Possible to load image settings from 3.7?
I have literally thousands of image settings from 3.7 that were output and archived... can 4 read these? Didn't notice it in the user guide when I was looking...
0
-
craig_washburn,
Not Possible,
Realease Notes / Known Issue
Settings from Capture One 4 pre-release versions cannot be reused
Settings from previous generations of Capture One (3.x or older) cannot be reused.
Regards,
K C0 -
Youch... any possibility of this being fixed in a future version? Pretty please? Seems like it should not be hard...3.7's settings have equivalents in 4.0.. retrieving past jobs will be difficult/impossible to re-output if its necessary.
It also makes transferring current jobs that were started in 3.7 hard to finish with 4.0.0 -
Will the settings files in V4 work in V4 Pro?
Regards
Stu 😊0 -
Not gonna work, they're different files alltogether.
Capture One 4 and PRO 4 - Yes - and image Settings files will be able to transfer from Mac to / from Windows machines.
Regards,
K C0 -
Thank you Keith
Regards
Stu 😄0 -
Well yeah, they're different files... can't you make some kind of "import settings from 3.7" module? It's just data. Read the exposure/white balance/etc data from the file and apply it to the current ones.
Whats the solution then to re-loading 50,000+ files with settings saved in 3.7?
Or could Phase One release the data structure of the 3.7 settings file and the 4.0 file, that way some third party could at least make a "convert 3.7 settings to 4.0" utility.0 -
Can i made one suggestion?
A small software only to CONVERT old config files to actual files.
All my backup includes "selected capturing settings" save on one folder. Is it very usefull.
Please Capture One Staff, think about it.0 -
I hear ya' and if this is important to you, then you should create a Support Case with Feature Request for this.
My Thoughts:
One of the virtues of capturing and archiving RAWs is that as future program algorithms become more and more sophisticated and improved,
one can go back to archived RAW and Reprocess from the beginning resulting in a much better final image.
Phase One has been creating RAW algorithms for 14 years, and they continue to improve.
Noise and quality improvement from 3.6 to 3.7 and we're already hearing about image quality improvement with 4.0 especially in fleshtones.
If a lot of image work was done on past jobs with a specific version, then 3.7.7 (or previous )t is the program to use for final output.
Most previous versions are available at the Download area of web site at Software Archives.
Sincerely,
K C0 -
[quote="Keith Carpenter" wrote:
I hear ya' and if this is important to you, then you should create a Support Case with Feature Request for this.
My Thoughts:
One of the virtues of capturing and archiving RAWs is that as future program algorithms become more and more sophisticated and improved,
one can go back to archived RAW and Reprocess from the beginning resulting in a much better final image.
Phase One has been creating RAW algorithms for 14 years, and they continue to improve.
Noise and quality improvement from 3.6 to 3.7 and we're already hearing about image quality improvement with 4.0 especially in fleshtones.
If a lot of image work was done on past jobs with a specific version, then 3.7.7 (or previous )t is the program to use for final output.
Most previous versions are available at the Download area of web site at Software Archives.
Sincerely,
K C
Yes, I agree with you. The thing is, lots of my files have some rather unconventional and radical changes applied to them, and sometimes subtle (especially with the color wheel). Trying to replicate these settings will at the very least, take a prohibitive amount of time. The software should at least be able to approximate past versions of settings for things like exposure and white balance (ie, IMG_001 has +1 stop exposure, 5500k white balance)
I do realize that some controls are different - ie, Contrast does not work like it did before. But could the look be approximated?
And this touches on a problem with digital photography - future versions of software being incompatible with old archived data, rendering the original intent of the file impossible to determine. I am curious how the pictures taken today will be handled in 50 years...
Every now and then one of my clients loses their DVD of files and needs me to regenerate the files as they were originally. I try to keep high resolution output around, but understandably on a 1000+ image shoot the storage commitments of TIFF files are difficult, even compressed.0 -
As per my comments in the "Cache location" thread :
It will be worth keeping an eye on that thread if this topic interests you.
One impediment to creating a v3 settings import tool is the new cache structure in v4.
The v3 setting filenames (.c1w files) are, at least for the Canons, created based on certain metadata in the RAW file. (I understand this is not the case for all cameras but P1 have found equally intelligent ways to cope with that). It doesn't matter where you open a particular RAW file from, if v3 C1 has seen it before, it can use its metadata to find the settings file and load it from the consolidated cache, and presto. Like all good technology, this model "simply works", transparent to the user, no mucking around required. The cache model here is nicely self-contained and predictable.
With v4, C1 expects the settings file to be in a folder relative to the image file - ie. the two must travel together wherever they may go. If somehow they get separated then, well, you're out of luck.
If there was a v3-v4 conversion tool, how could it possibly know where to put the appropriate settings file? There is no central cache anymore. And if the raw files happen to be on DVDs, well, you'd probably need to copy the DVDs to your harddisk first, then run the conversion tool, then reburn all your archive DVDs again. This starts to show why the v4 cache model is really messy.
And that is my point - the cache design in C1v4 would need to change first, to what v3 had, to enable such a conversion tool to do its job. Until that happens, personally I see any attempt to create a conversion tool would face some tricky or impossible challenges.0 -
I'm not sure why this would be an issue.....I'd simply keep the 3.7x version intact and use that to refer to older files where the prior correction was correct.
If you wish to adjust anything differently in V4, use another iteration of the file and adjust there, you'd be changing the prior workfile at that point anyway....
Both versions coexist on my computer, so.....0 -
The C1v4 cache structure is a non-issue for generating v3.x settings to v4.x files.
All you need is a simple standalone app or plugin to C1:
Input: v3.x settings files (*.c1w) --presumably most people will have these archived to disc along with the original RAW files.
Output: v4.x XML files (*.cos) to destination folder on HDD
If you need to rework an image that's been offlined to disc, you would do the above conversion, then copy the RAW file in question back to the HDD in the destination folder above.
I'm a professional programmer and it irks me to no end that v3.x settings support is not currently in v4.x. Yes, there may have to be some translation to get the v3.x settings to fit into the v4.x scheme, but I'm willing to bet that it's possible to get pretty dang close.
You simply cannot provide an archive feature in one version and then abandon it in the subsequent version.
Yes, the technology has changed, but the previous poster is absolutely right that that does not necessarily invalidate the previous settings. In fact, if the rendering engine is so much better, wouldn't it be great to be able to batch update our v3.x renders in v4.x? Imagine feeding v4.x all your old v3.x RAW files and settings and seeing magically smoother, cleaner, more accurate images emerge!
And the argument of "just keep using v3.x if you want to revisit 3.x-rendered images" is completely foolish; you don't upgrade a product with the expectation that you'll still need to rely on the old product. And what happens when v5.x comes out? Will the 4.x files be abandoned to obsolecence as well?
A new and improved revision should--at a minimum--be able to do everything the previous version could do (or do it better).
I am beside myself with awe at how short-sighted and/or poorly conceived v4.x seems to be. And yes, I have read the manual.0 -
>>And the argument of "just keep using v3.x if you want to revisit 3.x-rendered images" is completely foolish; you don't upgrade a product with the expectation that you'll still need to rely on the old product. And what happens when v5.x comes out? Will the 4.x files be abandoned to obsolecence as well?
A new and improved revision should--at a minimum--be able to do everything the previous version could do (or do it better).<<
Well...foolish? Thanks!
For the record, what you are requesting is complete backward compatability. That can hamstring software, and as COne is a raw converter rather than library software, I would prefer that it do the best job possible on current files. If that means a blank slate every 5 years or so...so be it. The speed enhancements and single pane adjustment tab are worth every bit of relearning for me...so we differ in how we expect software to function. Cheers!0 -
[quote="Keith Carpenter" wrote:
Phase One has been creating RAW algorithms for 14 years, and they continue to improve.
Microsoft have been creating word processors for longer than that, yet you can still open Word for DOS documents in Word 2003. Most other professional productivity tools likewise.
I agree with craig_washburn - an importer that achieves a reasonable approximation is an essential feature for many professional photographers. I accept that this is not as straight forward as some here are suggesting, but that's not a very good reason to further increase your unpopularity amongst your userbase. I also remember PO gave a strong commitment NOT to break future compatibility after it changed the curves file format a few years ago rendering them unusable after a CO-v3 'upgrade'.[quote="Keith Carpenter" wrote:
If a lot of image work was done on past jobs with a specific version, then 3.7.7 (or previous) is the program to use for final output. Most previous versions are available at the Download area of web site at Software Archives.
