Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Capture One 8.3.1 released

Jim_DK
This is a service release providing bug fixes, lens and camera support

Camera support
• File and tethering support: Sony ILCE-7RM2 (a7R II)
• File and tethering support: Sony DSC-RX100M4
• File and tethering support: Sony DSC-RX10M2
• File and tethering support: Nikon D7200
• File support: Nikon V3
• File support: Nikon J4
• File support: Samsung NX mini
• File support: Samsung NX3000
• File support: Samsung NX2000
• File support: Canon EOS 750D
• File support: Canon EOS 760D
• Preliminary file support: Leica Q (Typ 116)

Lens support
• Schneider Kreuznach 35mm f/3.5

Bug fixes
• (Win) Fixed: Crashes when using Fibonacci spiral
• (Win) Fixed: Crash when using Win 7 without SP1
• (Win) Cosmetic improvements
• (Win) Miscellaneous stability issues

• (Mac) Fixed: Tethering issue with Pro (for Sony) Edition
• (Mac) Fixed: Sync to XMP
• (Mac) Fixed: Issues with EIP applying LCC
• (Mac) Fixed: Background process visible on 10.9
• (Mac) Fixed: Auto-fill behavior for tokens
• (Mac) Fixed: Miscellaneous stability issues
• (Mac) Fixed: Cosmetic improvements

• (Win/Mac) Fixed: Naming issue with Olympus TG4 firmware update

Enjoy!
0

Comments

16 comments

Date Votes
  • Lars Broberg
    I'm very impressed that this version already supports the A7RII. It's not even released.
    Very nice flow of new releases, thanks Phase One!
    0
  • Richard Seldomridge
    Looks like they've decided to never support the Canon M3. I've had it with the bugs and the lack of support I've been running into since trying this software, time to move on...
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Richard Seldomridge" wrote:
    Looks like they've decided to never support the Canon M3. I've had it with the bugs and the lack of support I've been running into since trying this software, time to move on...


    That's a tricky one Richard.

    Bear in mind that Canon are not "supporting" the M3 in the USA.

    Maybe there is simply not enough demand from Europe to bring the M3 to the top of the "support needed" list so far. Or perhaps there are some other issues not in the public domain?

    Did you register a request via a Support Case?

    But yes - if you are really down on something, for whatever reason, it is probably time to move on to the next discovery experience.



    Grant
    0
  • ALESSIO FURLAN
    I'm very impressed that this version still does not solve resolve the problem of Fujifilm:
    - LCC support
    - Automatic masks

    Adobe, however, has implemented compatibility with the latest version of ACR/LT.

    🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Alessio Furlan" wrote:
    I'm very impressed that this version still does not solve resolve the problem of Fujifilm:
    - LCC support
    - Automatic masks

    Adobe, however, has implemented compatibility with the latest version of ACR/LT.

    🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄


    🙄
    0
  • Grant Kernan
    I guess I will have to wait for the progress bar to work on D800 and for the battery level to refresh during a tethered shoot.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Alessio Furlan" wrote:
    I'm very impressed that this version still does not solve resolve the problem of Fujifilm:
    - LCC support
    - Automatic masks

    Adobe, however, has implemented compatibility with the latest version of ACR/LT.

    🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄


    Lightroom has Lens Cast Calibration, eh?

    News to me...
    0
  • Thorsten Kratz
    [quote="Richard Seldomridge" wrote:
    Looks like they've decided to never support the Canon M3. I've had it with the bugs and the lack of support I've been running into since trying this software, time to move on...


    Hi Richard,

    two Application works with Canon EOS M3 Raw fils.
    GraphicConverter 9.7.x ( in Appstore a older Version 9.6 )
    and Affinity Photo ( today new in Appstore )

    I hope It helps.

    Thorsten
    0
  • ALESSIO FURLAN
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="Alessio Furlan" wrote:
    I'm very impressed that this version still does not solve resolve the problem of Fujifilm:
    - LCC support
    - Automatic masks

    Adobe, however, has implemented compatibility with the latest version of ACR/LT.

    🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄


    Lightroom has Lens Cast Calibration, eh?

    News to me...


    No no, I had explained badly the problem.
    LT does not have the LLC (obviously) , but it is much worse to pay a software and not to be able take advantage of many features (LCC, layers...).

    In particular with C1 and Fuji RAW files:
    - LCC don't work
    - Automatic Mascks doesn't works,
    - healing with Repair Layers doesn't works,
    - focus mask doesn't work.

    Anyway .. in the release note sheet, on page 8, are given these limitations...... 😕 😕 😕 ...page 8... 😕 😕

    Adobe?
    - It has improved a lot the management Fujifilm RAW file with the latest update.
    - the automatic Masks works from the first version.
    - healing with Repair Layers works from the first version.

    I like C1, I use it in my photographic process, I'm a professional photographer, working for big companies (but unfortunately I live near Venice and Treviso.... a small city in Italy.... and to renting a PhaseOne camera I should go to Milan or Rome... a bit far....).

    I did a survey to know how many "Fujifilm user" would be keen to buy a license C1, as soon as the problems mentioned are solved.

    The result? For now we are at 163 users (for now...).

