[77me]

Pentax out of camera dng is native raw. On displays you never see a raw file. What you see is always a rgb image representation. This is generated from the raw data of the raw file. So - since I see the image on my MacBook Pro display, the C1Pro demosaicing process works just fine.

What white balance parameters do you miss? - In C1Pro there are only two sliders: (in German) Kelvin and Farbton (I guess "Hue" in the English version). I'm not missing anything for the K-1 II - DNG file I got from the internet! Also available are the basic parameter attributes for the rgb color interpretation: "icc profile", "curve" and (raw converter) engine. Again - nothing is missing!

The main thing seems to me that you show some blind spots in your knowledge about raw files, their processing and maybe color management in general. We can't help if you if don't want believe.

I have many blind spots and I am an amateur photographer who does not particularly like post processing and knows very little, but I think I do know more than you think I do. I do "know" that CO does treat k1m2 raw files differently from k1 raw files. The white balance controls are what you get for jpg files, not raw files. The difference in the handling of white balance is what triggered my correspondence with Phase One, and why I got the reply that I got. Other than the white balance difference, I know of know other limitations other than the hyperbole I got from phase one support, but with all the other options out there I see no need for paying for more updates that don't fully support the camera I use.

Below are screen captures from k1 and k1m2 dng files:

[acoufap]

I have many blind spots and I am an amateur photographer who does not particularly like post processing and knows very little, but I think I do know more than you think I do. I do "know" that CO does treat k1m2 raw files differently from k1 raw files. The white balance controls are what you get for jpg files, not raw files. The difference in the handling of white balance is what triggered my correspondence with Phase One, and why I got the reply that I got. Other than the white balance difference, I know of know other limitations other than the hyperbole I got from phase one support, but with all the other options out there I see no need for paying for more updates that don't fully support the camera I use.

Below are screen captures from k1 and k1m2 dng files:

Attachment 470089

Attachment 470088

Attachment 470090

Attachment 470091

If I offended you, I'd like to apologise. This wasn't intended.

... and thanks for the display captures. Now I know what you talk about. The dropdown menue offers predefined white balance settings that have nothing to do with the original capture setting - of course with the exception of the setting "Shot". I can't remember that I ever used the predefined wb settings - so of course I don't miss these. The important native parameters are Kelvin and Tint. To set these parameters I choose "Shot" setting or adjust them manually using the pipette or sliders directly.

[77me]

If I offended you, I'd like to apologise. This wasn't intended.

... and thanks for the display captures. Now I know what you talk about. The dropdown menue offers predefined white balance settings that have nothing to do with the original capture setting - of course with the exception of the setting "Shot". I can't remember that I ever used the predefined wb settings - so of course I don't miss these. The important native parameters are Kelvin and Tint. To set these parameters I choose "Shot" setting or adjust them manually using the pipette or sliders directly.

I didn't use the predefined settings either, but I did want to know why they were not there. The answer was not comforting and I decided to give up on capture one ever supporting my camera and decided it was time to move on. I decided to give my money to a company which is supporting the k1m2.

[PDL]

Interesting - but it does not effect me with my K-3 II DNG files.
Here is the last image information I imported into my catalogue. You can see that at least on the K-3 II a DNG is a RAW file. Now the thing about Capture One is that in order to get the lens information I have to use ExifToolGUI to populate that field and there is no body serial number or firmware number listed. Body serial number and firmware are located in the DNG file. I am sure that this information is stored in the K-1 series cameras also. Here is the EXIF information.
>exiftool -G _SEA5238.DNG | find /i "serial"
[MakerNotes] Serial Number : 635xxxx
Lame attempt at obscuring my serial number
>exiftool -G _SEA5238.DNG | find /i "firm"
[MakerNotes] DSP Firmware Version : 1.10.22.06
Attachment 470102

So, in some cases, no Capture One does not support Pentax as well as it supports other brands. However, it beats Adobe products with a stick. I wish it had the ability to cope with pixel shift but if it ever does, it will be coming from Sony first.
I don't really use Pixel shift, just because it is not all that easy to find a good reason to use it. As an ex-Archaeologist I can see where Pixel shift would be extremely helpful in shooting artifacts and doing museum work. However the software limitations in this world make it a nice bragging point, but not a gotta have. Panorama's would be nice too but Capture One's limited Pentax Lens support and its metadata faux pas do lead to frustration.