Can you confirm that all V4 licences will permit the full legal use of all previous versions of CO concurrently with CO-v4 (or its succeeding versions)? Thanks.[quote="John Malloy" wrote:
For the record, what you are requesting is complete backward compatability. That can hamstring software
Agreed that perfect backward compatibility can indeed hamstring a small software producer. However I suspect most users would settle for a reasonable approximation starting point on which to base further manual changes as this would still be much faster/easier than re-creating from scratch.0 -
[quote="John Malloy" wrote:
>>And the argument of "just keep using v3.x if you want to revisit 3.x-rendered images" is completely foolish; you don't upgrade a product with the expectation that you'll still need to rely on the old product. And what happens when v5.x comes out? Will the 4.x files be abandoned to obsolecence as well?
A new and improved revision should--at a minimum--be able to do everything the previous version could do (or do it better).<<
Well...foolish? Thanks!
For the record, what you are requesting is complete backward compatability. That can hamstring software, and as COne is a raw converter rather than library software, I would prefer that it do the best job possible on current files. If that means a blank slate every 5 years or so...so be it. The speed enhancements and single pane adjustment tab are worth every bit of relearning for me...so we differ in how we expect software to function. Cheers!
I apologize - I actually didn't mean that "foolish" comment to be directed at you. That suggestion--bringing back 3.x when you need to re-work an archived file--came from a PhaseOne employee. So just be clear, I meant that it was foolish of PhaseOne to tell us to just revert to the old version when necessary. I think that business decision is foolish for a software house. If end-users are fine with 3.x reversion, then to each his own; I wouldn't criticize an individual's personal choice.
That being said - offering a translator that gets a 3.x settings file reasonably close to a 4.x settings file is not exactly the same thing as "complete backward compatability". Their image processing engine is indeed different, but many of the basic settings have direct equivalents between versions (e.g. exposure, contrast, saturation, kelvin, tone, etc). Other variables will of course complicate the translation--4.x camera profiles may differ from 3.x profiles--but again all I'm asking for is to get my basic settings imported, I'm not expecting a pixel-for-pixel identical output.
As for backwards compatiblity possibly "hamstringing software," yes that's true in some cases but I don't believe it's true in this case. Windows Vista definitely does not support every app that was ever written in DOS twenty years ago and it would be onerous to provide full backwards compatibility. But an app that merely acts upon a fixed type of data should not have too much trouble supporting previous versions.
Finally - your last point about preferring absolute image quality is fair enough, but don't you think some professionals would balk at wiping out their previous years' work? Would a lawyer buy case file software that rendered old case files unusable every couple of years? Would an accountant use software that made it impossible to revisit past tax returns? Yes, they could go back and re-create the work if they wanted to, but why should they have to? That data should be available to them!
I'm huge on image quality as well, but I also expect a certain professional standard when it comes to the tools I use. Wiping the slate clean every couple of years does not meet my definition of high professional standards.
If Photoshop CS3 can open a PSD from 1993, CaptureOne has no excuse.0 -
And actually, while I'm back on the subject:
If Phase One released the specs for their 3.x *.c1w file format, I could write a translator myself into their new 4.x XML file format. I'm a programmer. Java makes it pretty easy to write out XML files.
But the *.c1w files are meaningless jumble if you don't have a guide to their format. You have to know exactly which byte positions represent which settings in order to translate it. A text viewer mis-interprets this data as ASCII characters.
Here's an actual c1w file:
" 9C6C9811 P1CRV1 ð? ð? ð? ð? ð? ð? ð? ð?ge»JÆÿý?¶¬ùÿÿï?[ÃÉ«wÃò?ge»JÆÿý?¶¬ùÿÿï?[ÃÉ«wÃò?€ŽØ¤ñÂp?€ŽØ¤ñÂp?€ŽØ¤ñÂp? ð? ð? ð?
Film standard ' ] – . €¾
×£¼ ge»JÆÿý?¶¬ùÿÿï?[ÃÉ«wÃò? § …ë¡? ð? ëQð? B0 -
Don't worry, your not the only one in "awe" 😊
Many people,as probably many consumers should be, do not understand some of these simple software concepts, an no one can hold a grudge against people who know no better.
The real problem is I remember it being said that, as I have said, this version would be a fix for a long string of prior problems, and I could be wrong, but I seem to remember it was said that this new version WOULD read the old settings files, the mind does boggle...it is something one would automatically expect !
And before anyone jumps down my throat, if you all think P1 has re written all the past RAW converters/code for all the old cameras etc just for this new app, I would suggest you could be barking up the wrong tree & frankly, even if all of this is wrong, clearly it should read the archived settings & not get it close, but get it darn spot on !0 -
I'm not a "real" programmer, though I have written quite a few tools (using Perl) for my co-workers. Not that I would understand how to decipher the binary format v.3.7 used...did it not store its settings in a single large database? If it didn't -- if the settings are stored in 'sidecar'-like files -- and if someone understands the file format: why would it not be completely feasible to read the old settings-files, then write out at least some of the previously stored settings to the XML format used by v.4?
Surely if developers are clever enough to decipher a bunch of different (unpublished) raw formats, then devise their own complex algorithms to translate the raw formats to TIFF (and TIFF all by itself is hardly child's play, right?), how could it possibly be a hugely difficult task to translate some of the 3.7 settings into a form 4.0 can use?
(I get a bit cynical about developers at times. So often over the years I've heard "can't be done" or "too expensive" or "nobody needs that" or "nah, not a good idea" -- when what the dev actually means is: "I don't feel like doing it. Don't waste my time. Go bother someone else ... wait. Come back here, you. Furthermore, my software is totally obvious and doesn't even need a UI. Also, every line of my uncommented code is golden and the program contains NO bugs. So it doesn't need any documentation OR testing, got that? NOW go bother someone else.")
( . . . don't get me started . . . :-)0 -
You're right - the format could be poked and prodded to figure out what data is where. It would just take too long for someone like me to do from the outside ("outside" meaning that we don't have a published spec that deciphers the format for us).
The adjustments are stored internally in C1 v3.x, but you can have it archive the settings into individual *.c1w files. It then uses some encoding/hashing method to generate a unique filename for each one (e.g. UIDC7CC3CCC31A4FD4D1E9275FF2E4F2E2E.C1w). Now that I look at it, it looks like a string of hex digit pairs.
Deciphering the format from the outside would be a guess-and-check reverse engineering project. Alter one setting, archive to *.c1w, note the difference. Alter the next setting, archive, note the difference. And on and on until you've figured out each setting.
So it's possible, but I wouldn't be willing to put in that much effort to do something that Phase One's developers could do much more easily (they already know what goes where in the format and already have a parser from their v3.x code).
In summary:
Too much work for my taste, but certainly some motivated programmer out there could do it.
Not so hard for Phase One to do.
Phase One has no technical excuse not to do it (i.e. "incompatible data" == total BS).0 -
[quote="banzai" wrote:
It would just take too long for someone like me to do from the outside ("outside" meaning that we don't have a published spec that deciphers the format for us).
I had the same thought you did: if there's no spec available, you'd have to save one of those files, make a change, examine the change within the binary file, do the same thing, verify that it's the same change...make another change...and so forth. That'd be a lot of work.uses some encoding/hashing method to generate a unique filename for each one (e.g. UIDC7CC3CCC31A4FD4D1E9275FF2E4F2E2E.C1w). Now that I look at it, it looks like a string of hex digit pairs.
"UID" made me think of "UUID" and I counted the number of digits that follow the "UID". Same number as in a GUID generated by UUIDGEN or other such programs. The example you included had an unusual number of "C's" in a row but perhaps that's just a coincidence.Phase One's developers could do much more easily (they already know what goes where in the format and already have a parser from their v3.x code).
Yes...they have to be able to parse their own file format...
Damn. It's too bad I blew away my v.3.7 installation. Not that I write applications that are suitable for unleashing on the real world, but this is the kind of thing that makes me damned curious...could it be done by some know-nothing like me, armed with only his irritation? :-)0 -
Trying to recall from forum posts at rawworkflow.com a few years ago , the ID number of the UID is based on metadata in the RAW file, possibly including camera serial number, sequence number, (not filename). In other words, it was a proprietary algorithm that P1 created, and therefore different for different RAW formats (eg: possibly even different between Canon CRW and CR2 files). Fortunately much of these two Canon formats has been mapped out (eg by Dave Coffin), but not all as I recall, and then there's the topic of supporting multiple bodies. This is an excellent observation by the poster above in the complexities of a home-brew solution.
Many years ago I figured out most of the Amiga IFF ILBM image format by myself (was in high school and couldn't afford the documentation) with the change-and-check approach, but do not have the time for this stuff these days. I had reviewed C1's curve file settings some time ago with this approach (to toy around with custom curves) and had figured out much of it, but there were some odd idiosyncracies I could not figure-out at the time. Looking at the C1W files in a hex editor brings back some very bad memories 😜 For starters, my C1W files vary in length from 366 to 454 bytes, which means apart from the film response curve name there is at least one variable-length structure (or possibly optional chunks) to figure out (such as curve points), that these files do not have a vanilla fixed-width copybook to map to.0 -
Yeah, the geek in me enjoys thinking these things through and really considering the practical issues and challenges. But the pragmatist in me wins out in this case: PhaseOne just needs to write the dang importer.
