Quality of exported jpeg of C1
Hello,
I test the trial version of C1 to replace Aperture. I am very happy with the results of C1 but i have some problems with the quality of the exported jpeg --> loss of details in jpeg with dimension inferior to 100 %.
Tests (RAW from a Canon 7DII)
Link to results files (long edge 2048 px) here :
Test 1
- C1 : Export variant in jpeg, Long Edge=2048 px, quality 80%
File : Q60A0728_c1_2048.jpg
File size = 1.3 Mo
Test 2
- C1 : Export variant in tiff full size
- Aperture : Import the tiff file with no processing
- Aperture : Export in jpeg, long edge 2048 px, quality 10/12
File : Q60A0728_c1_ap_2048.jpg
File size = 952 Ko
Test 3
- C1 : Export variant in tiff full size
- Photoshop element : Open the tiff file, resize to 2048 px (long edge), export in jpeg in quality 10/12
File : Q60A0728_c1_ps_2048.jpg
File size = 910 Ko
Results
- jpeg C1 file seem less detailed (and is bigger) compared to aperture and ps jpeg files (see right head)
- For the C1 processing : Clarity = 20, Structure = 40 (when i reset clarity and structure to 0, there is less difference in quality but the C1 file is always bigger)
Probably, i do something wrong? What do you think? Thanks.
(Note : With C1 exported jpeg at full size, quality 80% --> no problem)
I test the trial version of C1 to replace Aperture. I am very happy with the results of C1 but i have some problems with the quality of the exported jpeg --> loss of details in jpeg with dimension inferior to 100 %.
Tests (RAW from a Canon 7DII)
Link to results files (long edge 2048 px) here :
Test 1
- C1 : Export variant in jpeg, Long Edge=2048 px, quality 80%
File : Q60A0728_c1_2048.jpg
File size = 1.3 Mo
Test 2
- C1 : Export variant in tiff full size
- Aperture : Import the tiff file with no processing
- Aperture : Export in jpeg, long edge 2048 px, quality 10/12
File : Q60A0728_c1_ap_2048.jpg
File size = 952 Ko
Test 3
- C1 : Export variant in tiff full size
- Photoshop element : Open the tiff file, resize to 2048 px (long edge), export in jpeg in quality 10/12
File : Q60A0728_c1_ps_2048.jpg
File size = 910 Ko
Results
- jpeg C1 file seem less detailed (and is bigger) compared to aperture and ps jpeg files (see right head)
- For the C1 processing : Clarity = 20, Structure = 40 (when i reset clarity and structure to 0, there is less difference in quality but the C1 file is always bigger)
Probably, i do something wrong? What do you think? Thanks.
(Note : With C1 exported jpeg at full size, quality 80% --> no problem)
0
-
I have looked at your jpegs. What I am missing is the intermediate tiff file. Without that export file, I can not say much about what is happening. Yes, I see differences in details, but is it sharpening or is there a different processing going on in either CO8, Aperture or Photoshop Elements? Only the missing tiff can tell me. 0 -
Thanks for your answer.
I have done some others tests.
For the problem of jpeg file size bigger with C1
In the export dialog, tab « files », I uncheck « Create a preview for the icon » (i use C1 in french, so i don’t know if it’s the exact term) and it’s solved the problem.