What do you have set for your "Basic Characteristics" Tab (located in the color tab - this controls the ICC profile - Yes, there is a profile for the K-1 although not an explicit one for the K-1 II. If you are picking Adobe DNG for your ICC profile - I would ask - "Why in heavens name would you do that?"
Attachment 470107

---

Last edited by PDL; 01-09-2020 at 06:24 PM.

[77me]

Interesting - but it does not effect me with my K-3 II DNG files.
Here is the last image information I imported into my catalogue. You can see that at least on the K-3 II a DNG is a RAW file. Now the thing about Capture One is that in order to get the lens information I have to use ExifToolGUI to populate that field and there is no body serial number or firmware number listed. Body serial number and firmware are located in the DNG file. I am sure that this information is stored in the K-1 series cameras also. Here is the EXIF information.
>exiftool -G _SEA5238.DNG | find /i "serial"
[MakerNotes] Serial Number : 635xxxx
Lame attempt at obscuring my serial number
>exiftool -G _SEA5238.DNG | find /i "firm"
[MakerNotes] DSP Firmware Version : 1.10.22.06
Attachment 470102

So, in some cases, no Capture One does not support Pentax as well as it supports other brands. However, it beats Adobe products with a stick. I wish it had the ability to cope with pixel shift but if it ever does, it will be coming from Sony first.
I don't really use Pixel shift, just because it is not all that easy to find a good reason to use it. As an ex-Archaeologist I can see where Pixel shift would be extremely helpful in shooting artifacts and doing museum work. However the software limitations in this world make it a nice bragging point, but not a gotta have. Panorama's would be nice too but Capture One's limited Pentax Lens support and its metadata faux pas do lead to frustration.

What do you have set for your "Basic Characteristics" Tab (located in the color tab - this controls the ICC profile - Yes, there is a profile for the K-1 although not an explicit one for the K-1 II. If you are picking Adobe DNG for your ICC profile - I would ask - "Why in heavens name would you do that?"
Attachment 470107

The ICC profile, as mentioned in an earlier post, is dng neutral.

Yes I can change it to k1-generic, but it doesn't change the available white balance predefined options ie it doesn't make the CO gui think it is working with raw data.

I had no complaints with using CO with my k1m2, but my photos generally didn't have dynamic range issues or noise issues or anything else where raw vs jpg makes a big difference. But if the gui changes based on the format of the data, is it not reasonable to assume the imaging algorithms do too? If so how likely is it that the gui decides one format, but the imaging algorithms decide the other? Don't know any of the answers, but phase one's support response wasn't reassuring and I don't think I want to pay money and not be sure I am getting the best the software has to offer.

[Class A]

I do "know" that CO does treat k1m2 raw files differently from k1 raw files.

There is no such fundamentally different treatment.

The only "problem" you are observing is the lack of WB presets.
All important WB controls are available and functional.

You are taking issue with a couple of missing canned WB settings.

The reason they are missing is simply because Phase One decided not to offer predefined WB settings for a generic profile.

In any event, these presets are completely superfluous. Perhaps some people use them but I have never ever used them as I find it always more appropriate to choose custom WB settings. If I really were into accuracy, I'd use the WB-picker, not any of the canned WB presets.

The white balance controls are what you get for jpg files, not raw files.

That is completely wrong.

Of course there are no WB-presets for JPEG files. However, the fact that there are none for the K-1 II either does not imply that you are suddenly getting "JPEG white balance controls". The processing is still based on the raw data in the DNG file and the WB controls work on the full bit depth.

