8.2 Kelvin slider mousewheel
Hello. Did you notice the differing behaviour for the mousewheel, and do you like it or not?
With version 8.2, the mousewheel over the Kelvin slider adjusts the value by 16 or 17.
The slider over the value input field does not adjust the value at all.
In the previous version, if I remember right, the mousewheel over the Kelvin slider adjusted the value by 50.
The slider over the value input field adjusted the value by 25.
The old behaviour, in my opinion, was much more practical.
Best regards,
BeO
With version 8.2, the mousewheel over the Kelvin slider adjusts the value by 16 or 17.
The slider over the value input field does not adjust the value at all.
In the previous version, if I remember right, the mousewheel over the Kelvin slider adjusted the value by 50.
The slider over the value input field adjusted the value by 25.
The old behaviour, in my opinion, was much more practical.
Best regards,
BeO
0
-
P.S. I decided to make a support call for clarification. However, can you please post your opinion / preference... 0 -
I agree. Indexing in 50's is much better. It is tidy and reproducible.
So the change in 8.2 is a source of irritation. Please, Phase, undo it!
Peter0 -
the right will be to add an option in configuration dialog as to how we want to do it - old way (fixed) or a new way (variable)... let the end users decide instead of hardcoding it... may be with additional options as to how we want to step 50/25, 50/10, etc - like allowing to setup adjustment steps. 0 -
Here is the answer: "This is a decision to uniform Windows and Mac version.
Mac version have always used a finer scale then the Windows version and this is the preferred option by majority of users."
Here are my thoughts:
With the windows version you have had two scales, a "course" scale over the slider (50), and a finer scale over the value (25), both with the mousewheel.
Now you have the mousewheel event over the value disabled in the windows version. Is this on the Mac version too?
Users could have the best of both worlds (if you define a finer scale as being "best), if both options would be available, e.g. 25 over the slider and 16 over the value.
Is the disabling of the mousewheel event over the value a bug or a feature?0 -
I think the mousewheel event over value controls is one of the best parts of C1's HCI, making it easy to perform accurate fine adjustments.
However, as you point out in V8.2 it doesn't work on the Kelvin and Tint controls. In addition I notice for me that it also doesn't work for the Exposure, Contrast, Brightness and Saturation controls in the Exposure tool.
All other numeric controls that I have tested do respond to the mousewheel events, without needing to click in the value field.
The failure of the fields mentioned above is inconsistent.0 -
You're right Richard, I did not notice the new flaw in the Exposure tool, I just checked it, it works with 8.1 but does not with 8.2.
I don't like inconsistencies either, but on the WB tool this is really bad, as it actually takes away the option for choosing between two different (reasonable) increments of fine tuning.
btw, do you tune the WB in increments of 16 like the majority of Mac users do (according to Phase One support)?0 -
Infuriating isn't it?!
It would seem that Phase can't resist fiddling about. Little wonder they have ended up with an 8.2 version that requires you and me to fiddle about. What a mess!
Back to 8.1 for me - if and when I go back to Cap1.
Peter.0 -
[quote="BeO" wrote:
You're right Richard, I did not notice the new flaw in the Exposure tool, I just checked it, it works with 8.1 but does not with 8.2.
I don't like inconsistencies either, but on the WB tool this is really bad, as it actually takes away the option for choosing between two different (reasonable) increments of fine tuning.
btw, do you tune the WB in increments of 16 like the majority of Mac users do (according to Phase One support)?
Firstly, I admit I do not change WB much. Sometimes I might use the "Pick White Balance" dropper tool. Very rarely do I adjust the Kelvin/Tint.
However I checked your point that mousewheel over the slider changes by 16 or 17. Having inconsistent values is poor and erratic. If you click in the value field then mousewheel does change values by 25. Personally I find it confusing that there are two different step values, depending which part of the control you are over. Do any other controls in C1 work like that?0 -
Richard, you're my man!
In 8.1 it was not necessary to actually click on the value, hovering over the value was sufficient. Same with the Exposure tools. I hope C1 is not becoming Lightroom-like...!
THis topic reveals more and more inconsistencies than I thought originally, as for most other tools hovering over the value is pretty much sufficient, as is the case with the slider itself.
However, your finding gives me back two separate increments, it is the other way round (slider/value = small/large instead of large/small), and smaller increments (16 or 17 / 25 instead of 50/25), but well, better than nothing...
PHASE ONE, please take away the extra click on the Exposure and WB tools and make it consistent to the other tools, not to the Macintosh!0 -
[quote="BeO" wrote:
Richard, you're my man!
In 8.1 it was not necessary to actually click on the value, hovering over the value was sufficient. Same with the Exposure tools. I hope C1 is not becoming Lightroom-like...!
THis topic reveals more and more inconsistencies than I thought originally, as for most other tools hovering over the value is pretty much sufficient, as is the case with the slider itself.
However, your finding gives me back two separate increments, it is the other way round (slider/value = small/large instead of large/small), and smaller increments (16 or 17 / 25 instead of 50/25), but well, better than nothing...
PHASE ONE, please take away the extra click on the Exposure and WB tools and make it consistent to the other tools, not to the Macintosh!
I agree - it should not be necessary to have to click in these values fields in order to adjust with mousewheel.
Also, if you must have different increments for the slider and the value fields, I believe they should be the other way round. Using the slider represents a coarser method of control and should employ the larger increments. Changing the value field represents a finer method of control and should employ the smaller increments.0 -
I agree, that's why I am missing the 8.1 behavior. Thanks all, I wanted to know if my expectations are too far off, but you encouraged me to address this in a support ticket. They might eventually have introduced weird behaviour unintendedly, I can't image the Mac version is as bad.
Cheers
BeO0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
11 comments