Phocus corrections and export

[cunim]

My workflow uses Phocus for acquisition and primary correction (camera, lens and CCC).  I want to then export the images for post in Lightroom and, where necessary, CS4.  I have been going over the Phocus manual but my weary old head refuses to understand some basic things.  Here is the way I think it works.

Images acquired as 3FR receive factory adjustments as soon as they are displayed in Phocus.  Not sure what these are but probably column defects, area sensitivity corrections, etc.  You can often see these things happen if you move the 1:1 image loupe around on your monitor.  The factory adjustments can take a moment to catch up.

User, embedded and current adjustments are applied during export to 3F.  "Direct" export to 3F loses some corrections but export through the Phocus export process keeps those adjustments.

      Question: What is the difference between direct and indirect export?  LR will import the 3FR file, and I assume that is a direct import, as opposed to first exporting from Phocus to 3F and then importing the 3F file.  The implication is that the exported 3F file actually carries the secondary adjustments but does it?

Actually, I want to work in DNG so I would like to export the 3F file to DNG, keeping all the adjustments.  I particularly want to keep the embedded and lens corrections.  Don't need the rest.  

Question:  How to keep secondary adjustments in an exported DNG?

I know this has been discussed previously but I seek clarity with respect to the speciific corrections kept with each type of export.  If someone could just send me to chapter and verse of the Hassie documentation that deals with these things I would be happy.

[Valtteri]

I think it is not possible, sorry. If I understood it right DNG is just another RAW-format. Exporting to TIF might get you the closest to your goal if you want lens corrections and so on. Not a very smooth workflow though.

[alexkent]

vaitteri is correct,

you can't export a raw file from Phocus to Lightroom which would contain the Phocus lens corrections but still allow Lightroom raw corrections.

either:
take .3fr's directly from the camera into Lightroom (you might be able to convert to .dng on import in LR ?) do all colour corrections etc in Lightroom, use the manual CA sliders in Lightroom, etc.

or, import the .3fr from the camera into Phocus (thus converting it to .fff which is Not compatible with LR) do colour and lens corrections in Phocus then export a .tif from Phocus which you catalog in Lightroom (to which you won't be able to do Lightroom RAW corrections).


hopefully in the future Lightroom and ACR will support .FFF files, which would give a little more flexibility, but there'll probably never be a situation where RAW settings from one processor work in another: switching between Aperture, Lightroom, Phocus and retaining RAW adjustments.

alex.

[cunim]

Thanks for the clarification and I hope David or Nick can give us the official line on how this will evolve.  Subsequent comments come from a backround in classical imaging, so I have little understanding of RAW and could have misinterpreted all this.  Education welcomed.

I understand that the pixel content operations cannot be saved without losing the RAW file.  However, I do not see why lens geometry adjustments (the ones I am most interested in) could not be (optionally) written to the 3FR file with the factory adjustments.  After all, these geometry corrections do not change the contents of the pixels, just their locations in the raster. 

I am trying to dissect out what the interacting parts of 3FR are.  Is geometry composed of parameters that affect the RAW rendering process, or can it be moved along the rendering chain so that it is discrete.  If it can be moved I would have freedom to choose what I do with corrected RAW files and that is the benefit for me.  For Hasselblad, the benefit would be that they have the only software that implements a low-level and exportable geometry correction based upon factory models of the optical train.  Not even the DXO lads have that.

Hey, I guess this has turned into another user suggestion for how Phocus could be made better.

[HMi]

Well, getting the HC35 forced me to try to love Phocus. Not an easy task, but the barrel distortion that resulted when converting to DNG and then importing (I'm still on CS3 so can't use raw directly) is quite terrible to be quite honest. It would really be great if someone from Hbl could convince Adobe to support .fff's in the way it seems that Aperture does? Or alternatively, allow Adobe to do lens correction for Hbl cameras (in my understanding the raw engine can do that, the lens correction afaik is done for some cameras such as the Panasonic GF1).

Being an great fan of the Adobe workflow, I find myself stuck with two no so nice options:

1) Do basic covertion in Phocus and then export to TIFF if you want 16 bit (if 8 bits are OK, then .PSD). The good: you get all the lens correction stuff. The bad: personally I am a lot less productive on Phocus, and even less when adding up the work of exporting and then opening in Bridge, plus you "litter" your PC will extra files (in the case a huge .TIFF file, anybody have an effective way to get rid of that one)

2) Use Adobe camera raw which is more productive, but does not do provide lens corrections and I find in difficult light situations needs more color tweaking. The good: if the result it good (which it seems to be for longer lenses and non-problematic lighting situations), much more productive. The bad: quite bad images in certain cases (at least for me the HC35 for architecture and stuff).

Pls, Hbl and Adobe, team up to be better than Aperuture 3, pls?

[alexkent]

cunim,

Geometry and lens corrections cannot be moved along the chain by Hasselblad. The camera files only contain metadata telling the raw processor which lens/focus distance/aperture was used, Phocus then has an internal algorithm to determine how much chromatic aberration fix to apply, which mesh distort it must do, and how much vignetting to remove. These are pixel level changes which can only happen at the time the raw is being process into non-raw file.

