Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Capture One 6 Released  (Read 10838 times)
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2665


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2010, 11:30:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I love this stuff! So much fun to investigate and learn about. Our options today are so much better than they were 5 years ago.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 325


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2010, 08:04:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is another example of NR comparing C1-6 and ACR.  Again, the camera is a Pentax K-7, ISO 3200.  My impression is that ACR produces finer, more even grain but with less detail and sharpness.

Rob
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2010, 11:07:38 PM »
ReplyReply

ACR has not less details than C1 and better NR ( http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9559&p=41952&hilit=deejjjaaaa#p41952 )



full size = http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3961/rogboacr.png



Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2010, 11:30:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer, whenever possible, real world images.

I see - you are smart to shot a test image @ f 1.2 to avoid any fine details and have a lot of OOF areas to save C1  Grin ... however we use high ISO also when we have lesser light because we need to have more DOF, so it will be nice to see another one shot @ f 5.6 for example  Roll Eyes

my take @ your crop

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7543/ci5d26400.png

« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 12:33:35 AM by deejjjaaaa » Logged
Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2010, 06:52:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I can see the exact same demosaic "chequerboarding" in Doug's C1 conversion as I've been talking about on the Phase One forum - it's not pretty, and has no place in software positioning itself at the top of the IQ tree. The Lr conversions (and Rob's) simply don't show this, and are far better for it.

This artifact is visible to some extent at any ISO, incidentally.

I've also got a feeling that the extra detail Rob is seeing in his comparison is actually this harsh artifact, rather than sharpness per se: but I know from my own experience that it is counter-productive to fine detail (fine feather detail, for example) because it breaks that detail up, and because its removal takes too much NR. You can see something of this in the texture of the black phone cradle in Rob's examples.

Look at the flex in both images too - or at any edge, in fact. In the C1 image edges are routinely ragged, uneven and messy. Lr's demosaic and NR retain edges a lot better, which again has a direct relevance to fine detail and sharpness.

Remember too, that Lr's finer grain allows for more useful sharpening to be applied before demosaicing artifacts get exaggerated beyond acceptability - in Cap One that limit isn't at all hard to reach.  

I've gone from being a huge advocate of Cap One - and strong critic of Adobe image quality on RAW conversion - to being completely convinced by Lr and deeply unimpressed by Cap One, simply on the basis of Adobe recognising the need to improve its demosaicing and NR: in making these changes it has easily overtaken Cap One in IQ and noise handling terms, and Cap One is now an also-ran which has gone backwards in real terms where IQ is concerned.

It's something when a free converter like Raw Therapee can produce significantly cleaner and more impressive conversions than Cap One: but RT's devs recognise the importance of improved demosaicing - Cap One's IQ is no better in v6 than it was in v4, and that's pretty shoddy for "the world's most advanced image processing engine".
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 09:12:57 AM by Keith Reeder » Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
qwz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2010, 11:55:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Keith Reeder

Do you see this awful ugly artifacts on the print ever?
Logged
Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2010, 07:25:31 AM »
ReplyReply

1) In common with most bird/wildlife photographers, both professional and enthusiast, much of my work does not routinely get printed (some do, but that's not the main outlet), but it's a nonsense to suggest that in this day and age print should be the only arbiter of acceptable image quality;

2) There's a lot of stuff in any image file that might not show in a print - but that doesn't make its presence acceptable;

3) As a matter of fact, yes I have seen evidence of this artifact in some prints I've made, especially when I've needed to crop (like a lot of bird photographers, I sometimes find myself focal length limited), and as I made clear in my earlier post, the artifact unquestionably impacts on fine detail and on the ability to sharpen an image.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 07:28:12 AM by Keith Reeder » Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 611


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2010, 09:01:16 AM »
ReplyReply

When I print through capture one my print comes out somewhat desaturated even tho I select the correct paper profile.  When I print the same file through Lightroom with the same profile selected it comes out correctly.
Anyone know what the issue could be with C1? Eleanor
Logged

Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2665


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2010, 09:25:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I see - you are smart to shot a test image @ f 1.2 to avoid any fine details and have a lot of OOF areas to save C1  Grin ... however we use high ISO also when we have lesser light because we need to have more DOF, so it will be nice to see another one shot @ f 5.6 for example  Roll Eyes

It wasn't so much "smart" as "relevant". When I looked through my catalog of personal images prior to writing the article I found that almost all of my ISO6400 frames were below f/2. That owes to my personal style of shooting and my personal needs. I'd be very happy to see you (or anyone else) write up an evaluation of C16, LR3.2, Aperture, Raw Developer (take your pick) with other images that better represent your needs. I may write another article on lower ISO performance but these articles take a lot of time to do correctly and I'm a bit swamped with requests for other articles (e.g. on best practices for the iPad app "Capture Pilot").

Thanks for posting your take on the crop.

I think the vibrance reduction surely helps with the overly saturated rendition of the skin tone; though the harsh highlight to shadow transition in the skin tone still shows a specific band where the saturation falls off - leading to a line on her cheek. I'm surprised (and glad to be informed) that it also has a positive effect on the chromatic aberration on the lines of paint. Elsewhere in the image it does take away somewhat from the red body paint which was selected by the body painter specifically for it's "pop" (aka high saturation).
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 09:35:21 AM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2665


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2010, 09:44:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I can see the exact same demosaic "chequerboarding" in Doug's C1 conversion as I've been talking about on the Phase One forum - it's not pretty, and has no place in software positioning itself at the top of the IQ tree. The Lr conversions (and Rob's) simply don't show this, and are far better for it.

This artifact is visible to some extent at any ISO, incidentally.

I've also got a feeling that the extra detail Rob is seeing in his comparison is actually this harsh artifact, rather than sharpness per se: but I know from my own experience that it is counter-productive to fine detail (fine feather detail, for example) because it breaks that detail up, and because its removal takes too much NR. You can see something of this in the texture of the black phone cradle in Rob's examples.

Look at the flex in both images too - or at any edge, in fact. In the C1 image edges are routinely ragged, uneven and messy. Lr's demosaic and NR retain edges a lot better, which again has a direct relevance to fine detail and sharpness.

The issue is pretty subjective and a lot of users feel the exact opposite as you (here, on other forums, and offline). While I'm surprised (after re-examining it) to hear you refer to the grain in Capture One is such strongly negative terms, but I can see where you'd prefer LightRooms' grain structure (even if I do not), and it's great that we have multiple raw developers that each might suit different user's tastes!

Elsewhere in this image the skintones, highlight/shadow color accuracy, color noise, fine detail, chromatic aberration, tonal transitions and overall "look" (indefinable but utterly important) are other topics for debate and are very important to deciding which developer works best for you. Not to mention that whole "workflow" thing.

Anyway the whole point is to debate it so I guess we'll agree to disagree!

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
emaxxx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2010, 02:23:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Well said Doug!
I've done comparison of my Leica shots for few months just to came to the conclusion that C1 is the better raw developer, me and the people who saw the developed versions from c1 and Lr3 (without knowing what is what) always choose the c1 version. Better colors, dynamic range, presence, details, 3d...

I also compared it to Aperture, RPP, Raw developer, Raw Therapee.
Also IMHO the best noise reduction and sharpening are from Topaz Denoise and Detail not LR.

Just for information...
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 325


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2010, 03:51:04 PM »
ReplyReply


It's still not as sharp or as detailed as the unsharpened C1-6 version, which you conveniently failed to sharpen for the sake of comparison.

Rob
Logged
James R
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 250


« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2010, 04:31:36 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread is similar to a Nikon v Canon debate.  LR3 and C1 are both fine products.  If you don't like one, try the other, after all, the cost isn't as punitive as switching from one camera brand to another. 
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 325


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2010, 04:53:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Well said Doug!
I've done comparison of my Leica shots for few months just to came to the conclusion that C1 is the better raw developer, me and the people who saw the developed versions from c1 and Lr3 (without knowing what is what) always choose the c1 version. Better colors, dynamic range, presence, details, 3d...

I also compared it to Aperture, RPP, Raw developer, Raw Therapee.
Also IMHO the best noise reduction and sharpening are from Topaz Denoise and Detail not LR.

Just for information...

That's what most people say when they see ACR and C1 images side by side, and it isn't even a close call.  C1 provides great presence, clarity, depth and pop, while ACR provides lots of dull, flat detail with a maddening pink color cast.  One has to think that the demosaicising algorithms have something to do with it, so the folks at Phase One must be doing something right.

Still, Keith is troubled by certain microscopic artifacts that he believes affect some of his bird photos, and I think we must accept his judgement on this.  They are, after all, his photos, and they have to meet his standards.  My question to Keith is:  How often do these artifacts visually impact your images at actual viewing size--rarely, occasionally or frequently?  If rarely, then the problem is little more than a minor nuisance.  If frequently, then you had better start using some other raw converter.  I realize that you feel that Capture One let you down, but those are your choices.

Rob
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 04:56:07 PM by robgo2 » Logged
emaxxx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2010, 05:06:32 PM »
ReplyReply

That's what most people say when they see ACR and C1 images side by side, and it isn't even a close call.  C1 provides great presence, clarity, depth and pop, while ACR provides lots of dull, flat detail with a maddening pink color cast.  One has to think that the demosaicising algorithms have something to do with it, so the folks at Phase One must be doing something right.

Still, Keith is troubled by certain microscopic artifacts that he believes affect some of his bird photos, and I think we must accept his judgement on this.  They are, after all, his photos, and they have to meet his standards.  My question to Keith is:  How often do these artifacts visually impact your images at actual viewing size--rarely, occasionally or frequently?  If rarely, then the problem is little more than a minor nuisance.  If frequently, then you had better start using some other raw converter.  I realize that you feel that Capture One let you down, but those are your choices.

Rob
Yes true, also frequently I have to export a tiff to photoshop so i'll do the noise reduction there (or with some plugin) expecially if it's a troublesome high iso pic, so i don't place noise reduction tool so high in my raw developer features choice. Not to mention if i have to print.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 05:08:30 PM by emaxxx » Logged
fanlynne
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2011, 07:32:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Capture one seems to render my images purple-ish in colour. Pretty much every program (lightroom, aperture, dxo optics, PS) renders it correctly.

Any ideas why?

EDIT: more specifically - it renders the colour blue into purple
Logged
craigwashburn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2011, 05:55:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Capture one seems to render my images purple-ish in colour. Pretty much every program (lightroom, aperture, dxo optics, PS) renders it correctly.

Any ideas why?

EDIT: more specifically - it renders the colour blue into purple


You mean only C1's display is purple and the output correct?  Or is the display purple and output is also purple?  The first is probably a monitor profile issue, the second is possibly camera profile.  Which camera is it?

I've had the opposite with certain camera profiles, some purples rendering too blue.  But a different profile corrects it, or just adding some red to blue in the color editor.

Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2011, 02:51:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey have not been in here for a long time..
Pulled out my P30 yesterday and when I tried to shoot tethered to capture 6.0.1 on a MacBook Pro running 10.6.5 kept getting a could not connect to camera error.....
Can anyone help me out here... read through the C-1 guide and tried about everything and just gave up and went back to the 5DII..
Have not been following MF in a while and not sure if there were any problems with tethering 6.0.1 and P30 with a firewire cable 400 to 800 which is the same I used to use with my MacPro in studio..
Thanks for any help
Snook
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2665


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2011, 04:15:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I bet you a dollar if you follow our Ideal Tethered Setup that it will work:
http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/09/09/the-ideal-tethered-setup/

My bet is your laptop isn't producing enough power over the firewire cable and you just need to switch to battery power [menu > configuration > power source] which takes 5 seconds.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 04:24:45 PM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Snook
Guest
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2011, 04:37:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Doug for the quick reply.. I did try that but is still gave me a camera cannot be connected error.. I will try tomorrow and restart computer with just a fresh battery in the Back...
Thanks and will let you know tomorrow..
Snook
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad