C1- 6.4.3: Files of the 5d3/1Dx displayed incorrectly
I've been a happy user of Capture One for many years. I updated C1pro ver 6.3 to 6.4.3 in order to get the support for the raw files of my Canon 1-Dx and 5d Mark III cameras, too. However, in the preview window, the raw-files of both cameras show up way too dark (about 1 stop underexposed !) and colors are off too (oversaturated and shifted to blue or cyan) while the files of my 1Ds Mark III and 1D Mark IV are fine as they were before with C1 ver 6.3.x . The issue is evident from the start of C1 without making a selection or changing any settings. Of course, the exposure was set correctly in the cameras. I compared the preview with the one in Digital Photo Professional 3.11 (Picture style set to neutral) and LR 4.1 (default) and the files of the 1Dx/5d3 look fine in both programs regarding exposure and colors and are displayed as expected. In the color tab of Capture One the ICC- Profile is shown as "1Dx generic" or "5d MarkIII generic" with the curve set to "film standard" and the white balance to "auto". These settings are identical to the default parameters shown with the files of my 1Ds Mark III and 1 D Mark IV cameras, which don't have the problem. Setting the white balance to "shot" or "daylight" does not help either. My Eizo CG 241W monitor is profiled, of course and its ICC-profile is correctly displayed in the monitor settings of the OS (win 7 ultimate). I didn't find a possibility to check the correct monitor profile in C1, though. But since the raw files of both the 1Ds Mark III and 1 D Mark IV look very similar in DPP or LR with minor differences to the preview in C1 at the upmost, I don't think that there's a problem with the monitor profile. I also tried to delete the cache and restart Capture One but there was no difference and the display of the files mentioned above was wrong as before. After the conversion, the raw files look identical to the (faulty) preview as expected. So it's not just a matter of the display. In any case it's strange that exclusively the files of both the cameras are affected which the new C1 version is supporting now in contrary to the previous version. The issue is especially eye-catching with files showing light motifs such as sceneries in the packice, of course. Be assured again that it's not a user error by wrong exposure settings when photographing ice 😉 Basically, the fault is there in all the files of the mentioned cameras. As said, all files are displayed correctly in DPP and Lightroom and sceneries with light motifs captured with the 1DsMKIII/MkIV are fine in C1, too. Any help is very much appreciated.
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
0
-
I have owned and shot 3 of the 4 cameras you mention...and have used the 5DMk3 for sevral months. I do not see the results you are having with the 5D....could you report if you are using an expanded ISO (or highlight reduction?) Those settings might produce the previews you are seeing while displaying correctly in DPP. It is linked to far more settings than COne. If not that, there is a way to check the preview setting in COne, although I doubt that's the issue. 0 -
John, thank you for your reply. There was no high ISO expansion used. ISO range was well within the normal range and mostly at ISO 400 or below without changing the default ISO settings in the camera. For some images in the packice, highlight tone priority was enabled but I cannot remember any problems with the 1D Mark IV/1DsMark III in this regard. Since you and others have not seen any issues with the 5d3, I'm really puzzled and created a support case now. Hopefully Phase one can look into the problem and find what's wrong here.
Wolfgang0 -
In addition to my posting, I posted an example via the link below in order to illustrate the problem. You can see and compare the converted files in a color-managed application and also download a raw- file of my 1Dx for personal evaluation (scroll down to the end of the page for the link) . No splendid motif though, but very instructive to show the problem. As said, the 5d3 has the same issue in C1 6.4.3 in contrary to the 1DsMKIII and 1DMKIV. The files converted with LR4.1 look fine, too and similar to the ones converted with DPP.
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de/C1_test/capt ... issue.html
Your feedback is very much appreciated
Wolfgang0 -
Wolfgang,
For what it's worth I can tell you that my installation of C1 also gives results that look like your example when using your file. The image seems to be about 1.5 to 2 stops under exposed compared even to the preview thumbnail before importing. As an experiment using the Autoexposure option things looked better. C1 added about +1 ev and a few other tweaks.
I am not entirely convinced that my monitor is well colour calibrated - it seems to insist on displaying a little too blue - so you image tends to be a blue/green colour (especially the water) even after adjusting for the grey of the gull wings.
It starts to look somewhat better after rebalancing the colours usng the histogram to derive the settings. In fact on my screen I got what I consider to be a very good balance especially the gull "white" bodies compared to the ice.
I hope this is of some help to you.
Grant0 -
Hi Wolfgang,
I too just took a quick look at your raw file with both the latest CO 6.4.3 and Lightroom 4.2rc
The histograms show a bit differently in both programs for the unprocessed photo. The CO maxes out about 1/2 way, the LR is a bit brighter with its max somewhere near the 2/3 mark. There are also differences in the details on both the low and high ends. As usual, both of them use a different white balance set of numbers even in the "shot" mode. The CO looks bluer than the LR.
As an aside, I have never fully understood the way CO interprets and shows the histograms for Canons. There is generally a difference in reds for what is seen in the histogram window and what is seen in the levels and curve windows.
The CO photo appears the same as you have shown in your link, the LR is a bit brighter, though still under exposed some to my eye. It is probably a tough one for the software to process with all the snow and ice.
Personally, if this is the worst that you have seen, I wouldn't worry a lot.
However, if you continue to see this in other shots, especially taken outside with multiple subjects and colors, then I'd be concerned.
Good luck,
Jim0 -
Grant, thank you very much for your answer. Of course, I could tweak the files in CO to be brighter and more color balanced or similar to the output of LR/DPP if desired. Apart from the fact that this would require some additonal work which is unnecessary if the basic import is closer to the captured file, it's no good idea quality-wise, if you generally have to work with inputs that are seriously underexposured and thus have to push the exposure a lot- no matter if this is done manually or by the auto-exposure tool.
Additonally it's still not clear why both converters show the dramatic differences in most of the files of the 1Dx/5d3 which I have not seen with my 1Ds MarkIII and 1D Mark IV cameras and all the bodies I had owned before.
Jim, many thanks for your response and efforts, too. In fact, all my files of the 1Dx and 5d3 are darker in CO than in DPP or LR while the 1DsMKIII and 1D Mark IV files are not or just marginally at the upmost (and in total I shot 9500+ files on my last trip). Depending on the motifs, the difference can be less striking than in the 1Dx file shown here but it's there. The same is true for the color differences which can be a minor problem in other files, though and acceptable given the different approach of the converters. I updated the link in my last posting with an example of the 5d3, too. Of course I know, that the basic and unprocessed file of the 1Dx is a bit underexposured given the snowy scenery but as for the file in question and all the similar ones, I'm still puzzled by the dramatic difference in brightness and color. Again, I've done a lot of photography in the High Arctic and elsewhere and I have never seen this with my other cameras. Somebody in another forum pointed me to a possible bug in CO 6.4.3., if CA & lens correction in the 1Dx/5d3 was enabled. I have not yet checked this effect comprehensively but I cannot really imagine that there could be a correlation. Anyway, the support for the 1Dx is pointed out as preliminary in the release notes of CO 6.4.3. The PhaseOne support team has required the raw files today. So I'm curious to know what they will find out.
Best regards
Wolfgang0 -
Wolfgang,
I agree that needing to tweak the files is not ideal and for the reasons you give. However the results, after tweaking, look very good. Even then I doubt that my tweaks produced a perfect result - if I did it would be mostly due to chance.
That leads me to hope that whatever adjustments are required for the basic interpretation will lead to the generic conversion being able to produce a subtle but powerful and balanced result that will be the equal of or better than the other converters.
Until such time as a revision appears if you were to create a conversion you are happy with and then save it for automatic application as files are imported you would reduce the effort involved in your workflow. However I will be the first to admit that I find such a solution excellent only for small groups of files (since I mostly shoot in the field) whereas in a studio it might be a more likely time saving device covering a whole from working in a controlled environment.
Grant
Grant0 -
I got a message from users in another forum. Obviously there's a bug in C1 if Highlight priority and/or lens corrections are enabled in the 1Dx and 5d3 ☹️ . I'm still waiting for an answer of the support team and I do hope that they will look into this matter pretty soon ! See here:
http://www.p-f.ch/ext/1dxc1/
Wolfgang0 -
[quote="Wolfgang1" wrote:
I got a message from users in another forum. Obviously there's a bug in C1 if Highlight priority and/or lens corrections are enabled in the 1Dx and 5d3 ☹️ . I'm still waiting for an answer of the support team and I do hope that they will look into this matter pretty soon ! See here:
http://www.p-f.ch/ext/1dxc1/
Wolfgang
Interesting.
I looked at the Exif info (but only in C1) and did not see anything that might indicate the file had special settings from in camera. Perhaps they are not reported yet? Likewise no indication of lens correction - but then C1 will only be able to report its own corrections I assume. In this case there would not be any. I assume that is why the Lens Corrector information shows "Unsupported File" and no LCC option rather than the more common (in my case) 'Generic" for unidentified lenses.
Clearly future generations of cameras are likely to introduce many new variables for RAW convertor developers to grapple with, notably software tuning to provide 'complete' information for understanding lens performance.
Interesting times.
Grant0 -
Hi,
I have had the same problem with shadows showing a blue or green tinge. My solution, not that I am totally happy with it, has been to adjust in the colour tab and assign a profile for that adjustment.
Still waiting for C1 to come up with another solution.
When I use my icc, as above, my colours are much better.
I would hate to have to move to LRoom just because of this.
Paul0 -
Phase One has not yet developed final profile for the 1Dx. I too am getting VERY frustrated at the length of time this is taking. I'm ready to jump ship and climb aboard LightRoom.
The folks at Capture One had better realize that in order to keep or attract users, they MUST produce a better product at an attractive price, with profiles that are updated as quickly as the competition. They cannot afford to be slow.0 -
[quote="NN113101UL1" wrote:
Phase One has not yet developed final profile for the 1Dx. I too am getting VERY frustrated ...
Please reference this relevant post;
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=12711&start=15#p585910 -
I'm pretty sure now, that it's definetly an issue of C1 6.4.3 not "understanding" the Hightlight tone priority setting in the camera and thus rendering the files way too dark (-1 stop) compared to DPP or LR if this parameter is enabled in the camera. Since both the 1Dx AND 5d3 are affected in the same way, it's not just a question of a preliminary support of the 1Dx. but a bug, IMO. If the HTP is disabled in the camera, the files look ok and similar to the preview and output of DPP and LR. in the meantime I did a lot of tests with the same result and I will transfer the files to the support team.
Wolfgang0 -
[quote="Wolfgang1" wrote:
I'm pretty sure now, that it's definetly an issue of C1 6.4.3 not "understanding" the Hightlight tone priority setting in the camera and thus rendering the files way to dark (-1 stop) compared to DPP or LR if this parameter is enabled in the camera. Since both the 1Dx AND 5d3 are affected in the same way, it's not just a question of a preliminary support of the 1Dx. but a bug, IMO. If the HTP is disabled in the camera, the files look ok and similar to the preview and output of DPP and LR. in the meantime I did a lot of tests with the same result and I will transfer the files to the support team.
Wolfgang
Perhaps we need to know what preliminary support is intended to provide. For example if the conversion is pretty much OK apart from not working with some new features that are optional (at least in theory) then I would consider that as acceptable to be termed 'preliminary' although knowing which features might be marginal or would need a work around would be nice.
I'm guessing, based on what I managed to do with your sample RAW file, that the affected files are not impossible to process - just not very easy to set up although I do wonder if a preset or two might offer a way forward until the new Manufacturer features are fully addressed. That may take some time depending upon how helpful the manufacturer wishes to be. I suspect that your effort and sample files may be of greater use to the C1 developers than any available technical documentation, assuming there is some made available.
I think within all of this there is a question of business dynamics.
Canon produce cameras and offer some software to go with them that few people seem to like much. It has been that was for years. Nobody cares much because we all use 'better' products.
Canon will look at their marketplace, especially for the high end products, and see that the main group of users will be corporates of one sort of another, buying in bulk and more than likely mostly using Adobe products (or some specific publishing industry applications) for everything that they do. If Canon Or Nikon or any of the others) can ensure that that part of the market is covered when a product is launched then they have probably protected 90% of their revenue stream and perhaps 80% of their profits. There will be little real need to rush to make sure that all the other vendors of RAW converters are also up to speed on day one of product availability - no matter how frustrating that might be for individual users. It's not that they won't care but they will see that they have made conversion options available as point of purchase and via a third party or two and the rest will catch up in time if they wish to. I doubt Canon think there are more than a handful od people who would privately buy a 1D-X although the 5D3 is a different matter. Moreoever they probably don't expect everyone to use all of th =e new features from day one - so it's not important to them (Canon) in the early days.
Adobe have the benefit of a huge customer base and multiple products across which the time and cost of a full development can be spread. And they know that many of their corporate will indeed be early adopters (or at least triallists) for the new products from major manufacturers, It would be VERY disappointing for all parties if Adobe were not up on the curve with new product launches. They very soon know when they don't get something right. Sometimes it takes a while to fix.
Whilst I don't disagree that it is important for C1 (and other smaller-than-Adobe developers) to respond as quickly as they can, assuming their market knowledge and business model says it is worth doing so, I very much doubt that it would a practical thing to do unless one could charge a huge premuim price. Are we reeady for that? I think not.
By the way, in case it sound like I am simply being an apologist for C1 here - I am not. Prior to C1 I used (and still do from time to time) another product with quite a similar operational 'feel' and features. That too was always besiges with requests from apparent users or potential users who had to have the latest greatest functionallity available from the first day of product release. It was not so easy to do in terms of time and control of the release schedule. They did what they could. Eventually they realised that they, along with many other businesses of all types, were going to have to change their development tools before creating the next version of the software. That required time and resources. It didn't work out. The business no longer exists as a going concern.
I don't know but I suspect they did not have a huge number of clients but I would bet that those they did have had a wide range of equipment of all ages that they would expect to see supported. That's a very tricky business model to work with when the manufacturers are changing the rules of the market around you before you can properly respond to 'instant demand'. Phase One, being a hardware as well as software company probably understand that rather well.
My thoughts, for what they are worth.
Grant0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
14 Kommentare