3FR vs 3fff -Compression - File Size - Quality - differences

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pflower

Anyone shed any light on this?

My understanding is that the 3FR files are losslessly compressed and the 3fff files are uncompressed.  On my H3D-39 this is borne out - the 3fff files are, on average, some 10-15MB larger than the 3FR files.  However on my X1D the 3FR files are, again on average, some 25-30MB LARGER than the imported 3fff file.

When I first demoed the H6D-50c I commented on the file size and the Hasselblad rep told me that this was because compression had not been implemented yet and would be in the future.  Well it certainly hasn't on the X1D.  But what confuses me is why the, theoretically, compressed 3FR files are so much larger than the, again theoretically, uncompressed 3fff files.  At present they are significantly larger than the uncompressed files.

Any thoughts, facts or observations on what seems to me to be a curious anomaly?

Also as regards quality - from not terribly rigorous experimentation (certainly not anything that would count as proper testing) I can find virtually no difference between a 3FR file and the same file converted to 3fff when processed in LR.  Yes storage costs have fallen dramatically but still a 30MB difference in file size adds up over time.  Years ago Phocus certainly had an advantage on my H3D-39 files where saturated colours were concerned (most noticeably very saturated reds).  But LR has improved its handling of Hasselblad files significantly over the last 6 or 7 years.  So on prints (and I judge only on prints made on Ilford Fibre Gloss Silk on a 3880) I can find little, if any, difference in print quality between a 250MB Tiff exported from Phocus with no adjustments and the same file processed in LR as both a 3FR and 3fff file as well as the exported Tiff. 

I would be interested hear observations from others on this as well.  It could be my eyes, so what should i be looking for?


nickfranken

You are right. And LR is a more efficient piece of software. It's more user friendly. And I really hate (REALLY HATE) the fact you have to import and convert in PHOCUS from 3fr to fff. It really slows down the work progress. They really have to rewrite and redesign Phocus...

If I use LR I don't have to post process my images in Photoshop anymore, but what I do in LR I can't do in Phocus..