Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: gwhitf on April 22, 2010, 09:10:46 pm
-
Are there any Digital Techs reading this board? I'm just curious if there is anyone that has direct experience with Tethering a high-volume people/lifestyle job here. Ideally, someone with knowledge and experience with CaptureOne 5, compared to Phocus 2.
If you were the Tech, and your client would shoot either camera, (say, Hasselblad H4D_40), or a Phase back, (say, P65+), which software would you rather use, if the shoot was relatively high volume, in studio, capturing only, not processing final TIFFs. A possible third option would be a Nikon D3X using either CaptureOne, or one of those Nikon software solutions.
Do you have thoughts on which software is more stable for capturing? Which one might get bogged down? Let's say that your machine is not a tower, but a MacBook Pro 17 with lots of RAM and a 7200 internal drive; would that change your opinion?
Your task would simply be to capture the files, maybe overlay a tad of contrast/color adjustment, and be able to show fast Previews as the job was being shot.
If the choice was software alone, which one would you rather Tech all day long? Thanks.
-
Are there any Digital Techs reading this board? I'm just curious if there is anyone that has direct experience with Tethering a high-volume people/lifestyle job here. Ideally, someone with knowledge and experience with CaptureOne 5, compared to Phocus 2.
If you were the Tech, and your client would shoot either camera, (say, Hasselblad H4D_40), or a Phase back, (say, P65+), which software would you rather use, if the shoot was relatively high volume, in studio, capturing only, not processing final TIFFs. A possible third option would be a Nikon D3X using either CaptureOne, or one of those Nikon software solutions.
Do you have thoughts on which software is more stable for capturing? Which one might get bogged down? Let's say that your machine is not a tower, but a MacBook Pro 17 with lots of RAM and a 7200 internal drive; would that change your opinion?
Your task would simply be to capture the files, maybe overlay a tad of contrast/color adjustment, and be able to show fast Previews as the job was being shot.
If the choice was software alone, which one would you rather Tech all day long? Thanks.
I'm not sure you should be comparing those two. The h4d-40 has microlenses and is more suitable for handheld higher iso. Either system is better with its own software.
For your purposes the simplicity of the H4D-40 would be the better choice for the work you are doing, in my opinion. I dont think the increase in cost would be worth it for the p65+ for your project.
-
I'm not sure you should be comparing those two.
OK, to level the playing field, let's say Phase One P40+. Although I'm not that concerned about the back, with this question. I'm more concerned with an overall feeling about how the software runs. But just for conversation, let's say the files are about the same size, in terms of the flow of data. One crop-chip versus another crop-chip. (Versus a D3X).
-
Well G you know what my answer would be...
-
Well G you know what my answer would be...
Though my experience with Leaf is from a while back but I would not discount them either. Nothing has surpassed LC8 or LC11 (LC11 only after lots and lots of trouble with LC10) sofar in stability and speed. But.... my experience with C1 is basically not existing. It would be phenomenal if it could surpass Leaf in this area.
-
I am not an experienced high-volume tech, but if speed, not cost, is the main criteria, you could consider a 30Mpx MF back (in addition to a high-res back). Without the AA you get more real-world res/Mpx with MF, so you need to handle fewer MPx to get enough res.
Hasselblad/phocus is a great combination, but I think it is optimized for quality rather than speed.
-
Well G you know what my answer would be...
Yair,
I understand what you're saying, but somehow since Leaf was purchased by Phase, it seems like they've just lost their identity a bit. Not sure why I feel that way. Kinda like when you were in high school, and there'd be some hot cheerleader girl, and she got all the attention, and you heard that she had a little sister, but the little sister always stayed at home and you never heard much from her. Or maybe better analogy, it's kinda like when an NFL team has one star quarterback, but they keep this other (good) quarterback on the team, in case the main guy gets arrested (for gun possession, dogfighting or rape), but the backup guy never gets much playing time, so he just kinda fades into the woodwork.
For me, it makes it hard to get excited about investing in the backup quarterback, because you always feel like he could be traded to another team any day now, without any notice.
In these weird economic times, it makes you want to stick with a proven winner. (Or, at least the one with biggest name recognition, in case you want to sell it and not take a bath).
Maybe Leaf needs to step out a bit, and make sure they have a more unique identity in the marketplace?
-
P40+ tethered full res. preview speed about two seconds and pretty much unlimited shooting. I think maybe a 60 shot buffer. I have not gone that long in time without a break in the action and frankly I would think almost anyone no matter what the shoot is going to stop for a AD, Stylist, Hair or makeup person at some point during that coarse. Also the P40+ is pretty fast shooting 1.2 seconds I believe. Or maybe better said It's faster than the strobes will pretty much recycle and that I do a lot. This is in C1 . I suggest a demo under your type of shooting though and other gear like lighting to see if it fits in your flow. Also I have actually turned camera off when tethered along with back during a break period let's say and able to just turn both back on and it maintains it's connection. This part i really liked since it saved the camera battery and also cooled things down for the back which obviously will get warm under constant shooting. I would think Yair may agree the same will be for the Leaf in the same blood line. They do use the same sensor as well as Mamiya but obviously Yair would know this better than me on the Leaf side of the house. Frankly I am not sure there is anything better than color editor with tethered work and fashion since you can fine tune that first shot to exactly the style you are after and shoot every frame right to that look. Which I find a very valuable tool. But I have not run into any serious issues tethered with the P40+ . I have not tried to pull the plug either, I have not lost that connection. BTW this is shooting to a 15 inch MBP . I'm pretty happy with this setup and it's even faster if you jump into sensor plus but again you are now down to 10 mpx cam which for a lot of jobs for me i do use a lot but I hear you can pretty much go forever in sensor plus mode. Also on the 6 micron sensors you will see less moire and that I have tested over the 6.8 micron P30+. YMMV
I would seriously though get a demo and run it through the mill and see if it fits your style. I don't know Phocus so i will not comment on how that system works
-
BTW a bit of good news. Well first I dropped my core duo and destroyed it in a fall in Dallas at the airport which was a 2.93 15 8gb of Ram and two Cruicial SSD drives. Okay that was the bad news but the good news for everyone is the new MBP 15 Core I7 units with exactly the same ram and hard drives . I moved them over to the new box I picked up a 30 percent increase in processing speed in C1 which is unheard of. So end of day the new core I7 processors in all the typical programs have gone up in speed. Not sure about Phocus but C1 was the biggest improvement as noted by Lloyd Chambers which here are his results of some typical programs. Phocus is not in this test but my bet it will get some faster times
-
Yair,
I understand what you're saying, but somehow since Leaf was purchased by Phase, it seems like they've just lost their identity a bit. Not sure why I feel that way. Kinda like when you were in high school, and there'd be some hot cheerleader girl, and she got all the attention, and you heard that she had a little sister, but the little sister always stayed at home and you never heard much from her. Or maybe better analogy, it's kinda like when an NFL team has one star quarterback, but they keep this other (good) quarterback on the team, in case the main guy gets arrested (for gun possession, dogfighting or rape), but the backup guy never gets much playing time, so he just kinda fades into the woodwork.
For me, it makes it hard to get excited about investing in the backup quarterback, because you always feel like he could be traded to another team any day now, without any notice.
In these weird economic times, it makes you want to stick with a proven winner. (Or, at least the one with biggest name recognition, in case you want to sell it and not take a bath).
Maybe Leaf needs to step out a bit, and make sure they have a more unique identity in the marketplace?
Where I come from we did not have cheerleaders and I was never into basketball....maybe that's the problem?
But seriously, an Aptus-II 8 tethered to LC 11.3.1 will trounce anything MF in terms of capture rate, preview speed and simplicity i.e. no fancy tools or sliders, just large, colour managed previews and quick back-to-HD transfer...
Yair
-
While I haven't got experience of every hardware/software configuration you mention I do operate both programes, although Phocus to a lesser extent. What i like about the current version of Capture one is that you can select whether the software preview automatically moves to the next image when someone is shooting continually. This gives me time to check focus etc without being interupted by the next image coming in. Phocus also seems to have annoying lag where the preview renders in two stages- you think you are looking at the rendered preview, then it updates again. I personally find c1 more intuitive, but maybe thats because its the sofware I learnt on. In terms of stability i'd say C15 and Phocus are more or less the same, but speed in phocus seems to be very depenent on what hardware you have and related to this I've heard v mixed things about its speed. It works pretty well on my 15 macbookpro 4gb ram with the standard video card in conjunction with the h3d 39, although sometimes the tools can be slightly unresponsive.
-
What i like about the current version of Capture one is that you can select whether the software preview automatically moves to the next image when someone is shooting continually. This gives me time to check focus etc without being interupted by the next image coming in.
Please note this is also available on Phocus.
-
I know tethered there are some tricks in C1 where you can setup different windows like focus tools on attached monitors. So a AD can see a full size image on another screen and have focus screens on any and as many monitors you have attached. Very cool features like this that you can work with when tethered.
-
Please note this is also available on Phocus.
That is a nice feature for sure. Glad to see that on Hassy as well
-
But seriously, an Aptus-II 8 tethered to LC 11.3.1 will trounce anything MF in terms of capture rate, preview speed and simplicity i.e. no fancy tools or sliders, just large, colour managed previews and quick back-to-HD transfer...
