New Version 7.2.3 MAYDAY

Ron Alexander

July 12, 2014 15:10

Have only done a couple of images, but it seems OK so far on Windows 8.1.

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 12, 2014 16:28

OK, good to know it works on Win 8 !

Wonder if it is Windows 7 thing.? Guess I can stay with ver 7.2.2 for now.
I'll open a case if no other Win 7 users are having trouble.

0

Christian Gruner

July 12, 2014 17:45

Please create a support-case, and be sure to include all the CO logs found in C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Local\CaptureOne\Logs

0

Jim MSP

July 12, 2014 19:33

Just downloaded and installed 7.2.3 on my machine - processed one photo with most every adjustment including 4 local adjustment; output both a tiff and a jpeg; and all was fine.
BTW, I run sessions.

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 12, 2014 22:11

Thanks Jim.

Will give it one more try. Maybe something happened during install. But all others have been fine. 7.2.3 was the first one to not work well. If it fails to output again I will create a support case with log files Christian. I will also report if it suddenly works.

Thanks All.

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 12, 2014 23:37

Re-installed 7.2.3. Same problem, unable to process without error.
Will open Case.

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 13, 2014 00:12

Tried to create case file. Server kept crashing. Unable to upload log files due to HTP error.

Heck with it. I will stay with 7.2.2, It works. maybe 7.2.4 😊

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 13, 2014 12:44

Created case File.

One thing that seems to be a problem with 7.2.3 on my machine is after the upgrade I noticed that as soon as I changed the output folder to a new directory, the new directory was red (warning) until I reselected my desired output file format.

All versions from 7.2.2 and prior did not do this. So maybe the process error is a directory error. Only thing I noticed so far out of the ordinary. I could process files and make adjustment with no problem. Just could not output without error.

0

Jim Casler

July 13, 2014 19:05

Capture One does not recognize images from my Sony ILCA-77 M2. It simply does not see them. Lightroom works fine.

0

Adam52

July 13, 2014 19:08

it`s working for me but I`ve had a few crashes (win 8.1 64 bit) , never had a single crash with 7.22

0

Ron Alexander

July 13, 2014 23:03

[quote="Adam52" wrote:
it`s working for me but I`ve had a few crashes (win 8.1 64 bit) , never had a single crash with 7.22

Interesting, as I was averaging at least a crash per day of use with 7.2.2 and Win8.1 x64. So far no crashes with 7.2.3, but then I have not been using it that much. I had a Case filed on 7.2.2 and was told two of the three issues which were causing it to crash had been fixed in version 7.2.3. I have OpenCL graphics acceleration set to Auto, and it appears to be using it. I am using a Catalog and not Sessions.

0

Peter Hugger

July 14, 2014 01:49

I just downloaded C1 7.2.3
Windows 8 64 bit
No joy on any processing - new images or ones that were previously processed -
Same 'Resource Error'
I'm opening a support case..... )c8

PCH

0

Peter Hugger

July 14, 2014 13:33

Support responded with -

In the Edit>Preference Menu under the General Tab -
Change the Hardware Acceleration setting to "Never" for processing

Funny thing -
When I restarted the program this morning the Processing ran fine without making any changes.
I guess I'll try the suggestion if it happens again.

PCH

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 14, 2014 13:46

Maybe thats the trick. I never did reboot after upgrade. Since I was trying to work, I just uninstalled and went back to 7.2.2 and all was good again.

My Quadro 4000 card and driver have been working sweeet up to 7.2.3. I would hate to have to slow things down to get it to work. Support is currently working the case and Phaseone has always been REAL GOOD about helping to get things working.

Win 7 pro x64

0

Adam52

July 14, 2014 15:50

I`ve got a big workload coming up from a couple of events so we`ll see . if it crashes even once, I`ll do the same, remove and re-install 7.22

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 14, 2014 20:06

Support has asked me to uninstall ver 7.2.2 using proccedure from article 1134. I normally use Revo Uninstaller Pro and have never had a problem since it does much of what article 1134 has you do manually. But I will follow direction.

