Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Capture One Pro 4.0  (Read 14972 times)
Camdavidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


WWW
« on: December 19, 2007, 03:19:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Phase One  Caption One Pro - Version 4.0 (not beta) is now up.  (It is Capture One - Pro Version is coming later.   Edit:CD)

It is a free upgrade for 3.7 users and LE users.  No tethering yet.  Files are good.  Much faster than 3.7.

http://www.phaseone.com
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 05:29:51 PM by Camdavidson » Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 599


« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2007, 03:42:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Any major changes?   Wayne
Logged
Hendrik
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2007, 03:57:51 PM »
ReplyReply

It's a pity is took so long. My workflow is great now with LR, so unless the RAW conversion (pure image quality) isn't much better with C1 4.0 it's too late for me to change. Waiting for the first reviews.
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2007, 04:32:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's a pity is took so long. My workflow is great now with LR, so unless the RAW conversion (pure image quality) isn't much better with C1 4.0 it's too late for me to change. Waiting for the first reviews. :)
I used the beta of 4.0 a few times. It seemed to do a competent job of converting some of the 5D raw files I fed to it (though not all). In a couple of cases I was seriously impressed by how well its default conversion looked. But not all...

But there were irritating problems with the beta's UI. Judging by forum traffic on PhaseOne's site, long-time users of CaptureOne weren't universally thrilled by all the UI changes. I disliked the previous version's UI quite a bit. I'm not unhappy about the changes overall. But I could see from message threads in the forum that the company seemed to be on the verge of seriously irritating part of its established user base. During the short time that I participated in their forums, the PhaseOne people themselves were noticeable in their absence -- few company responses to the forum messages. It was hard to tell what weight, if any, they were giving to the end-user comments. (Absence of evidence ain't evidence of absence, but still...)

Some people who keep an eye on industry news -- I think Michael Reichmann might have been one of them -- have wondered "aloud" if the C1 update won't be too little, too late. I don't know the answer, but it's certainly true that they took a long time getting this update to market. In the meantime Lightroom seems to have become quite a bit more popular (its own UI quirks notwithstanding).

The last C1 v.4 beta I downloaded didn't have anything like the extensive HSL controls that are available in Lightroom, SilkyPix, and others. It had a somewhat crude drag-a-tiny-spot-around-a-color-wheel-with-the-mouse control. Even if the quality of its conversions turns out to be very good...once you've had a chance to work with the HSL controls in a converter, software lacking them seems...well, lacking.

One thing I noticed in C1's favor: excellent rendering of fine image detail. Well...I'll download the release version and hope for some significant UI improvements since the last beta version.

Given what C1 "pro" is liable to cost and given all the image-organizing tools available in Lightroom, I wonder how (if) C1 can steal some of Lightroom's (probably less expensive) thunder.
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2007, 04:42:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Just to mention one supremely irritating UI problem in the beta: the method whereby you add files to a processing queue seemed unreasonably obscure to me. It was easily possible to add the same file multiple times with the program providing no warning or query about it. Now to be sure, you might want to process more than one variant -- so multiple addition of the same filename isn't bad of itself. But, enabling multiple additions by accident of the same filename without any variants involved -- and no query or warning...that's just wrong and it should have been obvious to them without the need for anyone to point it out.

[But...I work in the software biz. Sometimes, programmers have to be dragged kicking and screaming, fighting every step of the way, into making a decent user interface.]

Once the queue had been populated, there didn't seem to be any UI feature whatsoever for removing a file you'd added in error -- except by clearing the entire queue. HUH? It seemed like sheer thoughtlessness -- something that shouldn't have been omitted even in a beta version.

Maybe there was a way to do this and I just missed it -- in which case, shame on me. That aside, no response about it from the CaptureOne people. I do hope they fixed it (or documented it better) for the release version.
Logged
tomrock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2007, 05:00:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
Logged
ajtaylor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2007, 05:22:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The current Capture ONE 4 is a replacement for LE. The Pro version is coming later.
Logged
Camdavidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2007, 05:27:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My dealer said it was PRO.  In the ABOUT page - it says - Capture One.  I have a free upgrade to PRO so I'm not worried about cost.

There are some very good things in this program.  I like the conversions - better than any other program.  Sometimes Raw Developer is a wee bit better.  I prefer C1's skin tones.  I processed some M8 DNG files and and one 1Ds III file today and I'm happy with the results.
Logged
ajtaylor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2007, 06:13:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My dealer said it was PRO.  In the ABOUT page - it says - Capture One.  I have a free upgrade to PRO so I'm not worried about cost.

