Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Capture One 4.0 beta  (Read 8824 times)
adias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« on: August 30, 2007, 08:34:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded the Mac version of CO 4.0 beta for the MAC. It is slow as molasses. Are others observing this? I've tried it on an intel Mac Pro w/ gobbles of RAM.
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6877


« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2007, 02:11:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I downloaded the Mac version of CO 4.0 beta for the MAC. It is slow as molasses. Are others observing this? I've tried it on an intel Mac Pro w/ gobbles of RAM.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same experience, slow on both G5 and Intel powered Macs. Also encountered a few crashes on a dual G5.
 
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 02:12:26 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2007, 09:25:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I briefly used an earlier beta with Phase One a few months ago and found it to be far, far faster than v3 on the same machine. They still have work to do but my hopes are high from that experience. C1 users should be pleased when it is completed and solid.
Logged

nma
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2007, 09:38:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I downloaded the Mac version of CO 4.0 beta for the MAC. It is slow as molasses. Are others observing this? I've tried it on an intel Mac Pro w/ gobbles of RAM.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I downloaded the beta last night and fired it up without problem. Running XP with 2GB of memory, 4b ran fine on 5D-size images.  Although I have no firm conclusions, I was very pleased with the potential of the highlight and shadow controls.  The highlight control was able to tame  images that previously seemed impossible to deal with. Finally, my impression is that the color right out-of-the-box is much more pleasant than I obtain with lightroom.  This observation about the color quality is perplexing to me. It would seem that lightroom 1.1 has much more sophisticated controls for managing saturation, hue and lightness, and yet in my first experiments 4b provides a more appealing palette with virtually no fussing.  

I look forward to hearing other views on the subject.
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2007, 12:29:53 PM »
ReplyReply

This may seem a bit basic, but I couldn't figure out how to convert raw images to TIFF files, or if I did, I don't know where C1 put them.  Not impressed.

Edit:  Finally found them in My Pictures, apparently no way to set where they go.  Not impressed.

--John
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 12:34:43 PM by John Hollenberg » Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2007, 12:58:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It would seem that lightroom 1.1 has much more sophisticated controls for managing saturation, hue and lightness, and yet in my first experiments 4b provides a more appealing palette with virtually no fussing. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that's a really good observation. C1 is quite good out of the box and basic adjustments can be made extremely easily but the fine tuning controls aren't there. C1's tethered shooting, soft proofing and ability to export CMYK files makes it a more complete solution for a number of commercial and/or studio shooters today. I particularly like how C1 handles highlight transitions to white. Adobe's highlight transitions (even with ACR4.1) are a weak spot, IMO.

Quote
This may seem a bit basic, but I couldn't figure out how to convert raw images to TIFF files, or if I did, I don't know where C1 put them.† Not impressed.
Edit:† Finally found them in My Pictures, apparently no way to set where they go.† Not impressed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey John! I agree this is unintuitive. C1 requires that you setup capture and process folders under the Organize tab. In the 4.0 beta they now call the process folder the Output folder which you can set by double clicking on it. You can also set the output folder in the Process tab (that looks like a gear). If you look under the process tab it has all sorts of processing (or export) options like the ability to save CMYK TIFFs. The public beta doesn't appear to let you select CMYK profiles yet. And like Adobe's Image Processor, C1's BatchTool can simultaneously make low res sRGB JPEGs and full res CMYK TIFFs for example. C1v4 should be a blast.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 01:42:21 PM by Onsight » Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2007, 01:17:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey John! I agree this is unintuitive. C1 requires that you setup capture and process folders under the Organize tab. In the 4.0 beta they now call the process folder the Output folder which you can set by double clicking on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, I see it now.  I find it rather bizarre that these options can only be accessed with the icons, apparently not through the menu.  Once I see it, easy to set though.  The real issue is quality of output--will have to study that for a bit.

--John
Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2007, 01:24:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I grab a quick shot and processed in both versions to see any significant difference. Here are the resulting JPGs:


Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 861


« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2007, 01:41:14 PM »
ReplyReply

4.0 beta didn't work on my 2 year old machine (windows xp64, 12Gb ram, quad core)
just would never launch. instant crash report to Phase. I gave up and removed it.

However...

I have to say Michael is coming across as a bit biased towards Lightroom. We all know he has invested a lot of time in it, with the tutorials etc, but it seems Lightroom is great for high production work flows, where good enough colour does, but C1 gives you the utmost in files and colour (to me) for a slightly slower workflow.

Yes Lightroom has more controls, but if its basic profiles for your camera/back aren't really excellent (and Phase's are very good indeed) then its a lot of work to get close to a comparable C1 file.

I'm in the business of needing near perfect files - not a high workflow situation - just the absolute best file I can possibly get out of my P45+ images, and have no interest in compromising that for a quicker workflow or bells and whistles Raw Converter. For this reason, I'm perfectly happy with C1 (even 3.7x) rather than Lightroom.  

Horses for Courses, I guess.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2007, 02:35:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but it seems Lightroom is great for high production work flows, where good enough colour does, but C1 gives you the utmost in files and colour (to me) for a slightly slower workflow.

For those that need to convert to CMYK files, C1 is far faster. And the ability to lock in your settings during a tethered shoot is fantastic. For some photographers Lightroom isn't yet a option worth considering but the possibly of equivalent features in LR2 could very compelling.

Today there are different tools aimed at different folks and no clear winners.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2007, 03:39:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have to say Michael is coming across as a bit biased towards Lightroom. We all know he has invested a lot of time in it, with the tutorials etc,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Horse-crap...that may be your impression, but it's WAY far south of the truth. Michael really WANTD to like it...he also has close ties to Phase One and was rooting for them. He's a friend of Kevin Raber from Phase One (whose gone on the last two and will be along for the next Antarctic trip). Michael's been to the factory in Denmark and has tried to offer feedback to them regarding Capture One's shortcomings. If anything, Michael is bending over backwards in an attempt NOT to be biased. Presuming bias on your part is your own baggage, not Michael's.

I actually was surprised that the beta of 4 offered so little. And the switch to dark gray/black UI is well, let's just say a bit derivative?
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2007, 04:26:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded the C1-4 beta. I installed it (took forever because it required running and installing .NET), ran it for fifteen minutes, and uninstalled it. Not a promising start. It seemed slow on my system (Win XP Pro, dual-core Opteron, 4GB RAM) when starting and loading a folder. At on point in working on a 1Ds2 image, the preview just froze and remained pixelated. But the worst thing: it supposedly supports Canon Mark III files. It rendered the thumbnails, but that's where it stopped. I tried opening several files. Each time I got the "Loading..." message, but no image.

I always liked the quality of files from Capture One, though it seems antiquated by Lightroom standards in the adjustments department. I do feel it produces better files, in many ways, than Lightroom, such as smmother tone, sharper without artifacts. Unlike Lightroom, I love that you don't have to import files, you just open them where they are. I'll be curious about the Pro version. I'm unimpressed by the current beta, but will keep my mind open
Logged

paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469



« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2007, 05:05:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I downloaded the C1-4 beta. I installed it (took forever because it required running and installing .NET), ran it for fifteen minutes, and uninstalled it.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did the same. My gripe: Phase One needs to pay more attention to UI. Itís a shame because I think we all benefit when two equally competent teams compete. At the moment Lightroom is light years ahead with a bright future... imho. But donít underestimate Canonís DPP if you are a Canon user.

Quote
I have to say Michael is coming across as a bit biased towards Lightroom.
As Jeff said above, Michaelís review was only charitably polite to Phase One given his previous relationship with C1, the company and staff. (Michael has spent more on Phase One backs then Iíve spent on my house.) No bias in that review on the side of Lightroom that I could see. You need to know some history to read between the lines.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 05:16:36 PM by paulbk » Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2007, 07:04:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I actually was surprised that the beta of 4 offered so little. And the switch to dark gray/black UI is well, let's just say a bit derivative?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If we are talking derivative we must give credit to ED Darkroom from which many other applications have borrowed heavily from lately.
Logged

adias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2007, 08:30:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I just tried the Windows version and that is usable. The OS X version is just too slow.

I agree with MR nothing to write home about.
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 861


« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2007, 10:01:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Horse-crap...that may be your impression, but it's WAY far south of the truth. Michael really WANTD to like it...he also has close ties to Phase One and was rooting for them. He's a friend of Kevin Raber from Phase One (whose gone on the last two and will be along for the next Antarctic trip). Michael's been to the factory in Denmark and has tried to offer feedback to them regarding Capture One's shortcomings. If anything, Michael is bending over backwards in an attempt NOT to be biased. Presuming bias on your part is your own baggage, not Michael's.

I actually was surprised that the beta of 4 offered so little. And the switch to dark gray/black UI is well, let's just say a bit derivative?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
oh, Mr Schewe, aren't you are in those Lightroom videos too, and have somethings invested in that, no?

Yes, I'm well aware of Michaels investment and affinity for Phase One products. I hope he would want to like 4.0, and yes, I too am disappointed with the ridiculous amount of time it took to arrive, and still seems nowhere near finished. I have heavily invested in Phase too (on my third back)  However, the core of my point remains that I get better files from C1 than I do from Lightroom, (both for Phase and Canon with Magnes profiles) so.. it doesn't matter how many controls or features they put in Lightroom, or how snappy the interface, if it doesn't deliver a better ultimate image, I'm not going to use it for my work (yes, I do have it, and no I'm not against Adobe - I own stock in them for chrissake...)

I guess my point is, don't overlook maximum quality as a driving force behind some people's choice of raw engine, over and above anything else. It sometimes seems that gets forgotten in all the books, videos, tutorials, and general Lightroom hoopla. its just my 2c worth, feel free to ignore.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2007, 10:21:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
oh, Mr Schewe, aren't you are in those Lightroom videos too, and have somethings invested in that, no?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yeah, and what's you're point? You think that makes my opinion about Michael's review of Capture One biased? Get a friggin' life bud.

Maybe it's ok for you to throw out ill reasoned assumptions that impugn somebody else's reputation in your neck of the woods, but in my area, you better have something more than a "feeling" before you allege "bias". That's a pretty serious charge...and it's both unfounded (based upon YOUR uninformed opinion) and untrue.

If you presume that people in Michael's position can't be unbiased because of what all he does, that says a lot about you (and very little about Michael).

And yet, you even admit to owning Adobe stock, so clearly, anything YOU say is biased, right?

The English language is precious, make sure you don't screw the pooch when you use it.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2007, 02:23:23 AM »
ReplyReply

After reading about the high output quality for the 5D I downloaded the beta and I have some observations.
It's use is awkward
It's output is the best I've seen, far better than Adobe's output and better than DxO's
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
SeanFS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2007, 04:04:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Right with you there about image quality . I was hoping CS3 was goimg to deliver better files this time around as the UI is so good and processing faster but found myself back with C1 as the colour quality seems so much better and effortless to achieve, there is no smearing of detail and highlights don't seem clipped as easily as ACR and DPP. I have even made the sharpening work for me at last after moaning about it a few times in these forums.
 The Beta of C1 is interesting and the shadow highlight tool a big plus. Its slow on my mac G5 - but I have yet to try it on my Macbook pro. I'm really looking foward to the final product



Quote
oh, Mr Schewe, aren't you are in those Lightroom videos too, and have somethings invested in that, no?

Yes, I'm well aware of Michaels investment and affinity for Phase One products. I hope he would want to like 4.0, and yes, I too am disappointed with the ridiculous amount of time it took to arrive, and still seems nowhere near finished. I have heavily invested in Phase too (on my third back)  However, the core of my point remains that I get better files from C1 than I do from Lightroom, (both for Phase and Canon with Magnes profiles) so.. it doesn't matter how many controls or features they put in Lightroom, or how snappy the interface, if it doesn't deliver a better ultimate image, I'm not going to use it for my work (yes, I do have it, and no I'm not against Adobe - I own stock in them for chrissake...)

I guess my point is, don't overlook maximum quality as a driving force behind some people's choice of raw engine, over and above anything else. It sometimes seems that gets forgotten in all the books, videos, tutorials, and general Lightroom hoopla. its just my 2c worth, feel free to ignore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
adias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2007, 02:06:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah, and what's you're point? You think that makes my opinion about Michael's review of Capture One biased? Get a friggin' life bud.ou don't screw the pooch when you use it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff:

No need to be so bully and blunt all the time. No need to treat others like dirt. It seems to be a characteristic of yours in this forum and the Adobe forum. You seem angry all the time. Come on, we actually like your work and respect your knowledge.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad