Lots of issues, lots of issues, did I mention lots of issues
So whats up PhaseOne! When are you guys gonna get it together and quit messing with our careers/lives. Are you telling me you cant get these problems figured out!
My current discovery is when I have my output set to JPEG full resolution and I set the qualtiy scale to about 70 or so the software is telling me the estimated file size to be approx. 6mb. coming from a 5D file. WELL, I just went into my finder and NOT one of the 331 images I just processed for a client with a DEADLINE of 5min ago is larger than 1.1mb, what's up!! That's more like a quality of 10 on the scale. Good thing this is a long time solid client or they might look at other shooters for the next assignment.
What else:
You still haven't fixed it so when you have multiple images selected and you make a MANUAL adjustment to color or exposure that all the selected images are effected immediately like it did in C1-3, it only works when hitting auto adjust.
How about removing individual sessions in recents without clearing the whole list??? While on that topic, bring back the very user friendly drop down menu for choosing, creating and removing sessions??
How about when I'm processing a ton of images and the number next to the process bar just reads "1" the whole time, what's the purpose of that! Don't you think it should say "25 of 255" for example???? (minor problem but highly annoying as it should be such a simple fix and you can't even do that)
How about bringing back slide frames around the images so we can easily locate exactley what images you have selected instead of the ridiculous skinny borders that you can hardly see. And it's just plain nice to view thumbs like real slides.
How about giving us the option again of reducing the size of the image so we can see it small to evaluate how actual images will look that are destined for small output in editorial spreads or whatever media they end up in where the final image will be viewed much smaller than screen size. My client complains about this ALL THE TIME!
There is something about importing from a card that was a problem but I can't remember what it was at the moment so I will get back to you on that one.
You claim to be using the same algorithems but I find that hard to believe when looking at the same RAW file in C4 and C3. At 100% there is a very noticeable difference in the images on screen.
Why is there such a delay in the histogram when making exposure adjustments? Wasn't like that before.
Why can't I set my clipping percentage on auto levels adjust anymore??
Bottom line is what's up guys!
And yes, all my software is the latest version running on current equipment.
I will give you credit being you have come up with some very nice new features but I would trade it all to have the ability to by new cameras and not have to worry about being forced into the new version that has become the "PC" of the "PC vs. Mac" battle. We all know who the inferior product is. Unfortunately C4 has become inferior to it's predecessor in terms of intuitive workflow.
Your turn...........
My current discovery is when I have my output set to JPEG full resolution and I set the qualtiy scale to about 70 or so the software is telling me the estimated file size to be approx. 6mb. coming from a 5D file. WELL, I just went into my finder and NOT one of the 331 images I just processed for a client with a DEADLINE of 5min ago is larger than 1.1mb, what's up!! That's more like a quality of 10 on the scale. Good thing this is a long time solid client or they might look at other shooters for the next assignment.
What else:
You still haven't fixed it so when you have multiple images selected and you make a MANUAL adjustment to color or exposure that all the selected images are effected immediately like it did in C1-3, it only works when hitting auto adjust.
How about removing individual sessions in recents without clearing the whole list??? While on that topic, bring back the very user friendly drop down menu for choosing, creating and removing sessions??
How about when I'm processing a ton of images and the number next to the process bar just reads "1" the whole time, what's the purpose of that! Don't you think it should say "25 of 255" for example???? (minor problem but highly annoying as it should be such a simple fix and you can't even do that)
How about bringing back slide frames around the images so we can easily locate exactley what images you have selected instead of the ridiculous skinny borders that you can hardly see. And it's just plain nice to view thumbs like real slides.
How about giving us the option again of reducing the size of the image so we can see it small to evaluate how actual images will look that are destined for small output in editorial spreads or whatever media they end up in where the final image will be viewed much smaller than screen size. My client complains about this ALL THE TIME!
There is something about importing from a card that was a problem but I can't remember what it was at the moment so I will get back to you on that one.
You claim to be using the same algorithems but I find that hard to believe when looking at the same RAW file in C4 and C3. At 100% there is a very noticeable difference in the images on screen.
Why is there such a delay in the histogram when making exposure adjustments? Wasn't like that before.
Why can't I set my clipping percentage on auto levels adjust anymore??
Bottom line is what's up guys!
And yes, all my software is the latest version running on current equipment.
I will give you credit being you have come up with some very nice new features but I would trade it all to have the ability to by new cameras and not have to worry about being forced into the new version that has become the "PC" of the "PC vs. Mac" battle. We all know who the inferior product is. Unfortunately C4 has become inferior to it's predecessor in terms of intuitive workflow.
Your turn...........
0
-
I'll do the best I can to answer your questions...
My current discovery is when I have my output set to JPEG full resolution and I set the qualtiy scale to about 70 or so the software is telling me the estimated file size to be approx. 6mb. coming from a 5D file. WELL, I just went into my finder and NOT one of the 331 images I just processed for a client with a DEADLINE of 5min ago is larger than 1.1mb, what's up!! That's more like a quality of 10 on the scale. Good thing this is a long time solid client or they might look at other shooters for the next assignment.
Dont fret too much here, what is not performing properly is our ability to estimate size, however you 70 quality jpeg is still a 70 quality jpeg and 1.1 MB sounds about average for a 5D. 0-100 is the standard scale for jpeg compression... A 10 quality jpeg would look aweful and be extremely small on disk. f course file size can be dramatically affected based on the complexity of the image.
You still haven't fixed it so when you have multiple images selected and you make a MANUAL adjustment to color or exposure that all the selected images are effected immediately like it did in C1-3, it only works when hitting auto adjust.
And I imagine we will not. for the forseeable future. Much of this is do to useing higher quality previews. The previews in 3 were quitebad but we could update everything quickly. In 4 this would result in very bad performance... it makes far more sense here to work on one image and then just copy and paste the adjustment to the next. This process will get easier in the next release as well.
While on that topic, bring back the very user friendly drop down menu for choosing, creating and removing sessions??
Done, look for this feature soon.
How about when I'm processing a ton of images and the number next to the process bar just reads "1" the whole time, what's the purpose of that! Don't you think it should say "25 of 255" for example???? (minor problem but highly annoying as it should be such a simple fix and you can't even do that)
I agree its a bit counterintuitive, the number currently represents the number of outputs remaining... if you select 3 process recipes for your output then for each image processing you will see the number count down 3...2...1
How about giving us the option again of reducing the size of the image so we can see it small to evaluate how actual images will look that are destined for small output in editorial spreads or whatever media they end up in where the final image will be viewed much smaller than screen size. My client complains about this ALL THE TIME!
Consider it done
There is something about importing from a card that was a problem but I can't remember what it was at the moment so I will get back to you on that one.
Improvements coming here as well.
You claim to be using the same algorithems but I find that hard to believe when looking at the same RAW file in C4 and C3. At 100% there is a very noticeable difference in the images on screen.
Actually we don't claim to use the same algorithm. Capture One 4 uses an al new algorithm that is much better than 3. It is able to resolve details in images that no other software can.
Why is there such a delay in the histogram when making exposure adjustments? Wasn't like that before.
The new histogram is far more detailed and precise... the old one does show some delay, just not as much since it is much simpler.
Why can't I set my clipping percentage on auto levels adjust anymore??
We replaced this with a far more useful tool where you can set clipping values for the highlight and shadow dropper. The old auto method wasn't used terribly much and wasn't that great since you didn't really have much control over what was actually getting clipped.0 -
Ok Jon, thanks for the reply. I will look forward to the improvements. Some of your explanations still don't make sense, why do I have to set more than one recipe to get a proper counter? Even the counter in the process queue is strange, doesn't make sense.
As far as JPGS quality goes I still think it's way off. I processed the same image at 70 and got 1.1mb, another at 80 and got 1.7mb, then one at 90 on got 2.5mb then at 100 and got 8.5mb. That's not right if you ask me.
And what about the highlighting of selected images so they can be identified quicker and the processed gear that appears on the thumbs that many seam to be complaining about?
Well goodluck with all this!0 -
[quote="Tobin" wrote:
As far as JPGS quality goes I still think it's way off. I processed the same image at 70 and got 1.1mb, another at 80 and got 1.7mb, then one at 90 on got 2.5mb then at 100 and got 8.5mb. That's not right if you ask me.
why don't you just use something like Photoshop to test who is right ? generate .TIFFs from C1 and then see what will be size of .JPGs that Photoshop will be making out of those .TIFFs @ various quality levels or just use another raw converter...0 -
Thing to keep in mind when it comes to compression is that the resulting file size is not a linear scale, so while the numbers may seem strange on paper, that is typical for Jpeg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG Filesize will also depend on the contents of the image. If there are alot of similar colors, or large areas of single colors (such as white backdrop) then the file will be even smaller because the compression can be more effective than with more complex images. 0 -
Someone help me here. This is along similar lines. I just processed a RAW Canon file to a Jpeg with Quality 100 and noticed that the same file, with same output settings, in Lightroom was 4x smaller. Similarly, a TIFF with LZW from Capture One is not as small as same file saved TIFF with LZW from LR or PS. Why is this the case? 0 -
[quote="Gregory111" wrote:
Someone help me here. This is along similar lines. I just processed a RAW Canon file to a Jpeg with Quality 100 and noticed that the same file, with same output settings, in Lightroom was 4x smaller. Similarly, a TIFF with LZW from Capture One is not as small as same file saved TIFF with LZW from LR or PS. Why is this the case?
There is not a standard or reference where you can compare to where compression (either lossy or lossless) is concerned, which makes it impossible to compare different software and their related settings.
One program's max. quality JPEG setting is not the same as in another program. I assume that Capture One 4 stays on the safe side of quality versus file size, hence larger files. (JPEG compression is lossy).
Regarding LZW compression, which is lossless, the difference in size is not related to image quality. Performance might be the reason. This kind of compression algorithms can be applied differently where a more heavily application of the algorithm results in smaller files but lower performance. This is however less than an assumption on my behalf, just a guess.
This larger file size issue was noticed since CO4 surfaced, has been discussed several times, and remained unchanged.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
6 comments