Anyone else having problems with 1D M III conversions?
I filed a report on this earlier (4 beta and 3.7.7 were underexposing conversions with this camera) and hoped it was fixed in V4 release but I'm still seeing underexposure with it ... anyone else have this problem?
Here's a short web page showing it.
http://www.hiltonphotography.net/tests/ ... /index.htm
Bill
Here's a short web page showing it.
http://www.hiltonphotography.net/tests/ ... /index.htm
Bill
0
-
My 1D MkIII files do seem to come up a bit dim in C1 (v3.7.x and v4). I haven't done anything as extensive as your tests, but part of me was wondering if I was just woefully underexposing my shots.
That being said, I mostly just chalked it up to C1 eccentricity.
It's debatable if it's a bug but it is annoying to have to boost every exposure in the app.
I wonder if it could be related to the MkIII's Highlight Tone Priority shifting the midtone balance of the RAW files by a stop or so? I pretty much always shoot with it on unless I need ISO 6400.0 -
banzai, I filed a support case and they replied that there is indeed a problem with the 1D M III conversions. I posted their answer below -- if I understand it correctly he says the M III will be "fully supported" (implying it isn't now I guess) with Pro 3.7.8 but since I'm using LE that doesn't really help me out.
Why not shoot a target and develop it with both C1 and either the Canon software or Photoshop and compare? The more people who file support cases the more likely they'll fix the problem. The camera has been out since April!
Here's the support case reply:
Dear Bill,
thank you very much for a very detailed description of the problem. From what I can see I can agree with you that the images do look underexposed and I will forward your findings to our test department, which will feed them back to R&D team.
I cannot tell where this difference originates, but when I hear from R&D about the status, I will let you know.
Also, your camera will be fully supported in the upcoming Capture One PRO 3.7.8 if the Capture One 4.0 (which is technically speaking an LE version) so far did not fulfill your expectations.
Thank you very much for contacting us and for your exhaustive feedback. We will do our best to find a solution to this issue and rectify it.
With kind regards,0 -
Thanks for the update.
We'll see if anything comes of it, but at the very least I've been finding their customer service to be pretty good. They definitely hear what we're saying though that's still no guarantee that a fix will be on the way.
I'll see if I can duplicate your test. The holidays have my brain not so much in a gear-testing mood, but maybe over the weekend I'll motivate and log it as a bug.
Good luck!0 -
"at the very least I've been finding their customer service to be pretty good"
Banzai, this is a professional grade camera that has been out since last April ... I sent in a bug report about the exposure problem with the first V 4 beta release and also with 3.7.7 and they still do not have it fixed.
I would not consider that good "customer service". They are very slow about supporting new cameras, unfortunately.
Bill0 -
[quote="Bill_H" wrote:
Banzai, this is a professional grade camera that has been out since last April ... I sent in a bug report about the exposure problem with the first V 4 beta release and also with 3.7.7 and they still do not have it fixed.
I would not consider that good "customer service". They are very slow about supporting new cameras, unfortunately.
Oh, I agree. What I meant was that the customer service department is responsive, even if the R&D/engineering/bug fixers are slow or non-existent.0 -
Bill...not seeing this here on either MK3's...but I have yet to try it with highlight priority set on (I haven't seen the need for that )...do you have that on/off as banzai does?
Full support in my mind might include things like sRAWs, which are not supported by many yet....3.7 has been producing some of the best files for me I've seen from a new model even using the generic profile for it, so I'm wondering what the highlight priority setting might do in COne vs the other converters? TIA, John0 -
John, you solved it! Thanks, I'll fill out an updated support case and send it to Capture One, they will be thrilled to know the 'solution'.
I just re-shot the grey-card/white-card again and with the Highlight Tone Priority CF (C.Fn II-3) turned OFF I get the correct gray/white values when I do the conversion but when I turn it on white drops from say 235/235/235 to 194/194/194 ... so somehow Capture One does not pick up that this CF is set and therefore they underexpose the conversions when it is on, unliked BreezeBrowser and Photoshop.
This CF was pitched as a feature for professional wedding photographers (helps keep details in the white dresses, in theory) and I had it on for photographing birds (where I often have to underexpose a bit to keep from blowing out small areas of white plummage) so I think it's a useful CF and something COne should try to fix, but at least I now know what the problem is and how to avoid it.
These user-to-user forums are great when they work, thanks again John!
Bill0 -
banzai, in re-reading this thread I see you had suggested it might be this CF in your first post and I should have tested this after your post, so you deserve credit for figuring it out too.
I sent an update to the Support Case to COne and I think they'll add this 'quirk' to the user notes or readme files.0 -
Hey, Bill....I'm gonna be testing Highlight priority soon....can you confirm wether Adobe accommodates HP, or simply ignores the tag and produces the file as if shot normally....
seems like when I tried this in Photoshop...there was little difference in the output wether HP was set or not....but maybe the difference is only seen with some scene ratios....
I was kinda hoping Cone Pro would handle small raws before doing a lot of testing with this feature....TIA, John0 -
I've confirmed the behavior Bill's been seeing with my own tests. The 1D MkIII's Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) dims the image's exposure by exactly a full stop when viewed/rendered in C1 v4 (and probably the same in v3.7.7).
http://www.ebanzai.com/view_gallery.jsp?gid=781
There are three comparisons in that gallery:
1. Same exposure but one with HTP enabled and one with it disabled. Both rendered in C1 v4 with no adjustments. The image with HTP enabled comes out exactly one stop dimmer than the image with HTP disabled.
http://www.ebanzai.com/view_image.jsp?gid=781&pid=9002
2. Same pair of images as the previous, but with a +1 exposure compensation dialed in for the HTP-enabled image. Exposures are now essentially identical.
http://www.ebanzai.com/view_image.jsp?gid=781&pid=9003
3. As expected, an image with HTP enabled that was shot a full stop brighter (1/30 vs 1/60) than an image with HTP disabled will look the same in C1 v4:
http://www.ebanzai.com/view_image.jsp?gid=781&pid=90040 -
Oh, and I did log this as a bug with their support site. So my "vote" to fix this is added to yours, Bill. If they just peek into the EXIF MakerNotes and add an automatic +1 exposure comp, we'd be in good shape.
This all got me thinking more about what Highlight Tone Priority is actually doing. Could it be as simple and trivial as a -1 exposure shift in camera? We already know that HTP disables ISO 100 (and, oddly, ISO 6400). All it would have to do is slow down the ISO by full stop (e.g. ISO 200 down to 100) - that would underexpose by a full stop and allow an extra stop of breathing room at the highlight end.
The software then just needs to be aware of this and add a +1 exposure comp to the image, but maybe apply some kind of smooth S-curve to the top of the highlight area to prevent hard clipping. That would account for Canon's disclaimer that HTP mode increases shadow noise--because you're underexposing the shadows now and have to push them up a stop.
If that's all it's doing--and I'm guessing I'm pretty close here--then HTP mode really is just a meaningless feature for RAW shooters. It makes a lot of sense for JPEG shooters, but us RAW folk can just "expose right" as usual and apply our own exposure comp and highlight curve shaping in the RAW processor.
Hmmm. I almost always shoot with HTP enabled. I'm going to have to rethink this now.
The only part that I can't make sense of is why ISO 6400 is disabled with HTP. ISO 6400, I believe, is already just ISO 3200 pushed by a stop in camera (so it's kind of a "fake" ISO that's beyond the real sensitivity of the sensor). So if ISO 6400 is really ISO 3200 under the hood, you're already halfway there to HTP mode anyway. Maybe Canon just felt that the HTP shadow push at ISO 3200 noise levels was just unbearable? (whereas ISO 3200 with HTP is really ISO 1600 pushed by a stop--so the noise levels wouldn't be nearly as bad).
I hope this all made sense.0 -
John Malloy wrote: "Hey, Bill....I'm gonna be testing Highlight priority soon....can you confirm wether Adobe accommodates HP"
Yes, ACR interprets the custom function correctly and the exposure is right. You can see this on the link I gave in my first post.
I've seen a similar thing for years with the 'expanded' ISO settings, I sometimes use ISO 50 on earlier 1D cameras when I need a slow shutter speed and Capture One does not recognize the 'expansion' and gets the exposure wrong while BB and ACR interpret it correctly. I've filled out two Support Case bug reports on this and never gotten a satisfactory answer so I'm hoping that COne doesn't decide to simply ignore this HTP feature with the Mark III as well The more people who fill out support cases and ask for this the better.
Bill0 -
[quote="banzai"] wrote:
I've confirmed the behavior Bill's been seeing with my own tests. The 1D MkIII's Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) dims the image's exposure by exactly a full stop when viewed/rendered in C1 v4 (and probably the same in v3.7.7).
/[quote]
I'm seeing the same thing with Canon 40D HTP images. V4 renders them a full stop under.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
13 comments