    What I do not like is that they do not seem interested to solving this. 😐 😐 😐 😐 😐
    0
  • ALESSIO FURLAN
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="Alessio Furlan" wrote:
    I'm very impressed that this version still does not solve resolve the problem of Fujifilm:
    - LCC support
    - Automatic masks

    Adobe, however, has implemented compatibility with the latest version of ACR/LT.

    🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄


    Lightroom has Lens Cast Calibration, eh?

    News to me...


    No no, I had explained badly the problem.
    LT does not have the LLC (obviously) , but it is much worse to pay a software and not to be able take advantage of many features (LCC, layers...).

    In particular with C1 and Fuji RAW files:
    - LCC don't work
    - Automatic Mascks doesn't works,
    - healing with Repair Layers doesn't works,
    - focus mask doesn't work.

    Anyway .. in the release note sheet, on page 8, are given these limitations...... 😕 😕 😕 ...page 8... 😕 😕

    Adobe?
    - It has improved a lot the management Fujifilm RAW file with the latest update.
    - the automatic Masks works from the first version.
    - healing with Repair Layers works from the first version.

    I like C1, I use it in my photographic process, I'm a professional photographer, working for big companies (but unfortunately I live near Venice and Treviso.... a small city in Italy.... and to renting a PhaseOne camera I should go to Milan or Rome... a bit far....).

    I did a survey to know how many "Fujifilm user" would be keen to buy a license C1, as soon as the problems mentioned are solved.

    The result? For now we are at 163 users (for now...).

    What I do not like is that they do not seem interested to solving this. 😐 😐 😐 😐 😐
    0
  • Duncan Andison
    [quote="Alessio Furlan" wrote:
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="Alessio Furlan" wrote:
    I'm very impressed that this version still does not solve resolve the problem of Fujifilm:
    - LCC support
    - Automatic masks

    Adobe, however, has implemented compatibility with the latest version of ACR/LT.

    🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄


    Lightroom has Lens Cast Calibration, eh?

    News to me...


    No no, I had explained badly the problem.
    LT does not have the LLC (obviously) , but it is much worse to pay a software and not to be able take advantage of many features (LCC, layers...).

    In particular with C1 and Fuji RAW files:
    - LCC don't work
    - Automatic Mascks doesn't works,
    - healing with Repair Layers doesn't works,
    - focus mask doesn't work.

    Anyway .. in the release note sheet, on page 8, are given these limitations...... 😕 😕 😕 ...page 8... 😕 😕

    Adobe?
    - It has improved a lot the management Fujifilm RAW file with the latest update.
    - the automatic Masks works from the first version.
    - healing with Repair Layers works from the first version.

    I like C1, I use it in my photographic process, I'm a professional photographer, working for big companies (but unfortunately I live near Venice and Treviso.... a small city in Italy.... and to renting a PhaseOne camera I should go to Milan or Rome... a bit far....).

    I did a survey to know how many "Fujifilm user" would be keen to buy a license C1, as soon as the problems mentioned are solved.

    The result? For now we are at 163 users (for now...).

    What I do not like is that they do not seem interested to solving this. 😐 😐 😐 😐 😐


    While I love CO1 Pro as a package, image quality and features that do work, I have to agree and say after a couple of years or more now, it's about time this was resolved and that customers using Fuji camera's should be able to use all features advertised.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NN635065334627358078UL" wrote:


    While I love CO1 Pro as a package, image quality and features that do work, I have to agree and say after a couple of years or more now, it's about time this was resolved and that customers using Fuji camera's should be able to use all features advertised.


    Why?

    Desirable certainly for those that have decided to buy Fuji cameras but hardly the responsibility of Capture One rush to make available a few not so important features that represent a need to develop some completely new and unique code just for Fuji sensors.

    Adobe, no doubt, have a different agenda and marketing strategy to follow for their products. Good luck to them.

    If the main objection is about not being able to use advertised features why not complain about lack of tethering from some manufacturer's bodies? You might need to make the complaint to the manufacturers as well of course.

    When I worked for a company developing new markets in business software applications we would often hear customers or prospective customers ask for new features or feature enhancements. Some were not technically feasible at the time but others were possible and just required funding for resources and time to develop successful solutions.

    We would offer to do the work if it was paid for and would combine the same or very similar requests into projects that multiple customers could fund between them. Much like crown funding might work today. Doing it that way gave everyone an opportunity to make sure they got what they wanted at a cost they were happy with.

    If nobody wanted to fund a suggestion it was left on the list for future consideration. Sometimes an idea would be worked into the software at a suitable future point if it seemed like a good idea anyway.

    Despite all of that the majority of the enhancements were never used or not used in the way they were originally in tended to be used.

    Maybe, technical considerations permitting, people could get together and agree to fund specific developments for which they have a strong need.

    Crowd funding seems to be an established approach in the world of product development these days - perhaps the concept could be extended as a way to confirm that a certain development has the real support of users and the support of enough of them it make it worth the effort of doing it.

    How would people feel about such an idea?



    Grant
    0
  • Duncan Andison
    "Why?"

