What are some features can we expect from C1v8?
I noticed that Capture one 6 forums are gone. I am guessing version 8 is around the corner. Is there is features can we expect?
0
-
Capture One 6 forum is not gone but has shifted to the legacy forums. Seems to make sense as CO7 is now over a year on the market and the activity on the CO6 forum is much reduced. I think that is the main reason for the change.
On the other hand, feel free to speculate on what the future might bring us.0 -
[quote="ben43456" wrote:
I am guessing version 8 is around the corner.
No obvious basis for thinking that.Is there is features can we expect?
Nobody here knows, and Phase One doesn't pre-announce what might be round the corner.0 -
Well, I'll chip in with my thoughts. I've converted from LR 4 to CO7 and the transition have been an easy one. Here's what I would like to see in CO8
1. A real spotting tool. The current one doesn't do much other than make a mess.
2. A real brush tool similar to LR's. It's the only thing I miss.
3. Cleaner noise reduction for high ISO photos. It's much better than LR's but not as good as DXO's
4. Option to open a folder without a session. Just to preview a folder on a card.
5. In the layers section, more tool options. I would love to see HDR as one of the tools.
6. A magic wand for selection in the layers tool. Selecting can be too time consuming in CO7
7. Some of the best tools like styles, and presets are buried and unknown. Thanks to a post in the forum, I was able to discover them. Ease of access to these hidden tools would be great!!
8. Could you make the Keystone Apply button larger? It's awfully tinny, and while you're at it, is there a way to make the lines more colorful so that we can see them? It can be very difficult to see those lines under some circumstances.
9. Double clicking on the browser spawns an primary edit window.
10. Option to have bigger text for menus and tab text.
These are a few of my favorite things.
Paul0 -
[quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
3... It's much better than LR's...
Not (at all) the case in my experience.
Which camera(s) are you using?
And are you using the masking tool in Lightroom properly?0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
3... It's much better than LR's...
Not (at all) the case in my experience.
Which camera(s) are you using?
And are you using the masking tool in Lightroom properly?
Well, I've been using LR since version one and it's well documented that LR's kryptonite has always been it's noise control. There was a big improvement from 3 to 4, but it still fell short compared to others. I have processed well over 100,000 files using LR and I believe I have an intimate understanding of it's use. Files over ISO 1600 were a challenge for LR 4 and not good at all with 3200. CO7 is far superior in processing those files, but DXO does have an edge over CO7. I have reviewed the same file with each program and that's how I made my conclusion. Before switching to CO7, I used Silkypix for 3 years because of the uselessness of LR's noise control. The main reason I finally ditched LR was that I hated the Skin tones and that catalog. It annoyed me to no end when I had to look at the files on a CF card and I had to do an import.
For the last year I have been using a D800 and previously a D700 for 4 years. What camera do you use?
LOL! Yes, I have a clear understanding of LR's masking tool. I guess you asked because it's normally a very difficult tool to understand and use. It took me a while and a lot of Youtube to get the hang of it. Like trying to actually see the mask, control all the control points, etc,etc,etc... I think CO7 has great potential with it's layer tool, but unfortunately it needs a lot of improvement. Hence, most of my requests deal with it.
Hope this helps.
Paul0 -
No, I asked because using it (and the "Detail" slider) properly, Lr's NR kicks Capture One's into the middle of next week in my experience - and in that of pretty much everyone who's done like-for-like testing of the two converters (certainly in terms of balancing noise reduction with detail retention).
I go to Lr before Cap One 7 any time I have high ISO files to deal with (unless we're talking about very high ISO, in which case Optics Pro 9 gets the gig).
But it is a camera-specific thing, which is why I asked that.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
No, I asked because using it (and the "Detail" slider) properly, Lr's NR kicks Capture One's into the middle of next week in my experience - and in that of pretty much everyone who's done like-for-like testing of the two converters (certainly in terms of balancing noise reduction with detail retention).
I go to Lr before Cap One 7 any time I have high ISO files to deal with (unless we're talking about very high ISO, in which case Optics Pro 9 gets the gig).
But it is a camera-specific thing, which is why I asked that.
I could go on and on about why every time I used LR, I hated it. The Adobe WAY! From the catalog, to the NR, to the scrolling workflow! Etc, Etc, Etc... But the main reason I switched from LR, to Silkypix to finally CO7 was the quality of the files and skin tones. I believe if you search the internet and look at what LR's Achilles Heel is, you'll note it's noise reduction. I decided not to upgrade from 4 to 5 because of it and instead went with CO7 this time.
