Skip to main content

Process Recipes Changes & Bugs

Comments

12 comments

  • SFA
    Had you altered a default recipe but not used a new name?

    If so that would be expected behaviour.

    But if you are seeing changes to your personalised recipes to which you have provided your own names that would unexpected behaviour.


    Grant
    0
  • Frank
    I changed all the existing ones and if all would have been "overwritten" by standards I would somehow understand the behaviour. But then I would expect that it also removes my personal ones which is not the case.

    However it is a wild mixture. Some of my personal have been changed slightly i.e. setting for output sharpening, some are not altered at all and I see the same for some of the default recipe.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="FL_" wrote:
    I changed all the existing ones and if all would have been "overwritten" by standards I would somehow understand the behaviour. But then I would expect that it also removes my personal ones which is not the case.

    However it is a wild mixture. Some of my personal have been changed slightly i.e. setting for output sharpening, some are not altered at all and I see the same for some of the default recipe.


    An update should not remove personal definitions. It would have no knowledge of them to replace them simply by copying over them although I suppose any update might fail to include them for some reason of error (usually).

    To change values in personal process definitions seems unusual.

    I suppose it is possible that some things have been recalibrated within the engine and so previous settings need to be adjusted to retain the same result. If so one mind be grateful for an automatically applied rectification but perhaps not one that may not have been clearly unannounced.

    It will be interesting to hear what information you get back from Support.


    Grant
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="FL_" wrote:
    (...)
    Also I can not longer export without providing a name (Format) in output naming. CO12 still pretends to export file after file but nothing happens. In CO11 I got EmptyName.tif instead.

    Sound more like a bug that was fixed. 😊
    0
  • Frank
    Don't agree. Capture One is showing an export activity for minutes and occupies CPU & GPU but does not generate any output. You can actually watch the images being work on in the queue. Even worse, no warning.
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="FL_" wrote:
    Don't agree. Capture One is showing an export activity for minutes and occupies CPU & GPU but does not generate any output. You can actually watch the images being work on in the queue. Even worse, no warning.

    Okay, new information. And with a token in the file naming field it works OK?
    Hmm, I suggest to log this with support.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="FL_" wrote:
    Don't agree. Capture One is showing an export activity for minutes and occupies CPU & GPU but does not generate any output. You can actually watch the images being work on in the queue. Even worse, no warning.


    So you are using the process tool and previously defined recipe?

    What to you see in the Process Batch History?

    I would expect you to be able to see the last 100 files processed.


    Grant
    0
  • Frank
    Yes, I am using process recipes that work just fine in CO11 and everything shows up in the process history but when I don't enter a name no file is generated. I can even reprocess the non-existing file.

    Unfortunately this is not the only issue with CO12. CO11 was not fast when released but CO12 is way to buggy. Even though I bought it I will go back to CO11 as it this update price I expect proper testing before releasing a software.

    Frank
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="FL_" wrote:
    Yes, I am using process recipes that work just fine in CO11 and everything shows up in the process history but when I don't enter a name no file is generated. I can even reprocess the non-existing file.

    Unfortunately this is not the only issue with CO12. CO11 was not fast when released but CO12 is way to buggy. Even though I bought it I will go back to CO11 as it this update price I expect proper testing before releasing a software.

    Frank


    So your batch history has a list of files with no name?

    Have you checked the settings for the destination folder just to be sure you know exactly where it is going (or not).

    I can't think of a good reason to not bother to set up a naming convention for files and to persist without one when it is causing you some grief is probably not to be recommended.

    However, a couple of ideas come to mind.

    [list=]1. Your system is not quite as it should be after the install/Upgrade. Reasons unknown. If you have already tried re-installing and totally uninstalling and reinstalling and, perhaps, removing the plists and trying again, then I would suggest you create a support case and make use of the Capture One Technical Support resource and their expertise at reading log files.

    2. Check that the "Name" field does NOT have at least one blank in it. (Better still use one of more of the tokens available to see what happens.) If it has a blank it would most likely not count as an empty field and would, therefore, not be given the "Emptyname" default name. If your system is not set to show filename file type extensions. (is that possible on a Mac?) then a directory enquiry might well end up appearing empty even if the files, or at least a file existed. [/list]


    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Frank
    No, the batch history shows the original file name. It is just the export file name causing issues. If I leave this export file name empty the computer is working on the export but not generating any file.

    If for whatever reason PhaseOne wants to change the former behaviour where CO was using the phrase "emptyname_1..." they should document it and stop CO from working on the export and adding the items to the history. An popup with a warning would also be helpful.

    There are several a few of these undocumented changes in CO12 and this might have to do with the new UI. Some of the changes might have been unintentional or the old behaviour was not fully documented, however some provided workarounds for limitations of the old UI.

    Best
    Frank
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="FL_" wrote:
    No, the batch history shows the original file name. It is just the export file name causing issues. If I leave this export file name empty the computer is working on the export but not generating any file.

    If for whatever reason PhaseOne wants to change the former behaviour where CO was using the phrase "emptyname_1..." they should document it and stop CO from working on the export and adding the items to the history. An popup with a warning would also be helpful.

    There are several a few of these undocumented changes in CO12 and this might have to do with the new UI. Some of the changes might have been unintentional or the old behaviour was not fully documented, however some provided workarounds for limitations of the old UI.

    Best
    Frank


    Frank,

    I don't think there has been an intentional change in functionality.

    "Emptyname" suggests the use of a naming token for the file name that may be a user definable variable in a field somewhere.

    So by way of example, in the Process Recipe definition as part of the 'File' tab you have a field called 'Sub Name'.

    You may enter some text there for use somewhere in the output name for any file processed and for what ever purpose you may have.

    Further down in the process definition tools you have the 'Output Naming' section. This also has a field for 'Job Name' that you can enter some text to for helping to name the file to be produced.

    Above that field is a field called 'Format' where you can define the format of the name for the output file using both directly keyed in characters and 'Tokens' that refer to other values associated with the file to be processed. Among the tokens are option to include whatever is in the Sub Name and Job Name field mentioned above.

    If one of those tokens has been used BUT for some reason no text exists in the related field is when you would typically see C1 using the "Emptyname" value in its output naming. This indicates that the definition says to use the value in that field but the value is empty.

    I suspect if the field associated with the token has one or more SPACES it will look empty when viewed but C1 will interpret the spaces as valid characters - which they are - and you won't get the 'Emptyname' result. So you end up with an entirely blank name. (Another option I can think of is that you are still getting the files with Emptyname but they are not being delivered to the location in which you expect to find them. I don't think we have yet discussed that possibility have we?)

    Even with 'Emptyname' you are really not getting the best results from the functionality available so this may be a good time to try some other approaches for your naming requirements.

    If you are using the 'Export Variant' tool rather than 'Process File' you have the same functionality but the names of the sections of the tools are slightly different and they are in a different order on screen. ('Export Naming' followed by 'Export Recipe' )

    If you find that none of these points match what you can discover by reviewing the process for output naming that you see on screen then one would have to wonder if there is some sort of problem with the recipe files or their installation as V12 sees them.

    If that is the case then a new approach will be required but it can be easily tested (at least in theory) by simply defining a recipe that should certainly give a named output file and observing whether that works as expected.


    HTH.

    Grant
    0
  • Frank
    Issue (change of behaviour) has been confirmed by PhaseOne and forwarded to R&D.

    Best
    Frank
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.