Warning: C1 v7 really buggy on Windows 7 64bit
EDIT November 12, 2012:
Working with PhaseOne, I managed to do a "cleaner" install of C1 v7 by removing older versions and manually deleting some installation files (but not my customizations).
This seems to have fixed my issues with V7. So the moral is you need to make sure you update drivers, and do a very clean install; C1 V7 did not like the remnants of V6 😊 But once more--all my customizations from V6 are fine, and I did not have to delete them.
*******my original post*****************
I'm a long time user of C1, and this is the buggiest release I've seen in a very long time.
I have a reasonably fast system: 12GB RAM, Intel 980x @ 3.33 GHz, OCZ SSD for the system drive, and an nVida GTX 580 card. C1 v6 runs perfectly well on this system.
C1 v7 wouldn't startup at first; that was a video driver issue. Installed the latest one and it worked. But there was nothing like any kind of explanation, and my previous video card driver was within the release spec of the Release Notes.
Then I found that outputting a batch job of 200 images to even a single recipe resulted in images randomly skipped. Sometimes it was a 25% not processing (with a modal error message window thrown up for each of them!) and sometimes it was 60% not processing. Pretty infuriating over a large job.
To solve that, I thought, "maybe I need a new session" from the one I'd always used in V6. Frankly, I hate sessions and catalogs. If I'd wanted a database or central storage of settings I'd be using Lightroom. But I don't: I always liked C1's traditional approach of putting settings with folders, and just using my hard drive to manage my files.
But anyway, I created a new session. Interestingly, all of my work on the 200 files was corrupted. It wasn't gone, but crop were in the wrong orientation; multiple adjustment layers were still there but overall exposure had changed radically, white balance was back to default or worse: had shifted radically, etc...
When I switched back to my previous (original) session, all the settings were still corrupted.
So C1 v7 corrupted its own settings on files.
That's just not acceptable to me: I can deal with the video driver issues, and I could wait for a fix or workaround to output (though that's a deal breaker on stuff I need to deliver). But corrupting adjustments? That's lost time I'll never get back.
I've opened two support tickets--no response yet.
So it's C1 v6 for me right now; C1 V7 is coming off my machine. I think they've made a huge error in releasing what I think is more like "beta code" for use here.
Working with PhaseOne, I managed to do a "cleaner" install of C1 v7 by removing older versions and manually deleting some installation files (but not my customizations).
This seems to have fixed my issues with V7. So the moral is you need to make sure you update drivers, and do a very clean install; C1 V7 did not like the remnants of V6 😊 But once more--all my customizations from V6 are fine, and I did not have to delete them.
*******my original post*****************
I'm a long time user of C1, and this is the buggiest release I've seen in a very long time.
I have a reasonably fast system: 12GB RAM, Intel 980x @ 3.33 GHz, OCZ SSD for the system drive, and an nVida GTX 580 card. C1 v6 runs perfectly well on this system.
C1 v7 wouldn't startup at first; that was a video driver issue. Installed the latest one and it worked. But there was nothing like any kind of explanation, and my previous video card driver was within the release spec of the Release Notes.
Then I found that outputting a batch job of 200 images to even a single recipe resulted in images randomly skipped. Sometimes it was a 25% not processing (with a modal error message window thrown up for each of them!) and sometimes it was 60% not processing. Pretty infuriating over a large job.
To solve that, I thought, "maybe I need a new session" from the one I'd always used in V6. Frankly, I hate sessions and catalogs. If I'd wanted a database or central storage of settings I'd be using Lightroom. But I don't: I always liked C1's traditional approach of putting settings with folders, and just using my hard drive to manage my files.
But anyway, I created a new session. Interestingly, all of my work on the 200 files was corrupted. It wasn't gone, but crop were in the wrong orientation; multiple adjustment layers were still there but overall exposure had changed radically, white balance was back to default or worse: had shifted radically, etc...
When I switched back to my previous (original) session, all the settings were still corrupted.
So C1 v7 corrupted its own settings on files.
That's just not acceptable to me: I can deal with the video driver issues, and I could wait for a fix or workaround to output (though that's a deal breaker on stuff I need to deliver). But corrupting adjustments? That's lost time I'll never get back.
I've opened two support tickets--no response yet.
So it's C1 v6 for me right now; C1 V7 is coming off my machine. I think they've made a huge error in releasing what I think is more like "beta code" for use here.
0
-
Oh, one more thing, though minor: watermarking in V7 is also broken. You add all these things up and it's just not ready for pros to use yet. 0 -
[quote="Jamie5" wrote:
Oh, one more thing, though minor: watermarking in V7 is also broken. You add all these things up and it's just not ready for pros to use yet.
Yep just found that one. The existing watermark had to be set to 200% (can only see a small part of it) for it to appear the right size on converted image. I've got a nagging feeling they had that problem on a previous release.0 -
Sigh. Yeah I've been pretty disappointed. I probably should have tested it out before spending the $100 for the upgrade. 🙄 0 -
You're right. I was totally angry when I saw what they did, how it is slow and buggy now. It definitely shouldn't have been published in such a state.
Very sad 😭0 -
[quote="graham25" wrote:
[quote="Jamie5" wrote:
Oh, one more thing, though minor: watermarking in V7 is also broken. You add all these things up and it's just not ready for pros to use yet.
Yep just found that one. The existing watermark had to be set to 200% (can only see a small part of it) for it to appear the right size on converted image. I've got a nagging feeling they had that problem on a previous release.
It's interesting, I was using a text watermark in C1 v6 (and previously) and it worked just fine. V7, though, has to be totally "enlarged" to show up (you basically have to have the watermark running the width of the picture, then it will be barely legible on output).
C1 is responding to my support tickets, but no resolution yet of the issues. I'm going to try an install on a different machine and see what happens.0 -
Just so everyone here knows: a manually made, "cleaner" install of C1 fixed all my issues with it, including output and watermark issues. It's now working very well! 0 -
[quote="Jamie5" wrote:
Just so everyone here knows: a manually made, "cleaner" install of C1 fixed all my issues with it, including output and watermark issues. It's now working very well!
Following your observations with interest James. I've already mentioned the watermark problem and my experience with skipped files is the same. Expanding the skipped files scenario I found that error messages for the missing files were thrown up. After closing the error message boxes I selected the skipped files again and re-tried to convert. Only the first file would be converted and the rest would generate error messages again. This would have to be repeated again and again till all were processed.
If a clean install is all thats required to sort this out, great, but just exactly what constitutes a "cleaner" install. If is means removing a currently running stable ver.6 I'm apprehensive. Perhaps you can give a more detailed explanation of what you did. I currently have a ticket raised with Phase One over star ratings which they say work, but don't for me.0 -
What about memory leaks? Version 7 uses up all my extra memory eventually and then freezes. I have 12 GB of memory. I have to kill it with task manager and then reopen it and start where I left off. It should use the amount of memory available and then page it, free it up, or do something gracefully, but not lock up. 0 -
[quote="NN8899721" wrote:
What about memory leaks? Version 7 uses up all my extra memory eventually and then freezes. I have 12 GB of memory. I have to kill it with task manager and then reopen it and start where I left off. It should use the amount of memory available and then page it, free it up, or do something gracefully, but not lock up.
Haven't had any problem running out of memory yet. I'm processing folders with 200 - 700 raw files in them. I also have 12 GB of RAM on Win7 64, but so far so good!0 -
I am running on WIn 7 64 bit as well. Maybe because my folders have about 1,000 images in them. Phase One support told me sessions were only meant to handle 200 - 400 files. What's professional about that? 0 -
Hi Phase One support told me sessions were only meant to handle 200 - 400 files
I believe you might been misunderstanding this.
Capture One can handle thousands of images in a folder.
But like any program, the more documents (images) you open, the longer it takes.
So from a performance strategy point, and especially if images are not on local drive. It might be better to divide images over several folders.
I have here a i7 Windows 7 computer with 8Gb or RAM and a folder with close to 4k of high resolution images. Most is 60 and 80mp Phase One and Leaf files but also some misc Canon and Nikon files. And this work great.
If I divide them up on folders, of course they open faster when selecting the folder the first time after launch.
I have done this just to push Capture One.0 -
So - again - is Support wrong, Ulf?
Because you're asking us, in other threads, to put our faith in Support, and I've been on here long enough to know that "use smaller sessions" has long been the suggested solution for a lot of problems.0 -
This gives me an idea.
When I started with CO 7, it generally worked fine for me. Except that I could not import my large Media Pro Catalog. I don't like the implementation of small catalogs, so I went to small sessions. No major problems. I could use OpenCL
But I store all of one years worth of photos in a single folder (2012 Photos) with numerous subfolders by a shooting session and sub folders for output. This tends to work well for me for my workflows that include other software.
I think all of my main problems may have started when I opened a "new session" called 2012 Photos, giving CO the master folder with thousands of files.
I will try going back to only a small session and see what happens.0 -
My first observations - CO works much much better with a session of only ~110 photos vs the ~21000 files I gave it earlier.
It opens consistently with OpenCL active for display.
Recently, I could not even open CO 7 without having run the "do not use opencl" script.
I'll reevaluate my workflow once Media Pro is updated.0 -
Oh, it's a given that Cap One will be happier with smaller sessions, Jim - although it routinely falls over on my PC when accessing folders of only about 300 images - but the poster explicitly said he was told by Support that: ... sessions were only meant to handle 200 - 400 files.
Not "...happiest with 200 - 400 files", but "...only meant to handle 200 - 400 files", which very strongly implies design intent; or at least, a recognised hard(ish) practical limit.
So either "NN8899721" has completely misquoted what he was told by Support (and assuming he's had a written reply, I don't immediately buy that), or Support is wrong, or Ulf is wrong.
I don't care which it is, but it's important to know, I think, given how much trust we're being asked to put into Support "doing right" by the users...0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
Oh, it's a given that Cap One will be happier with smaller sessions, Jim - although it routinely falls over on my PC when accessing folders of only about 300 images - but the poster explicitly said he was told by Support that:... sessions were only meant to handle 200 - 400 files.
Not "...happiest with 200 - 400 files", but "...only meant to handle 200 - 400 files", which very strongly implies design intent; or at least, a recognised hard(ish) practical limit.
So either "NN8899721" has completely misquoted what he was told by Support (and assuming he's had a written reply, I don't immediately buy that), or Support is wrong, or Ulf is wrong.
I don't care which it is, but it's important to know, I think, given how much trust we're being asked to put into Support "doing right" by the users...
Keith,
I understand your primary point. In my case, I think I have certainly found an upper limit when opencl is involved. The actual upper limit is, I'm sure, quite a bit smaller.
And I think that support and Ulf are saying about the same thing - we know it should work with 200-400 photos; but we don't know where a real limit is.
I think that a lot of these limits are not necessarily hard coded in, but come about as a result of a lot of indirect, and hard to debug, interactions between various software modules. However, they certainly can be found via good testing protocols. I have made the point elsewhere, and multiple times, that I don't think that PO has well designed testing protocols. They have taken to releasing too much bug filled software. Look how fast the forum filled up with bug reports. PO would do themselves - and us - a lot of good by following the route of Lightroom, and releasing a "release candidate", one step beyond a beta. Then the user will expect bugs, and can plan accordingly.
Eventually they may get most of it right, but it is painful and slow.
I have had good luck with most responses from support; and in a very specific Media Pro support case, a poor response. It was probably from a junior support person who is still trying to learn the complicated and multi-author software that MP is.0 -
[quote="Jim MSP" wrote:
And I think that support and Ulf are saying about the same thing - we know it should work with 200-400 photos; but we don't know where a real limit is.
Yeah, could be, Jim - and I accept that I'm addressing subtle nuances of interpretation here - but Ulf was asked if sessions were "limited" to (say) 400 files, to which he said "absolutely not", but it would appear that in practical terms (for 7 at least) that might well be an actual "limit".
I've certainly had absolutely no luck whatsoever opening any session that contains anywhere near that number of files, whereas with 6, no problem, and I'm just trying to get the theory and the practice of 7's use clear in my own mind.
And I still maintain that there's a tension between Support saying that sessions are "intended" for 200-400 files and Ulf saying that's "absolutely not" a limit: if I'd been told exactly that by Support, I'm in no doubt I'd interpret it as meaning that it was a practical limit...
The bottom line is that I don't like inconsistent messages, and there's inconsistency here from various parts of Phase One.0 -
This thread is done and has lived its life.
Conclusion is: No, Capture One is not limited in the amount of files.
Limitation is: Computers performance and specification in combination with personal perception of acceptable performance0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
18 comments