Again, it amazes me that you guys don't sit down one day and do a down-and-dirty YouTube video showing these things. You guys are around your own product every single day -- it's like the back of your hand to you; you're like a fish in water. But imagine a potential customer with zero experience using Leaf Capture -- it's impossible to even get your head around it. (Especially with all the historical bad press of LC8 and LC10). If you've truly jumped a hurdle, you'd think you'd be eager to show the world.
How many potential customers are going to actually drive several hours potentially, to their nearest dealer? But they might if they had just the most basic teaser, to get them interested. I'm sick of suggesting this YouTube thing to you all, but honestly, you are your own worst enemies. Avoid the hypey fake manufacturer videos, and simply sit down, as a pro, and show another pro how the stuff works, in action, on a real job. Whatever. Good luck.
I am sitting here, doing the math of all the lost sales that you missed out on, because a customer was too afraid to blow big money on a system with problems; thus, they go to B&H site, order a d3x or a 1ds3 or a 5d2, and they get on with their life. But if they really wanted MF, how sad that all they got was some PR video from some lab coat guy. I promise I'm not being a dick, but it is frustrating. In this economy, you've got to EARN business.
PS. Go and buy one of Reichmann's videos of Lightroom; the ones with Schewe. There's nothing fancy about them, but it's real people talking in real language about real stuff; the way the human mind works. Follow that lead. You sit there, and you watch, (maybe too long, but sometimes that's what it takes for the light bulb to go off, above your head). How hard could this be? Of course it would take time and money, but if you factor in how many miles most of your potential customers are away from you, it starts to make sense.
-
Please note this is also available on Phocus.
Ah, yes this feature is on v2.0.1, I stand corrected. Good to know.
-
Where I come from we did not have cheerleaders and I was never into basketball....maybe that's the problem?
But seriously, an Aptus-II 8 tethered to LC 11.3.1 will trounce anything MF in terms of capture rate, preview speed and simplicity i.e. no fancy tools or sliders, just large, colour managed previews and quick back-to-HD transfer...
Yair
Hi gwhitf,
I second that for the Aptus75S. We do exactly what you plan to shoot, lots of exposures and very fast one after the other. Never had any issues or had to get help from outside. I would recommend a proper hardware setup though. Don´t forget you create a lot of data.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Are there any Digital Techs reading this board?
I think what your asking for is a 5 day test of the three remaining brands.
Kind of like the Zaguto shootout thing, but something more comprehensive than just comparing highlight quality, or color, but a real world start to finish example of what it takes to buy something take it out of the box and start working from pre production, to shoot to post production and finish out.
First buy a brand new macbookpro and load Phocus, C-1 and Leaf Capture. Hook up a 23" monitor a 30' firewire cord and start the day with the first assistant learning the nuances of each software.
Then show the 10 chargers in the floor doing 5 sets of batteries to get through the day.
Next the shoot. Shoot in studio, fast paced with clients asking for stuff like, go back to that last session and let me see the model's face, or can we quickly edit and process out about 11 files while the photographer is still shooting to e-amail our vp of marketing?
Then step on the firewire cord or connector and have to go to cards instead of tethered while it's replaced. Insert those cf card images into the tethered shoot so it's one continuous browser of images.
Next go to window light with an hmi fill and high iso for that quick shot you see between sessions.
That night, process out all the raws to jpegs for web galleries.
Then day 2, shoot outside in soaring heat, I'd suggest Jamaica where the humidity will blow out the electronics of a 767. Shoot tethered, all to a macbook, shoot non tethered, shoot fast, shoot slow, shoot synced with flash, without flash and shoot a lot, change batteries and time how long it takes to software to restart and the camera to connect.
Once again go in at night, rename, rate, edit and process out the raws for jpegs to put on the web.
Third scenario is the retouching process. First let the client select background A, subject 2, to fit into overall image 3, and let the retoucher go to work on the files. Is there pattern moire, is there matching color, does the image process in CS4 (cause that's what all retouchers use), well that or CS3.
Then have that round table discussion with first assistant (who has now become the de-facto digital tech), photographer, clients and retouchers.
The rules should be simple. No agendas, not reps, no dealers, no camera makers. Once again the tech should be the good first assistant that knows there way around digital (because from what I can see that's the new process where everyone multi tasks).
And just to keep everything honest, throw in a Canon and/or Nikon and tether it to either C-1, lightroom 3, or the Maker's software.
After everyone talks about the shoot, the image quality, what is/isn't in focus, what had unfixable pattern moire, what didn't, then end the video with the clients. What image from what camera did they pick. Which software did they like the previews on, which software did they notice was fast or slow, or crashed or ran solid and what was the final result. Show finished 13x19 retouched proofs from each camera and let the clients rate them.
This type of test will go a long way to answering most of your questions, but will be hard to pull off cause who wants to pay for it?
Once again do the tests with no agendas, no bias, nothing but a mindset of to get each shot right, get it pretty, get it out the door.
But I would rename your request "are there any good first assistants on this board", because that's the way the industry is going. It's all about multitasking.
BC
-
Phocus is now a highly competent program but you need to know about one REALLY ANNOYING thing: previews are not sharp unless you zoom in. Goodness knows why. Every raw converter I know about gives sharp previews so WTF can't Phocus? That would slow you to almost a standstill if you want to shoot fast and tethered. Hass are bringing in some great new features but this lack of a basic requirement is bewildering.
-
or to keep it simple, just send this link to every dealer.
Ask them to answer every question.
http://popup.lala.com/popup/504684672074546734 (http://popup.lala.com/popup/504684672074546734)
That'll wrap it up.
BC
-
At this stage in the game, with me having posted that question last night, I've also received several private emails from trusted acquaintences. When I factor that into what's been posted here, I'd say it's falling in this order so far, and pretty convincingly so:
1). Capture One 5.
2). Leaf 11.
3). Phocus 2.
Thanks for everyone's responses and honesty. For me, that H4D40 was looking pretty appealing, but until I hear several independent raves about Phocus tethered, I've got to hold off. Would be interesting to now really come up one with ONE back per brand, (Leaf, Hassie, Phase) that seems best suited for this scenario, and then deal with the camera body later. I'd love to not consider crop-chips, but the bigger ones just seem to bog down the pipelines with unnecessary (?) data.
-
As avery busy digital tech located in NY also working in LA & MIA, I have to say I've never had a situation where a client wanted to use a Hasselblad. I don't know the numbers but I'd imagine the rental numbers to pros in these markets for Hassleblad are small. Of course almost all Phase backs are on H2's. I'd say things are 75% Canon and the rest Phase and Leaf with Leaf owning the still-life market. Recently we used a P65 on location tethered to a Macbook Pro and it worked flawlessly. This wasn't the newest laptop either. Pretty quick to get on screen and very little if any connection issues that I remember. Rarely I am impressed by hardware/software in digital photography performance but this was the exception. But Capture One 5 is a dog working with Canon files. USB tethered the software locks up - constantly losing files and even just basic editing and corrections are very slow. I don't understand it, I am looking into tethering w/ LR3 to see if its better but Phase One's color & tone is so much better that I would still have to go through C15 for Canon files. I guess C15 is optimized to work with Phase DB files even though they are much larger than the Canon files.
-
As avery busy digital tech located in NY also working in LA & MIA, I have to say I've never had a situation where a client wanted to use a Hasselblad. I don't know the numbers but I'd imagine the rental numbers to pros in these markets for Hassleblad are small. Of course almost all Phase backs are on H2's. I'd say things are 75% Canon and the rest Phase and Leaf with Leaf owning the still-life market. Recently we used a P65 on location tethered to a Macbook Pro and it worked flawlessly. This wasn't the newest laptop either. Pretty quick to get on screen and very little if any connection issues that I remember. Rarely I am impressed by hardware/software in digital photography performance but this was the exception. But Capture One 5 is a dog working with Canon files. USB tethered the software locks up - constantly losing files and even just basic editing and corrections are very slow. I don't understand it, I am looking into tethering w/ LR3 to see if its better but Phase One's color & tone is so much better that I would still have to go through C15 for Canon files. I guess C15 is optimized to work with Phase DB files even though they are much larger than the Canon files.
What about Leaf backs make them the choice for still life?
-
What about Leaf backs make them the choice for still life?
Especially before Phase began using DALSA sensors (40+ and 65+) the Live Preview on Leaf was a full step ahead of the Phase Live Preview.
-
As avery busy digital tech located in NY also working in LA & MIA, I have to say I've never had a situation where a client wanted to use a Hasselblad. I don't know the numbers but I'd imagine the rental numbers to pros in these markets for Hassleblad are small. Of course almost all Phase backs are on H2's.
Another reason why the closure of the Hasselblad system is so sad. Here they are now, with a nice body and back, in the H4d40, but if everyone is afraid of the software, then they don't sell a back OR a body OR a lens. And then you look up one day, and you've moved completely away from Hasselblad.
-
But Capture One 5 is a dog working with Canon files. USB tethered the software locks up - constantly losing files and even just basic editing and corrections are very slow. I don't understand it, I am looking into tethering w/ LR3 to see if its better but Phase One's color & tone is so much better that I would still have to go through C15 for Canon files. I guess C15 is optimized to work with Phase DB files even though they are much larger than the Canon files.
Right now the SDK that Canon provides to Phase and other 3rd party software is not as fast as the one they provide in their own software (EOS Utility). That means files transfer a bit less quickly and the consistency of speed is not as good (sometimes in C1 when you hit the buffer it will start to take two shots quickly followed by twice the normal wait). That SDK is also not great in OSX 10.6 which means it sometimes locks up (very dependent on what camera, what computer etc). This is not really Capture One's fault, but trust me I could care less whose "fault" it is. In the real world all that matters is results. So for now I'd suggest one of two solutions:
1) Shoot with Canon EOS Utility into a hot-folder of Capture One ("camera - hot folder enabled")
2) Use OSX 10.5.8 and accept a slightly slower overall speed
It's also important (as always) to keep your Canon body firmware up to date and to keep your computer in clean good working order (e.g. cleaning out previous versions of C1 before you do an update). I'd also strongly suggestion Capture One 5.1.1 over other versions for Canon tethering.
I know how frustrating that is given that C1 does do a much better job of the color and tone with Canon files than Lightroom/Bridge and EOS utility / Bridge are extremely limited in their functionality.
Tethering aside, the speed/performance of C1 with Canon files is very very strong. Editing through several hundred shots is a breeze. Processing quick reference JPGs (1000px) is 1-4 images per second depending on the computer and which canon camera. If this is not your experience I'd talk to your dealer to figure out what's mucking things up.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
Right now the SDK that Canon provides to Phase and other 3rd party software is not as fast as the one they provide in their own software (EOS Utility). That means files transfer a bit less quickly and the consistency of speed is not as good (sometimes in C1 when you hit the buffer it will start to take two shots quickly followed by twice the normal wait). That SDK is also not great in OSX 10.6 which means it sometimes locks up (very dependent on what camera, what computer etc). This is not really Capture One's fault, but trust me I could care less whose "fault" it is. In the real world all that matters is results. So for now I'd suggest one of two solutions:
1) Shoot with Canon EOS Utility into a hot-folder of Capture One ("camera - hot folder enabled")
2) Use OSX 10.5.8 and accept a slightly slower overall speed
It's also important (as always) to keep your Canon body firmware up to date and to keep your computer in clean good working order (e.g. cleaning out previous versions of C1 before you do an update). I'd also strongly suggestion Capture One 5.1.1 over other versions for Canon tethering.
I know how frustrating that is given that C1 does do a much better job of the color and tone with Canon files than Lightroom/Bridge and EOS utility / Bridge are extremely limited in their functionality.
Tethering aside, the speed/performance of C1 with Canon files is very very strong. Editing through several hundred shots is a breeze. Processing quick reference JPGs (1000px) is 1-4 images per second depending on the computer and which canon camera. If this is not your experience I'd talk to your dealer to figure out what's mucking things up.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
Hi Doug,
Can you explain the hot folder method in C15? I've used it w/LR2 but not C15. As a phase one dealer can you say you find it works better than C15 alone?
Thanks
-
Another reason why the closure of Hasselblad is so sad. Here they are now, with a nice body and back, in the H4d40, but if everyone is afraid of the software, then they don't sell a back OR a body OR a lens. And then you look up one day, and you've moved completely away from Hasselblad.
I should also say no one I work really likes the H2 its just better than what's out there. Alot of inconsistencies over the years, firmware incompatibility between lens and body, having to send out of town for repairs, etc. Its too much in my opinion, tries to be all auto everything, I just want a camera that works. One you don't need a scientist or computer engineer to repair. But the lenses are nice.The new Phase One with the tiny grip is a non-starter. If it was up to me everyone would shoot Canon or a RZ. But whatever was done to make the P65 and the P40 I assume (which i haven't used yet) work so well is very impressive.
-
I'd say things are 75% Canon and the rest Phase and Leaf with Leaf owning the still-life market.
Not sure why this amazes me to read this, but it does. 75% of your jobs use Canon? Nikon at all? It's that much more 35mm than MF in your business?
I also agree with your statement above -- you use the H2 not because you like it; it's because there's nothing any better.
-
Not sure why this amazes me to read this, but it does. 75% of your jobs use Canon? Nikon at all? It's that much more 35mm than MF in your business?
No Nikon. Eventhough I hear the new cameras are nice. Everyone used to shoot Nikon film cameras but we all know what happened there.
Alot of jobs are moving away from DB to Canon's there's just less need for that format in commercial photography. Mainly its about getting the shots - very few can tell the difference. A recent P65 job was supposed to be a markIII but they wanted to save money on retouching so they only wanted to retouch one file for the ad. they needed the option of a horizontal and vertical so we went with a P65 for the pixels. but it was rented so the cost was negligible.
-
See for me the P40+ handles both the full res images when needed and sensor plus replaces the canon/nikon. Sure it is maybe not as convenient but even though I am using a MF for a stupid PR gig sometimes , why not. 10 mpx is plenty even though a canon would be easier. I am more than happy to just use the one system for many different types of work. Just keeps my gear life simple and the P40+ screams at ISO 800 and 1600 on sensor plus. I don't need any higher ISO and never have. But on the other hand at Full res . not sure anything is better except it's higher res. cousins. The files are extremely good. Now is the DF perfect , to some no . But I actually like it , not in love with it but I'm not in love with any body that is out there anyway. Except the DMR and the one that fit me very nicely. The S2 I don't like the handling at all, so go figure. Lenses are too heavy over the body , bad balance for me. The Hassy H i do kind of like as far as body. But I'm a C1 junkie and that program gets better all the time and i really like the Phase backs. Just like anything some compromises are made but I have no love at all for a canon in any form. Been there done that and will NOT return. People just have different check list but I do see the P40+ handling these extreme jobs that are being talked about with relative ease. Reason I said demo them because i really feel for some folks this maybe there answer, it's that good. The files are the story the rest is getting there. But your never going to get exactly what you want in a body , we all are different.
-
regardless of software, SSD (s) in you macbook pro will make more difference than processor speed....the new OWC are supposedly really amazing...i have a ocz vertex and it still BLOWS any HD out of the water....especially when it comes to capture and small reads and writes....no comparison....also: battery life is (a little) better and no moving parts....
-
regardless of software, SSD (s) in you macbook pro will make more difference than processor speed....the new OWC are supposedly really amazing...i have a ocz vertex and it still BLOWS any HD out of the water....especially when it comes to capture and small reads and writes....no comparison....also: battery life is (a little) better and no moving parts....
Paul,
Can you explain this setup? Every time I hear it mentioned, I think of Scratch Disk for some reason, and I associate it with Lost Data. I know that is nuts, but I can't picture how you'd set up your Mac to run with this alien drive SSD thing. Does it just show up as a second disk on the Desktop? But it's your Boot Disk?
-
Alot of jobs are moving away from DB to Canon's there's just less need for that format in commercial photography. Mainly its about getting the shots - very few can tell the difference.
I have been using the 5d2 for a good while now, and I don't tell anyone this, but I tether with EOS Utility and DPP coupled. Gorgeous fast Previews, full screen. Bulletproof operation on MacBookPro; never crashes. It's not sexy, but it works great. The odd thing: I end up doing the color tweaks in the Menu of the 5d2, using Color Temperature, when I want to change the color. I don't do it with the software. I know many people would laugh, but once you do it for a while, it's super fast -- just go to CustomMenu in the camera, and super fast, move the ColorTemp from say 2800 to 5500, even up to 7500 for warm. Kinda like sticking on an 85B, with E6. The software is so Plain Jane that you're almost embarrassed to tell people you use it, but you can teach any First Assistant to use it in two hours, thus avoiding a Digital Tech. (Oops, did I just say that...? Sorry). Let's face it -- some jobs, using a Tech is just massive overkill.
-
Can you explain this setup? Every time I hear it mentioned, I think of Scratch Disk for some reason, and I associate it with Lost Data. I know that is nuts, but I can't picture how you'd set up your Mac to run with this alien drive SSD thing. Does it just show up as a second disk on the Desktop? But it's your Boot Disk?
Some info here:
SSD (http://macperformanceguide.com/Storage-SSD-Overview.html)
There are a few pages, at the bottom of each page click through to next page.
-
Phocus is now a highly competent program but you need to know about one REALLY ANNOYING thing: previews are not sharp unless you zoom in. Goodness knows why. Every raw converter I know about gives sharp previews so WTF can't Phocus? That would slow you to almost a standstill if you want to shoot fast and tethered. Hass are bringing in some great new features but this lack of a basic requirement is bewildering.
If your Phocus image browser is showing less then 25% enlargement, it will draw the information from the embedded jpeg in the raw file, but of course show the preview with the correct color look.
If you click on the file to show 25% or larger, it will render the information from the raw file.
But I think what you’re referring to is that the file first renders a little soft and then comes in sharp. This has to do with your computer and how fast it is.
If I was a photographer and was shooting fast and tethered, I would prefer to see a low res preview instead of no preview until the high res file has finished rendering. This works the same way in C1 Pro, it will take a little bit of time for each 50 or 60 mpix file to render as they come in.
In regards to gwhitf’s opening question, both C1 Pro and Phocus are capable of processing out jpegs, with color settings, super-fast, and within seconds for hundreds of files.
Laptops:
I have to say, I like the fact that PhaseOne has the option to battery power their backs while shooting tethered.
The MBP 15” has a higher firewire voltage then the MBP 17”. Low power can be an issue with some specific backs/computer combinations.
You were asking specifically about Phocus and MBP. When I tested my oldest laptop, an MBP 15” - the model that came just before the unibody came out. I was able to shoot non-stop tethered, powered by the internal battery, with the release button pressed constantly down on the H4 50, until the MBP’s battery was in the red at 16%. No hiccups, the files came in just fine.
Cameras:
I got the chance to loan the new Hasselblad H4 50mpix camera for 9 days, 3-4 weeks ago. I used it on one 3 day ad job here in NYC. We were shooting a fair amount of frames a day, maybe around 1000/day.
The camera worked perfectly and the True Focus system is right on. The images looked amazing!
The P65+ is at the top of the mpix race, there is no doubt about the quality of the files as well as to the H4 50mpix’s files. I have not had the chance to compare the files directly side by side, but I would think they would be neck to neck. I think the most interesting camera right now is the Hasselblad H4 40 because of the micro-lenses. The extra +1 stop you gain with the P30 and now with the H4 40 is often a life saver. We have gotten spoiled with the high ISO DSLR cameras and we have gotten used to shooting at ISO 200-1000.
The Nikon 3x makes beautiful files, it's a great camera, but it is not geared for high phase tethered shooting. There is something about the tethered connection that seems a bit unstable, especially if you are shooting fast and furious, I would option for CF cards or a Canon.
Software:
As someone mentioned, Phocus can, especially on a laptop, at times, be a little unresponsive but I would say it’s nothing compared to C1 Pro when you ask it to batch rename a handful of files - you can see your nostril hair grow while this happens. It’s funny how LC11 has become the gold standard in regards to stability. Also, there is something very nice about the color engine of LC11. The files look very fine and neutral, nearly like Fuji’s neutral negative film would look like, when compared to Kodak in old days. I think both C1 Pro, Phocus and LC11 generate very beautiful colors - LC11 being more neutral. C1 Pro develops very nice popping colors. All my clients like the colors from C1 Pro and the raw files often need very little adjustments. At times, I have clients licking my Eizo monitors in pure madness over the colors. Phocus is by default a bit more neutral in its colors but can easily be made as poppy as C1 Pro. Phocus pretty much has the same selective color adjustment tool as you will find in C1 Pro. LC11 is missing many of the advance adjustment options of C1 Pro or Phocus.
I think that both Hasselblad and Phase are moving very fast when it comes to their software, but of course not fast enough. However, each version is an improvement. I’m sure C1 Pro will fine a solution to batch rename their files, now when they recommend not to use Bridge and XMP files in tandem with C1 Pro. In general I feel that Hasselblad is a little bit more on the ball, while Phase is introducing a lot of new features on the cost of stability, i.e. the over-pass sharpness filter Vs. stabile batch renaming, or the ability to show the same order of your images when toggling between different folders in the browser. Its now corrected in the latest release, but it drove me and many of my clients crazy that they had to see the very first frame of a scene each time we were viewing a folder. It can create a bad dynamic in front of the client when they can’t see frame 0046 - which you like - instead of frame 0001 when shifting to a new folder. Fortunately, that problem is now in the past, and I can avoid the awkward explanations about the interruptive functions when the end client has agreed to pay sometimes $100,000 or more for a production ;-).
Best,
Esben
-
clients licking my Eizo monitors in pure madness
Esben:
Let's just say you were the one to determine what back/software on a theoretical shoot, but it was fast MBP17/7200/mobile; not tower. Tethered, studio, client wants to tweak the contrast/WB/Hue as you're shooting, and see fast Previews, and wants it stable. No processing of the tiffs during the shoot; the only thing that matters is the capturing and the ease of the shoot, and watching the images come in. They might want to do things like compare one frame to another, later in the shoot, side by side. What's your overall first choice; what comes to mind first? In terms of the job, let's just say it's a portrait, or beauty. SKIN TONE ACCURACY is the main thing. Maybe the combo choices were:
* Aptus II-8, with LC 11.
* Phase P40+, with CaptureOne 5.
* H4d_40, with Phocus 2?
Thanks.
-
As someone mentioned, Phocus can, especially on a laptop, at times, be a little unresponsive but I would say it’s nothing compared to C1 Pro when you ask it to batch rename a handful of files.
Yep, batch renaming (done in the background so you can do other things while it happens) is the one thing which is slow in Capture One. I wonder if you've ever compared the speed on a given laptop at which Capture One and Phocus render initial and final image on the screen when switching between P65+ or H3D50 images for editing or focus-checking or how long it takes to process TIFFs - might be an interesting perspective for the overall speed and efficiency of each program.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
The MBP 15” has a higher firewire voltage then the MBP 17”.
Esben,
Is this still true with latest model MBPs?
Thanks for the good info,
Billy
-
I tether H3D22 to a 27"iMac w/ 8GB ram on the H3 or a Sinar and it's fine. rock solid, rip the cord out all you want. quick, processes tons of files quick, blah, blah, blah. Phocus 2 is great, most people that know how to use it will agree. Also, I tether to iMac on location as well. personally those little screens are the pits, but thats just me...
-
Esben:
Let's just say you were the one to determine what back/software on a theoretical shoot, but it was fast MBP17/7200/mobile; not tower. Tethered, studio, client wants to tweak the contrast/WB/Hue as you're shooting, and see fast Previews, and wants it stable. No processing of the tiffs during the shoot; the only thing that matters is the capturing and the ease of the shoot, and watching the images come in. They might want to do things like compare one frame to another, later in the shoot, side by side. What's your overall first choice; what comes to mind first? In terms of the job, let's just say it's a portrait, or beauty. SKIN TONE ACCURACY is the main thing. Maybe the combo choices were:
* Aptus II-8, with LC 11.
* Phase P40+, with CaptureOne 5.
* H4d_40, with Phocus 2?
Thanks.
Gwhitf
I’m not going to put my head on anybody's chopping block but the features you are asking for, are very elementary and all 3 will handle this scenario without any problems. Phase and Phocus will generate the jpegs faster than LC11.
Leaf has always manufactured very fast digital backs. The Aptus 54S is a fantastic back if you can live with the low ISO and 22mpix. I think it might still be the fastest DB around, with 70-76 frames per min. tethered. The software is rock solid and feels very lean. Its a great snappy feeling. The same goes more or less for the Aptus 75S.
I’ve never used the P40+, but I would think that it would be very similar to the P65+ in regard to image quality. I like all the features of C1 Pro. It’s the most feature rich application on the market. I just wish it was a bit more stable. On a side note, I wish that they haven’t charged me for the v.5 upgrade, when I’d just bought 2 more seats of v.4 a couple of months before they released v.5. - especially considering that v.4 never got anywhere close to being stable or considered as a final finished product. I understand that Phase needs to rush their versions in order to earn more money from all the users that bought v.3 with 2 free upgrades, but it left me with a very dissatisfied taste in my mouth. I think they should have acted a little more like a US/international company and said; Hey, we know that v.4 was not perfect - here is a free upgrade for you guys that bought v.4 for full retail price. Secondly, I think they need to open a repair shop in the US. Shipping off your $36,000 DB to Denmark for repair is tedious. FedEx and UPS are not as commonly used as they are in the US. In fact, you rarely see them. When I bought my first Leaf back, one of the main reasons was the stellar reputation of Leaf America and Rick Adshead, and the fact that they were located 30min north of NYC. Very conveniently, which is key in any professional operation. Being a Dane myself, I often get the feeling that Phase is too Danish in its attitude towards its US clients, but on the other hand, they make great products.
The high ISO files from the Hasselblad H4 40 seem very good, and combined with the new H4 body and the option of using the new HC 35-90mm zoom together with all the other great lenses, is a very strong combo.
In the end, if I were you, I would contact Doug and FotoCare in order to rent the backs for a real client shoot. If you fear a complete meltdown on the job, hire a tech (or I hear good things about BigCooter’s first assistant as well ; ) for the day. He or she will also be able to answer so many more questions then I can write up in a post.
BJNY
Both the MBP 17” laptops released in 09 had a voltage of 9.93V. I haven’t yet got my hands on the latest MBP 17” from this year, but I would be surprised if anything has changed, since it seems to be just a CPU update.
-
I have not seen any degradation on the Firewire port with the new MBP I have a 15 inch 2.66 I7 with 8 gbs of ram and two SSD drives. Right now with the loss of the express port I have a lot on the Firewire port. Drobo, External drive and card reader. All seem fine , I have yet to shoot tethered but will run it this week to be sure all is okay.
The P40+ is almost identical to the P65 + except for the crop and the image quality I find better than my old P25+, P30+ and a friends P45+. I'm dead serious you need to demo this back, it will do exactly what you are asking and than some. BTW it is faster than the P65+ in shooting speed. Use the newer CF cards and you won't hit a buffer even shooting hard. Tethered it is a dream with version 5 . Things have changed folks it is not what you have or what it used to be. Get some D lenses and I have yet to find one person not happy with the P40+ and our forum is loaded with P40+ users as well as here i would assume. Not to say the world is perfect but the improvements are much better shooting than the paper it is written on. I seriously doubted myself upgrading from the P30+ and tested the P40+ 3 times before I pulled the trigger. It's been better than I thought
-
If your Phocus image browser is showing less then 25% enlargement, it will draw the information from the embedded jpeg in the raw file, but of course show the preview with the correct color look.
If you click on the file to show 25% or larger, it will render the information from the raw file.
But I think what you’re referring to is that the file first renders a little soft and then comes in sharp. This has to do with your computer and how fast it is.
No, what I'm referring to is the fact that the full size preview is not sharp, not on initial rendering, not ever. It only becomes sharp when you zoom in a little. It has absolutely nothing to do with computing power. If you're shooting tethered then you will have to zoom in on each and every shot to check for sharpness. It's a known shortcoming of Phocus and annoys quite a few users. Yes, it will show accurate color (depending on your settings and presets) but for checking sharpness/focus you will have to zoom in a little on each shot. I'm repeating that because it seems critical to the OP's needs.
-
Use the newer CF cards and you won't hit a buffer even shooting hard.
Guy: What card(s) do you find best for the P-40+?
Lynn
-
I’m not going to put my head on anybody's chopping block but the features you are asking for, are very elementary and all 3 will handle this scenario without any problems.
Come on, Esben, it's just you and me sitting here drinking coffee, alone, in some diner on 8th Street. Who else would hear? Just whisper it in my ear.
You know that feeling when you're about to sit down at that Kart and start your workday? That feeling when you look over to the tripod, and you notice the camera body and corresponding back, and you think to yourself, "This day is gonna be a breeze -- error-free; fast; stable, effortless; and the files are going to look awesome".
Which body and back is on that tripod....?
And thanks for that other excellent information also, in your prior post. Thanks for the honesty.
-
Guy: What card(s) do you find best for the P-40+?
Lynn
I'm using the Sandisk Extreme 16gb 60MB/s . I would not use anything slower i did hit buffer doing a gig with fast shooting on some older 30mg cards. You can use the Pro Extremes also I believe but these are a good price and yet to hit buffer on them . More important solid as well. No issues
-
for me HxD hassie system w/phocus. works even better than my 5Dmk2...
-
No, what I'm referring to is the fact that the full size preview is not sharp, not on initial rendering, not ever. It only becomes sharp when you zoom in a little. It has absolutely nothing to do with computing power. If you're shooting tethered then you will have to zoom in on each and every shot to check for sharpness. It's a known shortcoming of Phocus and annoys quite a few users. Yes, it will show accurate color (depending on your settings and presets) but for checking sharpness/focus you will have to zoom in a little on each shot. I'm repeating that because it seems critical to the OP's needs.
Yes, you are correct: what I was trying to communicate, is that when Phocus renders a file from the embedded jpeg, the resolution will not be as sharp as when you render from the raw data. Without knowing, I would think Hasselblad chose to do so in order to speed up image browsing. Again, the file will render sharply when viewed larger than 25%, and less sharply, but more quickly, when viewed at less than 25%. Honestly, how much detail can you really see in a 50mpix file scaled down to 15% or less, on any monitor, whether the data is being drawn from the embedded jpeg or from the raw data?
I would think that If a photographer is working on only a few images on a job-to-job basis, like a still-life shooter does, then the unsharpness of the browser image, when viewed at less than 25% would/could be an annoyance. Otherwise, if a photographer is working with hundreds or thousands of images a day, a quicker preview could be seen as a benefit.
Maybe a preference setting, similar to what you find in Bridge, could be a good idea - where you can choose the quality in which to render the preview.
P.S. You can browse your images while keeping the enlargement at 25%, to avoid to much clicking.
-
Yes, you are correct: what I was trying to communicate, is that when Phocus renders a file from the embedded jpeg, the resolution will not be as sharp as when you render from the raw data. Without knowing, I would think Hasselblad chose to do so in order to speed up image browsing. Again, the file will render sharply when viewed larger than 25%, and less sharply, but more quickly, when viewed at less than 25%. Honestly, how much detail can you really see in a 50mpix file scaled down to 15% or less, on any monitor, whether the data is being drawn from the embedded jpeg or from the raw data?
I would think that If a photographer is working on only a few images on a job-to-job basis, like a still-life shooter does, then the unsharpness of the browser image, when viewed at less than 25% would/could be an annoyance. Otherwise, if a photographer is working with hundreds or thousands of images a day, a quicker preview could be seen as a benefit.
Maybe a preference setting, similar to what you find in Bridge, could be a good idea - where you can choose the quality in which to render the preview.
P.S. You can browse your images while keeping the enlargement at 25%, to avoid to much clicking.
In the next version of Phocus (currently in beta testing) the browser preview is much improved. There is currently already a preference for preview size (check you are not set to small or medium if you are using a larger display) but in the next release there will be a further option for even larger previews! This will also give you are fast JPEG output of more than 1500 pixels across.
Also in some cases the use of the distortion filter could also soften the preview a little. This has also been corrected.
Earlier on in the year I conducted two sessions for a new Wet Hire company using Hasselblad. A lot of the digital assistants on the books came from a Capture One background and had not had much exposure to Phocus.
While they were skeptical at first, after only a couple of hours induction we left them quietly impressed. There are many features that they liked in the software, including the ability to export JPEG previews almost instantaneously. Meta data support (IPTC), batch functions (especially renaming), The ability to save your workspace and export / import that on other machines, were all rated very highly.
It is also worth noting that as Phocus has no licensing, they were free to take copies with them and install multiple times, without the need for software keys and codes.
They were very impressed with the tethered capture speed which they thought would not be as good as Capture One. Also being digital techs they tried to break the software, ie. "While shooting tethered, try and do this, then export ten files, then adjust this one... and and... etc etc.
I also did a similar exercise at another London rental company considering more units so they assembled their digital assistants for a session. One of the assistants always assumed that Capture One would be better at rescuing blown highlights - especially on over exposed skin. I am happy to say he was proved wrong.
While I admit that Phocus V1 was someway behind a lot of the 'speed' features of Capture One, The current Phocus V2 and looking to the next release is a very different story.
David
-
Phase and Phocus will generate the jpegs faster than LC11.
Are you sure? The last time I've checked, 2,500pix FJEPGs were still much faster in LC11...
-
David, thanks for your input. I'm glad the previews at full size are about to be sharp in Phocus.
As one of the main areas of concern when using a MFDB is getting the focus sharp (plenty of evidence from other threads in this forum!) I have always found it (being gentle and diplomatic here) surprising that you can't check this important aspect at full size. But when you can do this in Phocus I will save at least three steps in my workflow. On a batch of hundreds of files, that's worth having.
-
....surprising that you can't check this important aspect at full size. But when you can do this in Phocus I will save at least three steps in my workflow. On a batch of hundreds of files, that's worth having.
Can you explain what you mean exactly Stewart?
-
Can you explain what you mean exactly Stewart?
Hi David. Happy to, but I'll preface my reply by saying that I have used Hasselblad for years now very happily, without many problems, either tethered or on location. Except for this deficiency in Phocus. (As I said, a view shared by quite a few users - hence your reply saying it would be sharpened up.)
Many people have problems getting focus right when using a MFDB. I certainly do. It seems to be hit and miss quite often even though we (me and all the others in threads on this forum) take great care to avoid this. Therefore, it's a required feature of any software that processes the files to allow you to check focus. And when you have many images to check, and a deadline that won't extend, you want to be able to check focus as quickly and easily as possible. You can't do that with the full size preview in Phocus without zooming in. If you disagree with that statement please 1) say so and 2) tell me (and a boatload of other users) how to do it.
Yes, I know if you zoom in you can get a sharper picture, or if you use the loupe feature you can check focus at 100%. But you can't get a sharp picture that allows you to check critical focus without doing that. And so my workflow when I have a lot of shots to check is to first load the files into Raw Developer, which gives an accurate and very sharp picture right away without any time-wasting fiddling, decide on the selects, and the rejects, then go back to Phocus and work on the selects. Sometimes, alternatively, I will export the whole batch as jpgs then check for focus, etc, that way. But what I'd really like is to use Phocus to check focus!
Again, I'm not making these points facetiously. I like the cameras and Phocus but my comments were meant to help the OP make the right choice. Cheers.
-
Hi David. Happy to, but I'll preface my reply by saying that I have used Hasselblad for years now very happily, without many problems, either tethered or on location. Except for this deficiency in Phocus. (As I said, a view shared by quite a few users - hence your reply saying it would be sharpened up.)
Many people have problems getting focus right when using a MFDB. I certainly do. It seems to be hit and miss quite often even though we (me and all the others in threads on this forum) take great care to avoid this. Therefore, it's a required feature of any software that processes the files to allow you to check focus. And when you have many images to check, and a deadline that won't extend, you want to be able to check focus as quickly and easily as possible. You can't do that with the full size preview in Phocus without zooming in. If you disagree with that statement please 1) say so and 2) tell me (and a boatload of other users) how to do it.
Yes, I know if you zoom in you can get a sharper picture, or if you use the loupe feature you can check focus at 100%. But you can't get a sharp picture that allows you to check critical focus without doing that. And so my workflow when I have a lot of shots to check is to first load the files into Raw Developer, which gives an accurate and very sharp picture right away without any time-wasting fiddling, decide on the selects, and the rejects, then go back to Phocus and work on the selects. Sometimes, alternatively, I will export the whole batch as jpgs then check for focus, etc, that way. But what I'd really like is to use Phocus to check focus!
Again, I'm not making these points facetiously. I like the cameras and Phocus but my comments were meant to help the OP make the right choice. Cheers.
Ok, I understand now.
In the next version of Phocus (beta testing now) there is an addition to the preview size preference (embedded into the image on capture or import). Currently there is small, medium and large. Extra Large! will be added.
This will a) aid in judging focus on the preview give you even larger Jpeg exports.
Also currently the distortion filter can soften the image a little, which is now corrected.
So good news for the future I feel.
David
-
Hi David
Yes that's good news. Phocus is becoming a really useful program. I rate the shadow fill and recovery very highly. And the way it handles high ISO shots (re noise, etc) is impressive.
And thanks again for your participation here.
-
Just for clarity sake and ignore the shot ( it's a throw away ) and i am also not tethered but point being in C1 you can have floating focus tools that you can have on main screen or on a second monitor which can be from 25 to 400 magnification and also as big or small as you want. Here it is just on one monitor but I can move the floating palettes anywhere you want and as many as you want. Now you can save this workspace and name it and when you go shoot a week from now you can have the same floating palettes setup. C1 the main preview always sharp without having to use any magnification tools. On a P40+ it takes around two seconds for a new shot to view in full preview. Also if I was tethered all the camera data would be showing with regards to settings and such. Again the floating palettes can also be a variety of things as well so your really only bound by screen real estate. But you can float any tool you want anywhere on screen. I may not have this many floating palettes myself but point being you are not limited that i know of on how many. Usually a digital tech would have one open floating palette fairly large at 100 percent on second screen right on the eyes of a model and letting you know you are hitting focus. They could just use there mouse to move image around also in the floating palette or right click and set to wherever the framing is and just move the box to that spot. That I can't do a screen grab of to show
-
BTW just a side note since I touched on the new MBP laptops that I just got and I can confirm the speed increase in C1 for sure but here is some data on raw converters http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-Mac...ore_i7-Raw.html (http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacBookProCore_i7-Raw.html)
It does not have Phocus in it but my bet is it got faster as well. I was pretty surprised by C1 myself something I was really hoping for and it worked out great. 30 percent is nothing to sneeze at
-
It is also worth noting that as Phocus has no licensing, they were free to take copies with them and install multiple times, without the need for software keys and codes.
David
Phase One digital back users have no licensing issues, software keys or codes with Capture One either - just noting.
Nor do Leaf Capture folks, nor do Sinar Exposure/CaptureShop lovers.... - just noting.
In fact, no digital back software requires any codes or keys and all digital back software has unlimited licensing.
Steve Hendrix
-
Phase One digital back users have no licensing issues, software keys or codes with Capture One either - just noting.
Nor do Leaf Capture folks, nor do Sinar Exposure/CaptureShop lovers.... - just noting.
In fact, no digital back software requires any codes or keys and all digital back software has unlimited licensing.
Steve Hendrix
Can I get a full version of Capture One for free? I didn't know that.
-
You can certainly get a 30 day trial David. LOL
-
Can I get a full version of Capture One for free? I didn't know that.
You also get C1 "DB" for any Phase back for free, all you need is a serial number. It has full functionality for the back, just does not include raw support for all the other cameras... Of course after you use that for a day with your Phase back, you'll want it for all your other cameras too!
-
You also get C1 "DB" for any Phase back for free, all you need is a serial number. It has full functionality for the back, just does not include raw support for all the other cameras... Of course after you use that for a day with your Phase back, you'll want it for all your other cameras too!
Actually, you don't even need a serial number to run it in DB mode ...it'll have full functionality with any Phase back and with Leaf Aptus-II and AFi-II backs
-
I think my point was, that regardless of wether you own / do not own a Hasselblad product, you can download Phocus (an unlimited, released version, not a trial).
Makes it very easy to evaluate Phocus / Hasselblad files and populate it over as many systems as you like.
Also Phocus allows you to update the firmware on your Digital back and camera body, without the need to visit a service centre.
-
I think my point was, that regardless of wether you own / do not own a Hasselblad product, you can download Phocus (an unlimited, released version, not a trial).
Makes it very easy to evaluate Phocus / Hasselblad files and populate it over as many systems as you like.
as Yair said: it's the same with Capture One.
Only if you want to develop files of non-Phase or non-Leaf cameras you need a serial number.
Actually "gwhitf" was asking about tethered capture/preview speed but since we are already off topic... on my machine (tower) Phocus is noticable slower in almost all aspects with respect to editing (H40 files compared to P45 files). Zooming is slow, adjustments redraw with lag, processing takes much longer. Overall responsiveness of the software is more sluggish.
With regard to speed I think a customizable keyboard also heps a lot...
-
I think my point was, that regardless of wether you own / do not own a Hasselblad product, you can download Phocus (an unlimited, released version, not a trial).
Makes it very easy to evaluate Phocus / Hasselblad files and populate it over as many systems as you like.
Also Phocus allows you to update the firmware on your Digital back and camera body, without the need to visit a service centre.
Great, can I develop my Canon files in Phocus ?
-
Great, can I develop my Canon files in Phocus ?
apparently that's in the works already....
-
Hi
having used C1Pro with both Nikon and Canon I rate it very highly - it works and produces a particular filmic look that fits with my photography and how I see things. I would really like it if Phase One and Hasselblad (and all their users) stopped having hissy fits at each other and enabled each others software to recognise each others files - some hope .
I now use Hasselblad exclusively and at the moment that means using Phocus but I have hopes that the new versions of Lightroom and Camera Raw 6.1 may give me a little more latitude. In the real world it is the investment in glass which binds a photographer to a brand and given the very high quality of images produced by all three (or is it 4 soon to be 5) MF brands no photographer should feel let down by his equipment. The rendering of a raw file by an individual package is to some degree a question of taste. Ideally at present I would prefer to use my Hasselblad equipment and render in C1Pro. The cameras and lenses are well designed and are well integrated - the system works every day flawlessly but I have to do more work in Phocus and Photoshop to do what C1Pro seems to be able to do out of the box.
I have tried to use Aperture and Lightroom but they don't really do the job at present - maybe the new versions will render all of this argument redundant by simply doing what C1Pro and Phocus do without the internecine squabbles.
For what it is worth I think that, as a business, Hasselblad made exactly the right decision to close their system. If they hadn't done that it would be a Phase One world by now to the detriment of us all.
david
-
having used C1Pro with both Nikon and Canon I rate it very highly - it works and produces a particular filmic look that fits with my photography and how I see things. I would really like it if Phase One and Hasselblad (and all their users) stopped having hissy fits at each other and enabled each others software to recognise each others files - some hope . [...] I have to do more work in Phocus and Photoshop to do what C1Pro seems to be able to do out of the box.
Phase and C1 have always had a very open approach so I can't relate to the "hissy fits" comment. You can both import and export DNGs in Capture One and lens corrections are provided for phase one and leaf files from a variety of manufacturers (not just the Phase One brand of lenses, but Contax, classic Hasslelbad, and Hasslelbald H lenses). You can use any ICC profile as your starting point (allowing profiling from any device that creates an ICC profile or the direct use of manufacturer or 3rd party provided profiles). You can tether to Leaf, Phase One, Mamiya, Canon, and Nikon directly, or to any other supported camera (e.g. Sony, Olympus, Leica etc) using the Hot Folder functionality. You can run apple-scripts from directly within Capture One for huge flexibility and if you have VERY specific needs (and the knowledge/budget/time) you can get the Developer SDK from Phase One (mainly meant for specialty applications like aerial capture) for full access to the underlying math, routines, and processes of Capture One. Phase One and Leaf are also is very open with their raw file format and encourages anyone and everyone to support it. I won't even get into the openness of the hardware platform because we're already off topic. But the point is Phase One has a very open approach with Capture One and the Phase One and Leaf file types.
So if you wish convert your Hasselblad files into DNG and use Capture One you can! :-)
I have tried to use Aperture and Lightroom but they don't really do the job at present - maybe the new versions will render all of this argument redundant by simply doing what C1Pro and Phocus do without the internecine squabbles.
The next version of Aperture is already released and the next version of LR is in mid-beta stage. Both are improvements on their previous generations. I REALLY like Aperture 3. But if you, like me, find the conversions in C1 to have been superior than Aperture 2 and LR2 I don't think the next version will do much to change your mind. Which is not to say that they aren't awesome programs; in fact I use Aperture for all my cataloging/archiving of my final 16 bit tiffs. But I stopped using it for even basic processing of raws the day I ran tests of a few dozen raw files from various cameras I've owned, begged, borrowed, stolen, or used as part of this job through both Aperture (version 2 at the time) and C1 (version 4.1 at the time). My personal testing of Aperture 3 showed they've done a good job of improving the math, but it's not there yet, and lacks the high-end professional features I need like a true ICC-profile editor. Apple is unlikely to sell significantly more copies of Aperture in their target demographic if they increase the resolved detail versus noise in hard shadow areas and make their shadow gradations smoother and more film-like. The will however sell more copies because they've added the option to order leather-bound craft-wedding-albums directly within the program. Different target demographics mean a LOT about how you prioritize development, resources, and which direction you go when you have to compromise.
In my opinion and experience with Phase, Leaf, Leica, Canon, Nikon, and Olympus files C1 is literally years ahead of both Adobe and Apple in terms of pure processing quality and I would argue they are significantly ahead on pure workflow speed (assuming you are an expert-level user of each). And they aren't stopping - the next major version of C1* is going to blow minds. The new platform which took so long to get refined (see versions 4.0.0 to version 4.6) is providing an excellent development platform for some really passionate, experienced, and top-notch engineers and math wizards to push the limits of what you think a Raw Processor can pull from your files.
In other words, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Hmmm I better shut up - I sound like a real shill. But I'm passionate about Capture One.
*Don't worry version owners of version 5 will get their money's worth for sure (updates, expanded features, refinement). That's not to say they aren't in the early stages of working on the new killer features of the next version already ;-). And of course it's full power will be available free to any Phase One user without any registration, license, or other restriction and will be do a stellar job with files from all the major dSLR and point and shoot cameras with aggressive.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
Well... I'm always up for software upgrades, but I don't want to see a P90+ anytime soon. The last thing I need is a new digital back to start drooling over. Yes... a new back, with more pixels, maybe a half stop more DR and even better High ISO performance. Yep.
Uh... Is there one? Is there?!!! When can I have it?!!!!!
-Junkie
The justifications are forming... the P65+ has paid for itself, it's always good to have a backup back.... I could print the personal work EVEN BIGGER MWAH HA HA HA HA HAH!!!!
-
Jez fellas, buy what makes you happy, cause all this stuff is pretty good.
Ol' CB he likes his big pixels and hair/air flash and seems to be happy, (though CB word to the wise, you may have gotten into this gig for the gizmos, but you should give me a call cause I can give you a pretty strong list of better reasons to do this job, though I can't state it in public).
Anyway, don't worry bout' the costs of a camera cause these electronic boxes will go out of date, eventually lose all their equity and that is the one thing that holds true for Phase, Leaf, Blad, Canon, Nikon, Casio . . . all of them.
The only thing that holds price are matthews and American C-stands and Red Headed Moles. Those things seem to go on forever.
If your shooting for fun, buy the camera you like and enjoy it and remember none of them are perfect . . . in fact they all have issues regardless of the multiple sales messages that go on here, so don't think your gonna walk away trouble free.
Just be prepared to learn the workarounds and buy a heavy tripod.
If your shooting for money then buy the one that lets you do you job and hopefully bill it out to make some cash but remember some of the best photographers walking this earth don't own the latest and greatest an probably never will.
Those guys put there money in pre and post production.
These guys shoot what works and work from the heart. The only thing they don't want a camera to do is stop them.
So my suggestion, buy it if it makes you happy, use it till the paint falls off.
IMO
BC
-
I think that it's made such a way that it's "exciting" to upgrade constantly to the latest (and that happen very often ). But it's bondage.
BC just pointed that the place where we put money and efforts matters. IMHO that's the clew.
Take into account in the calculations how much waisted time (and money) in the latest that could and "should" have been
used in the pictures itself? Without mentioning headaches etc...
Just got the (cheap) Contax 645. It's fun! Slow, and get things in focus not easy but I don't do it too bad because I've always use manual focus 90%.
But what this camera does is that it makes me forget the gear, and that, in our bondage tech world, it is pure delight.
This Contax makes you feel free, fresh and good.
-
Phase and C1 have always had a very open approach so I can't relate to the "hissy fits" comment. You can both import and export DNGs in Capture One and lens corrections are provided for phase one and leaf files from a variety of manufacturers (not just the Phase One brand of lenses, but Contax, classic Hasslelbad, and Hasslelbald H lenses). You can use any ICC profile as your starting point (allowing profiling from any device that creates an ICC profile or the direct use of manufacturer or 3rd party provided profiles). You can tether to Leaf, Phase One, Mamiya, Canon, and Nikon directly, or to any other supported camera (e.g. Sony, Olympus, Leica etc) using the Hot Folder functionality. You can run apple-scripts from directly within Capture One for huge flexibility and if you have VERY specific needs (and the knowledge/budget/time) you can get the Developer SDK from Phase One (mainly meant for specialty applications like aerial capture) for full access to the underlying math, routines, and processes of Capture One. Phase One and Leaf are also is very open with their raw file format and encourages anyone and everyone to support it. I won't even get into the openness of the hardware platform because we're already off topic. But the point is Phase One has a very open approach with Capture One and the Phase One and Leaf file types.
So if you wish convert your Hasselblad files into DNG and use Capture One you can! :-)
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
Thank you Doug for that very clear and informative message about C1Pro.
Perhaps I should use the word "spin" rather than the words "hissy fit". Whilst in no way denigrating C1Pro - it (or at least my latest version of C1 Pro) is a really fine product - it does not recognise DNG files exported from Phocus. Perhaps I am doing something wrong but I am blessed if I know what.
Furthermore DNG files exported from Phocus do not have the lens specific automatic corrections built in to them which is a shame. I know that C1Pro can replicate some (or all) of these but first of all I have to get C1Pro to read the files.
It is a tortuous process - here's how it goes.
Record Hasselblad 3FR files on a CF card.
Import Hasselblad files files in FFF format
Export Hasselbald files to DNG
Import DNG to C1Pro (if it can!)
How much simpler would it be if C1Pro recognised the 3FR format and enabled direct import. If Lightroom and Aperture can manage this why not C1Pro?
My only thought as to why is back to the "battle?" between Hasselblad and Phase One - and the reluctance of either party to acknowledge the other other than as a direct competitor.
-
How would you resume the basic differences between C1 and Phocus ?
(I read the previous posts)
-
I think that it's made such a way that it's "exciting" to upgrade constantly to the latest (and that happen very often ). But it's bondage.
BC just pointed that the place where we put money and efforts matters. IMHO that's the clew.
Take into account in the calculations how much waisted time (and money) in the latest that could and "should" have been
used in the pictures itself? Without mentioning headaches etc...
Just got the (cheap) Contax 645. It's fun! Slow, and get things in focus not easy but I don't do it too bad because I've always use manual focus 90%.
But what this camera does is that it makes me forget the gear, and that, in our bondage tech world, it is pure delight.
This Contax makes you feel free, fresh and good.
Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is not always worth the time and money totally agree. But some upgrades actually are worth it in money and functionality. I know I thought about the P30+ to P40+ for 3 months and tested it 3 times before I did and I also questioned myself in the same process. Seems like on paper at least not such a big movement for the money but turns out it added a lot for me and also eliminated another system like a 35mm that Sensor Plus replaced that need. So in the end at least for myself it worked out on several fronts. But totally agree some upgrades maybe not worth doing. For me at least it has to add real value not just a new trick. Than took the extra money saved and put towards a Epson 7900 printer than buying a complete 35mm system which would have been 15 k by the time I was done. Now if I really need a 35mm cam than rentals are right down the road.
-
Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is not always worth the time and money totally agree. But some upgrades actually are worth it in money and functionality. I know I thought about the P30+ to P40+ for 3 months and tested it 3 times before I did and I also questioned myself in the same process. Seems like on paper at least not such a big movement for the money but turns out it added a lot for me and also eliminated another system like a 35mm that Sensor Plus replaced that need. So in the end at least for myself it worked out on several fronts. But totally agree some upgrades maybe not worth doing. For me at least it has to add real value not just a new trick. Than took the extra money saved and put towards a Epson 7900 printer than buying a complete 35mm system which would have been 15 k by the time I was done. Now if I really need a 35mm cam than rentals are right down the road.
Yes,
I know it might sounds dejà vu but when I was student in fine arts, it was still film age. In fact just before digital came into the scene. We had some Mamiyas for the one who wanted to work with photography. Next to the School was the prestigious Arles international photo school. Their gears where basically Leica M, Hassy and Pentaxes. I don't remember in these times all this constant crazyness with upgrades, obsolete gears as soon as you buy them etc...
I don't think I'm looking with nostalgy to the past, but indeed our times are really crazy. It's like the world has taken too much cocaine, super speeding everything. Out of fashion in a whisper, constant changes, more pressure, less fun, less money...more hassles, divorces because all that time spent in color profiles in front of a monitor and the answers to the unending attacks of 35mm squadron vs MFD's instead of enjoying life outside with the girlfriend or whife, driving negligently the convertible without door (or with the broken door) at the correct speed limit with a drink in one hand, cigarette, and shooting from time to time when required and not 2000 frames per day. Delegate most of the shooting to somebody you trust and get less pressure.
But now we simply can't smoke (won't go to California just for that stupid law) , can't drink, can't f...k but yes consume to the overdose any new exciting toy.
Tech is exciting, necessary, but it can also be slavery.
-
Does any know for sure whether tethered Phocus or tethered CaptureOne would run faster, (quicker to build previews), if the MacBookPro was running an SSD drive, over a "regular" hard drive? Of course, the SSD is faster, but does it specifically benefit either of these two tethered softwares?
-
I have been told it does. Seeing on the activity monitor on my MBP that the write speed after captures is often maxed out (around 30Mb/s) I think a SSD with a write speed almost tenfold of that will make a big difference. The SSD is on my list before the season starts again (end of July). Just not sure whether I will be putting it into a new MBP15" (i7) but probably I will.
I will get back to you by then
-
Just installed a new OWC Extreme 200gb in the new 15inch I7 core MBP. Will try C1 with P40+ in a couple hours but YES SSD are faster at reading data the bottleneck will always be Firewire 800. But old box 2 to 3 seconds to full preview in C1 with a P40+. This is a much faster machine but not sure i will gain any speed in tethered . Certainly gained about 33 percent in processing though and that makes me a freaking happy camper. I only use a laptop since I travel a great deal but in office hooked up to a 30 inch NEC. So speed is extremely important for me. Phocus I can't answer never tried it.
-
Okay DF P40+ plus C1 tethered with MBP 15 inch 2.66 8gb of ram I7 core, OWC 200gb Extreme SSD . Doing the one thousand count full res files exactly 2 seconds or slightly less. Okay putting cam on continuous shooting about 25 shots never hit the buffer .Now the cam is faster than the two second per image processing speed so when finger let off it still had 8 in the cue to come in. You find better let me know. This is better than any cam i shot tethered that I can recall.
You wanna go extremely fast in sensor plus mode ( 10 mpx on P40+) processing time is almost instant for full preview. It is 1.5 seconds or faster for full preview and no buffer shooting at that rate. End of test
I shot fashion for years when I was a much younger man and i never went faster than this shooting. You want 5 fps than shoot a Canon but you won't find a tethered program that goes at that speed not with current Firewire technology or USB. That is the bottleneck. This laptop is a little faster than the older unit tethered but again it's the limit of Firewire and data being pushed. I could maybe go slightly faster in full resolution using S mode which compresses the raw file more. Obviously the more data going threw the wire will slow it down regardless of system.
