors. When I switched two months ago from the A7r, and started editing in CO1, I felt I had gone from a camera with wide DR and excellent tonality, to a camera struggling to not crush the blacks and hopelessly overbrighten the highlights, and with almost compact camera like tonality in high contrast scenes.
    It was only after taking a very good look in camera raw adobe photoshop, that I realized that this is not due to the camera (which would be shocking for a 3000,- high end camera): tonality as well as colors as well as overall look are quite a bit better in Photoshop, especially with the bundled 'standard' and 'neutral' profiles.
    So why is this when the A7r looked very good in CO1?
    Having gone through this before with the Pentax K3, I felt something similar might be going on here, and yes: the profiles have been copied over, look is 100% identical.
    And the Sony A7rII has been out for what? 2,5 years now?
    I will be switching to Adobe lightroom for now because it makes the A7rII look like a high end camera instead of a step back from the A7r, but if I can get my head around dcam prof, I will try your suggestion.
    It is not just the colors never really looking right, it is also the tonality and simply the 'look'.
    As I said, it was exactly the same with the Pentax K3: it just did not look right. When Phase one released a proper profile later on, it was a world of difference, and not just colorimetric or whatever. The camera literally came to life, wheras it looked lifeless and wonky with the initial copied over K5 profile.
    I can understand that there are a lot of cameras to profile, but when they are not properly profiled, I find I spend (waste) a lot of time trying to get the images to look right.

    Chris
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    And it does indeed appear, that the two Sony A7RII profiles, "generic" and "standard", are exact copies of the Sony A7R profiles "generic" and "standard", because switching between these profiles does not change look, color or tonality one slightest bit.


    you need to compare compare data inside .icc/.icm containers to be sure ... for example A2B0 tags in profiles for both cameras

    If the Sony A7RII had been individually profiled per the Phase one routine, what would the chance be that both A7R and A7RII profiles ('standard' as well as 'generic") would look 100% identical on a calibrated wide gamut Eizo display with all colors and regarding tonality as well? I would assume that the chance would be zero, would you not agree?

    Chris
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    And it does indeed appear, that the two Sony A7RII profiles, "generic" and "standard", are exact copies of the Sony A7R profiles "generic" and "standard", because switching between these profiles does not change look, color or tonality one slightest bit.


    you need to compare compare data inside .icc/.icm containers to be sure ... for example A2B0 tags in profiles for both cameras

    If the Sony A7RII had been individually profiled per the Phase one routine, what would the chance be that both A7R and A7RII profiles ('standard' as well as 'generic") would look 100% identical on a calibrated wide gamut Eizo display with all colors and regarding tonality as well? I would assume that the chance would be zero, would you not agree?

    And why 'd Sony use a very noticeably different CFA for their high mp cameras ? and camera profiles created using the same approach shall further minimize differences in any case, even the adjustments to LUTs that P1 people do (for example for skin tones) shall be similar... if P1 people did not shoot targets for Sony A7R2 why they bother to modify LUTs to make it (A2B0) different from A7R ? to hide the fact ? too much conspiracy theories... gladly no Russian hackers yet.
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    It was only after taking a very good look in camera raw adobe photoshop

    tastes differ... typically people who do not like C1 "default" (with settings as when C1 is installed) look with their profiles start with using "linear" curve in C1 UI - but one might assume you well aware about that for a long time... I have no big issues with canned profiles in C1 once no "film" curve used, even if I am using my own just because I subjectively prefer to do so...
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    It was only after taking a very good look in camera raw adobe photoshop

    tastes differ... typically people who do not like C1 "default" (with settings as when C1 is installed) look with their profiles start with using "linear" curve in C1 UI - but one might assume you well aware about that for a long time... I have no big issues with canned profiles in C1 once no "film" curve used, even if I am using my own just because I subjectively prefer to do so...



    If the Sony A7RII had been individually profiled per the Phase one routine, what would the chance be that both A7R and A7RII profiles ('standard' as well as 'generic") would look 100% identical on a calibrated wide gamut Eizo display with all colors and regarding tonality as well? I would assume that the chance would be zero, would you not agree?
    Zooming in 100% on various colors, and not seeing the slightest shift in color or tonality when switching between the A7RII profile and the A7R profile with an A7RII image?
    I don't believe it would ever be possible to calibrate two different cameras independantly and get two 100% matching profiles, that is out of the question. Moreover, try the A7 or A7s or A7II profiles, and there are very obvious shifts all around.
    Even if Sony used the same sensor stack, wcich I very much doubt as they stated using different new coatings on the the A7RII sensor, then still this sensor uses radically different (BSI) technology. Now you may be fine with the custom profiles you make, but honestly, I cannot see how especially landscape shooters can use the A7RII with satisfaction in CO1, the problems with high contrast scenes are almost impossible to overcome. As I said, as first I felt like stepping back regarding DR, and much more than the .2 ev that DXO gives less to the A7RII vs the A7R.
    Anyway, it is eventually about getting good results with your camera, and although I was able to get good results with the A7R, after two months I am still struggling to get decent images from the A7RII in CO1, as said especially in high contrast scenes I run into clipped shadows and overbright skies very early. And overall tonality looks, well, like a compact camera in harsh lighting.

    Chris
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    If the Sony A7RII had been individually profiled per the Phase one routine, what would the chance be that both A7R and A7RII profiles ('standard' as well as 'generic") would look 100% identical on a calibrated wide gamut Eizo display with all colors and regarding tonality as well?


    any evaluation shall be done not by eyes but by numbers ... again - LUTs inside profiles are different... so either P1 spent time taking shots of targets and actually profiling (the amount of effort of course might be more or less) and applying their modifications to create their signature "look" or P1 spent time modifying LUTs created for A7R to hide the fact that no shots were taken... with some Pentax dSLR models (and probably some other cameras) indeed P1 released initially the support by reusing the profiles, but LUTs were identical inside... this is not the case with A7R vs A7R2... if you believe that P1 decided to obfuscate then it is your right... if you don't like OEM profiles - create your own.

    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    two 100% matching profiles



    they are not - see the image (left A7R generic profile, right A7R2 generic profile, same raw for A7R2 camera - all other parameters for both variants are identical... visually they are match, but numbers wise the rendering is different... means CFA are close enough and profiling was good - consistent lens, illumination, targets, etc were used.. good protocol... or if you prefer conspiracy - P1 put some effort to mod LUTs just a little to avoid detection by comparing the content of the profile where they reused LUTs from A7R vs the source profile from A7R) = https://s26.postimg.org/7jyhjoprb/image.jpg


    https://s26.postimg.org/b3kf9hsh1/image.jpg
    0
  • SFA
    Chris,

    Which Curves are you comparing in the Base Characteristics?


    Grant
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Chris,

    Which Curves are you comparing in the Base Characteristics?


    Grant


    does not matter - for as long as they are identical in UI and as .fcrv files (and UI settings are not set to "auto") and only profiles are changed (because P1 can encode which curve to use in profile itself - hence, not "auto" - this is rather impossible though for dSLRs... typically you have this stuff if using repro profiles for C1 CH edition) ...
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Chris,

    Which Curves are you comparing in the Base Characteristics?


    Grant


    does not matter - for as long as they are identical in UI and as .fcrv files (and UI settings are not set to "auto") and only profiles are changed (because P1 can encode which curve to use in profile itself - hence, not "auto" - this is rather impossible though for dSLRs... typically you have this stuff if using repro profiles for C1 CH edition) ...



    Unless you have Linear set and so bypass the curves.
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    If the Sony A7RII had been individually profiled per the Phase one routine, what would the chance be that both A7R and A7RII profiles ('standard' as well as 'generic") would look 100% identical on a calibrated wide gamut Eizo display with all colors and regarding tonality as well?


    any evaluation shall be done not by eyes but by numbers ... again - LUTs inside profiles are different... so either P1 spent time taking shots of targets and actually profiling (the amount of effort of course might be more or less) and applying their modifications to create their signature "look" or P1 spent time modifying LUTs created for A7R to hide the fact that no shots were taken... with some Pentax dSLR models (and probably some other cameras) indeed P1 released initially the support by reusing the profiles, but LUTs were identical inside... this is not the case with A7R vs A7R2... if you believe that P1 decided to obfuscate then it is your right... if you don't like OEM profiles - create your own.