There are some very good things in this program.  I like the conversions - better than any other program.  Sometimes Raw Developer is a wee bit better.  I prefer C1's skin tones.  I processed some M8 DNG files and and one 1Ds III file today and I'm happy with the results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The phaseone site says:

Capture ONE 4 is the successor of Capture ONE LE. Until the next generation of Capture ONE Pro is available, PRO owners can download and use Capture ONE 4 free of charge.

Pretty conclusive.
Logged
yodelyo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2007, 06:19:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The phaseone site says:

Capture ONE 4 is the successor of Capture ONE LE. Until the next generation of Capture ONE Pro is available, PRO owners can download and use Capture ONE 4 free of charge.

Pretty conclusive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]





Hmmm. Not sure what to do. I currently use C1 Pro 3.7 , my instinct is to not deal with V4 until Pro comes out, any comments/advice on this is appreciated.
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2007, 07:38:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
Didn't mean to imply that it's the Pro version. My remark about the upcoming Pro version was just me wondering how it will measure up to Lightroom, which as I recall costs less.
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2007, 01:21:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I was one of the vocal critics on the C1 beta forum. There were so many things that were completely unacceptable and they were never once acknowledged by the PhaseOne staff manning the boards. You have to wonder if suddenly they forgot how to read. To me, it seemed like they were starting from the ground up rather than building on a proven base. The decisions about the user interface seemed to have been made by people who never actually used the program. Itty bitty controls and illegible black type on dark gray made no sense, common or otherwise. Now to be fair, the Phase people have said that many of the concerns will be addressed in the Pro version, but they seem uncommonly tight-lipped about any prospective features, as if they're worried about someone copying them. To add insult to visual injury, too many of the Phase responses on their forum have been vague, defensive and condescending or just seemed implausable.

All that being said, I love CaptureOne (at least v3.7) primarily because it makes the best raw conversions of any converter I've used and once you get your head around the Danish way, it's pretty damned efficient. I'll download the LE version tomorrow and have a new look.
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2007, 02:11:29 AM »
ReplyReply

> I was one of the vocal critics on the C1 beta forum. There were so many things that were completely unacceptable and they were never once acknowledged by the PhaseOne staff manning the boards. You have to wonder if suddenly they forgot how to read.

They have a public-image problem -- due in part to their lack of response -- but I have to assume that it doesn't matter to them. (Perhaps they would simply disagree that the lack of response is a problem.) The same problem existed with the author of RawShooter -- formerly of PhaseOne, right? -- on his site. I never saw him respond once.

> The decisions about the user interface seemed to have been made by people who never actually used the program. Itty bitty controls and illegible black type on dark gray made no sense, common or otherwise.

PhaseOne isn't the only company to have decided that near-illegible type on a dark grey or black background is the right approach. Type in RawTherapee's UI is hard to read in some places as well. At first I found Lightroom incredibly irritating due to the user interface in which it was difficult to see some of the UI elements (tiny black targets for the mouse on a dark grey background and that kind of thing). Maybe they do this in part because it all looks "hip" to them. But maybe it's also to keep color out of the UI that might adversely affect one's perception of colors in the images themselves. But surely there must be some better way to keep a user interface more legible, generally. (Using little bits of yellow here and there for emphasis would be better than an endless sea of grey-on-black-on-some-other-shade-of-grey-on-black...)

> Now to be fair, the Phase people have said that many of the concerns will be addressed in the Pro version

But not in updates of the "LE" version? I wonder if that will be of much comfort to people who would be paying ... what is it, something like $100? ... for "LE".

I haven't yet downloaded the release version of v.4. I sure hope there is now a way to remove a single file from the processing queue -- as opposed to having to clear the entire queue just to remove one erroneously added file.

Working in the software biz has made me something of a cynic about how this stuff gets done, especially when there are too many engineers making fundamental graphic-design/UI and "usability" decisions, with nobody in an "end-user ombudsman" position (or no such person with any clout). Then you sometimes get seriously bad UIs designed by people who are convinced that they must have done the best possible thing because, well, how could it be otherwise since they designed it that way? Of course I have no idea what happens within that company but I have certainly noticed plenty of "attitude" in the software business -- as in: "end-users...what is wrong with these people, anyway? Isn't everyone 18 years old and possessed of better-than-perfect eyesight?"

No argument about the quality of the C1 conversions, though, and it struck me as being somewhat faster to do the conversions than Lightroom (haven't timed them, though).
Logged
ajtaylor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2007, 02:30:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hmmm. Not sure what to do. I currently use C1 Pro 3.7 , my instinct is to not deal with V4 until Pro comes out, any comments/advice on this is appreciated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Personally, I'd stick with 3.7 or ditch it entirely (that's what I've done, unfortunately for C1 - I just like the DAM capabilities of Lightroom and Aperture; but can't decide which one of those to settle with!).

4 has some good features, but as others have said, it doesn't really feel like a natural evolution of 3.x, it feels like a product that they've put a lot of effort into making it a bit more like the current trend of DAM + RAW converter (actually, I think it's closest to Bridge with the ability to create new versions/variants of an image).

For my needs, the only features I've found that are a genuine improvement over 3.7 are:
1. Variants
2. Highlight/Shadow recovery

The noise reduction seems to be quite poor, and what you see is not what you get - last night I was trying to tweak a 3200 ISO Nikon D80 NEF, thought I'd give it a go in C14. Nothing much was happening when I tweaked the noise sliders, so I slid 'em up to max, both luminosity and colour. No real change on screen, not even when zoomed in (not to 100% though). So I processed the image and opened it in PS. Absolutely trash - I had a wax crayon drawing, totally different from what I saw in C1. That's not good!

Beyond those 2 things mentioned above, I really can't see anything that makes me able to recommend it to anyone. In a very competitive period in digital photography and its associated software (just how many RAW converters are there out there?), I think PhaseOne has got it totally wrong, considering just how long this has been in the making.
Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2007, 11:43:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I shot some portraits today and processed the files with C1 3.7.7.  Later I decided to try processing a few with C1 V4.  Here is one image done with C1 V4.  Shot with D2X and 85mm f/1.4 @ f/5.6-ISO200.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 07:05:10 PM by Henry Goh » Logged
tomrock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2007, 02:52:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I shot some portraits today and processed the files with C1 3.7.7.  Later I decided to try processing a few with C1 V4.  Here is one image done with C1 V4.  Shot with D2X and 85mm f/1.4 @ f/5.6-ISO200.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is it different from the 3.7.7 file? Do you notice an improvement?
Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2007, 03:00:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is it different from the 3.7.7 file? Do you notice an improvement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The image from V4 seems to be warmer and has richer skintones.  Could be I have not played around with it as much as I have with V3.7.7 but I like the results.
Logged
dennysb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2007, 05:03:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I used to be a CL Pro user until Leopard came up and Phase one presented me with a lack of clear communication on when they updates for CL PRO would come up for MAC OS X users.

As of today, users do not have a straight answer from Phase One on when would a release of CL Pro will be out that allows for the proper functionality with Mac OS X 10.5.

Notice I am not complaining that is taking long, I am complaining that they are not saying anything (a day, a month, a quarter?)

When users asked ADOBE when would CS3 be ready to work with Leopard the answer was not "By the way, feel free to upgrade to Photoshop Elements and use it with Leopard"


Since then, I switch to LR and I am very happy. So for me it is too little too late.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 05:04:36 PM by dennysb » Logged

Dennys Bisogno

www.dennysphoto.com
craigwashburn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2007, 05:47:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Been using v.4 all afternoon.

It is awesome.  Really.   The phase one forums are full of bellyachers who haven't taken the time to learn (really, re-learn) how to use it.

My only complaint, which I consider a bug, is that in a dual monitor set up it only takes the profile of the monitor it was first opened on (on windows, don't know about mac).  This caused me about 20 minutes of dismay because I open things on my notebook and move them to a LaCie monitor, the notebook's display is crap.  So the colors were off.

I figured out a workaround by having C1 automatically load into my graphics monitor, but they should put in something where it auto-detects what display its being used on.

Other than that, after I read the manual (this is important), I found lots of improvements on how 3.7 worked and some very cool new features.  I like being able to import, assign a copyright AND automatically back up to my spare drive, in one click.

The Export to Web gallery is fantastic.  It's slick looking, easy to use and FAST.

Couple things to look out for... make sure its using the right camera profile and double check the sharpening settings... for my D200 it was oversharpening out of the box.  You can change its default by clicking the little arrow by the sharpening tools, and thats the first thing I did.

Theres tons of other little improvements... I really dig it.   Great improvement over the betas and nevermind the internet bellyachers...just read the manual and then use it for awhile.
Logged
ajtaylor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2007, 04:04:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Export to Web gallery is fantastic.  It's slick looking, easy to use and FAST.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The export to web gallery is just slimbox, which is also available in LR. I do like it (in both), but C1 version frustrates me because I would like to have my images show up with their titles or captions, which you can't do with the C1 export to web.

In respect of the rest of your comments - just because one person (e.g. me) says they don't like the new C1 and you do, doesn't make either of us right or wrong and it certainly doesn't someone like me a bellyacher. C1 v4 doesn't do it for me - it feels too little, too late ; having been a C1 fan for a long time, I was *really* looking forward to this new version, hoping to see something that I could use to oust LR and Aperture, neither of which are quite perfect; I love Aperture's organisation, love Lightroom's develop module, love Aperture's workflow, love LR's web export when combined with TTG's Slimbox templates.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad