Blurriness
Seems whenever I do an adjustment, or an action like option-reset, the viewer image goes blurry for a beat, making it difficult to see subtle changes. Don't think this happened in C1 Pro 9. Session mode, updated to C1 Pro 10, and engine updated to 10 as well. Open CL set to Never as Auto seems to result in crashes or glitches. Late 2013 Mac Pro, Mac OS 10.12.1
-Alan D
-Alan D
0
-
Same thing here, showing the image in 100% it gets blurry while making adjustments.. It makes no difference if there is a lot of layers or not, and enabling OpenCL or not doesn't make any difference ether.
I'm using a late 2012 Mac Mini and Mac OS 10.12.10 -
Yes, seeing that as well, mainly when applying sharpening and diffraction correction 0 -
Hello,
This is an issue I was experiencing with C1 9 ( viewtopic.php?f=61&t=24825 ), but with OpenCL for Display enabled in C1 10, preview no longer becomes blurry while making adjustments, temporarily resetting sliders or option-clicking Local Reset arrow.0 -
I had a feeling that the integrated graphics card in a Mac Mini is too fast and advanced...for Capture One to enable it 😁 0 -
If you look at the new C1P 10 videos you can actually see that even the professionals seem to have this problem! I'm seeing blurring when Peter Eastway makes adjustments in this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb0qXJLeiIM
Anyone logged it as a support request yet? Be interesting to know Phase One's thoughts on this...0 -
For many adjustments C1 is recalculation form the source file right the way through the process to a new preview and the application of sharpening.
It may take a short time depending on a number of factors not the least of them being screen resolution vs set preview size, files sizes, computer configuration and so on.
The "bluriness" disappears for the end result I assume - it does on my system after a fraction of a second.
How is that a problem worthy of reporting with any expectation of a magic "fix"?
Maybe C1 should change tack and just apply adjustments to the preview jpg files which should process much more quickly but with less useful feedback about the final result? Other applications seem to do this as a first pass and cover their tracks for finishing off the task after we think it is all complete.
Grant0 -
I too find these intermediate blurred images quite inconvenient, especially when trying to judge subtle changes by disabling the adjustment (option/alt-click on the redo micro-icon).
I understand that the image has to be 'rebuilt' from the ground up —such is the nature of non-destructive editing—, but I don't have to watch this process live on screen. We can only guess how the software handles it, but I have a feeling that buffering is not always part of it.
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
To Grant,
As Peter (and I) said, when flipping between subtle adjustments, an intermediate stage of blur is not helpful.
And as far as "How is that a problem worthy of reporting with any expectation of a magic "fix"?", how would one know unless one asks, and isnt that the purpose of the Forum?
-Alan D0 -
Actually, Grant may have hit upon the "magic" fix: setting Preview resolution to match monitor resolution so far seems to correct the issue.
-Alan D0 -
Yes, this is usually recommended for all development softwares. It doesn't simplify the task of the software when the definition of the preview is larger than the one of the screen. 0 -
[quote="Focuspuller" wrote:
And as far as "How is that a problem worthy of reporting with any expectation of a magic "fix"?", how would one know unless one asks, and isnt that the purpose of the Forum?
-Alan D
Not really since this is intended to be a User to User forum and you really need an answer from the C1 development team. For that a Support Case is the route to take.
The best way I know to do instant comparisons is simply leave your existing edits as they are, create a clone variant, add your changes to the new one and then switch back and forth between the two instantly.
Highly recommended.
HTH.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
The best way I know to do instant comparisons is simply leave your existing edits as they are, create a clone variant, add your changes to the new one and then switch back and forth between the two instantly.
Highly recommended.
HTH.
Grant
Hi Grant,
sorry I have to disagree with you again and believe me, it's not personal! 😊
I'm not willing to create clones every time I want to see the effect of a slight adjustment change. The burden is then on me to clean up all those clones, while remembering the ones I created on purpose and that must therefore remain.
I know that cloning is the standard answer to the "compare with original" question, and I kind of agree (but did you actually use that feature in LR? You'd be surprised how handy that is!). But I don't agree for repeatedly evaluating smaller adjustments while editing.
@ Alan, about that magic fix of setting the preview size correctly. My display is 1680 x 1050 and my preview size is 1680 pixels. I still get the blurry state. What am I doing wrong? The viewer is typically smaller than 1680, so maybe I should set the preview to 1440 or so? Any recommendations?
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
[quote="peter.f" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
The best way I know to do instant comparisons is simply leave your existing edits as they are, create a clone variant, add your changes to the new one and then switch back and forth between the two instantly.
Highly recommended.
HTH.
Grant
Hi Grant,
sorry I have to disagree with you again and believe me, it's not personal! 😊
I'm not willing to create clones every time I want to see the effect of a slight adjustment change. The burden is then on me to clean up all those clones, while remembering the ones I created on purpose and that must therefore remain.
I know that cloning is the standard answer to the "compare with original" question, and I kind of agree (but did you actually use that feature in LR? You'd be surprised how handy that is!). But I don't agree for repeatedly evaluating smaller adjustments while editing.
@ Alan, about that magic fix of setting the preview size correctly. My display is 1680 x 1050 and my preview size is 1680 pixels. I still get the blurry state. What am I doing wrong? The viewer is typically smaller than 1680, so maybe I should set the preview to 1440 or so? Any recommendations?
Cheers,
Peter.
Peter,
Everyone is entitled to their personal approach.
I have some other software that used heavily before C1, much preferring it to what was available back in the early iterations of LR.
That software has a "Show Original Image" option.
I used to use it quite often until I realised that in fact I had no interest at all in the original image after I had performed the first basic changes to the image. After applying a few tools I was at a new starting point. The original image was of no help in assessing anything changed AFTER that new starting point.
Fortunately that software, like C1, has the options to save (when you tell it to in that case) your work as an edit file - effectively a variant in C1 terms but instigated in a slightly different way. So I had a way to compare the most recent edit with my previous staging point edit without the risks of undertaking a temporary "delete" or some other trick strategy. (In fact in that software each tool application can be turned on and off individually too giving another way to view immediate changes - but only by switching one tool on or off per click. 3 tools - 3 clicks, etc.)
So the C1 approach and using variants worked well for my existing workflow when I started to use it. The overhead is merely a small extra section in the edit instruction file and some additional preview images calculated and held in memory if an image is set to show all variants.
For me it's a perfectly logical way to work and means I can have side by side images if I wish showing previous and current results. The more I use it the more it seems to me there are no downsides of any significance.
It then becomes something of an evangelical message to share with others in case they have not yet considered the benefits (as I see them) and are "stuck" with a "Show Original" button left over from the early days of digital image manipulation.
Not everyone will be interested of course but a few may find the approach useful land perhaps something they have never been prompted to consider previously - because "everyone has a Show Original button".
The existence of the button doe not necessarily make it a "good thing".
In my opinion.
For what it is worth.
But it is just an opinion.
Grant0 -
Hi Grant.
I agree with you that one must learn an application and the way it works before complaining. But when all other applications provide the 'show original' feature and given the fact that many people here ask for this means that it is not so unreasonable, wouldn't you agree?
I do use variants to compare, and I don't worry about the overhead for C1; I simply don't want the overhead for *me*.
LR has 'variants' as well, so you can use exactly the same approach as in C1 if you want to. But, LR also has a history, and you can compare your current state with any state from the history. The history is the 'automatic' way of making variants. I don't have to think about it. I don't have to think "let's make a variant because I might want to compare my next edits with this". It's there when you need it, and you don't have to clean it up when you're done. It doesn't get in the way, it doesn't 'pollute' the grid view with extra thumbnails. It's is extremely flexible and works very well. Everyone is happy.
Given the fact that I still use C1 means that I prefer it over LR. However, we should not be blind and not appreciate the good stuff in other applications and point out the deficiencies in C1. As I said before, I want C1 to be the best there is, and looking over the fence is often a good way to improve.
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
Peter,
Personally I'm never convinced by "me too" features just because they are present.
Looking through the posts in this forum so many people say:
"I really like the results I get from C1 but why can't it be exactly like LightRoom which is what I have been using before."
or
"I really like the results I get from C1 but why can't it be exactly like Aperture which is what I have been using before."
Those are indications that people in general rarely enjoy "change" and find it perhaps uncomfortable to take the time to adapt.
The example of the complete History of changes record is a similar thing.
It sounds like a great idea. My other favourite RAW converter program has exactly that feature but in general it is rather useless.
That's not because it does not work - it does.
It's just that you have no visual representation of what you will be getting if you select a particular point in history and the way changes can be applied means that you really have no idea where you might wish to choose to revert to in a heavy edit session.
So I rarely use it. It took me a while to work it out but the multiple variant option is something I find works far better for my purposes.
I like to encourage people to consider all of the options that are available to them with an open mind and a sense of discovery.
They are welcome to reject the suggestion of course!
Grant0 -
I completely agree with you, Grant. I have never used the history in Lightroom, software that I have used since the beginning of its creation until december 2014. In addition, if you wanted to cancel an action in Lightroom, for instance, you had to move the cursor in the reverse direction with antisymmetrical values, which added moreover a new layer in the history.
We can't look for the same ways of working in two softwares with two different philosophies.0 -
Peter,
"My display is 1680 x 1050 and my preview size is 1680 pixels. I still get the blurry state. What am I doing wrong? The viewer is typically smaller than 1680, so maybe I should set the preview to 1440 or so? Any recommendations?"
I do not have an answer. I have set Preview image size to 1920, (monitor is 1920x1200, also with a smaller Viewer area), and the blurry stage has not reappeared. Yet. Do try setting to a lower preview rez , but if the problem is a resizing delay, it may not work.
-Alan D0 -
Grant,
(and going off original topic)
"It's just that you have no visual representation of what you will be getting if you select a particular point in history and the way changes can be applied means that you really have no idea where you might wish to choose to revert to in a heavy edit session."
Actually, the program I used to use, Capture NX2, until Nikon abandoned it, had very useful History features. Stop, name and save existing edits before going further was very handy; If I got too far astray with edits I could always get back to an earlier state. Any edits could be selectively turned on or off on the image being viewed. For me, this is so much better than a cumbersome system (to my mind) of managing numerous versions of an image in the Browser. Im sure the system is best which one is most familiar with, but I don't really think it's a matter of resistance to change and wishing C1 was like some former beloved program as much as simply missing useful features.
-Alan D0 -
Alan,
The NX2 system sounds quite similar, "under the hood", to what C1 does - but without the previews.
It's also similar to the other application I occasionally use.
No matter how things are presented on screen the edit details have to be written to disk somehow and somewhere and if you do go back and delete them it is the same computer action no matter which approach for finding the deletion is available to you.
Being able to turn individual edit changes on and off and to do so tool by tool (in the even of using something like a "style" with multiple tools involved) is a rather attractive feature. Sometimes.
My other favourite Raw converter and editor offer that. Lots of potential power and flexibility. One can spend ages seeking the best results and fine tuning them. And clicking on various entries in the History file looking for the special point that one forgot to save as a new version of the edit.
On the other hand I have always found that C1 was ahead of the game for at least 90% of images. No need to spend the same amount of time getting the right look - C1 seemed to be there or close almost immediately most of the time.
So for processing a large number of images from a shoot to a presentable level there was no question that C1 required less time and less effort. In addition the implementation of its variants concept was easier and faster than the other application.
But this is heading off topic.
One final observation though.
Apple and Nikon are pretty big players in their respective marketplaces.
Why would they suddenly drop support for applications that have been powerful and respected (by many users but perhaps not all?) for some years?
What drives such seemingly odd decisions?
Grant0 -
Grant,
"Apple and Nikon are pretty big players in their respective marketplaces.
Why would they suddenly drop support for applications that have been powerful and respected (by many users but perhaps not all?) for some years?
What drives such seemingly odd decisions?"
You're telling me! Want to now how I got to C1Pro? I started on Capture NX2, got proficient, then Nikon dropped it. Then I went to Aperture...
So I am a little worn out learning the quirks of yet another application, but I think C1 will be a keeper. I think C1 is a more intelligent, almost clairvoyant, raw converter and editor. Sometimes I get results so good I can't explain how I did it. Kind of like the old Apple meme, "It just works."
-Alan D0 -
[quote="Focuspuller" wrote:
Sometimes I get results so good I can't explain how I did it. Kind of like the old Apple meme, "It just works."
-Alan D
That's exactly what I thought when I first tried C1.
In my case not so much that the results were inevitably vastly superior at the time to what I was able to do with the other application I used, rather they just happened as if by magic when the other application would take some effort to get to the same point. That's not to say it was poor, far from it. But with C1 in most cases I saw more result for less effort.
At that time only the lack of local adjustments seemed to be a drawback - but then there were cases when I simply did not need the local adjustments I would have needed previously.
Now that limitation is also resolved for the most part as far as my comparison of personal experiences is concerned.
Other aspects of C1 functionality are well ahead of what I had before.
So all round it's a pleasing result for me.
Grant0 -
About this capacity of C1 in obtaining amazing results in few seconds, you probably didn't miss this paper by Martin Evening about how to get results as good as C1 when using Lightroom......
http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengin ... %20Pro.pdf0 -
[quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
About this capacity of C1 in obtaining amazing results in few seconds, you probably didn't miss this paper by Martin Evening about how to get results as good as C1 when using Lightroom......
http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengin ... %20Pro.pdf
Interesting.
I had not seen that.
I used LR up to version 1.4. .
I had a look as V3 when it came out but preferred not to use the catalog system and stayed with the application I was using in parallel (or trying to use in parallel - not easy with LR catalogues then).
Eventually I decided to try C1 and instantly liked it.
Plus I could use both of my favourite RAW converters in parallel since both worked in what is basically known as Session mode in C1.
And the UI, though very different in may respects, was more similar to what I was happy with than LR could be.
I'm sure there are a number of very capable and mature products out there - some of them free.
I don't find a personal need to attempt to become proficient with all of them and I do like working with applications I gel with most easily - so tend stay with just those applications that feel comfortable but keep one eye on new developments in case anything truly revolutionary (and relevant to me) sneaks in somewhere.
Grant0 -
[quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
About this capacity of C1 in obtaining amazing results in few seconds, you probably didn't miss this paper by Martin Evening about how to get results as good as C1 when using Lightroom......
http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengin ... %20Pro.pdf
Not sure who made the "amazing results in a few seconds" claim. My point was that of the programs I HAVE used, C1 seems to produce results more pleasing to me in a way that more strictly neutral, linear rendering and adjusting, don't provide. I have never used LR, so it really doesn't matter to me if a professional LR trainer can achieve similar results in LR by tweaking preferences. It's also about the way adjustments work in C1 - for me, smart and pleasing, that's all. Others may differ, ymmv, to each his own.
Cheers,
-Alan D0 -
What I mean is that when I open a file with C1, it's already very good and pleasant (to me), provided I use a good ICC profile and a linear response curve, and I don't need to go much further, except if I need some specific effects.
I have used Lightroom for many years, before switching to C1, and I rarely got good results from almost scratch.
Cheers,
Robert0 -
In General > Preferences, setting hardware acceleration for the display to "never" seems to have fixed my re-rendering of the image when hiding/showing a layer style. It also has fixed my terribly blotchy exported images. If i had a smooth black to transparent gradient, it looked fine in Capture One. When exported, it turned into some blotchy, not smooth gradient.
I think turning "processing" to "never" also might help with other things while editing.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
26 comments