    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    two 100% matching profiles



    they are not - see the image (left A7R generic profile, right A7R2 generic profile, same raw for A7R2 camera - all other parameters for both variants are identical... visually they are match, but numbers wise the rendering is different... means CFA are close enough and profiling was good - consistent lens, illumination, targets, etc were used.. good protocol... or if you prefer conspiracy - P1 put some effort to mod LUTs just a little to avoid detection by comparing the content of the profile where they reused LUTs from A7R vs the source profile from A7R) = https://s26.postimg.org/7jyhjoprb/image.jpg


    https://s26.postimg.org/b3kf9hsh1/image.jpg


    Ok, thank you. Then we should assumre that the he A7RII was individually profiled and has a striking resemblance to the A7R. Ãnd that the tonality of the A7RII does not do well somehow in the CO1 implementation. Which has me looking at other options

    Chris
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Chris,

    Which Curves are you comparing in the Base Characteristics?


    Grant

    Hi Grant,
    Linear does best. Auto is near unuseable in high contrast scenes.

    Chris
    0
  • SFA
    Chris, does this apply to both the Standard option and the Generic option?

    As far as I am aware for most dSLR cameras in most situations the "Auto" curve selection is almost always "Film Standard" unless you have preset a different default.

    If you use Linear there is no "Film Curve" applied, just the numbers that come from the file (more or less).

    I would not really expect to see highly visible differences from camera to camera for relatively modern dslrs all using cmos sensors. Much of the difference might be around dynamic range extending processing rather than basic colour interpretation at the un-tweaked RAW level (i.e. Linear).

    Out of interest I picked a recently shot Canon 600D image (using a manual wide angle lens so not needing fancy focus features, etc., hence the body) and set up variants of it with the two Sony Profiles applied. Even viewed at 100% I could not observe any obvious changes from one variant to the next with the curve set to Linear. Using "Film Standard" there were still hardly any differences for this particular image. It may not have been full representative of the sort of image where subtlety is important.

    I think it is reasonable to expect that the camera manufacturers, whilst keen to drive sales by making claims for advances in image quality, are unlikely to want to annoy multi-body owners by making the regular "cooking" images (not the fancy new concept stuff) significantly different as revised models are released.

    However, I'm not a manufacturer so I don't really know if that is the case. Probably best to ask them - or see what happens with the manufacturer profile ("Standard" if I remember correctly) when you compare.

    You may need to compare images from both bodies using both profiles?


    Grant
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Chris,

    Which Curves are you comparing in the Base Characteristics?


    Grant


    does not matter - for as long as they are identical in UI and as .fcrv files (and UI settings are not set to "auto") and only profiles are changed (because P1 can encode which curve to use in profile itself - hence, not "auto" - this is rather impossible though for dSLRs... typically you have this stuff if using repro profiles for C1 CH edition) ...



    Unless you have Linear set and so bypass the curves.


    "linear" is a curve, so is "film, "linear scientific" or whatever other .fcrv files you have for the camera - it does not bypass anything ... "auto" makes curve selection depend on what is (or not) in the camera profile file - so if you want to make sure that rogue profile does not set unexpected curve you select one in UI... whatever it is for a long as it is not auto...
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    Ok, thank you. Then we should assumre that the he A7RII was individually profiled and has a striking resemblance to the A7R.


    probably ... but somebody welcome to prove otherwise
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Chris, does this apply to both the Standard option and the Generic option?

    As far as I am aware for most dSLR cameras in most situations the "Auto" curve selection is almost always "Film Standard" unless you have preset a different default.


    "Auto" takes curve name from camera profile if there is a special tag ("P1FC") in it with that name ...
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    If you use Linear there is no "Film Curve" applied, just the numbers that come from the file (more or less).


    again - "linear" is the curve just like "film curve" or others, not even totally linear actually as executed by C1 code
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    I would not really expect to see highly visible differences from camera to camera for relatively modern dslrs

    you might want to apply profile for, for examole, Canon 5DIV to A7R2 raw file and you shall see the difference on CC24 with w/o using color picker, visually - between A7R2 generic and Canon 5DIV generic on the same raw file ...
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    I would not really expect to see highly visible differences from camera to camera for relatively modern dslrs

    you might want to apply profile for, for examole, Canon 5DIV to A7R2 raw file and you shall see the difference on CC24 with w/o using color picker, visually - between A7R2 generic and Canon 5DIV generic on the same raw file ...


    Possibly so and there are indeed certain differences with certain combinations including for Linear (though for different reasons as I understand things) but that does not necessarily mean there will always be very obvious differences for all files, especially for cameras of the same "model" family from the same manufacturer. Yes there are likely to be differences but they may not be very obvious and may even be in very specific areas of, for example, colour response.
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    Possibly so

    Really so - I tried before posting
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Chris, does this apply to both the Standard option and the Generic option?

    As far as I am aware for most dSLR cameras in most situations the "Auto" curve selection is almost always "Film Standard" unless you have preset a different default.

    If you use Linear there is no "Film Curve" applied, just the numbers that come from the file (more or less).

    I would not really expect to see highly visible differences from camera to camera for relatively modern dslrs all using cmos sensors. Much of the difference might be around dynamic range extending processing rather than basic colour interpretation at the un-tweaked RAW level (i.e. Linear).

    Out of interest I picked a recently shot Canon 600D image (using a manual wide angle lens so not needing fancy focus features, etc., hence the body) and set up variants of it with the two Sony Profiles applied. Even viewed at 100% I could not observe any obvious changes from one variant to the next with the curve set to Linear. Using "Film Standard" there were still hardly any differences for this particular image. It may not have been full representative of the sort of image where subtlety is important.

    I think it is reasonable to expect that the camera manufacturers, whilst keen to drive sales by making claims for advances in image quality, are unlikely to want to annoy multi-body owners by making the regular "cooking" images (not the fancy new concept stuff) significantly different as revised models are released.

    However, I'm not a manufacturer so I don't really know if that is the case. Probably best to ask them - or see what happens with the manufacturer profile ("Standard" if I remember correctly) when you compare.

    You may need to compare images from both bodies using both profiles?


    Grant

    I meant to say: film standard.
    Now, there is no reason to doubt profiling of a camera if the images look "right". To me that is not the case with the Sony A7RII: especially I am having issues with dynamic range and tonality in brighter parts of the images, as well as clipped blacks that have little detail and are hard to get back decently.
    Overall look in outdoor images with medium to high contrast is not sound i.m.o.

    Chris
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    To illustrate my issues with the CO1 Sony A7RII profiling, I embed two screenshots. One showing default rendering in CO1. the other showing a default conversion to tiff in Sony's own Image Data Converter (all "extra" settings off, so no DRO optimization etc.).
    The (first) screenshot in CO1 shows clearly how shadows are crushed and highlights already clipping while the image is still .3-.4 ev underexposed, while the (second) Sony image shows shadows that are too dark but not crushed, and also shows that there is still quite a bit of highlight headroom.
    I used the Sony A7R for three years, so I know what to expect, and I never experienced such a severe tonal compression in CO1 even at default settings. Something is not right with the A7RII profiling, and the fact that the Sony A7R and (visually) identical A7RII profiles fit the Sony A7R perfectly, but make a bit of a mess with the A7RII, heavily compressing its tonal dynamic range, makes me wonder if the Sony A7RII was actually properly profiled.

    The fact that the A7R and A7RII profile are not only colorwise but also tonality wise identical, seems to fail to deal with the fact that the Sony A7RII sensor has a new and different technology (BSI) that may very well greatly alter its tonal response. This last bit is purely speculative on my part, but as CO1 uses part of the tonal contrast curve embedded in its camera profiles, makes me guess that it is in the profile itself, that the tonal range of the Sony A7RII images is crushed. Officially, it has only .2 ev less DR than the A7R, and the images in Photoshop and Sony IDC seem to indicate just that, but working within CO1 makes me feel I have compact camera tonality, to put it bluntly.
    I am much surprised that nobody before me raised this issue, as the Sony A7RII is much used as a landscape outdoor camera, although mostly with Lightroom, and I feel a bit foolish bringing up profile problems of a camera already 2,5 years old.

    The only workaround is using "linear" as a starting profile, and almost no curve is needed to get back proper contrast, again indicating that the .icc profile already adds far too much contrast. The results are ok'ish, but not at all at the level of the A7R rendering, and again I feel strongly that CO1 fails utterly to get the best possible out of a camera by neglecting its level of profiling.

    Chris

    http://www.abnovembris.nl/Knipsel%20CO1%20raw.JPG

    http://www.abnovembris.nl/Knipsel%20Sony%20tiff.JPG
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    Something is not right with the A7RII profiling


    1) just do not use "film standard" or similar curves, that's it... I bet using "linear" curve will cure your troubles... with the same OEM profiles ... I never had any issues with A7R2 raws with C1 and I own A7R2 since it was released... but I never ever use ""film standard" curve ... not for OEM profiles not for my own profiles

    2) share the raw file


    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    The fact that the A7R and A7RII profile are not only colorwise but also tonality wise identical, seems to fail to deal with the fact that the Sony A7RII sensor has a new and different technology (BSI) that may very well greatly alter its tonal response.


    BSI or FSI has nothing to do with "tonal response" of the sensor... it is still the same silicone and what lays on top of silicone (CFA, IR/UV cut filters)... if you want to argue your point go to https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1061 and ask people like E.Fossum ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Fossum ) ...

    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    This last bit is purely speculative on my part, but as CO1 uses part of the tonal contrast curve embedded in its camera profiles, makes me guess that it is in the profile itself, that the tonal range of the Sony A7RII images is crushed.


    you did not provide the same scene shot with 2 different cameras to support your case 🙄 ... get may be 2 raws from Imaging Resource from A7R and A7R2 and illustrate the point with the ~same scene shot with the ~same exposure (exposure time and aperture) ? show how A7R2 has crushed something while A7R does not - they you have a case for P1 to take a look @ ...

    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    The only workaround is using "linear" as a starting profile, and almost no curve is needed to get back proper contrast, again indicating that the .icc profile already adds far too much contrast.


    it is well known about OEM profiles from P1 and this is what P1 does - they think that a lot of contrast is a good thing... hence "film standard" being default/auto setting with fresh C1 installation... the cure is simple - make "linear" curve your default setting to work from this basis to increase contrast
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    To me that is not the case with the Sony A7RII: especially I am having issues with dynamic range and tonality in brighter parts of the images, as well as clipped blacks that have little detail and are hard to get back decently.
    Overall look in outdoor images with medium to high contrast is not sound i.m.o.


    it seems that we already established that your issues are from using "film standard" with OEM profiles and scenes where there is a good deal of contrast by itself (bright sunny day and shadows shielded from any light in the same frame) ... so just don't use that curve.
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    Something is not right with the A7RII profiling


    1) just do not use "film standard" or similar curves, that's it... I bet using "linear" curve will cure your troubles... with the same OEM profiles ... I never had any issues with A7R2 raws with C1 and I own A7R2 since it was released... but I never ever use ""film standard" curve ... not for OEM profiles not for my own profiles

    2) share the raw file


    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    The fact that the A7R and A7RII profile are not only colorwise but also tonality wise identical, seems to fail to deal with the fact that the Sony A7RII sensor has a new and different technology (BSI) that may very well greatly alter its tonal response.


    BSI or FSI has nothing to do with "tonal response" of the sensor... it is still the same silicone and what lays on top of silicone (CFA, IR/UV cut filters)... if you want to argue your point go to https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1061 and ask people like E.Fossum ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Fossum ) ...

    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    This last bit is purely speculative on my part, but as CO1 uses part of the tonal contrast curve embedded in its camera profiles, makes me guess that it is in the profile itself, that the tonal range of the Sony A7RII images is crushed.


    you did not provide the same scene shot with 2 different cameras to support your case 🙄 ... get may be 2 raws from Imaging Resource from A7R and A7R2 and illustrate the point with the ~same scene shot with the ~same exposure (exposure time and aperture) ? show how A7R2 has crushed something while A7R does not - they you have a case for P1 to take a look @ ...

