Aller au contenu principal

Cache location

Commentaires

23 commentaires

  • Romeo1
    Yeah what a stupid idea! I don't want a cache folder in every folder I browse. Actually I don't need a permanent cache at all, that's why I used the appreciated option in 3.7.7 to clear the cache on exit!

    Phase One is the person who made version 3 such a good program still one of your employees?

    That alone makes me uninstall the proggy as well. I don't want all that cache clutter everywhere on my drive!
    1
  • Michael Ben-Gershon
    I couldn't agree more. I have been waiting for this 'upgrade' for ages now, but so long as there is no central cache, I shall stay with 3.7.7. I cannot remember the last time that one crashed on me, and although 4.0 may have some nice new features, the cache problem makes it totally useless for my requirements.
    1
  • kai2
    I totally agree on this.

    If the pro version create the same stupid folders in every folder you browse i must look some were else for a new program.

    KJ
    1
  • photogenix
    I have pretty strong feelings about this as well (and gave feedback on both betas about it, so I can at least say to myself "I tried to tell them"). I too had hoped it was only a beta thing. I can only hope that Pro improves in this area (or LE as well for those who are stuck with it).

    It is a shame to see that, with some nice improvements with image management and file management in this upgrade, that the issue of caches (which IMO is the cornerstone) has taken a big step backwards. Generally speaking, providing a customisable setting is going to suit more users than one which is not customisable, especially when it seems the number of users who like it that single way are in the minority. Back when there were support forums at Michael Tapes' site, there were definitely people asking for this, they were in a large minority from memory, but I think many of those hadn't thought through how it'd all work in practice (and nor have P1). After all, this is a tool which prides itself in workflow more than ever.

    In the past I have liked tweaking an image from a previous look when a new colour profile comes around - many of my setting files have been "dynamic" over the years, changing as my tools and taste change. This new structure assumes the user will perform his/her backups only once all images have been processed (it would be more advisable to back them up straight away), and that those settings will forever stay that way. I have regular backups of my v3 cache; the files compress nicely (RAR is much better here than Zip), and I can go back to a previous setting for a file at will (and have done so). Are we supposed to re-burn our archival DVDs when we change our settings, and also refresh our offsite archival DVDs everytime we do this? As John McEnroe said, "You cannot be serious!".

    On a related note (as I believe the lack of a common cache is the cause), I am also disappointed to see that old settings can't be imported from v3. I know that there are some big differences and that the import process would need to make some assumptions for new settings, but it would be far better than what we have at the moment - nothing. I also remember (I think it was v2-v3) had problems with its import processing, skipping a few to a majority of setting files, maybe P1 were bitten by that and the criticism it drew, but it was still better than nothing. I also understand that v4's processing engine may create slight differences in output to v3, but that doesn't make v3's settings useless at all - it would still be better than nothing.

    This makes migration to v4 significantly harder than it first appears, due to the reduced productivity of having to re-work old images. Short term it's not a big issue but it compounds over time. For me, I am yet to decide if these are deal breakers. I do, however, understand the importance of these issues and am willing to forgo the two upgrades I have up my sleeve if the tool isn't going to work for me - time is too important to feed into something if it's a dead-end.

    I wonder if there are any plans to improve these areas, if P1 has a flexible position, or whether this is all set in stone? I am hopeful, but have a sinking feeling inside. (Thanks for listening).
    0
  • Olga1
    I find all those CaptureOne folders amongst my photo folders unacceptable. I just came into the forum to see what I missed being unable to figure out how to relocate the cache files. This is a show stopper for me. My photo folder structure is what and how I've designed to be useful for my purposes. It is not there to be cluttered with cache folders.
    0
  • Robert8
    [quote="Zenoland" wrote:
    I find all those CaptureOne folders amongst my photo folders unacceptable. I just came into the forum to see what I missed being unable to figure out how to relocate the cache files. This is a show stopper for me. My photo folder structure is what and how I've designed to be useful for my purposes. It is not there to be cluttered with cache folders.


    AMEN!!!!!!
    0
  • Roine
    hello
    Agree
    It is even worse, if You delete the Proxy folder, and then start C1 then C1 remembers last used folder and start creating those again before You switch to the folder You want to process, the new one, not the last used.

    Some other things:
    - The program loses position in the filmstrip if You minimize the C1
    - The indication of witch file is processed is gone, the green dot.


    Roine
    0
  • Lance22
    Capture One 4 was essentially free for me, so I can't really complain - but I will anyway ... Is it the only RAW processor that doesn't have the ability to assign a cache folder? For performance reasons I've got into the habit of putting my cache folders on a separate disk. Now that I find I cannot set a cache folder my main issue is one of tidyness.
    0
  • Jeff5
    I sometimes work on RAW files on the desktop, Cap One 4 plonks a Capture One folder right there. Most annoying behaviour.

    Jeff
    0
  • Amando
    Please, please, PLEASE, brng back v3 cache location and management into v4 LE. Badly needed feature.

    Best regards.
    0
  • Jeff5
    The present cache behaviour is very untidy, you end up with Capture One folders all over the place.

    It is a pity because generally I like this new version, not sure I can really put up with this new feature however.

    If they are saving a 'cache location option' for the Pro version I think that is a big mistake, but cant see how the Pro version would be tolerated at all if not,

    Jeff
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    I moved from Windows to Mac a few years ago including using CO 3.x
    I noticed that the work and preview files were stored below the raw files folder with CO3 for Mac and took it for granted. With CO4 upcoming and with the expectation of having the same program on both platforms, I was curious what model Phase One would adopt.