If they refuse to take all this user feedback and improve v4, I'm jumping ship to Lightroom or something.
So as geeky fun as it would be to roll up the sleeves and bust out the hex editor, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. A homebrew solution is a lose-lose proposition to me:
EITHER: PhaseOne eventually rolls out an importer and all that homebrew work has gone to waste,
OR: PhaseOne never supports the previous settings and effectively demonstrates to me that they're not serious about listening to their customers and making v4 (non-pro) as viable a product as v3.x LE was. In other words: they'll have lost me as a customer and I'll want nothing to do with C1.
photogenix: I'm not surprised that the settings files could be variable length - I was actually thinking that same thing when I thought about the number of possible points on a curves control. What a pain!0 -
From here: http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=4927
"Capture One 4 as you you might know by now is a completely new software and has very little in-common with the original Capture One 3.x
First of all it as a unified interface, now Capture One looks and feels the same on Mac and Windows, also settings are transparent so a user can have both platforms and share share file between the two platforms. "
Could this be why they say no to a translator being possible at this time?0 -
To me neither of those statements makes any compelling argument for why v3.x settings can't be imported into v4.
The processing engine is completely new. Fine.
But the settings that configure that processing engine are largely the same (with the addition of things like the HDR highlight/shadow adjustments).
The fact that the basic inputs haven't changed invalidates the argument that we're dealing with a whole new ball of wax. This isn't some radical paradigm shift in the entire approach to working with RAW files. We're still talking about exposure compensation, contrast, saturation, etc.
A hybrid car may be a radical shift in engine technology, but you still put gas in the gas tank, you still press the accelerator to move, you still press the brake to stop, you still turn the wheel right to turn right. Completely new engine; exact same user inputs.
And to take things even further, there's no reason why someone couldn't write a C1 to Lightroom translator to import settings or vice-versa. It would take more work, but again, despite the different engines, we're dealing with the same kinds of inputs.
I think the only valid reasons for not including support for v3.x files are:
1. Business decision. They want to make v4.x (non-pro) a weaker app than its v3.x LE predecessor. The idea here would be to create a larger divergence between a good rendering engine for casual users vs a fully-fledged pro-caliber v4.x Pro app.
2. Lack of resources. They just don't have enough programmers to get around to this wish list item.
3. Lack of vision. They honestly think it's no big deal to abandon v3.x settings and force users to either start over again on archived files or keep their v3.x installs active.0 -
I think CO3.x settings import to CO4 makes it for a valid feature request. It makes sense to offer such functionality when CO4 Pro is released and offered to CO4 (LE) too.
What I intend to say is that I expect that when CO4 Pro hits the market, an update of CO4 (LE) will have some issues resolved, others remain Pro only and with some unresolved.
I sure will do a feature request on this one. That does not stop you from doing the same . 😄0 -
[quote="photographicon" wrote:
[quote="Keith Carpenter" wrote:
Phase One has been creating RAW algorithms for 14 years, and they continue to improve.
Microsoft have been creating word processors for longer than that, yet you can still open Word for DOS documents in Word 2003. Most other professional productivity tools likewise.
Actually, if you have ever tried to open an old word file, they are not in fac supported. Same with CorelDraw and other programs. Having said that, you should always be able to open a file from the last version, which is the issue here.
...Mike0 -
[quote="gendem" wrote:
Actually, if you have ever tried to open an old word file, they are not in fac supported. Same with CorelDraw and other programs.
Having "support" attached is irelevant anyway.
Being "supported" means you can call the help desk etc and say hey...I have these settings on a disk, but I cannot work out how to use this function of bringing old settings files into this new version.
The people talking here all know how to operate many of these things, so all there needs to be is the ability to use the settings files & it should not be a rough hack either, the app should read these older files, it should also read "read only" RAW's so that you can just tell the app where the settings file is and re generate images for those that have them stored on read only media.0 -
Hi,
Phase One need to make an importer. They've made one before when they changed how settings were saved. Otherwise why go back and redo all your hard work from v3 in v4 when you could do the same in Lightroom? Adobe make they settings forward compatible.
Archiving a copy of v3 isn't feasible. Maybe we save it on a Syquest cartridge just to prove the point. To be safe lets write our C1 converted RAWs to film!
This is the reason Capture One 4 needs to store its settings inside the converted DNG (with corrected thumbnail + preview).
-- Robert.0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
28件のコメント