Going forward there is no way that Hasselblad are going to be making a 'Hasselblad Lens and Colour correction' plugin for Lightroom. It's just not going to happen. Partly Adobe don't have a plugin framework to allow this in Lightroom but also Hasselblad's processing special-sauce is part of what makes the images from these cameras so spectacular, they're not going to promote a system which starts to promote workflows without it.

Hasselblad will continue to develop Phocus and with a bit of luck and a lot of pushing from all of us it will become faster and more stable, but it will always remain a RAW processor separate to Lightroom / Aperture / or any other cataloging system.

Adobe hopefully will add .FFF support to their software. Also, it's not unforeseeable that Adobe could build their own cross-camera automatic lens correction system, since that is a shortcoming of their raw processor compared to it's current competition.

alex.

[cunim]

How interesting.  HMi you describe exactly my workflow.  Actually, I spend more of my time with the back on a tech camera and I have the Alpa Lens Correction and other software to help with that. 

Alex, very lucid explanation.  Don't take this badly but I really hope you are wrong about Hasselblad's strategic view.  Trying to use weak software to lock in users will ruin them.  Oldest story in the book and I am sure HB's management know the laws.  1.  Good software sells hardware.  2.  Inferior software inhibits hardware sales.  3.  Software that limits client freedom is suicidal.  Clearly, Hasselblad is a hardware company and lacks the resources to become a viable software house.  I respect them for what they so do well and would be surprised if they fail to understand their position.

What HB probably can do is to write a world class raw converter that allows its users the freedom to create the workflows they need, via any tools they wish to use.  That would sell far more cameras than any feature improvements they can make to Phocus, and would liberate them from the agony of maintaining a complex software platform.  That maintenance is one of the hardest and most costly tasks any company can face.

[alexkent]

cunim,

I hear what you're saying.
I'm only reading between the lines of Hasselblad's behaviour over the last few years and a few face to face conversations at Photokina and other places.

The only problem with your idea of a raw converter that 'allows it's users the freedom to create the workflows they need', is that none of the raw converters available are modular in a way which makes this possible.
The best thing IMHO would be Adobe adds .fff compatibility, rolls their own lens correction and someone takes time to make some spiffing DNG Profiles which make ACR process colours closer to Phocus. This would give us 90% of what Phocus without Phocus.
Hasselblad then gets the freedom to develop Phocus as they please and their users get to choose to use it if it suits them or not if it doesn't.

alex.

[Dustbak]

From what I understood it is indeed a bit more complicated to get .FFF &/or .3FR support in ACR. Especially with the color rendering Phocus has and the corrections. Even my Nikon files are rendered better in NX2 or C1 than in ACR. CA corrections for my Nikon files are much better in NX2.

It simply will not happen anytime soon that ACR can handle Hasselblad files as well as Phocus. I would be happy if my DAM program supports seeing the files so I can archive them properly. I have grown to getting used to using Phocus for processing. Get the fastest machines possible, automate as much as possible and plan in the extra step of processing. That is, if the highest quality is of importance to you.

The only way a hardware company can survive relying on others to do the software is if the hardware is highly generic, really popular and sold in huge numbers. Why else would another party develop?

In Hasselblads case they simply have to do Phocus. If you take the effort to learn to get the maximum out of it, you will find it is actually pretty good and delivers outstanding results. You did not get a Hasselblad to settle for the mediocre output of ACR didn't you?

I realize I had pretty much the same reaction several years ago (before Phocus) but I chose to alter my workflow and optimize it. Having said that I still would love to have the one-stop shop at Adobe but if they even cannot get the best results out of Nikon files what do you think will be the chances they will go for the maximum with Hasselblad files? I simply do not see it happening, certainly not anytime soon.

[David Grover]

How interesting.  HMi you describe exactly my workflow.  Actually, I spend more of my time with the back on a tech camera and I have the Alpa Lens Correction and other software to help with that. 

Alex, very lucid explanation.  Don't take this badly but I really hope you are wrong about Hasselblad's strategic view.  Trying to use weak software to lock in users will ruin them.  Oldest story in the book and I am sure HB's management know the laws.  1.  Good software sells hardware.  2.  Inferior software inhibits hardware sales.  3.  Software that limits client freedom is suicidal.  Clearly, Hasselblad is a hardware company and lacks the resources to become a viable software house.  I respect them for what they so do well and would be surprised if they fail to understand their position.

What HB probably can do is to write a world class raw converter that allows its users the freedom to create the workflows they need, via any tools they wish to use.  That would sell far more cameras than any feature improvements they can make to Phocus, and would liberate them from the agony of maintaining a complex software platform.  That maintenance is one of the hardest and most costly tasks any company can face.

There is a huge issue on relying on Adobe / Apple completely for software. This issue is that they sometimes simply take too long to add functionality.

For example - the 50MP is not currently supported in Aperture.  Apple have all the docs from us to make this work, but due to their other commitments don't feel it is necessary.  Also Adobe have what they need to make 3F work.. we are still waiting.