For differences in details, i don’t find a solution
I recreate files from a variant of the image not cropped in C1, but it’s the same, less details in C1 exported jpeg with long edge of 2048 pixels (for these tests, i use Pixelmator in place of Aperture)
Results files are (always) here (« _old » for the files of the first post) :
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i90sgwgh9vc4 ... dNDDa?dl=0
Test01
- C1 : Export variant in tiff full size
File : 01-Q60A0728_c1_FullSize.tif (size = 53 Mo)
Test02
- C1 : Export variant in jpeg full size, quality 80%
File : 02-Q60A0728_c1_FullSize.jpg (size = 3.8 Mo)
Test03
- C1 : Export variant in jpeg, Long Edge=2048 px, quality 100%
File : 03-Q60A0728_c1_quality100_2048.jpg (size = 1.5 Mo)
Test04
- C1 : Export variant in jpeg, Long Edge=2048 px, quality 80%
File : 04-Q60A0728_c1_quality80_2048.jpg (size = 687 Ko)
Test05
- Pixelmator : Open of the C1 tiff file, resize to 2048 pixels, export in jpeg quality 80% (no other processing)
File : 05-Q60A0728_c1_pixelmator_2048.jpg (size = 648 Ko)
Test06
- Photoshop Element : Open of the C1 tiff file, resize to 2048 pixels, export in jpeg quality 10/12 (no other processing)
File : 06-Q60A0728_c1_photoshop_2048.jpg (size = 808 Ko)
Results
C1 2048 pixels width files (quality 80% or 100%) seem less detailed compared to the 2048 pixels width Pixelmator/Photoshop files.0 -
[quote="NN635638446032400492UL" wrote:
...
Results
C1 2048 pixels width files (quality 80% or 100%) seem less detailed compared to the 2048 pixels width Pixelmator/Photoshop files.
I come to the same conclusion. Question is, what causes this? Is it the JPEG rendering of CO8? Is it the downscaling of CO8? Or is there another setting, like Disable Sharpening?
What I suggest is that you review your settings for export of processing. You were mentioning Export, but I like to check you use Export or Process? In either case, check your settings for sharpening on the Adjustments tab. A second suggestion is that you create a downscaled TIFF and compare to the JPEG of the same size.0 -
The TIFF has no default sharpening applied in C1 as far as I can tell.
If I add sharpening set to 100 (or to taste, ultimately) the results I see are much the same as for the pixelmator and photoshop examples. Actually at 100 I think a little better especially for the water droplets. Do Pixelmator and PS add some default output sharpening anyway?
One difference in the original sample is that the mid greys, most noticeable in the body of the right hand bird, are more evident in the originally provided C1 conversion than in the sharpened version or the pixelmator/ps versions - which is much as I would expect based on downscaling. With sharpening and a little compression from the quality settings the tendency to move fine areas of mixed similar colour to the darker end of the scale for the sharpening needs would reduce the mid greys in order to include more dark grey/black for apparent sharpening.
Action shots which are not 100% frozen are usually at greater risk of that anyway since which pixels should be considered for detail sharpening is a rather, er, "blurred" decision.
That's my take on it anyway. I do not discount the possibility that there are other factors that affect the comparison but, to my eyes, the differences are rather slight and if the "not sharpened" observation is correct then sharpening is the answer. I would always expect to sharpen for output unless planning to further edit the output file in another activity and apply sharpening at that point or at print time.
HTH.
Grant0 -
Thanks for your answers
I do some other tests with another image and i think that the difference is linked to the parameter « Structure » (in tab « Clarity »)
(for my initial test, structure was set to 40).
Link to these new files (in directory « TestStructure » )
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i90sgwgh9vc4 ... dNDDa?dl=0
First test : structure set to 0
1) file : 01-Q60A0812_c1_structure0_fullsize.tif --> C1 export in tiff, full size
2) file : 02-Q60A0812_c1_structure0_2048.tif --> C1 export in tiff, long edge = 2048 px
3) file : 03-Q60A0812_c1_structure0_2048.jpg --> C1 export in jpeg quality 100%, long edge = 2048 px
4) file : 04-Q60A0812_c1_structure0_pixmat_2048.jpg --> Pixelmator : open full size tiff file, resize to 2048, export in jpeg quality 80%
==> Results : All files with 2048 pixels long seem equivalent in details
Second test : structure set to 100 (for test purpose)
1) file : 05-Q60A0812_c1_structure100_fullsize.tif --> C1 export in tiff, full size
2) file : 06-Q60A0812_c1_structure100_2048.tif --> C1 export in tiff, long edge = 2048 px
3) file : 07-Q60A0812_c1_structure100_2048.jpg --> C1 export in jpeg quality 100%, long edge = 2048 px
4) file : 08-Q60A0812_c1_structure100_pixmat_2048.jpg --> Pixelmator : open full size tiff file, resize to 2048, export in jpeg quality 80%
==> Results : C1 2048 pixels width files (tiff or jpeg) seem less detailed compared to the pixelmator 2048 pixels width file (and the tiff full size)
I don’t know if this comportement with the « structure » parameter is normal or not in C1 export when the size is downsized.