    For a Mac user, nothing has changed, and I have not read any complaints in the CO4 Mac forum so far, obviously. However, a number of Windows users are very unhappy, which I understand.

    That said, I would like a more flexible solution as well regarding the cache files and archiving raw + settings file (without preview).
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="UlfLiljegren" wrote:
    FYI

    http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?p=19280#19280

    I got the message Ulf, thank you. Very well addressed if I may say 😄
    0
  • RichC
    Yes, thanks, Ulf - I'm much happier having read your post.

    I'm now much more hopeful that the cache, "develops" folder, shortcuts etc. will reappear.

    Currently, I'm still using C1 3 by choice, since, for me, it's a better product than C1 4 - but I would like to upgrade eventually to C1 4, once it's more mature and is as efficient and quick to use as C1 3...
    0
  • NN109703UL2
    I was told specifically by P1 R&D that the cache Will NOT be changed back.

    See this thread for their exact reply

    http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=4991
    0
  • photogenix
    Maybe Ulf's words are newer and thus superseded the feedback you previously had from P1? Maybe after seeing our reasoning for desiring a central cache etc there is now more evidence supporting the central cache model than they saw previously.
    0
  • jobenaus
    I noticed the last response to this issue was in January. Was wondering if anything has changed and whether we will be getting selectable cach location and way to clean it manually or automatically. My hard drves are beginning to fill up with a whole lot of "useless" preview files.
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="jobenaus" wrote:
    I noticed the last response to this issue was in January. Was wondering if anything has changed and whether we will be getting selectable cach location and way to clean it manually or automatically. My hard drves are beginning to fill up with a whole lot of "useless" preview files.

    See also http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?p=22236#22236 for a parallel discussion and latest statement by Ulf.
    0
  • NN8930012
    [quote="jobenaus" wrote:
    I noticed the last response to this issue was in January. Was wondering if anything has changed and whether we will be getting selectable cach location and way to clean it manually or automatically. My hard drves are beginning to fill up with a whole lot of "useless" preview files.

    As I have said a few times, the simplest thing is to have a batch file with the following line in it
    'del e:\\*.cop /s'
    (where e: is your image drive).
    Call it c1.bat and run it whenever you need to.
    0
  • Roine
    Hello

    That doesn’t solve the problem you have if you have Your RAW on a read only medium, like a network drive with descent protection or on a CD/DVD.

    And Phase one haven’t a patent for that extension .COP, so you may destroy other programs files also.

    So when they have fixed the lock up when a file is R/O this will also be added to this lack of flexibility.

    But it seems to have been a principal issue for Phase One to not say the done a mistake here. All talk about MAC etc is w/o interest.

    Roine
    0
  • mrbohn
    I like some of the new functions introduced in v4, but the cache folders is the main thing keeping me from upgrading. Until it's changed, I'm sticking to 3.7.x. I don't want to run a batch file to clean them up, I want an option to keep them centralized.

    Mark
    0
  • David2121
    [quote="mrbohn" wrote:
    ... the cache folders is the main thing keeping me from upgrading. Until it's changed, I'm sticking to 3.7.x. ...

    Aren't the quality of the results, and the ease with which c1v4 enables you to achieve them, more important in practice? I like the program enough to use it regularly, but it does still seem to have interface, performance and stability issues which are of more concern to me personally than the cache location problem.

    That said, I cannot for the life of me see why why Phase One persist with a policy which has clearly infuriated the hell out of a significant number of v3 users. The option that has been requested cannot be that hard to program, after all. Or has someone not learned the basic lesson that dogma is bad for business?

    The other thing that surprises me is that the issue is treated as a single question, whereas for me it seems to be two different questions.

    The image preview cache is a performance enhancement device; users have (I think) no interest in it except as a means of seeing previews faster, so where the data is kept is not of importance to them, provided it doesn't get in the way. Distributing this data around the file system inevitably means that it will get in the way a lot of the time. Even Adobe manages to make its application data cache (mostly) invisible to users (and also allows you to choose where you put it).

    The location of the image conversion settings files begs different questions. These files, at least arguably, belong with the image files to which they relate, but that is a question on which users will have views related to their different work flows, and over which they should have a measure of choice. That is, unless Phase One finally wakes up to the fact that the only really sensible thing to do with image settings files is not to have them at all.

    Any RAW file with a reasonably complete set of current standard image metadata will have an associated ('sidecar') XMP file. When Adobe devised the XMP standard, they decided (sensibly in my view, and that's not something I often say about Adobe) that, as RAW files are all in proprietary, undocumented formats, there is no reliable way of embedding XMP data in a RAW file. That's the bad news. The good news is that XMP is extensible, that is applications can each add their own data set (or 'schema') into the one XMP file without affecting the other data in it. So the one XMP file can happily contain settings data for several RAW converters and/or image editors, alongside the more conventional forms of metadata such as EXIF and IPTC. The XMP file is designed to be stored and managed alongside the image to which it relates. If it's there (pretty much) anyway, why not use it? Adobe and Breeze Systems applications (and no doubt others as well) already do.

    Phase One has not hitherto been noted for complete or compliant implementation of metadata. But there has been the odd hint recently that they now think there might be something in this XMP thing that most of their competitors have already implemented. Indeed, .cos files, like XMP, are already written in XML. Combining the two seems like a no-brainer to me.
    0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.