Another week still no Update.
Lets see, Everything including now Apple supports my Nikon D810. Oh wait, Capture One does not. Another week has come and gone and still no update for support. I understand it takes time to generate a profile but, when apple beats you to it, thats a slap in the face. They are super slow to support things.
I am hopeful its worth the weight but again, my patience is wearing. Almost two months since release of the camera, and nothing. I am a little disappointed. Just venting here Drew and other Phaseone people. Just venting...
😕
I am hopeful its worth the weight but again, my patience is wearing. Almost two months since release of the camera, and nothing. I am a little disappointed. Just venting here Drew and other Phaseone people. Just venting...
😕
0
-
Yes, I feel your pain. I have three shootings with RAW files from the D810 and only process a very limited amount of images with Nikon Capture NX. I really hoped for an update today - another shooting is happening on Sunday.
Peter0 -
[quote="Thomas Quinn" wrote:
Lets see, Everything including now Apple supports my Nikon D810.
I didn't think Apple's latest update included the D810. Wrong?0 -
Your right...my bad, I was looking at Jpgs. Phase, then I am not so disappointed in you. Just that I can't use CO with my D810 and I have to use that crappy NX-d. Wow, did google kill that raw processor. I mean, they quit developing NX2 so Nikon had to go elsewhere to design a raw processor. SilkyPix is not anything like CO Pro. 0 -
Have you thought about using the Adobe dng converter as a short term solution? CO does a very nice job converting dng files and the Adobe converter should produce an image file that CO can understand. This is not a long term solution but might solve your short term problem.
While CO does understand my Canon raw images and my wife's SONY raw images I have found that my easiest processing model is to run the raw images through Dxo using it to do the lens distortion correction, lens softness and NR processing only and write the result to dng. Then use CO to process those dng files. I have found that, at least so far, the process works very well.0 -
[quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
While CO does understand my Canon raw images and my wife's SONY raw images I have found that my easiest processing model is to run the raw images through Dxo using it to do the lens distortion correction, lens softness and NR processing only and write the result to dng. Then use CO to process those dng files. I have found that, at least so far, the process works very well.
Do you find that Adobe's DNG Converter does not convert all the metadata? I know it strips Nikon NEF focus point data because Aperture can show that in an original NEF but not in the converted DNG.
DxO's ability to save it's adjustments to a RAW format (DNG) is very clever. Are DxO's adjustments still in the DNG so that they're non-destructive and can be changed later?
The failure point for C1 to me is not so much which cameras it supports, but the very immature state of its library functions. I find Aperture to be the best, Lightroom to be workable and C1 to be a non-starter.0 -
[quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
Do you find that Adobe's DNG Converter does not convert all the metadata? I know it strips Nikon NEF focus point data because Aperture can show that in an original NEF but not in the converted DNG.
I have not looked into what the Adobe converter keeps or does not keep. Since I do not use it on a regular basis this has not come up for me.[quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
DxO's ability to save it's adjustments to a RAW format (DNG) is very clever. Are DxO's adjustments still in the DNG so that they're non-destructive and can be changed later?
The failure point for C1 to me is not so much which cameras it supports, but the very immature state of its library functions. I find Aperture to be the best, Lightroom to be workable and C1 to be a non-starter.
Dxo will write dngs (and the output dng files are compatible with all of the photo processors I have tried) but it will not read dng files. They sell two versions of their editor, Standard and Prime, with the difference being that the Prime, which is considerably more expensive, can handle the raw images from most full-frame cameras. If they read dng files then users could just buy the Standard version, convert their raw images to dng with the Adobe converter, and process them. Sneaky.
While the Dxo adjustments are non-destructive for the original raw I am sure that the adjustments are written into the output dng and, within CO, it would be impossible to reverse some of them. For example I do not see how you could reverse the lens softness or noise reduction adjustments made by Dxo in CO.
But they do write dng format and CO understands that very well. I have compared CO, using their standard Auto settings, on both my Canon raw images and the Dxo output dng images and found that there is little difference (except, of course, that the Dxo images have been adjusted for lens distortion, lens softness and NR). Since I do a fair amount of shooting using an UWA lens (Sigma 12-24) and since CO does not understand that lens, I find that processing Dxo first, then CO, gives me the best results with the least work. In addition Dxo does a really good job on lens softness with my Canon 70-300 DO lens, which really needs the help, and Dxo's NR is great. Since I sometimes do some HDR shooting the NR processing from Dxo helps my HDR software produce less noisy images and, fortunately, my HDR software also understands dng format.
I much prefer the normal adjustments done by CO but the combination works really well for me.0 -
[quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
[quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
DxO's ability to save it's adjustments to a RAW format (DNG) is very clever. Are DxO's adjustments still in the DNG so that they're non-destructive and can be changed later?