MF is small fry to Adobe and Aperture, they don't feel it adds to their sales (they have even quoted so!) so its merely a favour to us and you guys.  So we really need Phocus and will continue to develop it.

Not, if Adobe and Apple provided a framework for "Raw Processing Engines" or something like that - then it could be interesting.  But as I have stated many times before.. they don't!  Without this is makes it impossible to integrate everything.

David

[David Grover]

PS. Also there are many factors involved in lens corrections.  Aperture, Distance, Lens Type and colour temperature.

It takes a real finite understanding of lens design to make the correction.  Adobe don't have that, which would mean turning over 100,000+ lens data maps which contain critical IP.  Its not an easy situation.

[David Grover]

To clarify..

3FR ->  3F  this happens when you import your images on your CF card to your host computer. 

Mostly what happens is that a larger preview file is built into the 3F files (size selectable in prefs).  The preview file in the 3FR is only as big as the LCD on the back of the H3D.  Too small to look any good in Phocus!

When viewing images in Phocus below 25%, you are actually looking at the embedded preview.  It is color matched to the raw data.

Then of course with a 3F you can apply many other settings in Phocus.

If you go 3FR straight to DNG (for example) then you miss out the good stuff in Phocus.

Either way you don't miss out on and column error correction or sensor stitch info as this is still applied.

[cunim]

Thanks to all for the explanations, and to David for the tech talk.  I suppose I was unclear in my earlier discussion.  I am not looking for an integration function. Rather, I would like to use Phocus but to have it move the files to a generic raw format which integrates the geometry extras.  I think I now understand enough to move on.

1.  The rendering process in Phocus uses more parameters (let's call them "extras") than other raw converters.  These extras include information derived from detailed lens models.  Extras are the key factor in creating the high image quality Hasselblad is noted for.  Without extras, image quality is significantly degraded with some lenses.  However, we can always accept the degradation and go direct to DNG from 3FR.  Users believe the consequences of this are unacceptable for at some optics (eg HC35).
2.  We do not know how to export extra geometery corrections into DNG or other widely used raw format.  Actually, I remain unclear as to whether this is because of corporate issues (I suspect not), technical impossibility, or just difficult engineering.  David?
3.  My productivity is much lower in Phocus than it is in LR or the latest Aperture (haven't actually tried that one).  My only options are to try to improve my use of Phocus, give up the Hasselblad advantage and export to DNG right away, or use a competitor's system that has no extras.

Unfortunate.

[David Grover]

The problem is the DNG format is a bit flawed on some levels.  When you convert 3FR to DNG you are actually throwing information away which can be used to improve Colour, Noise, Lens corrections.

The result from ACR and LR has improved over the years but certainly on higher ISO shots or long exposures, the result from Adobe is really poor.

You can't simply export extra geometry corrections into the file as a lot of those corrections depend on the settings of the image at export - like colour temperature for example.

Ergo, for a third party application to support our lens corrections based on our lens data, they would need to include all the data we have on the lenses and make massive changes to their raw conversion engine.

I think you should spend sometime on Phocus to improve your productivity.  No, it does not have a lot of things that LRoom for example, has but work on getting the best quality file from Phocus, export as 16-Bit TIFF into Lightroom and continue.

David

[HMi]

There is a huge issue on relying on Adobe / Apple completely for software. This issue is that they sometimes simply take too long to add functionality.

I think in all fairness that one could also say that there is a huge issue relying on camera companies for software. The issue is that they sometimes simply take too long to add functionality.  

Qualitywise, I can clearly see the benefits of using Phocus for certain functions and have no fundamental issue with continuing with a dual software set but I would still love someone to be a bit more concerned about my productivity in doing so. I'm sure there is quite a lot that could be done to streamline the co-existence of the two pieces of software for improved productivity.

Just to point out a few examples:
- Improved file management. Currently it seems I end up with four versions of Hbl files vs 2 for other cameras: .3fr (I need to fetch and store it to be able to feed the DNG converter if needed), the .3ff (if I touch it with Phocus), the TIFF16 if I need to move 16 bit data to Photoshop and finally the .PSD file. For other cameras I have the raw file and the .PSD. Even with the cost of file storage going down, that is a lot of files! Supporting 16 bit PSD (with EXIF infor included ) would remove the need for the extra TIFF or as mentioned, supporting .fff by Adobe would remove the need to store the .3fr and reduce the number of files to 2. Or at least add some smart file management where somthing would automatically delete the TIFF once it has been digested by PS/LR.

- Especially LR but also Camera Raw I think should not be thought of a just a raw processor. I process most of my JPEGs with Camera raw, so by this token, supporting .fff does not need to be construed to be full support for a "raw processor". Not that this technically matters, but it might give a slightly different perspective on what Camera raw support could mean.

- I'm sure you are right that there might be some loss of data in the conversion from .3fr to DNG but is there some meaningful shortcuts that could be taken. Sometimes perfect is the worst enemy of good, perhaps doing "good enough for most uses" is more feasible than perfect?