The difference in the handling of white balance is what triggered my correspondence with Phase One, and why I got the reply that I got.

There is no "difference in the handling of white balance". You are just missing presets, similar to the canned camera profiles offered by Adobe for certain camera models (e.g., "Landscape", "Portrait", etc.). These profiles/presets are just for convenience and/or to support the emulation of modes/settings you may find in the JPEG settings of the supported camera.

The absence of such presets in no way affects the processing of the data.

The reason why you got this particular response from Phase One support is that you were unfortunate enough to be dealing with an incompetent person.

The answer was not comforting...

I can relate to that but you have to take on board that the answer was completely and demonstrably wrong.

Other than the white balance difference, I know of know other limitations other than the hyperbole I got from phase one support, but with all the other options out there I see no need for paying for more updates that don't fully support the camera I use.

There is full raw development support. All you are missing is a few presets.

Your conclusions about what the implications of those presets missing are were wrong.

BTW, the fact that C1 shows "DNG" rather than "RAW" only means that you are not looking at a vendor-specific raw format. DNG is a vendor-independent raw format and for some reason Phase One felt it would make sense to display that you are using the DNG format rather than PEF (in the case of Pentax). Apparently, if the out-of camera DNG format is officially support, "RAW" is shown again. However, whether "RAW" or "DNG" is shown has no implications on the image processing. You could easily verify this yourself by just applying the same manipulations to a JPEG file and a DNG file.

[Class A]

Now the thing about Capture One is that in order to get the lens information I have to use ExifToolGUI to populate that field and there is no body serial number or firmware number listed.

Yes, that is lame, considering the camera is officially supported.

I submitted a bug report, but given the proportion of Pentax-related reports to others, there is little hope that fixing this will ever bubble up high enough in the priority stack.

However the software limitations in this world make it a nice bragging point, but not a gotta have.

Have you looked at RawTherapee?
It has excellent support for Pixel Shift files.

You could pre-process your files in RawTherapee and then continue to work with them in C1. I know that native support by C1 would be much more convenient but again I very much doubt that we'll ever see it. After all Phase One still wants to sell their MF cameras. Anything helping FF cameras to close the gap is probably considered not to be high priority.

[Class A]

You are obviously far more knowledgable then me and know what the program is and isn't doing and if I ever go back to CO I will email you instead of phase one support for issues I am having.

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but if it isn't then you are more than welcome to post here or sent me a PM, if you have questions.

I'm not a C1 fanboy, there are a couple of issues that bug me and that could easily be better.
However, I don't think anyone should dismiss it for the wrong reasons.

So the fact that k1 dng files say raw and the k1m2 dng files say dng is just because that is what the programers decided to do and didn't tell you.

I don't understand what "didn't tell you" means.

I suspect that Phase One takes pride in their dedicated camera support -- they claim that they extensively test and profile each camera model they support (which turns out to be false for some Pentax models in the past but is most likely true for other camera models) -- and therefore like to highlight the fact that there is dedicated camera support (-> "RAW"). I believe they view generic DNG support (-> "DNG") as not being at that same support level which is probably why they choose to display "DNG" in such cases.

One can understand any company making an effort to convince people that dedicated camera support is better because then people have an incentive to upgrade to a new version which supports their camera. The DNG format has a number of advantages and one of them is that customers are not forced to upgrade to a newer raw processor if they buy a new camera that isn't supported by their current raw processor.

Luckily, apart from convenience functions like the WB presets and the potential availability of multiple profiles per camera, generic DNG support is as good as dedicated camera support. The ultimate reason for that is that DNG is a raw format, it's just not a vendor-specific one.

[Class A]

But if the gui changes based on the format of the data, is it not reasonable to assume the imaging algorithms do too?

I just noticed this and have two remarks:

1. The GUI proper doesn't change. The only difference is options missing in a drop down menu. These options most likely vary between camera models (I'd have to check) but as I said before they only give you access to canned WB settings which you could just manually re-create.
2. Even if the GUI adapted to the file format then this in no way would imply that the image processing changed as well. DNG files contain an embedded JPEG preview so technically it would be possible to use this data instead of the proper raw data, but playing with DNG files quickly reveals that actual raw processing takes place. The latter is so different from JPEG processing (demosaicking required, etc.) that you can be rest assured that the same image algorithms are used which are used for a camera with dedicated support.

I hope this helps.

[77me]

There is no such fundamentally different treatment.

The only "problem" you are observing is the lack of WB presets.
All important WB controls are available and functional.

You are taking issue with a couple of missing canned WB settings.

The reason they are missing is simply because Phase One decided not to offer predefined WB settings for a generic profile.

In any event, these presets are completely superfluous. Perhaps some people use them but I have never ever used them as I find it always more appropriate to choose custom WB settings. If I really were into accuracy, I'd use the WB-picker, not any of the canned WB presets.


That is completely wrong.

Of course there are no WB-presets for JPEG files. However, the fact that there are none for the K-1 II either does not imply that you are suddenly getting "JPEG white balance controls". The processing is still based on the raw data in the DNG file and the WB controls work on the full bit depth.



There is no "difference in the handling of white balance". You are just missing presets, similar to the canned camera profiles offered by Adobe for certain camera models (e.g., "Landscape", "Portrait", etc.). These profiles/presets are just for convenience and/or to support the emulation of modes/settings you may find in the JPEG settings of the supported camera.

The absence of such presets in no way affects the processing of the data.

The reason why you got this particular response from Phase One support is that you were unfortunate enough to be dealing with an incompetent person.


I can relate to that but you have to take on board that the answer was completely and demonstrably wrong.


There is full raw development support. All you are missing is a few presets.

Your conclusions about what the implications of those presets missing are were wrong.

BTW, the fact that C1 shows "DNG" rather than "RAW" only means that you are not looking at a vendor-specific raw format. DNG is a vendor-independent raw format and for some reason Phase One felt it would make sense to display that you are using the DNG format rather than PEF (in the case of Pentax). Apparently, if the out-of camera DNG format is officially support, "RAW" is shown again. However, whether "RAW" or "DNG" is shown has no implications on the image processing. You could easily verify this yourself by just applying the same manipulations to a JPEG file and a DNG file.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the inner workings of C1, even more than C1 support. I am not taking issue with a few missing white balance canned settings. Those settings led me to contact C1 support. If I decide to go back to C1 if/when my camera is officially supported, I will pass any support emails I receive by you for verification before I make any further bone-headed knee-jerk decisions. Really my main issue is why should I pay for a program that does not officially support my k1m2 when there are a few other alternatives that do support it? I apologize for spreading false info from C1 support on this issue.

[Class A]

I bow to your superior knowledge of the inner workings of C1, even more than C1 support.

I don't know more about the "inner workings of C1" than Phase One support in general.

However, if an individual from Phase One support gives you information that you yourself can prove to be wrong within minutes then there is no point in respecting the authority of "C1 support" and mocking other people that do know better.

Your decision, though. Feel free to believe someone who clearly failed to do their job, instead of taking on board what multiple posters here had to say about the Phase One support statement and then, after convincing yourself, know what the real situation is.

Really my main issue is why should I pay for a program that does not officially support my k1m2 when there are a few other alternatives that do support it?

C1 works perfectly fine with K-1 II files, that's why.
Also, you paid for it already, so you might as well make use of it.

I wouldn't pay one additional cent for any extra "official" support. Their Pentax camera profiles are nothing to write home about and if you care about a couple of WB presets then I guess you really should be looking elsewhere.

If you prefer other alternatives, with "official support" (even though that means practically nothing in the case of C1), that's fine.
It's just that your idea that C1 turns into a JPEG editor upon seeing K-1 II files never had any merit; if you want to hang on to it, that's your prerogative.

