Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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

7.1.1 working well for me

chmod
I recently had to process three consecutive weekends of work for a client.

My workflow...

I use a MacBook Pro, 2.2 GHz Core i7, 16GB RAM, Thunderbolt RAID array, Thunderbolt monitor, Sammy 840 Pro 512 for booting. (just want to establish what the hardware is...). I turn off Time Machine when working, and close all other applications, especially the browser, just to prevent the RAM getting sucked away. All RAW images are stored on Thunderbolt RAID 1 arrays. Output folders are created on a Firewire 800 attached SSD. In other words, the OS and Capture One Pro are on the boot SSD, all else are on externally attached storage.

My workflow is to break each collection of RAWs into ~ 300 images and establish a new Session for each group. Each weekend was roughly 1200 RAW images. I worked for 6 to 8 hours per day to properly process the deliverables.

My machine never seized, the software never froze or misbehaved to the extent I could not work. I am extremely pleased with the way the software processes high contrast stage lighting.

I have submitted small bugs along the way, but no deal breakers.

Thanks for this product.

regards,
patrick
0

Comments

13 comments

Date Votes
  • Permanently deleted user
    I like using it too. I use p65 with old Mac Pro tethered with sinar or H2 with 18 ram, dedicated system_applications only ssd and dedicated capture only ssd. less than 70% usage for ssd. Clean install for software every time.
    I aim for zero issue from software while shooting for a day_10 hours about 400 captures. Usually, like 70%, I succeed it. Sometimes, I have to restart computer or software once a day. I think this issue is probably related with ram usage ...
    I watch the ram usage while using it. Middle of day, I usually free unused ram with a software, "free memory". I wish to have 32 Gb ram though. I use a basic session structure and keep the capture number under 500 in each folder. I'm planning to limit the number under 300 from now...
    I like this software for my usage.
    0
  • MidWestTech
    Just looking for some clarification: Are you shooting tethered to the external thunderbolt RAID 1 or downloading them to the raid from card?

    Have you considered getting the data doubler and putting a second SSD inside the laptop for your tether/work drive?
    0
  • chmod
    MidWestTech - I rarely shoot tethered, so no, I am not. I took my passport photo tethered recently - that's all I have ever used it. 😊

    I jack into the Gig Ethernet on my 1DX body and import to the Thunderbolt RAID. I opt not to use the C1P "import" utility as I have my own naming convention. Also, I limit each folder to 300 or so images so as not to choke the software on a per session basis. It may not be as efficient but it works for me.

    The data doubler? I used it for a few months and deinstalled it. On my vintage (early 2011) MBP the optical bay interface is throttled to 3GB. Using a pair of bus-powered Firewire 800 SSD units works better for my work flow since I can unplug the deliverable and almost literally put it into my pocket to take to a client for review.

    The main reason I reverted to having an optical drive (aside from the lack of max speed which was not noticeable to me) was I need my laptop working. If for whatever reason I need it serviced (one or more boards, etc) Apple will not touch it with the optical bay altered. They consider boot drives to be user replaceable, but not data doublers. I don't have time to muck with that, if it ever comes to pass.

    chmod
    0
  • MidWestTech
    Thanks for the reply chmod.

    I too have had a really smooth experience with version 7 at home where I do a limited amount of tethered shooting (and not with Canon). At work it has been a horse of a different color having to deal with the various ups and downs of the Canon SDK. Tethering makes a huge difference in adding complexity to the process. If you go back and look at the issues that a lot of people have had with version 7, and late version 6 for that matter, you will see that a large number of them deal with tethering.

    One difference I would mention about importing from card through C1Pro or not is that you get all of your setting and proxy folders set up at the time of import. Doing the import outside of the software necessitates that these files and folders are created when the software is later pointed to them. If C1Pro's token naming can't do what your process does it may be a mute point, however, having done it both ways myself, I found that I could jump from import to working on files much more quickly by doing everything inside C1Pro.

    Out of curiosity, what kind of speed are you getting to and from your thunderbolt RAID? Is it HD or SSD? Is it really any better than the speed from the doubler's SATA2 spec connection? Obviously thunderbolt drive speeds vary widely. In fact, most of the single drive models I see on the market, including the SSDs even now are limited by their boards, many of which do not support the SATA3 spec either even if the drives do.

    I suppose I am spoiled when it comes to the doubler. I have a newer MBP that will support SATA3 and I know some guys that are authorized Apple repair techs so no matter what I put in a laptop, the likelihood that Apple will ever know the difference is close to zero.
    0
  • chmod
    MidWestTech...

