3FR files.

[SrMi]

Are you saying that C1's generic color profile generates the same colors as dedicated Phocus color profiles?

[tenmangu81]

Yes, that's what I've observed, at least on my calibrated display. What do you mean by "dedicated colour profile" ? At which level ?

[SrMi]

Each raw processor applies a camera specific color profile at import. It defines the colors as well as the mapping curve.

[JCM-Photos]

Does it exist, Printing not seriously ? 

When printing not seriously it's when I print just on plain office paper for exhibition simulations.
But as the files are the same as for the final big exhibition prints, I always have to make serious raw processing.

[tenmangu81]

Each raw processor applies a camera specific color profile at import. It defines the colors as well as the mapping curve.

OK. You mean the input profile. They clearly look different in Capture One and in Phocus, but I wonder where is the specific camera profile (for each camera) as defined by HB and used in HNCS, then ?

[JCM-Photos]

Hasselblad makes for each individual camera a specific color equalization for each pixel over the whole sensor surface, compensating sensor manufacturer deviations.

As the camera color profiling works for the whole sensor but not pixel specific, I imagine that when shooting the equalization takes directly place in the intensity coding of each pixel response.

[tenmangu81]

I agree with you, and this could explain why Adobe softwares are able to open .3FR and .fff while keeping the HNCS.

[SrMi]

I agree with you, and this could explain why Adobe softwares are able to open .3FR and .fff while keeping the HNCS.

Note that there is a difference in colors whether you use Phocus or LrC. That difference is sometimes barely visible and sometimes apparent.

[Georg Kovalcik]

,,Adobe software ... while keeping the HNCS." - Does it? I don't think so. LR does not process the individual calibration data from 3FR files.

[tenmangu81]

,,Adobe software ... while keeping the HNCS." - Does it? I don't think so. LR does not process the individual calibration data from 3FR files.

This can be found in the Phocus Manual:
Hasselblad raw files can also be processed with other selected software applications, namely, Adobe Camera Raw / Lightroom and Apple Aperture. Note, however, that using Phocus is the most comprehensive method. The Phocus and Adobe methods can produce almost identical results (in most cases) regarding RAW conversion so it is a matter of personal choice regarding which method would best suit your preferred workflow. Alternatively you can use Apple Aperture though you should take note that the benefits of DAC and HNCS etc, will be lost in this case. Please check the Phocus Read-Me and our web page for updated information.
And it could be understood that the benefits of HNCS are preserved with the Adobe softwares, while they are not with Apple Aperture.

[fti9748]

,,Adobe software ... while keeping the HNCS." - Does it? I don't think so. LR does not process the individual calibration data from 3FR files.

This can be found in the Phocus Manual:
Hasselblad raw files can also be processed with other selected software applications, namely, Adobe Camera Raw / Lightroom and Apple Aperture. Note, however, that using Phocus is the most comprehensive method. The Phocus and Adobe methods can produce almost identical results (in most cases) regarding RAW conversion so it is a matter of personal choice regarding which method would best suit your preferred workflow. Alternatively you can use Apple Aperture though you should take note that the benefits of DAC and HNCS etc, will be lost in this case. Please check the Phocus Read-Me and our web page for updated information.
And it could be understood that the benefits of HNCS are preserved with the Adobe softwares, while they are not with Apple Aperture.

Has that been updated for the X2D? Aperture died many years ago.

[tenmangu81]

,,Adobe software ... while keeping the HNCS." - Does it? I don't think so. LR does not process the individual calibration data from 3FR files.

This can be found in the Phocus Manual:
Hasselblad raw files can also be processed with other selected software applications, namely, Adobe Camera Raw / Lightroom and Apple Aperture. Note, however, that using Phocus is the most comprehensive method. The Phocus and Adobe methods can produce almost identical results (in most cases) regarding RAW conversion so it is a matter of personal choice regarding which method would best suit your preferred workflow. Alternatively you can use Apple Aperture though you should take note that the benefits of DAC and HNCS etc, will be lost in this case. Please check the Phocus Read-Me and our web page for updated information.
And it could be understood that the benefits of HNCS are preserved with the Adobe softwares, while they are not with Apple Aperture.

Has that been updated for the X2D? Aperture died many years ago.

This has nothing to do with the camera model, of course. And it should be still valid for the running version of Phocus.

[tenmangu81]

Are you saying that C1's generic color profile generates the same colors as dedicated Phocus color profiles?

Just for fun, I have tried to compare:
- ProPhoto vs Hasselblad RGB vs Hasselblad L* RGB colour spaces. In gray, ProPhoto, compared in the first image with Hasselblad RGB, and in the second image with Hasselblad L* RGB.
- RGB values measured with the eyedropper on the same point of the same image, using Photoshop, Phocus, and Capture One. See spreadsheet.

[tenmangu81]

Update from Capture One, they are not rejecting the idea:

My request:

Capture One is now distinct from Phase One, as far as I know. I started with Capture One some years ago (version , and last year I switched from Leica, for which C1 is fantastic, to Hasselblad (X1D and X2D). These cameras are the MF competitors of Fujifilm GFX, which are taken in charge by C1. So, why not Hasselblad ? Should I move back to Lightroom ? Thanks for your understanding !!

Their answer:

Hi Robert,

Thank you for contacting us.

We understand that Hasselblad is a big part of the medium format market, and supporting those cameras feels long overdue.

You aren't the first to inquire, however, and I've added your case to the note for R&D to consider future implementation.

Please keep in mind, that due to our policy we do not comment or give out any information on future products and development.
Best regards,
Victor
Capture One Support

[fcarucci]

When it comes to the relationship between 3FR and FFF files, I use a simple consideration: I can create FFF from 3FR, but not viceversa, so I only keep the 3FR files in a Lightroom Catalog and, for the images I plan to edit and release, I create the intermediate FFF file, do some minor corrections in Phocus, export to TIFF, 16bit, Source color space, then add the TIFF to the Lightroom catalog ready for future processing in LR/PS and delete the FFF file (since I can always recreate it on demand if necessary).

This workflow seems pretty optimal because most of the steps (eg reimporting the TIFF file in LR) is automated and does not require human intervention, while I can preserve the optimal IQ delivered by using Phocus to process the original raw files, but, since I keep the original raw data, I can take advantage of potential future software improvements in the 3FR to FFF conversion.