    Because when advertising their features to lure people in, page 8 of the small print is not included. Remember, I did say I loved CO1, just feel they should deliver everything that is advertised, and paid for (£250+ plus £65+updates). I didn't expect to pay that and build it myself afterwards.

    The rest of you post sounded like a soapbox rant / self promotion.
    0
  • ALESSIO FURLAN
    SFA, I agree.
    I think that it is not possible to integrate any additional function that a customer requires.

    However, this is not asking for additional functions ... It asks that works software features.
    Is too hasty she says "You had to read tecnical data sheets" (page 8..... 🙄 ) when Phaseone advertised compatibility (please see: https://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Sof ... e-One.aspx)

    And with respect ... it was really necessary to integrate fibonacci/golden rules? It was necessary to spend time in the development of this feature (unusable on C1)? 🙄 🙄 🙄

    I do not know how do you usually ... Of course I'm not going to change my "car" because the distributor does not provide the right fuel ... I change distributor. 😂

    PS. Maybe the reason is very simple and it's called Sony. Let's see if anyone understands. 👿

    -Alessio F.
    0
  • SFA
    Phase have already made some comments on the Fuji functionality in previous threads.

    The outline of the reply is that the Fuji, not being a Bayer array sensor, requires and entirely different approach to the processing engine to interpret the raw data. I don't think anyone doubts that - most third party editors took a while to have any RAW support for the Fuji format when it was first released and I can imagine that different approaches to RAW interpretation by different software developers probably means that the code bases are not at all similar. What is going on "under the hood" probably represents very different approaches based on the core design concept of the product.

    Now, one might suggest that the "standard" functionality has not been included because Phase don't care about it - but if that was the case why bother with any support at all? The things that are missing are peripheral rather than fundamental to getting a good file out of the system.

    Ob that basis let us assume that that, to support the Fuji sensors using C1 software design standards, requires many thousands of lines of code and a lot of resource to develop, test and deliver. What would be the business reason for prioritising that effort over, say, the work that went into the new Phase XF camera system?

    Make a business case that shows how the allocation of resources to add LCC functionality, Automatic edge detection for masks in adjustment layers, healing in repair layers and and a working Focus Mask are absolutely vital to so many C1 users with Fuji cameras that, without the features, the entire future of Capture One is put at risk ... and you would probably find you have generated a lot of power and influence immediately.

    However I would guess, based on statements already made, that C1 developers would very much wish to include the features for Fuji cameras and hope to do so, technological challenges permitting, in the future - providing it can be done within the C1 processing engine design without compromising quality.

    If major re-designs are required to allow the functionality to exist it may take somewhat longer.

    Meanwhile, so far as I know, buying a Fuji camera (or any other) is not yet compulsory and I think you are stretching a point in terms of credibility when you refer to a generic feature list and expect every single feature to apply to all possible files you might throw at them.

    All just my opinion of course.



    Grant
    0
  • Duncan Andison
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Phase have already made some comments on the Fuji functionality in previous threads.

    The outline of the reply is that the Fuji, not being a Bayer array sensor, requires and entirely different approach to the processing engine to interpret the raw data. I don't think anyone doubts that - most third party editors took a while to have any RAW support for the Fuji format when it was first released and I can imagine that different approaches to RAW interpretation by different software developers probably means that the code bases are not at all similar. What is going on "under the hood" probably represents very different approaches based on the core design concept of the product.

    Now, one might suggest that the "standard" functionality has not been included because Phase don't care about it - but if that was the case why bother with any support at all? The things that are missing are peripheral rather than fundamental to getting a good file out of the system.

    Ob that basis let us assume that that, to support the Fuji sensors using C1 software design standards, requires many thousands of lines of code and a lot of resource to develop, test and deliver. What would be the business reason for prioritising that effort over, say, the work that went into the new Phase XF camera system?

    Make a business case that shows how the allocation of resources to add LCC functionality, Automatic edge detection for masks in adjustment layers, healing in repair layers and and a working Focus Mask are absolutely vital to so many C1 users with Fuji cameras that, without the features, the entire future of Capture One is put at risk ... and you would probably find you have generated a lot of power and influence immediately.

    However I would guess, based on statements already made, that C1 developers would very much wish to include the features for Fuji cameras and hope to do so, technological challenges permitting, in the future - providing it can be done within the C1 processing engine design without compromising quality.

    If major re-designs are required to allow the functionality to exist it may take somewhat longer.

    Meanwhile, so far as I know, buying a Fuji camera (or any other) is not yet compulsory and I think you are stretching a point in terms of credibility when you refer to a generic feature list and expect every single feature to apply to all possible files you might throw at them.

    All just my opinion of course.



    Grant


    Fair point. But, you can see how people may think Fuji is fully supported when they see "Capture One Pro Supports Images From More Than 300 Cameras" with the Fuji logo underneath. Yes,it doesn't say "Fully Supported" but equally, it doesn't say partially either.

    A bit of clarity would be best to avoid disappointment and disappointed customers tend to shout louder than happy ones. It would be a shame if that happened as C1 Pro is a great piece of software and even without these features I still recommend it all the time to people looking for a top rate processor for Fuji files.
    0

Post is closed for comments.