    The Thunderbolt speeds are SATA2. I have two 3TB RAID 1 enclosures. Thus there are four total 3TB Hitachi drives. One RAID is dedicated to RAW and the other to video.

    I'm not seeing extraordinary speeds. What I am seeing is rock solid reliability and very clean connectivity. One skinny little wire from monitor to RAID. Suits me. Plus I can grow my storage as needed. I've already changed from 2TB to 3 on the RAW RAID.

    I never had illusions about speed with this protocol. It beats FW like a drum, so I'm a happy guy. USB3, well, assuming it is isosynchronous it might be interesting if it supported daisy chaining. Since it does not you must use a hub and that's 1980 tech to me. I'm NOT dissing USB3. It just doesn't do what I need.

    My work does not require insane throughput....just fast reliable throughput in large quantity. And I prefer a clean and simple degree of connectivity and scale.

    Chmod
    0
  • MidWestTech
    Thanks, I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
    0
  • chmod
    And thank you for pointing out some features associated with using the built-in import feature.

    I need to investigate that addition to my workflow.
    0
  • David Papas
    I have been complaining as much as anybody, but I went to a seminar last week with one of the Phase One engineers who worked on this and it was quite enlightening. He says they just decided when building the version 7 processing engine to not worry about processing speed and they were just going all out for maximum quality. That version 7 does need a later, faster model computer and should have 16 gigs of ram optimally. I can respect that, even though, I may need to upgrade sometime. The quality is much better. He was also refreshingly open about possible problems in the earlier versions, especially with open CL implementation. 7.1.1 does seem much better then earlier 7.0 versions if a bit sluggish still on my hardware, I think most of the problems I have had left are especially on my older macbook pro with not having adequate ram. So I am using 6 to capture to my P45+ which is a rock solid combination and shoots quickly. Then transferring to version 7 on my MacPro tower to process. Until I can upgrade computers, this will be a good workaround.
    Still, that 1st 7.0 version, could have been a little more finished before release, I might have considered having Open CL off by default too.
    0
  • Edward Caruso
    [quote="David5" wrote:
    The quality is much better. .


    I have done comparisons between V6 and V7 using the same images and I just do not see a difference in image quality.
    I do process most images in V7 just because but wouldn't use it on set in front of clients as V6 seems quicker and more stable. I've heard that "you need a super computer to run V7 well b/c the quality is so much better" before but I just dont see it. I'd like to be convinced with some examples if anyone has any.
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="Edward51" wrote:
    [quote="David5" wrote:
    The quality is much better. .


    I have done comparisons between V6 and V7 using the same images and I just do not see a difference in image quality.
    I do process most images in V7 just because but wouldn't use it on set in front of clients as V6 seems quicker and more stable. I've heard that "you need a super computer to run V7 well b/c the quality is so much better" before but I just dont see it. I'd like to be convinced with some examples if anyone has any.

    Did you use the new CO7 engine? You have to set that manually if you open or import images with adjustments of earlier versions. Otherwise you won't see a difference!
    0
  • Edward Caruso
    [quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
    [quote="Edward51" wrote:
    [quote="David5" wrote:
    The quality is much better. .


    I have done comparisons between V6 and V7 using the same images and I just do not see a difference in image quality.
    I do process most images in V7 just because but wouldn't use it on set in front of clients as V6 seems quicker and more stable. I've heard that "you need a super computer to run V7 well b/c the quality is so much better" before but I just dont see it. I'd like to be convinced with some examples if anyone has any.

    Did you use the new CO7 engine? You have to set that manually if you open or import images with adjustments of earlier versions. Otherwise you won't see a difference!


    yes using the new engine, but these images - fashion stuff - I don't really see a difference.
    0
  • picman2
    Whereas C1 v7 still has some annoying bugs (see my other messages) I must say I also find the image quality greatly improved. Also the noise reduction is now much much better than before.

    Cheers, Bob.
    0
  • chmod
    I agree. I have not specifically stated this, but I agree.

    The image quality is improved, in some ways greatly, over previous versions.

    My most recent client (live performance dance) is extremely happy with the deliverables.

    Please keep pushing the image quality. I do not believe this software requires a super computer but nowadays, stuffing as much RAM into a machine as possible, is a reasonable expectation. CPU impacts processing time, but not massively so unless using less than four cores. More RAM and a fast SSD will cover the vast majority of performance issues.

    Sure, there are bugs. I accept them because I am so pleased with the end results.

    chmod
    0

Post is closed for comments.