Will reinstall ver 7.2.3 and then reboot. Will try existing session and create a new one and try to process. Will report results . Don't think it will matter much, since I have been doing it with Revo since 6.0 and always get back to normal running with 7.2.2.
..

0

Peter Hugger

July 14, 2014 21:47

To be clear...
I did reboot after the upgrade (before it failed).
I never turned the PC off afterwards, just restarted the program and it worked.

PCH

0

NNN634487619466059669

July 14, 2014 22:27

Well it seems to be working now. I deleted the User/Pref file so I lost all my output presets. Not sure if that did the trick or reboot after install did.

Just does not make sense that all previous updates went like clock work and this one did not want to play right.

Just to recap, followed support article 1134 uninstall directions. 7.2.3 is exporting now without resource error.

Thanks to phase One support and everyone else 😄

0

NN138244UL

July 23, 2014 20:37

[quote="Jim Casler" wrote:
Capture One does not recognize images from my Sony ILCA-77 M2. It simply does not see them. Lightroom works fine.

This was the answer to my question:

Hi Mario,

Recently, we do not have plan to support this. I will send your request to the list.

Regards,
Phase One Support.

😕 🤓 ☹️

How much we have to wait for the update?

0

Drew Altdo

July 24, 2014 10:17

[quote="NN138244UL" wrote:

How much we have to wait for the update?

Until demand justifies acquiring the resources and time. Sorry, but it's different for every camera and request, it all depends on the requests of our user base.

0

Permanently deleted user

July 25, 2014 01:21

[quote="Jim Casler" wrote:
Capture One does not recognize images from my Sony ILCA-77 M2. It simply does not see them. Lightroom works fine.

[quote="Drew" wrote:
[quote="NN138244UL" wrote:

How much we have to wait for the update?

Until demand justifies acquiring the resources and time. Sorry, but it's different for every camera and request, it all depends on the requests of our user base.

It really does not take much to support a new Sony Camera as far as opening RAW files.
It's really not as big a deal as it is made out to be here.
The files from different Sony cameras are pretty well aligned, I think it has a lot to do with the on sensor analog to digital converters.

Other RAW converters seem to be able to add support in no time, including small developers like ardent developer.

Anyway in the mean time you can use an exif editor and just change the camera parameter from ILCA-77M2 to slt-a77.

Once you have done this the files will open in Capture One.

0

Keith Reeder

July 25, 2014 05:55

[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
It really does not take much to support a new Sony Camera as far as opening RAW files.
It's really not as big a deal as it is made out to be here.

And here we are again - Fred telling the experts how to do their job.

If it's so easy, Fred, I'll happily beta test your new converter software for you...

0

Drew Altdo

July 25, 2014 08:18

[quote="FredBGG" wrote:

It really does not take much to support a new Sony Camera as far as opening RAW files.
It's really not as big a deal as it is made out to be here.

Fred, once again that is YOUR opinion and I am sorry to say, far from the truth.

[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
Anyway in the mean time you can use an exif editor and just change the camera parameter from ILCA-77M2 to slt-a77.

Once you have done this the files will open in Capture One.

Correct, they likely will. However, they will be treated as though they were the other files so some data will be lost or incorrectly read, and of course no ICC profiles will exist to provide accurate colors. But you're right, they will be read and if someone wants to work that way they are welcome to do so.

0

NN138244UL

July 25, 2014 19:57

[quote="Drew" wrote:
Correct, they likely will. However, they will be treated as though they were the other files so some data will be lost or incorrectly read, and of course no ICC profiles will exist to provide accurate colors. But you're right, they will be read and if someone wants to work that way they are welcome to do so.

Thanks for the suggestion !!!
How can I change the Exif data of the Sony 77 mark 2?

0

Permanently deleted user

July 25, 2014 20:08

[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
It really does not take much to support a new Sony Camera as far as opening RAW files.
It's really not as big a deal as it is made out to be here.

And here we are again - Fred telling the experts how to do their job.

If it's so easy, Fred, I'll happily beta test your new converter software for you...

Rather than just making pointless sarcastic comments 🙄 maybe you can add some useful information
to help the users here that need to open files.

Rather than posting sarcastic comments I posted a work around that works.