[PDL]

Yes, that is lame, considering the camera is officially supported.

I submitted a bug report, but given the proportion of Pentax-related reports to others, there is little hope that fixing this will ever bubble up high enough in the priority stack.

I have also submitted requests to Capture One about these issues, including Lens Data. However, Capture One does not see this as a "bug" and has responded in the past that they support all 35mm Pentax cameras - they just don't support 645x bodies. I have given up arguing with Capture One on this issue as they do not appear receptive to my "suggestions" after five years of making the same request during Beta tests.

Have you looked at RawTherapee?
It has excellent support for Pixel Shift files.

You could pre-process your files in RawTherapee and then continue to work with them in C1. I know that native support by C1 would be much more convenient but again I very much doubt that we'll ever see it. After all Phase One still wants to sell their MF cameras. Anything helping FF cameras to close the gap is probably considered not to be high priority.

When using Pixel Shift, I use DCU and use that program to save a TIFF which I bring into Capture One to continue post processing. I have thought about using RawTherapee, but since I have LR and Affinity Photo I do not really need yet another program. Maybe, when my copy of LR really quits working (LR 6.14 - no Maps, no updates etc) I will have to find a small-ist program to run on my 2008 device. But in terms of Pixel Shift, I have used it for four exposures (see above for the shutter count) so it's not a big issue.

[Class A]

However, Capture One does not see this as a "bug" and has responded in the past that they support all 35mm Pentax cameras - they just don't support 645x bodies.

I'm rather sure that my support feedback was responded to by acknowledging a bug. I could check, if it helped.

In my experience 19 times out of 20 I get a very good or great response. The few other times, the responses are not helpful. It just depends who picks up your ticket.

I have given up arguing with Capture One on this issue as they do not appear receptive to my "suggestions" after five years of making the same request during Beta tests.

I don't think beta phases are the right time to provide such feedback.

I suspect that they classify the issue as "missing functionality" rather than "a bug". I suspect that during the beta phase, all hands are on deck to fix real bugs, i.e., make sure that the official release will not cause any trouble.

I believe providing the feedback through the regular support channel outside of a beta phase, has more chances to receive a proper response.

However, as I said earlier, I'm pretty sure that fixing a comparatively small issue occurring with a brand that is probably ranking very low in their sales statistics, is not going to get their attention anytime soon, sadly.

I'm not making excuses, I don't like brand apologists and I don't want to be one, I'm just trying to be realistic about what the chances are that what probably registers as a relatively minor Pentax-related issue will be fixed.

[Breakfastographer]

I have also submitted requests to Capture One about these issues, including Lens Data. However, Capture One does not see this as a "bug" and has responded in the past that they support all 35mm Pentax cameras - they just don't support 645x bodies. I have given up arguing with Capture One on this issue as they do not appear receptive to my "suggestions" after five years of making the same request during Beta tests.

And I suspect they've been encouraged to wait for Ricoh knocking on their door by the recent Fujifilm and Sony deals. Not unrealistic, either, as Silkypix doesn't seem to be going anywhere, sad as that is to see!

[morenjavi]

No new features have been announced but if you know that you'll upgrade to version 20 anyhow, now is probably a good time. I make no guarantees, though, that buying version 20 outright won't be a better deal. Seems very, very unlikely, though.

I have received a mail from Phase One with a discount If I upgrade now. Of course, when I open C1 I get a pop out window with the same announcement.
As I bought C1 v12 some time ago, I have no free upgrade, just a 'personal' discount if I reserve the upgrade to C1 v20. Not sure what to do, I have no idea about the new features on 2020. PhaseOne should give some clues about what to expect, I have no idea when this offer expires too. I'm quite happy with the present version, also I was thinking about buying some film styles (1styles or lutify), I need to be sure that I invest the money in the best possible way.