(Aside from this export concerns, I am very happy with the results obtained in C1 and I think I'll buy C1 to replace Aperture)0 -
Hi, I downloaded your latest set but I think I don't need it. Downsizing and Clarity settings, something to look into.
Happy to hear that you like Capture One anyway (quite understandable). Don't hesitate to get any free Ambassador advice before purchase.0 -
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your advice. I have just bought C1 with your discount code. Now, i'am an other new user of C1 (in place of Aperture) 😊
For my problem of export with resize, i will do this :
- export in tiff in full size
- convert/resize tiff files to jpeg with an other program (i found "PhotoJob" - a batch conversion image tools - that seem to work well).0 -
Welcome to the club. Your workaround seems to deliver what you need. Enjoy CO8! 0 -
Paul, would it would be worth sharing your info with PO via a support case, they may have an answer or maybe even a fix 😊 0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
Paul, would it would be worth sharing your info with PO via a support case, they may have an answer or maybe even a fix 😊
Yes. Have it on my task list. 😉0 -
Another parameter to try changing is noise reduction. 0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
Paul, would it would be worth sharing your info with PO via a support case, they may have an answer or maybe even a fix 😊
Yes. Have it on my task list. 😉
Hi Paul,
did you ever get round to submitting a support case?
Or has this issue been addressed in the meantime?
I'm sceptical that it has been addressed since I recently also realised that C1's downscaling algorithm appears to produce debatable results in comparison to "Picasa viewer".
Exporting in C1 to full size and then using a different software for downscaling should not be considered a satisfactory workaround, AFAIC.
Apart from the added complication when producing smallish images (e.g., intended for web-display) the currently somewhat mushy downscaling results also impact on the usability of C1 during image editing and the general level of enjoyment when using C1.- Currently, I have to zoom in at least for two steps of magnification (to 33% or 50%) in order to see whether an image is sharp or not. Small previews are so blurry that it is very hard to judge whether an image is slightly out of focus or not. I realise that I could use the focus mask feature, but the it should not be necessary to have an irritating overlay to get an initial assessment whether an image has potential or not.
- Looking at previews when browsing is simply not fully enjoyable. I can counteract the mushy previews (and exports to small sizes) by grossly over sharpening images but then they look terrible at higher magnifications such as 75% or even 100%. It should not be necessary to dial in completely inappropriate amounts of (capture) sharpening to achieve acceptable crispness for previews / small output sizes.
- The slide show feature is of little use to me due to the sub-par downscaling. I only have a FullHD display but feel that should be enough to get a crisp rendering of images that are in focus and have been adequately sharpened.
FYI, I'm processing 36MP RAW files and they look absolutely great in C1 at higher magnifications.
I don't accept the viewpoint that one can only appropriately judge image sharpness at 100% magnification. That may be true for an ultimate assessment, but it should be possible to get a rough initial estimate from a 1200x800 preview already. A preview (or export) of such a size should look crisp without requiring excessive levels of over sharpening.
Picasa viewer demonstrates that crisper downscaling results are possible in real time. A screen shot from a 1200x800 Picasa viewer downscaling result from a C1 full-size export looks much better than a 1200x800 image exported by C1. Do you agree that should not be the case?
P.S.: In all fairness, the downscaling by Picasa viewer creates some aliasing artefacts that are absent from C1's results. Overall, I still think that the Picasa viewer approach gives a more faithful rendering that is more representative of the actual acuity in the image and avoids the kind of detail robbing "glow" that is part of the C1 rendering of highly downscaled images.
It would be fantastic to be given a choice over the downscaling approach/parameters for both previewing and exporting.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
12 comments