Basically, can somebody say how they do these profiles? Is this more correct or do they artistically alter profiles? Can we do the same for Darktable?
watch this at 28m 12s
Can these ICC profiles be extracted from Capture One and imported in Darktable?
@ggbutcher did they use your method?
Do they make raws shown in the video available for download anywhere? Would make comparison easy.
I donât know, probably not.
⌠i had to play this at 2x speed and still didnât last 10min. i donât think they give any interesting detail whatsoever. the only clue i could read out of it was that a blue gradient does not turn quite so red in the highlights, demoed by a gradient in the sky.
Clearly not using CC24 target shots. Might be larger-patchset targets, might be monochromator-measured SSFs. I kinda doubt theyâre using single-shot spectra captures as I really donât think thereâs enough literature out there for them to have considered it.
So basically itâs nothing worth getting excited about if I understood you correctly.
Get excited when you get technical details, not marketing crap.
Why would they share their secret sauce? Even if their sauce was the real deal? Maybe the FLOSS AHEM community is their sauce! 
Hello @afre
Maybe the FLOSS AHEM community is their sauce!
It is probably indeed so 
These past years, I have often read on the Krita web-site, some posts by BoudeweiJn Rempt, their staff leader, where he claimed that Adobe (Photoshop) has âdevelopedâ many painting features âtaking an inspirationâ by Krita itself
To be 100% fair, even the Capture One pro users claim this about some new features recently available with Adobe Lightroom in the last updatesâŚ
It looks to me that they embed a tone curve in their profiles, which makes them a lot more opinionated than what we do in darktable (they say âhand tunedâ profiles, sounds supicious). From the look of it, it seems now they use 3 curves (one per channel), while they used a single curve applied to all channels before (which I deduce from the typical desaturation in highlights, but I have no idea really).
Still, non-linear profiles are bad and their picture is oversaturated and overdone. But sure, call it âPro-color 2000 Titaniumâ and suddenly itâs high tech.
Over my dead body. 
Itâs not the place of the input profile to have opinions about color, the point is to try and match the scene as neutrally as possible. Then, other tools are provided in darktable to add these opinions, but Capture One aiming at being super easy for dummies, itâs only logical that they want to pack as much dark magic as possible in a single place.
I wonder how they plan on adding support for HDR at some point. I feel like they can only retro-fit it in a hacky way.
Yeah, I caught that too. Very suspicious.
No, I totally get it. I just did not understand what they actually did. I thought they were using glenâs method to profile cameras and got more correct result as they are talking about color correctness but you wouldnât really âhand tuneâ anything there so yeah, youâre probably right there and I totally understand
And I might have totally fell for the marketing. Pro-color sounds very nice, youâd think theyâd profile the sensor instead of just doing basically a LUT 
Wise words!
The first comment is funny too:
âWe are not going to show everything.â WHYâŚ? We get bombarded with emails saying âupgrade nowâ yet we know nothing about this upgrade. I get the feeling the âsuitsâ from Adobe have moved to Denmark⌠[cont.]
Thatâs almost clearly stated at 36:15 (https://youtu.be/grUFFB84NkU?t=2175), âtrying to deliver the best out-of-the-box experience, so when you load a picture into C1 you can start your creative processâŚâ
How is that a bad thing? Darktable for sure needs some work on that front too.
First of all we need to scale up the @ggbutcherâs method so that we can have profiles for much more cameras. We all have problems with those blues and other saturated colors looking like somebody dropped a bucket of neon paint on the image.
Because Santa Claus does not exist and this comes at a price. There is a subtle difference between stuffing everything at the same place, including the color-destructive transforms that âjust look goodâ, and doing the right thing at the right place in the right space, deferring destructive stuff at the end of the pipeline where it belongs. Which means exposing the pipeline, which means subjecting poor little user to more information than he would have liked (like Kodak said : press the button, we do the rest â well now itâs stupid software that does it).
i would very much agree to that. iâd really like me some better input device transforms.
I agree, I didnât say DT has to be like C1, what Iâm saying is that trying to deliver the best out-of-box experience is something to strive for. What does that mean for C1 and DT might be totally different but itâs still a thing to aim for.
And in the rest of the same answer I go into what I think would make it better and I think we can all agree that we should find a way to get much more cameras profiled and that probably means multiple people having the instrument, going to conferences asking people to bring their cameras etc. Iâll try to do that as soon as possible. Though I donât actually understand all the physics and science behind it, Iâll for sure get into that and I think we can probably make it a thing that anyone could do âwith a manualâ and the proper equipment (or list of materials).
Someone said, I paraphrase, that professionals dont have time to faff around. I think that was you.
Additionally. Great out of the box and powerful arenât mutally exclusive. Its about intelligent defaults and ui.
Its completely understandable that darktable might not get there and have to prioritise. It makes no sense pretending that its some basic truth rather than a result of limited time and skill.
About the new profiles , have anyone seen evidence if the are looks or just more accurate?
Great, more empty words and vague concepts, please. Everyone likes good software out of the box, that doesnât say anything. You have a book about the meaning of âgreat out of the boxâ in the context of a fine-grained control interface for linear imagery processing with medium-agnostic output and medium-agnostic input ?
If you look at the specifics, intelligent defaults donât solve the core issue. If you want to do things properly, you have to spread the image filters across the pipeline. Which gives users plenty of occasions to mess-up things in-between if they are not careful (push pixels out of the domain of validity, to say the least), and ruin the assumptions of the filters coming later. Also, defaults settings will not suit each and every case, no matter how much âtime and skillâ you put in (astrophotography ? IR ? UV ? scanned negative ? JPEGs ? stacked HDR ? commercial ? headshots ?).
Whereas the robustness of the C1 approach is to kick users out of the pipeline entirely, and therefore allow more assumptions to be made, because default stuff seems to get packed at the beginning, which makes assumptions much easier to enforce. As a result, C1 is designed to serve a rather limited purpose, assuming DSLR or medium format RAWs. Want to edit HDR, 3D renderings, scanned negatives, IR photography ? You canât.
darktable relies on user responsibility much more than LR or C1, so that âout of the boxâ state is pretty meaningless in general because it relies deeply on how well users understand and operate the features and their limitations. And darktable will never be better than the user sitting in front of it. Marketing doesnât like that.
o_O Makes sense.