メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

First day, first crash, first disapointment...

Florin Coter
Well, here we go, as usual... Why did I think this 8 is different...

1. Who did need a new skin? Is all the rest OK to invest in new skin? Wrong decision.
2. In v7 I parked the cursor over session structure folders and the folders' names appeared. Is gone now. Wrong decision.
3. I created a catalog. OK. Imported a main folder with subs and 8 images in the subs. No image in C1. Went back, imported a sub. No image. Went back refreshed the sub, now images are visible. Wrong approach.
4. Closed all. Open C1 session. OK. Open previously created catalog. Crash. Closed all. Open C1. Crash. Removed catalog to a different location. Opened C1 with session. OK. Opened catalog. Crash. Open C1 with catalog. OK. Very wrong software engineering.
5. Finally I could inspect the images. Wrong metadata in the filters, or my IQ is too low to understand it. I had no problems with MP, with this regard.
6. Each time C1 succeeds in opening the catalog with 8 images, it takes about 10 secs to re-create the previews. What if I succeed to create a catalog with 36,000 images. It will take 10*36000/60/60=100 HOURS.... Really? WRONG approach.
7. I hold a PhD in Physics, but this intellectual level appears to be insufficient to use the repair layers. True, I invested only 6 minutes and failed. Also true, it took 10 seconds in Photoshop to master it.
8. Does it render faster? Maybe. I did not notice it.
9. 35,000 images. How can one upgrade engine manually for such a collection? Wrong MMI, engineering, you name it.

On another level,
A. For well shot images, the new features are not important, poorly engineered and practically irrelevant.
B. For poorly shot images, there is no filter/tool/YouNameIt to fix them.
C. For a few good images I did not see any improvement from engine 7 to engine 8. The same is true for poorly shot ones.

So, what do we have here (after about 4 hours)?

A new skin for basically v7 with promises to be more stable. V7 was stable enough, but poorly integrated with MP. V8 is no better on this regard. The real catch is the renting program with E8 per month, providing that one updated once a year. BUT... We are not told for how long the offer of 8 instead of E12 is valid. Would not it be reasonable to extend it for at least the first month of the trial period?

What I expected and did not get.:
E1. True integration with MP. Not full, but true. This means MP still creates and manages the catalogs, but C1 can USE it fully.
E2. A BACK navigation button when I have to look into another folder and go back quickly, i.e. a reasonable browser.
E3. A detailed user's manual. A text that really explains how to do.
E4. Automatic, if so selected, engine upgrade for the whole collection.
E5. Simultaneous use of several catalogs. Instead one for 35,000 images, 4 for 10,000 each.
E6. To implement some really needed features by a truly professional team of designers, user supporters, software engineers. And someone who listens to us.

Good luck,
F.
0

コメント

25件のコメント

日付 投票
  • Keith Reeder
    8 Windows crashed for me three times last night, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm seeing no meaningful difference between the rendering of images using the 7 and 8 engines either.

    What I have noticed - in side by side comparisons of high ISO files converted in Capture One 7 (not in 8 with the 7 engine) and in Capture One 8 using the 8 engine - is that the high ISO rendering is better from 7: at 100% view, things like text hold their edges better.
    0
  • Florin Coter
    Hi Keith,

    It may be so, glad to hear it. But when I use 3200 and up, I look for EXPRESSION, not details (not that at low ISO expression is not important). If details are needed and not enough light is available I do NOT click. As a matter of fact, my best photographs were taken at high ISO and are far from being sharp due to ISO, body movements, subject movements, lack of enough light to focus... But this is photography, not C1.

    Best,
    F.
    0
  • Florin Coter
    Hi Keith,

    I checked, for the sake of solidarity a noisy image and... at full swing I had to make a math analysis to see if there is any effect of noise reduction. Well, it was, but barely visible to my eyes. This explains why you see fine detailed better rendered. There is practically no noise reduction...

    Best,
    F.
    0
  • meanwhile
    What I have noticed - in side by side comparisons of high ISO files converted in Capture One 7 (not in 8 with the 7 engine) and in Capture One 8 using the 8 engine - is that the high ISO rendering is better from 7: at 100% view, things like text hold their edges better.


    Take a look at the Noise Reduction settings in 8, that could be the difference.

    I'm also getting better results starting from a Linear Response Curve, rather than using Auto.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    So, Phase has done it again. And no official input yet?

    Back to the drawing board (i.e. v7), I suggest.

    Peter
    0
  • Jim MSP
    In addition to my problems and disappointment in getting CO8 to talk with MP Pro, I just experienced my first crash and lockup.
    In an effort to see whether the catalog function had improved, I created a small catalog of 5100 images. As expected, it took quite a long time to generate the previews.
    After that, when I tried to exit, it basically locked up until I exited MP Pro. I then restarted CO8, and it took many minutes to open this same catalog. It took many minutes to quit when I pressed the exit command.
    When I examined the Windows task manager, I have 2 copies of CaptureOne.exe running.

    My summary - this was rushed through testing in order to release it at the photo show.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    There will always be hickups in a brand new release. Those hick-ups will be be fixed as soon as possible.

    Let's take your input from the top:
    1) Capture One has looked the same since v4. Time for an update. And btw, the developers that do the GUI, are not same that do the application logic, nor the same that do the image-algorithms.
    2) Please contact our support
    3) Please contact our support
    4) I suspect a bad imagefile of some sort. This scenario has been tested over and over again. If you have submitted the crashes to us, our developers are already looking into it. If not, please contact our Support.
    5 ) You're not stating how it is actually wrong. A bit hard to help you, but you could contact our support.
    6) Your calculation is wrong. if it take your machine 10 seconds to do 8 previews, that's 1.25 seconds pr preview. So your calculation would 1.25*36000/60/60 = 12.5 hours.
    7) As a PhD you should be used to reading and finding sources of information. Did you consult the help file we refer to in the software? Even a simple google search reveals this page in 1 click: http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Soft ... rials.aspx
    8 ) You don't say what camerabrand you are using, but as an example, we can now process 100 Nikon D800e files in 1m20s on the biggest MacPro. The importer is much faster, and the general UI is working more smoothly.
    9) Exactly the same way you would do it from v6 to v7. If you're in a catalog, select the collection "all images". Now select all images in the browser, be sure that "edit multple" is enabled, and now hit "Upgrade" from the Base Characteristics tool. You have now updated all 35,000 images.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    I am pleased to see Christian's measured response. My only criticism is to challenge the rather bland statement that all new software releases have hiccoughs. They don't - look at DxO, ACDC, Adobe, etc. They all manage to get it right first time.

    I would ask Phase to review its corporate aims. It has developed what is probably the best raw converter on the market. So why not offer this as a separate entity? Leave Sessions and Catalogues for a second product?

    After my shambolic experiences with some v7 products I gave up on Sessions and Catalogues. I now do all my Cap1 raw processing with system files. In this way I feel I know what I am doing and there are no nasty surprises.

    I now have C7 and C8 on my PC. Each one has a dummy session to feed them when they launch. I have compared the tif outputs with a range of raw file inputs. Overall, I am pleased to find C8 is an improvement. But strangely the default outputs are virtually indistinguishable, except in one respect. My RX100-2 images from C8 do not have the magenta cast of C7 files. Goody! And some sliders have been recalibrated, e.g. the highlight (HDR) slider.

    Doubtless Phase will claim other changes and improvements. But the release notes are too superficial to be of use in real-life nuances.

    Overall, I think the core raw processing in C8 is an improvement over C7 - but perhaps we shouldn't use Sessions or Catalogues until the so-called hiccoughs are sorted out.

    Peter

    P.S. I agree with Jim. C8 is a rushed job for Photokina. Big mistake, I suggest!
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    Hi Peter,

    The products you mentioned also have their share of bugs. Take a look at their respective forums.

    You seem to have problems with the sessions and catalogs that we don't know of. Please contact our Support, and they can help sort them, or, if indeed a bug, forward them to Test/Dev.

    I'm happy you can't tell much difference in the default rendering. That is indeed how it should be, so we don't change the Capture One look for long time users.
    Once you start pulling the sliders you will notice some differences, as you point out with eg. the highlight sliders.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Thank you Christian for these further comments. All I can say, in my experience, is that Cap1 seems to have more problems than any other raw converter - and I have tried them all, over the years. As I say, from my experience.

    I too am pleased that C8 has retained the Cap1 'look'.

    But we have to agree to differ as regards Sessions and Catalogues. I recognise that many Cap1 users can make them work but they are not for me.