Here is the result:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/14557268390_14693b34b9_c.jpg

Unsupported A77 M2 camera on the left (with exif data edited) and supported A77 on the right.
As you can see the colors are accurate.

0

Permanently deleted user

July 25, 2014 20:28

[quote="Drew" wrote:

Correct, they likely will. However, they will be treated as though they were the other files so some data will be lost or incorrectly read, and of course no ICC profiles will exist to provide accurate colors. But you're right, they will be read and if someone wants to work that way they are welcome to do so.

What is lost? The ICC profile for the A77 works just fine. Colors are the same for an A77 file and an A77 M2 (with edited exif).

As for the ICC profile looks like most of the new Sony profiles are pretty much the same. Sony RAW files are very well aligned.

Here is an A77 file.
On the left it is using the A77 profile and on the right I set the profile to a totally different Sony camera, the A7 profile.
Two very different cameras. But the profiles are from what can be seen here pretty much identical.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5554/14743785052_e86a94b614_c.jpg

0

Permanently deleted user

July 25, 2014 20:34

[quote="NN138244UL" wrote:
[quote="Drew" wrote:
Correct, they likely will. However, they will be treated as though they were the other files so some data will be lost or incorrectly read, and of course no ICC profiles will exist to provide accurate colors. But you're right, they will be read and if someone wants to work that way they are welcome to do so.

Thanks for the suggestion !!!
How can I change the Exif data of the Sony 77 mark 2?

To change the exif data you have to edit the exif data on the RAW files.
There are exif editors that can do this in batch. They can do it very quickly.

I use exif Editor for MAC, but you could use this:

just change the camera parameter from ILCA-77M2 to slt-a77.

Here is what it looks like in ExifEditor

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2924/14557510078_9aac08e814_z.jpg

and change it to this:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5557/14764042843_9207af83dc.jpg

To play it safe test this on a copy of your RAW files to check it works with whatever exif editor you use.

You only need to change the Camera parameter in the exif data because Capture One does not take into account firmware revision of the camera so you can leave the software parameter in the exif alone.

0

SFA

July 26, 2014 00:09

[quote="FredBGG" wrote:

What is lost? The ICC profile for the A77 works just fine. Colors are the same for an A77 file and an A77 M2 (with edited exif).

As for the ICC profile looks like most of the new Sony profiles are pretty much the same. Sony RAW files are very well aligned.

Here is an A77 file.
On the left it is using the A77 profile and on the right I set the profile to a totally different Sony camera, the A7 profile.
Two very different cameras. But the profiles are from what can be seen here pretty much identical.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5554/14743785052_e86a94b614_c.jpg

Well, I'm no colour spotting expert Fred and I see what you are saying about things looking more or less the same, although presonally I think the strong reds on the beer bottle label are visibly different and the browns of the Olive Oli bottle label too. Likewise the orange colours (unsurprisingly) on the colour chart but there are a lot of possiblke variables that could be throwing one's objective ability here.

For most of my work I doubt the differences would matter unless there is a critical cross over point somewhere where things suddenly and dramtically go awry. I have seen that once or twice using other software and older cameras.

However anyone doing studio based colour critical work might well see things differently.

Out of interest I have just repeated an experiement I look at from time to time.

Using a Canon 1Dmk3 file I created 4 variants - no edits - and left one as the generic Canon profile, one as Nikon D800 generic, one as Phase IQ 250 Flash ICC (Daylight was too obviously warmer) and one as Sony (SLT-A77 or A99 seemed to make little difference to the predominantly green/yellow file I randomly chose to use because it was on screen at the time.

Using the Canon ICC as a basis the Nikon ICC leaves it a tiny bit more yellow and green, the IQ 250 a tiny bit less green and perhaps a tad less saturated and the Sony ICC tends to be slightly more yellow than all the others although you would probably need to see then side by side to make the call.

Choosing an image which is predominantly red/brown presents a similar result other than for the Nikon ICC making the image appear a bit flat - more so in the the red and brown shot than the green/yellow shot. There is a white section in this image which looks much more grey using the Nikon ICC than the other three though all are slightly different.