You never mentioned which camera you use. LR is quite ineffective with files above ISO 2000 with either my D700 or D800. CO7's NR could use some improvements of course, but it's workable. Maybe LR is more in tune with your camera files.
After toiling with LR for many years, I believe I have a firm grasp of it's capabilities. Just because it's widely used doesn't mean it's the best. For my purposes, I haven't looked back.
Hope this helps.
Paul0 -
LR5 noise reduction kills C1 Pro. I have Nikon d4, d3s and d700. C1 doesn't even come close. Plus LR can resurrect underxposed images really well. C1 Pro is nowhere near saving underexposed images shot in extreme breaking news situations such as a manhunt I covered in the Boston area last year. 0 -
I actually find C1 noise reduction just fine. Then again, I never use luminance noise reduction, I actually like the grain from my D700 .NEF files produce.
One thing I'd like to see and a color balance wheel for shadows and highlights. I would love to exaggerate the blues in the shadows and warm tones in highlights without having to use curves.0 -
The C1PRO software cycle is **almost** every two years, when the exception of version 3 taking long time to evolve into version 4. Since then, almost every two years seem to be a safe guess to answer, "When is the next version of C1PRO?" Like it or not, Windows 8.1 is here to stay and I'm in the minority—I *LIKE* Windows 8.1 PRO. For C1PRO8, I would like their coding to be optimized for Windows 8 architecture. I can tell softwares run faster on startup. I am still running on the 2009, first-generation Intel Core i5 750 and I don't see a desperate need to upgrade to the latest and greatest. My camera is Canon 7D and I upgraded from Canon 30D. Fits for my needs.
What do I like to see in C1PRO8?
—Address the lagging of the brush work.
—Fix the limitation of the graduated rectangular mask. I considered the current method "limited" because you can draw multiple strokes. If you want to darken your corners in a custom way, you need FOUR layers. If you accidentally draw the gradient for upper-right on the layer for upper-left, the drawn upper-left gradient will be replaced with the newly drawn upper-right gradient. Allow the gradients to be drawn outside of the image to control the fading and feathering, similar to Photoshop and LR.
—Allocate software calculations to the GPU via OpenCL. I read somewhere in the forums, that not all the manipulations sliders tap into OpenCL.
—Ability to create our lens profiles and we could share our profiles, thus having a sense of "community." Eventhough Adobe LR/ACR's RAW algorithms are not up to par with the output of C1PRO, why do so many people use LR? Besides the fact that Adobe has deep pockets for advertising, people use LR/ACR because there is a community for people to share presets and Lens Profiles.
—Have "Print to JPEG / PNG" functionality in the Print module.
For me, that's about what I'd like to see in C1PRO8. I also ask that C1PRO remain a PROFESSIONAL workflow solution and not try to be like LR and become more bloat software. I have been using C1PRO since version 3.7.8.0 -
The color grading and toning you described could be used by Levels as well. I use the four triangle grabbing handles the Levels and it works great to tone the shadows and highlights. [quote="ben43456" wrote:
I actually find C1 noise reduction just fine. Then again, I never use luminance noise reduction, I actually like the grain from my D700 .NEF files produce.
One thing I'd like to see and a color balance wheel for shadows and highlights. I would love to exaggerate the blues in the shadows and warm tones in highlights without having to use curves.0 -
[quote="ronaldnztan" wrote:
The color grading and toning you described could be used by Levels as well. I use the four triangle grabbing handles the Levels and it works great to tone the shadows and highlights.[quote="ben43456" wrote:
I actually find C1 noise reduction just fine. Then again, I never use luminance noise reduction, I actually like the grain from my D700 .NEF files produce.
One thing I'd like to see and a color balance wheel for shadows and highlights. I would love to exaggerate the blues in the shadows and warm tones in highlights without having to use curves.
I have been using the just that and curves to get what I want. I guess I feel a just tiny bit lazy and just like the to play with the color wheel, sometimes.
One of the top reasons I decided to switch to C1 and still use C1 is because it uses a color wheel for it's color editor and color balance instead of a slider or graph.0 -
[quote="ronaldnztan" wrote:
The C1PRO software cycle is **almost** every two years, when the exception of version 3 taking long time to evolve into version 4. Since then, almost every two years seem to be a safe guess to answer, "When is the next version of C1PRO?" Like it or not, Windows 8.1 is here to stay and I'm in the minority—I *LIKE* Windows 8.1 PRO. For C1PRO8, I would like their coding to be optimized for Windows 8 architecture. I can tell softwares run faster on startup. I am still running on the 2009, first-generation Intel Core i5 750 and I don't see a desperate need to upgrade to the latest and greatest. My camera is Canon 7D and I upgraded from Canon 30D. Fits for my needs.
What do I like to see in C1PRO8?
—Address the lagging of the brush work.
—Fix the limitation of the graduated rectangular mask. I considered the current method "limited" because you can draw multiple strokes. If you want to darken your corners in a custom way, you need FOUR layers. If you accidentally draw the gradient for upper-right on the layer for upper-left, the drawn upper-left gradient will be replaced with the newly drawn upper-right gradient. Allow the gradients to be drawn outside of the image to control the fading and feathering, similar to Photoshop and LR.
—Allocate software calculations to the GPU via OpenCL. I read somewhere in the forums, that not all the manipulations sliders tap into OpenCL.
—Ability to create our lens profiles and we could share our profiles, thus having a sense of "community." Eventhough Adobe LR/ACR's RAW algorithms are not up to par with the output of C1PRO, why do so many people use LR? Besides the fact that Adobe has deep pockets for advertising, people use LR/ACR because there is a community for people to share presets and Lens Profiles.
—Have "Print to JPEG / PNG" functionality in the Print module.
For me, that's about what I'd like to see in C1PRO8. I also ask that C1PRO remain a PROFESSIONAL workflow solution and not try to be like LR and become more bloat software. I have been using C1PRO since version 3.7.8.
Ronald,
FWIW I see almost no lagging, with 'normal use', using brushwork. My notebook uses a i7 3820QM processor - I think this performance level and above is the key to 'no lag'. My other, much less powerful, machines had a lot of lag when I used them.
I think there may be other ways to address your gradient fill requirements - it might make a good community discussion topic, perhaps based on an initial Professor's Blog post to set out some possible options for the approach. That said, yes I could see some future additional functionality in that area as potentially useful.
There are likely some technical reasons for why throwing everything at the GPU and Open CL (when available) offers little advantage. My notebook GPU is Open CL enabled but not very powerful. As far as I can tell it was allocated some work when I used the 7.1.1 release but since 7.1.5 I can so no evidence of it being allocated any of the processing load, although Windows seems to use it a bit for drawing screens and things like progress bars. I have not noticed any appreciable difference in processing speed since the apparent change. That's not to say there is none - just that it is not something that is obvious with the configuration of my machine.
I have no opinion about whether a sense of community would be a result of some lens profile sharing activity - except to say that I'm not sure why it would be the case. From what I understand of the way such work needs to be done, if quality results that add anything to the output are to be obtained, I rather doubt that many forum members would be in a position to help even if they wished to. But I could be wrong although it would be of little interest to me at this point. It might be interesting to get a statement from C1 about the potential for for creating DiY lens profiles. I seem to recall some time back an outline description of the overall process they go through being posted and it did not sound like it had any DiY potential, certainly for the optical side of things. What would sharing lens profiles offer us?
I'm not sure I have an understanding of why a Print to JPG/PNG option would be desirable rather than just processing the images which, presumably, would give the same result? I would interested to understand more about that.
All these points are offered in the spirit of community discussion! 😊
Grant0 -
Hi Grant,
With the "Print to JPEG" option, you could create diptychs in the Print Module of C1PRO. 😊
Ron0 -
[quote="ronaldnztan" wrote:
Hi Grant,
With the "Print to JPEG" option, you could create diptychs in the Print Module of C1PRO. 😊
Ron
Ah!
OK. I understand that. I guess one can print a multi-image page directly as things stand but not readily produce a multi-image file as a jpg. Interesting idea and would save the need to create something in an external program. (That said other programs are likely to have presentation features - borders, drop shadows and things - that a print program does not offer.)
I have not tried any that offer large image file output in high quality but there are print driver in the wild that wold allow you to "Print" to a file rather than a paper and ink based output. PDF and Microsoft XPS format are the most common examples but may have limitations it you want full photographic image quality. However there are others that could be worth investigating - or have you already been down that path?
Obviously I am assuming the use of V7 Pro here since, from memory, Express does not include the Print options.
Grant0 -
[quote="ronaldnztan" wrote:
—Fix the limitation of the graduated rectangular mask.
While waiting for that, and not knowing if we'll ever see it, we can:
- Use a large, soft brush, with opacity set to somewhat less than 100%.
- Paint with that, and you can build some very intricate gradients, of any shape and all in one layer.
Just a suggestion.
Cheers,
Mogens0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
[quote="ronaldnztan" wrote:
—Fix the limitation of the graduated rectangular mask.
While waiting for that, and not knowing if we'll ever see it, we can:
- Use a large, soft brush, with opacity set to somewhat less than 100%.
- Paint with that, and you can build some very intricate gradients, of any shape and all in one layer.
Just a suggestion.
Cheers,
Mogens
And there is the potential for using the same for erasing the graduated mask selectively - which I mention only for completeness. I'm sure you implied such things in your post Mogens.
Also to copy a mask from one layer to another and then invert it before further editing.
That said avoiding too many layers is always desirable for performance reasons and of course because there are, afaik, a limited number of layers available.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
...
That said avoiding too many layers is always desirable for performance reasons and of course because there are, afaik, a limited number of layers available.
That is correct, Grant. Ten layers plus background in CO7 (coming from five in CO6).0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
...
That said avoiding too many layers is always desirable for performance reasons and of course because there are, afaik, a limited number of layers available.
That is correct, Grant. Ten layers plus background in CO7 (coming from five in CO6).
11 total (including background) was the number I remember Paul.
I don't suppose there is any chance that a few more have been added unannounced in recent releases? 😉
Actually I doubt it would be sensible, from the point of view of performance, to have many more at this time.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
...
Obviously I am assuming the use of V7 Pro here since, from memory, Express does not include the Print options.
Grant
While busy in an Express setup, I checked and found the print option in Express too, and at first glance, even without limitations compared to Pro.0 -
Don't think you can add a watermark in the print dialogue in Express, Paul - the option appears, but selecting either "Text" or "image" there's a brief flicker then the field reverts back to "None". 0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
...
Obviously I am assuming the use of V7 Pro here since, from memory, Express does not include the Print options.
Grant
While busy in an Express setup, I checked and found the print option in Express too, and at first glance, even without limitations compared to Pro.
Ah, OK. My memory must be at fault then.
I should have checked the comparison document.
Thanks for the correction Paul.
Grant0 -
[quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
Well, I'll chip in with my thoughts. I've converted from LR 4 to CO7 and the transition have been an easy one. Here's what I would like to see in CO8
1. A real spotting tool. The current one doesn't do much other than make a mess.
2. A real brush tool similar to LR's. It's the only thing I miss.
3. Cleaner noise reduction for high ISO photos. It's much better than LR's but not as good as DXO's
4. Option to open a folder without a session. Just to preview a folder on a card.
5. In the layers section, more tool options. I would love to see HDR as one of the tools.
6. A magic wand for selection in the layers tool. Selecting can be too time consuming in CO7
7. Some of the best tools like styles, and presets are buried and unknown. Thanks to a post in the forum, I was able to discover them. Ease of access to these hidden tools would be great!!
8. Could you make the Keystone Apply button larger? It's awfully tinny, and while you're at it, is there a way to make the lines more colorful so that we can see them? It can be very difficult to see those lines under some circumstances.
9. Double clicking on the browser spawns an primary edit window.
10. Option to have bigger text for menus and tab text.
These are a few of my favorite things.
Paul
Hi
I'd like to say that my wishlist for CO8 is pretty similar to the above list !
Especially point 6, auto mask could be improved for detecting edges automatically. And selection based upon brightness or color criteria would be very useful.
Also point 3. Even if it has been improved in V7, it would be great if V8 could bring further improvements in the noise removal.[quote="ronaldnztan" wrote:
The C1PRO software cycle is **almost** every two years, when the exception of version 3 taking long time to evolve into version 4. Since then, almost every two years seem to be a safe guess to answer, "When is the next version of C1PRO?" Like it or not, Windows 8.1 is here to stay and I'm in the minority—I *LIKE* Windows 8.1 PRO. For C1PRO8, I would like their coding to be optimized for Windows 8 architecture. I can tell softwares run faster on startup. I am still running on the 2009, first-generation Intel Core i5 750 and I don't see a desperate need to upgrade to the latest and greatest. My camera is Canon 7D and I upgraded from Canon 30D. Fits for my needs.
What do I like to see in C1PRO8?
...
—Ability to create our lens profiles and we could share our profiles, thus having a sense of "community." Eventhough Adobe LR/ACR's RAW algorithms are not up to par with the output of C1PRO, why do so many people use LR? Besides the fact that Adobe has deep pockets for advertising, people use LR/ACR because there is a community for people to share presets and Lens Profiles.
...
I also had this idea some years ago. But I admit that creating a zoom lens profile would not be so easy. For prime lenses maybe...
Another feature that could be improved (in CO7, why not) : JPEG compression. The Quality can be adjusted continuously in % but actually there are much less steps. So you diminish the Quality by 5% (for instance) and the resulting JPEG is still the same size ! And to get a file under a given size, you have to make many useless trial-errors before finding the right compression value.
It would be very useful to have an "Export for the web" functionality with a preview of the resulting file size along with the Quality cursor. And even better : you fix the max size and the tool adjusts the Quality accordingly.
The sorting criteria could be extended to IPTC fields such as "Title", "Category", etc... and maybe customizable (to hide unwanted criteria in the list).
Also renaming possibilities could be extended. Maybe I missed something but I did not see how to replace part of the name with another string, for instance DSC -> D61. Please let me know if it is possible with CO7.
Hoping these suggestions will receive consideration from the Phase One team, thanks in advance.
Best regards0 -
[quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
Well, I'll chip in with my thoughts. I've converted from LR 4 to CO7 and the transition have been an easy one. Here's what I would like to see in CO8
1. A real spotting tool. The current one doesn't do much other than make a mess.
2. A real brush tool similar to LR's. It's the only thing I miss.
3. Cleaner noise reduction for high ISO photos. It's much better than LR's but not as good as DXO's
4. Option to open a folder without a session. Just to preview a folder on a card.
5. In the layers section, more tool options. I would love to see HDR as one of the tools.
6. A magic wand for selection in the layers tool. Selecting can be too time consuming in CO7
7. Some of the best tools like styles, and presets are buried and unknown. Thanks to a post in the forum, I was able to discover them. Ease of access to these hidden tools would be great!!
8. Could you make the Keystone Apply button larger? It's awfully tinny, and while you're at it, is there a way to make the lines more colorful so that we can see them? It can be very difficult to see those lines under some circumstances.
9. Double clicking on the browser spawns an primary edit window.
10. Option to have bigger text for menus and tab text.
These are a few of my favorite things.
Paul
Additional zu 4. Browsing the Systemfolders without automatic generation of proxies when pictures are in a Folder.0 -
[quote="ronaldnztan" wrote:
Even though Adobe LR/ACR's RAW algorithms are not up to par with the output of C1PRO, why do so many people use LR?
Because many of us find Lr's algorithms (especially its demosaic, NR and highlight recovery algorithms) better than Capture One's?
Because Lr's pricing structure provides "one-size-fits-all" access to all of the tools that the software provides?
Because the implementation of these tools is logical, easy to use and effective?
Because it is a stable, effective, versatile, established platform which supports every stage of the workflow from ingesting images to the finished article, including handing-off to PhotoShop?
Because Lr supports plugins that massively extend its functionality?because there is a community for people to share presets and Lens Profiles.
Certainly, unequivocally, not because of that.
Much as there is to like about Capture One, let's not run away with the notion it's the only game in town, 'cos it ain't. Not by a long shot.
Every time I use Lr, I come away thinking "why do I ever use anything else?" - but I like the options afforded by using other Raw converters, and so I use Capture One, Photo Ninja and DxO Optics Pro too, as mood and need take me.
They're all better than the others at some things, but - believe me - it's a mistake to think that people only choose Lr because they can swap presets and lens profiles: in fact I'd go as far as to say that for most Lr users (it's certainly true for all of the Lr users I know), the ability to swap presets and profiles is an irrelevance.
Lr is simply an astonishingly well-rounded workflow solution, and would unquestionably be the one I'd pick if could only have one converter...0 -
All I ask is a FULL integration between C1 and MP: keywords, meta, color tags.... Too much to hope for?
F.0 -
[quote="pkurhieuyr" wrote:
All I ask is a FULL integration between C1 and MP: keywords, meta, color tags.... Too much to hope for?
F.
Probably. I've been waiting since it was first introduced with those promises.0 -
What i expect from C08?!?
Dual-GPU support.
Both GPU's handle Picture Export, only one GPU for Postprocessing. --> For Mac and Windows.
(will bring down the Export of 900 Pictures (Wedding Report) @4K to 10 Minutes)
Better folder structure has already been called ...
____
For me, LR is no alternative any more, slow, Overloaded and has ugly Colors.
CO.X is the fist choice for Professionals.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
28 comments