    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    The only workaround is using "linear" as a starting profile, and almost no curve is needed to get back proper contrast, again indicating that the .icc profile already adds far too much contrast.


    it is well known about OEM profiles from P1 and this is what P1 does - they think that a lot of contrast is a good thing... hence "film standard" being default/auto setting with fresh C1 installation... the cure is simple - make "linear" curve your default setting to work from this basis to increase contrast


    Ok. let's forget about FSI or BSI, it only confuses things.
    In fact, I háve been using linear response exclusively since owning the A7RII (two months). And it does not cure my troubles, but it eases the pain!
    The thing with linear is, it takes a lot of curves work to get it right in outdoor shots, because images dó need some sound contrast and I am piling up curves presets to get the brighter parts from washing out and the shadows from crushing. With the A7R I needed only a couple of presets in 3 years time. I no longer have the A7R, so can not send in compare shots. The A7RII images just don't need the crushing contrast of the A7RII profiling. I had some issues with the film standard profile with the A7R, and sometimes used the linear profiles and some curves to get better results, but with the A7RII and outdoor shots, it is just a mess.
    You can say: do not use the film standard curve, yes, you can also say: do not use CO1, because DXO and Camera raw are both free from this problem. This does not take away from the fact that Phase One did an extremely poor job on the A7RII for those not creating their own profiles, and I am not out to have a go at Phase one, because I repeatedly praised their A7R profiles and the Pentax K5IIs and revised K3 profiles.

    I spent the morning testing DxO 11 and PS Camera raw, and tonality in the shadows as well as highlights is not just a bit better, it is heaps and bounds better, so it obviously is not the A7RII suffering from substantially less DR than the A7R.
    The more I compare and test, the more I am convinced that Phase one did a second rate profiling job either to rush A7RII support out the door, or they just had a very bad day, and never bothered to better it.
    You know as well as I do, that part of the curve contrast is done in the camera profile itself, and that then the subsequent film curve comes on top of that. I don't think they messed up with the film standard curve, but with the camera profile itself, that darkens the lower end and agressively overbrightens the brigther end of the images. It is so glaringly obvious, that it should not really even be subject of discussion. I have had two months of overbrightened washed out skies and crushed shadows, and it is enough.
    I raised a support case, and if Phase one does not get out a proper profile for the A7RII, I'm off to DxO or PS.
    But I do appreciate very much your sharing your thougths and insights!

    Chris
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    Ok. let's forget about FSI or BSI, it only confuses things.
    In fact, I háve been using linear response exclusively since owning the A7RII (two months). And it does not cure my troubles, but it eases the pain!


    if you want to make a case you need to show actual raw files for P1 developers to take a look @

    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    The thing with linear is, it takes a lot of curves work to get it right in outdoor shots, because images dó need some sound contrast and I am piling up curves presets to get the brighter parts from washing out and the shadows from crushing.


    1) you can prove your case to P1 so that they create a different profile, that actually require showing raw files
    2) you can create your own custom camera profiles tuned for whatever curve from .fcrv files you want to use
    3) you can try to create your own curve and mod .fcrv file - P1 does not provide tools to do this ( _SHAME_ !!!) , but you can try to use a hex editor modify existing .fcrv file to create a curve will less contrast than "film standard"

    for example here is Canon 1D film standard curve (CanonEOS1D-Film Standard.fcrv) = https://s26.postimg.org/p55lmjasp/image.jpg

    https://s26.postimg.org/p55lmjasp/image.jpg

    Here is how it is coded (repeated 3 times inside) :
    0.000000, 0.000000
    0.039474, 0.058387
    0.120614, 0.241626
    0.252193, 0.538556
    0.348684, 0.690488
    0.405702, 0.758989
    0.475877, 0.826794
    0.546053, 0.878867
    0.633772, 0.925495
    0.774123, 0.971589
    1.000000, 1.000000

    x/y coordinates [0.0...1.0] pairs are coded as 4 bytes x 2 containing an UINT (4 bytes, 32bit, little endian) which shall be divided by 4294967295 ( 0xFFFFFFFF ), for example 4 bytes = "0x86" "0xF2" "0x1A" "0x0A" = 169538182 and / 4294967295 = 0.03947368 = 0.039474 (see above)

    https://s26.postimg.org/d4oqzjsrt/Little-_Endian.svg.png
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    I no longer have the A7R, so can not send in compare shots.


    you can try to use imaging-resource web site and show with a pair of matching raws from there... certainly if something is so wrong with A7R2 in C1 that will be clearly seend on a pair of raw files from there, no ?