So up to a point I think you are right that it looks like almost any ICC profile might be usable as a starting point (say 90% OKish for my Canon file) but that is not really what C1 is about.

There have been several critics of profiles from time to time in the forums and no doubt anything that slips out to large studios and with which they are not happy will likely be addressed in private rather than in a public forum. I would guess that skin tones might be the most common area of discussion across the full range of camera bodies. Looking at the colour charts in your sample image (even allowing for output rendering and compression factors) I would guess that skin tones might be a bit inconsistent.

So the challenge for marketing purposes when a new camera is launched (and the very early adopters dive into the sales melee) is whether to initially pass off a re-identified copy of a previous profile as a starting point and then work on assessing its worthiness or to hang back and do a thorough assessment before claiming that support is available.

That's a tricky one. Perhaps there is a possible 'middle way' that simply asks a user which profile they might like to try for new unsupported bodies, allows that to be set as a default should the user wish and then prompts when the new profile is officially made available. It might not work very well in all cases but no doubt there would be some situations where such an approach would be adequate for the majority of users with a particular model of camera.

Grant

PS. I realise that there are other issues of consistency that might make the comparison comments above not too relevant for the Sony files. In part that would be because the Sony files are different files and may have some inbuilt variability to start with. Studio lighting for example. There may be other issues as well.

0

Permanently deleted user

July 26, 2014 02:53

[quote="SFA" wrote:

However anyone doing studio based colour critical work might well see things differently.

If anyone was doing really color critical work that requires very high accuracy they should probably not work in Capture One and DSLR cameras as Capture One has stated that the color profiles are designed to be "pleasing" not accurate....

[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

With color, you cannot satisfy everyone. We could make them extremely exact after several color-charts, but would that make them pleasing? Nop.

[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

I can of course see the difference, but the brown-tinted tone of CO is deliberate choice based on user input.

So if the profiles are made to please, rather than accurate as a priority Color critical work should be done shooting targets
and profiling software in conjunction with Photoshop. Calibrate your set.... lights, camera etc etc and not work with pre built ICC profiles based on "user input".

0

SFA

July 26, 2014 10:53

[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:

However anyone doing studio based colour critical work might well see things differently.

If anyone was doing really color critical work that requires very high accuracy they should probably not work in Capture One and DSLR cameras as Capture One has stated that the color profiles are designed to be "pleasing" not accurate....

[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

With color, you cannot satisfy everyone. We could make them extremely exact after several color-charts, but would that make them pleasing? Nop.

[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

I can of course see the difference, but the brown-tinted tone of CO is deliberate choice based on user input.

So if the profiles are made to please, rather than accurate as a priority Color critical work should be done shooting targets
and profiling software in conjunction with Photoshop. Calibrate your set.... lights, camera etc etc and not work with pre built ICC profiles based on "user input".

I agree but I still don't see that 'just about close enough' would be a sort of Mission Statement that would go down well with prospective users.

As I mentioned before I have seen situations where a profile (not necessarily a C1 profile) looks good enough for 90% or a little more of images but can fail horribly to get things right for a very specific but visible part of a colour range because something has changed model to model.

I think you are taking Christian's comments away from their context. Skin is not, as you clearly understand, a simply colour mix and small changes make huge differences to the way it presents. Moreover our common narcissistic desire is to make photographed skin look like something it is not when seen in real life and real lighting conditions.

The results are an interpretation for which certain "standard" preferences tend to be expressed and are satisfactory (i.e. "please") to the majority (so the developer would hope) but will not find acceptance by some - thus the reason for providing ways to fine tune the initial results.

If, ultimately, your own preferred solution to colour accuracy is to profile everything and work with Photoshop I find it challenging to understand why you persist with C1 at all, particularly for DSLR work. In such a situation I would not want to waste my time battling with something that caused such apparent personal stress.

In a more general observation (since the subject of this part of the thread seems to have become centred on skin tones) one of many things that seems to be ignored these days for 'stylised' images in the popular domain is accurate skin tones - or indeed accurate colour of any sort if an image is thought to look "cool" when digitally processed to appeal to the open market.

Grant

0

Comments