While the Dxo adjustments are non-destructive for the original raw I am sure that the adjustments are written into the output dng and, within CO, it would be impossible to reverse some of them. For example I do not see how you could reverse the lens softness or noise reduction adjustments made by Dxo in CO.
I was thinking along these lines:
Open the original camera's RAW file in DxO Prime and make the desired adjustments
Save from DxO as DNG
Open the DNG in C1 and make desired adjustments
Reopen the DNG in DxO Prime and change the adjustments made by DxO (not C1)
Open the DNG in C1 and changes the adjustments made by C1 (not DxO)
Possible, or dream world?0 -
[quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
I was thinking along these lines:
Open the original camera's RAW file in DxO Prime and make the desired adjustments
Save from DxO as DNG
Open the DNG in C1 and make desired adjustments
Reopen the DNG in DxO Prime and change the adjustments made by DxO (not C1)
Open the DNG in C1 and changes the adjustments made by C1 (not DxO)
Possible, or dream world?
Interesting idea, but you cannot open the dng files in Dxo. Dxo will not read dng files, only write them.0 -
I have thought about the DNG process but your still letting Adobe convert the files. That is what I want CO to do. If i wanted just the files converted, I would run them through NX-D and then into CO Pro. NX-D is a pain in the tuckass.... 0 -
[quote="Thomas Quinn" wrote:
I have thought about the DNG process but your still letting Adobe convert the files. That is what I want CO to do. If i wanted just the files converted, I would run them through NX-D and then into CO Pro. NX-D is a pain in the tuckass....
It was only meant as a short-term solution but, if you convert them to dng format, that is still a raw format and CO WILL then convert them from raw to your output format. As I mentioned in my posting, there is almost no visible difference between using CO to convert my Canon raw images and using it to convert the Dxo produced dng raw images. The images, once imported, look identical, at least to me (except for the adjusted lens distortion. The lens softness and NR adjustments are only visible at 100%).
Of course I am using Dxo for a completely different reason since it is adjusting the lens softness, lens distortion and NR for me. Still, for what it is worth, doing both is a bit of a pain in the butt also.0 -
This is one of the reasons why I was questioning the length of time it is taking for a camera profile to be built.... Taken from Drew in the windows forum.... Unfortunately I think that may cause more frustration than it solves. I'll suggest it but based on past "preliminary" support introductions I don't think the suggestion will be well received. I think we'd much rather have the camera in-house, test it for a day and build profiles to our standards as appose to cutting corners... but, the worlds not perfect so maybe we'll get backed into that corner. Time will tell.
So, its been out about two months...slowly loosing faith in Capture One and the D810....0 -
Thomas,
Phase One is pretty much tied to a predefined release schedule: it's not just a case of profiling the D810, it's also a matter of doing so in time for a scheduled release, and the two requirements don't always sync up neatly.
One thing's clear: they're not going to release a "special" version just to deliver D810 support - why should they, when historically, someone has had to wait for support for every new camera that ever hit the market?
Bear in mind that 7.2.3 was only released just over a month ago...0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
Thomas,
Phase One is pretty much tied to a predefined release schedule: it's not just a case of profiling the D810, it's also a matter of doing so in time for a scheduled release, and the two requirements don't always sync up neatly.
One thing's clear: they're not going to release a "special" version just to deliver D810 support - why should they, when historically, someone has had to wait for support for every new camera that ever hit the market?
Bear in mind that 7.2.3 was only released just over a month ago...
This is exactly the problem.
Capture One is supposed to be a pro software. It should support pro cameras as soon as other RAW converters do or at least about the same time.
There are two problems with the way Phase One goes about this.
First of all Capture One releases are notoriously buggy and even their Value Added Dealers advise people not to use new versions right away for critical work. This is why linking a new camera profile with the next overall update is not a very useful approach.
Second. Due to the amount of bugs that need fixing you end up relying a new camera profile release because bugs are tricky to figure out at times.
It would be much better to have separate downloads for Camera profiles.
At least with Photoshop you can download ACR and even before final release you can get a release candidate.0 -
I second the statement of having separate camera profiles that are downloadable separately from the updates to the program. The point is valid that Capture One dealers have to test the updates before putting their seal of approval on using it. I, for one, think Capture Integration out of the States takes about a month to recommend a new version and quite a few times DOES NOT RECOMMEND updates..
The thing I am missing out of CO for the developer is the Keystoning correction. CO pro does this very well that I have not been able to produce in any other program. If I could, I would have to admit, Bye Bye CO Pro. Adobe and others just seem to be on top of this a little more. There are other cameras that are being released where Phase could put of an update of just supported cameras. That is what Adobe does.
Anyway, this waiting is getting old...Especially for a one day process to profile a camera according to Drew.
Tom0 -
We're working on it gentlemen. Venting about it may be therapeutic but doesn't get it done faster. 😉
The demands/requests are plentiful and it's in the works. Thank you for your patience.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
15 comments