Skip to main content

⚠ī¸ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠ī¸

Conversion from C1 V6 to V7 and lens correction

Epipactis
Hi
I still have a lot of directories with pictures processed with C1 V6 and not converted to C1 V7.
When I select all thumbnails, I click on the button to apply the V7 process engine, the conversion is very fast. However the lens used for each picture is not automatically recognized and the lens profile stays "Generic".
By the contrary, for images which were not processed by C1 V6, when I open the directory, each picture gets a lens profile automatically applied, if the lens belongs to C1 V7's lens database of course.

So my question is : when converting image settings from C1 V6 to C1 V7 is there a means to automatically apply the adequate lens profile to each picture, assuming that the lens belongs to the database ?

Thanks in advance for your help.
0

Comments

5 comments

Date Votes
  • SFA
    I would guess that the principle used for conversion would to leave the images the same as they were in V6 in so far as it is possible to do so when converting to the V7 engine. This would avoid as many unwanted surprises as possible given that a conversion IS being applied and there will be some changes.

    I think, if I was responsible for defining the conversion program, I would be very unlikely to automatically assume that any lens information should be added or adjusted. I can think of a number of other concerns one might have - not the least being how reliable the lens identification information actually is. It's one thing to take the core editing routines and and adapt the new process to look like the old one so that any visible change is minimal but an entirely different proposition to, potentially, make changes deliberately as part of the process.

    You may remember the "discussions" that ensued when Automatic lens correction was first provided and many users felt that it should be disabled by default. I can't imagine what the reaction would be if people discovered changes applied for some other reason.

    That said perhaps one might consider offering the option or perhaps flagging up any images that might have a potential lens correction available. However my guess would be that to do so would absorb quite a lot of resource for something that would hardly be used - perhaps never used. I have seen such things happen many times before.

    It will be interesting to see how this thread progresses. We may discover how many users have actually decided to mass convert previously edited images.

    I did not. Given some of the mis-identifications of manual lenses I have used (and some known problems with certain makes of camera and non-oem lenses) I might be worried if I thought it likely that a mass conversion could have applied some so far unnoticed lens corrections. (However, realistically it probably would not matter at all as far as the archive is concerned.)

    Others may have a very different view.


    Grant
    0
  • Epipactis
    SFA wrote:

    I would guess that the principle used for conversion would to leave the images the same as they were in V6 in so far as it is possible to do so when converting to the V7 engine. This would avoid as many unwanted surprises as possible given that a conversion IS being applied and there will be some changes.

    I think, if I was responsible for defining the conversion program, I would be very unlikely to automatically assume that any lens information should be added or adjusted. I can think of a number of other concerns one might have - not the least being how reliable the lens identification information actually is. It's one thing to take the core editing routines and and adapt the new process to look like the old one so that any visible change is minimal but an entirely different proposition to, potentially, make changes deliberately as part of the process.

    Hi Grant, thanks for your response.
    I understand your point of view, but it could be an option that could be checked (or not) in Preferences : Apply automatically profile lenses when converting to V7.

    One could also consider why converting to V7 if the job was finished under V6 or at least if one wishes to keep the old appearance ?

    In my case (and maybe I'm not alone), I have thousands of pictures on my hard disk which I processed roughly (deleting the very bad ones, rating my favourites etc...) without having finished the job (I am not a professional photographer 😉 ). Now I'm looking at old directories and converting them. Of course I don't wish to delete my V6 settings.
    The only means I found to apply lens profiles in a "batch" way is to sort pictures by lens, apply the correction to the first picture of each group related to a known lens, then select all other pictures of the same group and copy/paste the Lens correction settings. It's a bit boring when you have a lot of directories...
    And doing so, I hope that the settings are applied in a smart way, i.e. that for zoom lenses the focal length is taken into account, I'm not sure at all of this. 😕

    SFA wrote:

    You may remember the "discussions" that ensued when Automatic lens correction was first provided and many users felt that it should be disabled by default. I can't imagine what the reaction would be if people discovered changes applied for some other reason.

    That said [b]perhaps one might consider offering the option or perhaps flagging up any images that might have a potential lens correction available. However my guess would be that to do so would absorb quite a lot of resource for something that would hardly be used - perhaps never used. I have seen such things happen many times before.

    Yes it could be an option. I don't think it would absorb a lot of resource since this functionality (automatic applying of lens profiles) is already implemented and used by Capture One when you open a directory for the first time.

    SFA wrote:

    It will be interesting to see how this thread progresses. We may discover how many users have actually decided to mass convert previously edited images.

    I did not. Given some of the mis-identifications of manual lenses I have used (and some known problems with certain makes of camera and non-oem lenses) I might be worried if I thought it likely that a mass conversion could have applied some so far unnoticed lens corrections. (However, realistically it probably would not matter at all as far as the archive is concerned.)

    Others may have a very different view.

    Grant

    You are giving arguments for making the option available when opening new folders ! In your case I suppose you would uncheck it. Presently you have no choice : when you open a new directory, lens profiles are automatically applied, whether you like them or not. Am I wrong ?

    So I suggest 2 options :
    - one for automatically applying (or not) lens profiles during conversion to V7
    - one for automatically applying (or not) lens profiles when opening a folder for the first time.
    😊
    0
  • SFA
    The main point I was trying to think through - and which led to the comments about resource allocation to provide the option - was that there may well be, camera body by camera body and lens by lens, reasons for being cautious about how to apply corrections based on the information available from older files.

    The effort required may be less to do with coding the edits and more to do with the amount of research about what to enable and disable for the hardware combinations that would make the process "safe".

    From a personal perspective - if I ever decide to go back into older material (and sometimes I do ...) - I expect to deal with a selection of images and not to attempt a mass re-conversion. So assessing each image and the benefit of applying previously unavailable 'corrections' (for which I might already have taken other steps like colour adjustment, vignette setting or whatever) makes more sense than assuming that auto application of corrections would be a benefit.

    So, in principle, if you have a new lens correction available that might include colour and vignette correction (to take a couple of the more common reasons for lens correction in the traditional lens market rather than the modern "fix it in software" market) what rules would you write and what options would you need to give the user so that they could make their decision for a particular camera and lens combination?

    It's that sort of consideration that would be likely to require effort - and take everyone into a grey area of understanding.

    As I mentioned, even the automatic application of rather necessary (according to the manufacturers own beliefs) adjustments to the "fix it in software" generation of lenses created a huge negative response from some users in these forums when Phase introduced the functionality. I cannot imagine they would welcome a similar sort of possibility for V6 to V7 upgrades. Certainly not so long after the release of V7.

    However, as ever, the best way to raise make such a suggestion for consideration would be to make a Support Request with the idea outlined so that the product developers can consider the idea for a future project.

    I am not saying the idea does not have some merit if the rules of application can be defined and explained but it is not clear how important such a development would be for the majority of users. I suspect that answer would be 'not very' since some of the corrections I have seen are so small that only the most demanding of Professional user's clients would be likely to notice them.

    The "fix it in software" lens users may have a greater use for such a development - but only if they have a back catalogue of images processed in C1 V6 and I wonder how many people fit into that category.

    Maybe we will find out as the thread develops.



    Grant
    0
  • Epipactis
    SFA wrote:

    The main point I was trying to think through - and which led to the comments about resource allocation to provide the option - was that there may well be, camera body by camera body and lens by lens, reasons for being cautious about how to apply corrections based on the information available from older files.

    The effort required may be less to do with coding the edits and more to do with the amount of research about what to enable and disable for the hardware combinations that would make the process "safe".

    From a personal perspective - if I ever decide to go back into older material (and sometimes I do ...) - I expect to deal with a selection of images and not to attempt a mass re-conversion. So assessing each image and the benefit of applying previously unavailable 'corrections' (for which I might already have taken other steps like colour adjustment, vignette setting or whatever) makes more sense than assuming that auto application of corrections would be a benefit.

    So, in principle, if you have a new lens correction available that might include colour and vignette correction (to take a couple of the more common reasons for lens correction in the traditional lens market rather than the modern "fix it in software" market) what rules would you write and what options would you need to give the user so that they could make their decision for a particular camera and lens combination?

    It's that sort of consideration that would be likely to require effort - and take everyone into a grey area of understanding.

    Grant, your vision of lens correction is more sophisticated than mine, applying this vision to C1 would in effect require a lot of hours of development. I don't say it would be useless but it is very far from what I was asking. What I ask is very simple : it consists in applying (optionnally, why not) during conversion the same (mass) automatic corrections as those applied when opening a new directory. This feature needs a new check-box in the UI (for the option) and a test in the processing of conversion. If the box is checked, then apply the same (existing) process as in opening a new folder.

    SFA wrote:

    As I mentioned, even the automatic application of rather necessary (according to the manufacturers own beliefs) adjustments to the "fix it in software" generation of lenses created a huge negative response from some users in these forums when Phase introduced the functionality. I cannot imagine they would welcome a similar sort of possibility for V6 to V7 upgrades. Certainly not so long after the release of V7.

    However, as ever, the best way to raise make such a suggestion for consideration would be to make a Support Request with the idea outlined so that the product developers can consider the idea for a future project.

    I am not saying the idea does not have some merit if the rules of application can be defined and explained but it is not clear how important such a development would be for the majority of users. I suspect that answer would be 'not very' since some of the corrections I have seen are so small that only the most demanding of Professional user's clients would be likely to notice them.

    The "fix it in software" lens users may have a greater use for such a development - but only if they have a back catalogue of images processed in C1 V6 and I wonder how many people fit into that category.

    Maybe we will find out as the thread develops.

    Grant

    Up till now, it doesn't seem that many users are interested in this subject... ☚ī¸
    0
  • SFA
    Epipactis wrote:

    Grant, your vision of lens correction is more sophisticated than mine, applying this vision to C1 would in effect require a lot of hours of development. I don't say it would be useless but it is very far from what I was asking. What I ask is very simple : it consists in applying (optionnally, why not) during conversion the same (mass) automatic corrections as those applied when opening a new directory. This feature needs a new check-box in the UI (for the option) and a test in the processing of conversion. If the box is checked, then apply the same (existing) process as in opening a new folder.


    That, I suspect, is where the challenge starts.

    If you auto apply the changes as if the image is being opened in V7 for the first time you have to know what to do with parts of the existing edit that MIGHT be affected by the lens adjustment - and that may vary from one camera/lens combination to the next.

    If we consider the changes from V6 to V7 the main of the conversion routines was to translate the settings used for V6 into the direct equivalent for V7 but with some of the direct changes still being able to produce improved effects because they better process the data. So, for example, using the exact equivalent settings you might see a more detailed colour differentiation even though the actual adjustment values are directly comparable. You might not see the differences that well on a preview jpg but on a large scale print the change could be very obvious.

    A more pertinent example could be the Clarity tool. In V6 there was one method and a slider. (Windows 32bit, I assume the other hardware option was much the same.) V7 has 3 methods and 2 sliders BUT one of those methods is the V6 method retained for compatibility. The rule for a V6 to V7 conversion of the clarity slider is easy - use it just as it was.

    If V6 had not had a Clarity tool I presume the settings would be left at default - nothing applied. Simple.

    Now consider the situation where a conversion has a new lens correction setting available.

    Based on the old 'standard' we could imagine asking the user whether they want to adopt the new corrections if they have not previously set any correction values. A simple choice to do nothing or see what happens with correction applied.

    But if the Lens tool has had any settings applied - a vignette might be the obvious and most commonly used adjustment - how should a conversion deal with that? How would it know whether the Vignette values had been an attempt to 'fix' the lens, an artistic interpretation or a combination of both? Should the conversion change the image to the newly available default adjustments or do nothing or allow people to specify that they would like the conversion to somehow 'blend' new adjustment value with the V6 manually set values to make use of the 'official' standard corrections and yet retain the user's artistic interpretation?

    That is probably one of the least contentious set of options that would arise. If it was not addressed we could guess that many people (of those who might express an interest) would have difficulty agreeing the best approach - other than to offer all possible options at the point of conversion. We would then be into the area of potential high development resource cost for very low usage by very few people. Maybe.

    But I'm speculating. Let's see what other have to say about the subject!


    Grant
    0

Post is closed for comments.