    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    you can also say: do not use CO1, because DXO and Camera raw are both free from this problem.


    we can say whatever we want... you were given the links to tools to create you own profiles and even raw cgats files from camera's SSF for CC24 & CCSG targets that you can use both with dcamprof and LrPD (those were not actual targets shots - those are calculated from estimated spectral sensitivity for A7R2 with FE55/1.8 mounted / no other filters)
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    I don't think they messed up with the film standard curve, but with the camera profile itself, that darkens the lower end and agressively overbrightens the brigther end of the images.


    so far you you did not prove this with raws and numbers in hand... you spent a lot of time but did not bother produce a single raw file...

    take a pick of matching raw files and show how film curve (or any other curve for that matter) for A7R is way, way better ("glaringly obvious") than for A7R2 with P1 profiles supplied in distribution ... use A7R profiles for A7R and A7R2 profiles for A7R2 - all other settings in UI naturally identical ...

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/s ... iiTHMB.HTM

    and

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/s ... 7rTHMB.HTM

    you show something that will be "glaringly obvious" and I bet P1 technical support will pay attention
    0
  • Christiaan mak
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:

    I don't think they messed up with the film standard curve, but with the camera profile itself, that darkens the lower end and agressively overbrightens the brigther end of the images.


    so far you you did not prove this with raws and numbers in hand... you spent a lot of time but did not bother produce a single raw file...

    take a pick of matching raw files and show how film curve (or any other curve for that matter) for A7R is way, way better ("glaringly obvious") than for A7R2 with P1 profiles supplied in distribution ... use A7R profiles for A7R and A7R2 profiles for A7R2 - all other settings in UI naturally identical ...

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/s ... iiTHMB.HTM

    and

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/s ... 7rTHMB.HTM

    you show something that will be "glaringly obvious" and I bet P1 technical support will pay attention


    I think from the two screen shots posted above it is truly glaringly obvious that CO1 is unuseable with default settings, because it simultaneously clips highlight ánd shadows, in a shot that at default settings in Sony's proprietary IDC (DRO off) has no clipping at the highlight end at all and far less at the shadow end, so only takes the exposure slider to get a good starting point, ór allows for +.3 ev extra exposure.
    To me this is disappointing because I have my catalogues in CO1 and unless I go through hoops to find useable settings, have to start using other software.
    I am not going to make an effort to prove anything in numbers, mostly because of the fact that support for the Sony A7RII was implemented 2,5 years ago, and apparently no one ever ran into the issues I am quickly running into. All I can do is share my findings with support and hopefully get a serious answer. It would be rather ridiculous if they started all over again with profiling the A7RII now and so I don't expect this. I shared the screenshots above with them, if it does not illustrate the problem with CO1 default settings on the Sony A7RII clearly enough, than so be it.

    In all honesty, I think I should switch to a different workflow, because new cameras are going to come out, and I will be buying the next Pentax high end apsc for wildlife. If Phase one doesn't follow up on its promise of individually profiling and optimizing support for each camera, than for the coming years, I'm better of with either DxO or PS.
    And if anyone seeing the two screenshots posted above, doesn't understand what I am talking about, and does not share my suspicion over the A7R and A7RII profiles being unlikely identical, then that is fine.

    Perhaps after all, Phase one has decided that CO1 is software for fashion shooters that shoot in controlled environments and heavily manipulate their images anyhow. You yourself say: don't use film standard, but make your own profiles. So for you it is fine.
    I ended up with somewhat acceptable settings in CO1, which come down to:
    -linear curve
    -(midtone)brightness +10 to +20 depending on the image
    -modified RGB contrast curve (included in CO1 curve presets) (modified regarding bringing up shadows and lowering higlights).
    -then adjust exposure
    -repair blowing highlights

    Now all Phase one has to do is include in their online manual: "take note: our default settings for certain cameras are unuseable, in that case: use above quoted settings".
    I think not: default settings should provide a better start.

    Chris
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.