    By the way, I can confirm that C8 processes raw images faster than C7 - about 30% faster in my experience. And I think real-time adjustments are a bit quicker, but it can be hard to tell!

    Peter
    0
  • Florin Coter
    Hi Peter,

    I agree Christian response was measure. The problem is by what standard. P1's, most probably, which is not mine. At any rate his PhD remark was out of context. See my other comment.

    Best,
    F.
    0
  • Florin Coter
    Hi Christian,

    Thank you for the lengthy response. Here you have mine.

    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    There will always be hickups in a brand new release. Those hick-ups will be be fixed as soon as possible.


    I agree, only in a very small part. Maybe you remember that up to v5, included, there were practically no complains about the poor software engineering. This is a historical fact. As to the C1 measure of ASAP I have grave reservations.

    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    1) Capture One has looked the same since v4. Time for an update. And btw, the developers that do the GUI, are not same that do the application logic, nor the same that do the image-algorithms.


    So, why a facelift is necessary when the the lady has a humpback? And what is the remark about programmers connected to the subject? We, or C1, have a MANAGERIAL problem of product definition and implementation. Leave the programmers alone.

    [quote="Jim MSP" wrote:
    5 ) You're not stating how it is actually wrong. A bit hard to help you, but you could contact our support.


    Correct. I just mentioned a fact, did not seek a solution.

    [quote="Jim MSP" wrote:
    6) Your calculation is wrong. if it take your machine 10 seconds to do 8 previews, that's 1.25 seconds pr preview. So your calculation would 1.25*36000/60/60 = 12.5 hours.


    Correct. I missed the number 8. Still, 12 hours is not a working product. MP did it in less then two hours....

    [quote="Jim MSP" wrote:
    7) As a PhD you should be used to reading and finding sources of information. Did you consult the help file we refer to in the software? Even a simple google search reveals this page in 1 click: http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Soft ... rials.aspx


    As a PhD I am not supposed to search for your User's Manual. And by the way, I had no problem reading it. It just does not explain much. Poor approach, IMHO, again a managerial issue.

    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    8 ) You don't say what camerabrand you are using, but as an example, we can now process 100 Nikon D800e files in 1m20s on the biggest MacPro. The importer is much faster, and the general UI is working more smoothly.


    The camera is irrelevant (Nikon D700), because I used the same images...

    [quote="Jim MSP" wrote:
    9) Exactly the same way you would do it from v6 to v7. If you're in a catalog, select the collection "all images". Now select all images in the browser, be sure that "edit multple" is enabled, and now hit "Upgrade" from the Base Characteristics tool. You have now updated all 35,000 images.


    Well, impossible to do what you suggest because in V7 one could not create a 35,000 images catalog... and because MP is a far better cataloger, I tested only sessions. Why using a session one cannot update ALL the images to new engine. Another managerial issue.

    It is really very difficult to understand, and accept the best RAW editor with such a poor software engineering.

    Best,
    F.
    0
  • Tan68
    I have seen improvements in the engine but I have only tried images I knew should be troublesome. Black and white bird in sun or stained glass window in dim room or silver figurine lit with typical indoor lights. There may be small differences for images with less contrast, but I thought the highlight tool was much more responsive with these contrasty images... Stacking the highlight tool on layers also was effective.

    At times, I felt like the color was better after the upgrade. I hadn't changed WB so this kind of change might be camera/profile specific. Never felt like it was worse, anyway.

    Upgrading v6 images to v7 made a very noticeable difference.
    Sometimes, I did not like the difference; the image changed from what I wanted...
    Upgrading v7 to v8 often results in little difference to overall look and this is not bad...

    I have seen biggest difference upgrading the high contrast v7 images to v8. With the new implementation of highlight tool, the midtones are generally brightened in v8. Not enough to change the feel/look so much as a better contrast between midtone and shadow... The midtones become less dull as the v7 highlight tool could do if much was applied...

    For me, the better changes are the highlight tool and speed.
    Maybe I see speed increase because my machine isn't very fast from the start ?
    A 10, 15, 30% difference on my machine is quite significant :^)

    As far as noise settings, I haven't studied v7 and v8
    I know that the defaults in v7 were a little much for me and I often turned them down. I imagine this varies by camera profile and some might find default just right. I preferred the extra detail for noise re-introduced. Maybe it will take some time to find preferred settings in v8 ?

    + I did not like the new design of the software. There is more padding and I think it is for touch interface. Who knows. I didn't like it, though... After time, I dislike it less and I no longer notice the new design unless I open v7. I got used to it. (thinking back, I really disliked it.. but have actually gotten used to it)
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="pkurhieuyr" wrote:
    Hi Keith,

    It may be so, glad to hear it. But when I use 3200 and up, I look for EXPRESSION, not details (not that at low ISO expression is not important). If details are needed and not enough light is available I do NOT click. As a matter of fact, my best photographs were taken at high ISO and are far from being sharp due to ISO, body movements, subject movements, lack of enough light to focus... But this is photography, not C1..

    I shoot sport and wildlife, though - I have no control over when I shoot, or what the light is like, so high ISO performance is very important to me. HIgh ISO is routinely necessary to maintain shutter speed in poor light, and soft images in these genres are not an option.

    Version 8 isn't at all bad - you have look to see this difference, and the noise handling itself is still very good - but my point is that it's not the promised improvement from version 7 to version 8 that I expected to see.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Peter" wrote:
    My only criticism is to challenge the rather bland statement that all new software releases have hiccoughs. They don't - look at DxO, ACDC, Adobe, etc. They all manage to get it right first time.

    Sorry Peter, but just no.

    I use (DxO) Optics Pro 9, ACDSee Pro 7, (Adobe) Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CC (and for the "etc,", how about Photo Ninja?) and they all have bugs, flaws, problems - call them what you will - first time, and every other time.

    Every last one of them.

    It's impossible to expect anything else - and I certainly don't hold Phase One to a higher standard than the rest of these companies.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi Keith

    An interesting point of view. For the record I too use all the software you refer to - and more. I find I can learn something new from all of them.

    BUT, and here is the difference. I have never had a new version of another raw converter crash on me. I have never made use of any other software forum to sort out a buggy problem. The big exception is Cap1. I now fully expect each new version of Cap1 to have bugs etc. So I try to wait until the more troublesome ones have been sorted out. It has been an interesting experience sitting on the side lines as various Cap1 forum threads evolve.

    I will be taking the plunge with Cap8. I can live with the quirks as long as the raw converter continues to teach me something new. I stick to simple procedures that do not overload my system (i.e. no Sessions and no Catalogs, thank you). I will look into your comment on high ISO. I haven't noticed this. As I said to Christian, I can find no discernible difference between C7 and C8. But perhaps C8 has a more aggressive default denoise algorithm? What do you call 'high', and how noisy is your camera sensor?

    Sorry to hear Win8 is playing up. I refuse to go there until I have to. Win7 Pro does it for me, for a few years now and through various hardware upgrades and reloading from scratch (an annual MOT as a rule, when I decide which raw converters to reload), and when my system has slowed down due to the accumulation of junk that CCleaner can't see!

    Regards, Peter
    0
  • AiDon
    Hi Keith/Peter,

    I have to agree with Keith with his comment about software (ALL) having bugs, flaws and quirks. I use Adobe products, NIK Software, onOne Software, Topaz Labs etc and at some point in time they have all had problems.

    I did purchase CO8 as previously I had tested CO7 and didn't really think it was worth the switch from Lightroom but because of the performance improvements, new functionality, and the improvements to existing functionality I decided to convert to Capture One Pro 8 as my RAW processor of choice, mainly for the reasons listed below apart from the performance:

    - Overall RAW conversion and ICC profiles,
    - Obviously the provision of Repair Layers,
    - The improvements to the 'HDR Tool', the recovery of detail in the highlights and shadows,
    - The Clarity tool is just amazing,
    - I like the Saturation slider ... I think of it more as vibrancy on steroids,
    - The overall control of the brightness (mid-tones),
    - I like the levels tool in addition to the curves tool,
    - It handles white balance and skintones very well, and
    - The improved B&W Conversion and Film Grain.

    BUT the promised improvements in the Noise Reduction doesn't seem to have come through especially with high ISO images in noisy sensors like a Sony DSC-RX100M3. In fact the noise reduction seems to have improved the sharpness of edges in High ISO images from the 5D Mark II/III and the 7D.

    All in all I am extremely satisified with my purchase of Capture One Pro 8 as I think it sets the benchmark for RAW processing and I haven't experienced any problems on either Win7x64 or Win8.1x64.

    Don.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hello Keith and Don

    I have now looked into Cap1 noise issues at high ISO. On my 7D, 1600 ISO is sufficiently high to show noise.

    I processed the same raw 1600 image with C7 and C8 using auto-levels and 0.6EV to lighten the tifs up a bit. The result was startlingly clear - C8 is noisier than C7. I then denoised and sharpened both with NeatImage and the images became very similar, with C8 showing just a little more detail.

    Out of curiosity I compared these outputs with a DxO noise-prime version of the same image. This was less noisy than the Cap1 images and denoised/sharpened up well, probably the best of the three. But while both Cap1 images were tonally stimulating (i.e. contrasty) with a quasi-3D appearance, the DxO image was flatter - not necessarily a bad thing, but definitely less striking than Cap1.

    I conclude the differences are there if you look for them, but a decent 3rd party denoiser/sharpener will produce very similar outcomes, with C8 marginally the 'winner'.

    Now, back to real-life stuff!

    Peter
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Thanks Peter - I really was hoping that the 7 - 8 high ISO noise difference was something I was doing less than optimally with 8, but you've confirmed some of my findings.

    Ironically, as recently as two weeks ago, I was discussing converter NR on a couple of photography forums, and in each I happily declared (based, again, on considerable real world use of each converter) that Capture One 7's NR was at least the equal of, and probably better than, DxO Optics Pro's non-PRIME NR (Optics Pro's standard NR has long been seen as the best of the bunch, but Capture One 7 had caught right up).

    Won't be saying that about 8, I'm afraid.

    As I've suggested, it's not so much that 8's NR is less efficient at removing noise (it's no better though, despite Phase One's claims about it), it's the impact the NR has on edges that concerns me: I'm a bird photographer, and edges "frayed" by NR equate directly to less well-defined feather detail.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi Keith

    Yes, it is good to have confirmation from an unrelated source.

    I have been playing with images of spider webs today. I was reminded that I find Adobe's shake reduction sharpener very good with edges. (Sorry Drew, I know this is off-piste.) I seem to remember Keith Cooper recommending a Topaz product, perhaps Clarity or Detail3, for sharpening up without degrading edges.

    As regards C7/C8 I am wondering whether Phase have rejigged the balance between noise and sharpening in C8 to provide the potential for just a bit more detail after a second denoise operation. This would be interesting to know because I routinely 'tidy up' Cap1 outputs in other software. But it doesn't help you with your fine edge issues.

    Regards, Peter.
    0
  • Jim MSP
    [quote="Peter" wrote:
    Hi Keith

    .... I seem to remember Keith Cooper recommending a Topaz product, perhaps Clarity or Detail3, for sharpening up without degrading edges.

    .....

    For my birds and sports shots, I generally end up shooting in high ISO (~< 1/1200 sec and f 7.0 or better) so I end up with more noise than I want. I take almost every decent shot from either LR or CO7 into PS and denoise with Noiseware and sharpen with Topaz Detail 3. The few shots I've tried with CO 8 tell me I have to continue to do the same.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    I use a few of the Topaz tools - primarily deNoise, Detail and Adjust - and they're excellent, but they can't "rebuild" an edge that has been made raggedy by NR.

    I don't want to stop using Capture One's NR (it's a key selling point for me, and if I stop using it, I get close to removing the point of Capture One for me), so I'll have to try and juggle with the slider settings a bit to see whether I can work around it.

    Of course, what I haven't done yet (not least because version 8 isn't nearly stable enough for me to be able to have a good run of tests) is test whether the difference I'm seeing is down to the new rendering engine rather than the NR, so that's something else for me to consider.
    0
  • meanwhile
    Out of curiosity I compared these outputs with a DxO noise-prime version of the same image.


    I like the output quality from PRIME, but it's incredibly slow.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    It is impressive, but TBH I don't have a camera that goes to such high ISOs that I really have a need for it, given how good Capture One's and Optics Pro's "standard" NR algorithms are.

    I struggle to get the balance right between noise handling and detail retention too and - given how long an instance of PRIME takes to process a file - it's not easy (in my experience anyway) to get a handle on that balance.

    Still grateful to have the option, though.
    0
  • meanwhile
    Keith, have you experimented with using small amounts of Clarity/Structure to see whether that can help with the balance? (especially given that clarity can now be used locally)
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。