-
One of the most useful tools for me in Phocus is focus checking in live video mode. Does C1 have the same type of tool with a instantly updated line graph?
-
Not sure Jonathan never even tried that stuff. I just shoot and look at product work after the shot. Seriously when shooting product or interiors that does not matter to me i use tethered as a Polariod and keep moving lights and stuff around to get what I want. So functionally for me I use tethered in a different way pretty much and maybe shoot 25 shots or whatever than the last 2 frames I know are my finals. I really use a floating focus window at 100 percent and use maybe 4 of them for corners and middle to check myself if anything. The live view stuff is not really my cup of tea but I'm sure someone can answer that for you. It's a area I don't pay attention too. And again I am not versed in Phocus at all so I never comment on it so I can't compare functions of each program. In all honesty both systems are very very good and just need to find the system that works in your style and needs. I'm pretty happy but always welcome improvements from both companies. Bottom line for me if I was not shooting Phase i would be shooting Hassy. To me these are the most complete systems out there in rentals, sales, products and maybe more important maturity. I don't want to exclude a leaf back in that either which I do like there backs as well.
-
Yesterday shot a lingerie campaign in studio with many multiple strobe lights, and three sessions with window light and continuous fill.
It is a project I'm proud of and was given a lot of creative freedom.
I started with the p30+ on a contax shooting to c-1 v5. I thought like usual I would start with the contax, but due to time restraints do the usual thing and just put it up and go to the Canons, but for 99.9% just continued on with the Contax, as for once this was a vertical priority shoot and we even shot video with the 5d2 in vertical.
A few observations. Last week we learned C-1 V5. It's OK, actually functional, but a very heavy program. You can really feel it get sluggish with a lot of images. For the most part it was stable, but when it goes, it goes and it takes camera and computer restarts to get it back synced (and yes we keep a clear capture machine), with a lot of drive space.
Had two crashes in the day out of 983 frames which isn't that big a deal except it is a big crash not a restart the program crash.
The p30+ files with a lot of light at 100 iso are amazingly detailed, though C-1 really over sharpens in default. For any people subjects all the luminance sliders need some tuning and sharpening we set to zero, because at default even beautiful young models there is just way, way too much sharpening.
Color is good though I've always felt the p30+ is very susceptible to ambient color. The main part of this campaign was on a soft peach color styled background and you can see the color influence of the background in the model's skin and clothes. It can/will be fixed in post, but it is very apparent that either the back or the software is influenced by ambient color whether in front, side or behind the subject.
In the environmental sets using window light and continuous fill the Phase is OK, but if you go past 200 iso, the 5d2 just roasts it. I mean to the point you'd think the Canon is the $20,000 camera, not the phase. I shot a few still frames with the 5d2 once I finished the video then shot the majority of the stills with the p30+ and you have to be very careful to keep it at 200 iso or it's just a waste of bandwidth.
A few things I'd like to suggest to Phase. In C-1 why not single color adjustments, like Lightroom. Just something as simple as moving the yellow or orange with a quick slider would be so much easier than going into the color editor or those strange straight curves in C-1. Also why not a sync/reset buttons like on lightroom? I mean what's with the arrows, that use to be boxes on V4/5? Secondly why not every adjustment on one single column that you can use a scroll wheel to go up an down on, once again like lightroom. Batching out 983 files with slight adjustments in C-1 takes a long time in comparison to the functionality of lightroom. Yes, on the plus side, even with Canon files, C-1 does produce an out of the can prettier image, but when you get to minute adjustments it is a much more time consuming process than lightroom.
I find c-1 v5 to be a unique but very complicated program and kind of wish phase had a simple dumbed down version for tethering, (think c-1 V3) and a slightly more streamlined v5 for processing.
Now, all that said, I truly love shooting the contax, somewhat like shooting the phase, but since it's been a while since I shot my phase backs under a lot of pressure I forgot how truly awful that lcd is with any kind of intricate lighting. God never let a client see that little lcd on the back cause they'll have a heart attack. Anything that gets close to a highlight just blows out, anything that looks like midtone shadow gets muddy looking. Yesterday I just put a piece of gaff tape over the lcd and told everyone to look at the computer.
This was exasperated by the fact that on the 5d2 we were using a 7" marshall monitor which is like watching vista vision. It really is a beautiful monitor and so big that unless you have 20 people behind you, they can stand a few feet back and see enough of the image to be impressed (hopefully impressed).
Also in fairness I should say the 5d2 is/was not without it's problems. Shooting stills it's bulletproof, but shooting vertical video, something just happens and locks up. Strange thing is if you turn the camera horizontal it seems to go away , but in the vertical mode shooting video I had 3 lockups yesterday which is a buzz kill. It will go to CPS on Monday to figure this one out.
In finish, I'm not trying to sway anyone to use any camera, but honestly there is very little difference between the 5d2 file and the p30+ file, even both cropped to 4:3. Maybe 10% as far as detail but that's only at low iso.
The one thing the p30+ file has over the Canon file is you can move the hell out of it, from light to dark. It doesn't seem to hold highlights any better, but man does the center section move as long as you stay at 200 iso or below.
Also just a note for anyone shooting stills and video in the same project. The 5d2 file in video is a much different animal than the 5d2 file in stills. In stills it's deep, rich and has a lot of stops of latitude, but in video, especially at higher iso's it's crushed and looks like 4 stops of latitude just fly out the window.
Hair that was rich and detailed in the stills, was dead dark almost black in the video which requires a mindset of adding fill for every video session. Had time permitted I would have loved to compare the 5d2 footage to a RED. I will soon.
Regardless you can't help but be impressed how good the 5d2 is for the money and I can't help but think that if phase had a back that would go to higher iso, (at full rez) and had a real detailed lcd, how I might be tempted to upgrade, but instead I'll probably wait for the Epic. See how that shakes out.
And maybe it's the traditionalist in me, but it's so nice to have used the Contax again with real f stops on the lens, real shutter dial. It feels so much more like a camera instead of an electronic gizmo.
All IMO.
BC
-
Yesterday shot a lingerie campaign in studio with many multiple strobe lights, and three sessions with window light and continuous fill.
It is a project I'm proud of and was given a lot of creative freedom.
I started with the p30+ on a contax shooting to c-1 v5. I thought like usual I would start with the contax, but due to time restraints do the usual thing and just put it up and go to the Canons, but for 99.9% just continued on with the Contax, as for once this was a vertical priority shoot and we even shot video with the 5d2 in vertical.
A few observations. Last week we learned C-1 V5. It's OK, actually functional, but a very heavy program. You can really feel it get sluggish with a lot of images. For the most part it was stable, but when it goes, it goes and it takes camera and computer restarts to get it back synced (and yes we keep a clear capture machine), with a lot of drive space.
Had two crashes in the day out of 983 frames which isn't that big a deal except it is a big crash not a restart the program crash.
The p30+ files with a lot of light at 100 iso are amazingly detailed, though C-1 really over sharpens in default. For any people subjects all the luminance sliders need some tuning and sharpening we set to zero, because at default even beautiful young models there is just way, way too much sharpening.
Color is good though I've always felt the p30+ is very susceptible to ambient color. The main part of this campaign was on a soft peach color styled background and you can see the color influence of the background in the model's skin and clothes. It can/will be fixed in post, but it is very apparent that either the back or the software is influenced by ambient color whether in front, side or behind the subject.
In the environmental sets using window light and continuous fill the Phase is OK, but if you go past 200 iso, the 5d2 just roasts it. I mean to the point you'd think the Canon is the $20,000 camera, not the phase. I shot a few still frames with the 5d2 once I finished the video then shot the majority of the stills with the p30+ and you have to be very careful to keep it at 200 iso or it's just a waste of bandwidth.
A few things I'd like to suggest to Phase. In C-1 why not single color adjustments, like Lightroom. Just something as simple as moving the yellow or orange with a quick slider would be so much easier than going into the color editor or those strange straight curves in C-1. Also why not a sync/reset buttons like on lightroom? I mean what's with the arrows, that use to be boxes on V4/5? Secondly why not every adjustment on one single column that you can use a scroll wheel to go up an down on, once again like lightroom. Batching out 983 files with slight adjustments in C-1 takes a long time in comparison to the functionality of lightroom. Yes, on the plus side, even with Canon files, C-1 does produce an out of the can prettier image, but when you get to minute adjustments it is a much more time consuming process than lightroom.
I find c-1 v5 to be a unique but very complicated program and kind of wish phase had a simple dumbed down version for tethering, (think c-1 V3) and a slightly more streamlined v5 for processing.
Now, all that said, I truly love shooting the contax, somewhat like shooting the phase, but since it's been a while since I shot my phase backs under a lot of pressure I forgot how truly awful that lcd is with any kind of intricate lighting. God never let a client see that little lcd on the back cause they'll have a heart attack. Anything that gets close to a highlight just blows out, anything that looks like midtone shadow gets muddy looking. Yesterday I just put a piece of gaff tape over the lcd and told everyone to look at the computer.
This was exasperated by the fact that on the 5d2 we were using a 7" marshall monitor which is like watching vista vision. It really is a beautiful monitor and so big that unless you have 20 people behind you, they can stand a few feet back and see enough of the image to be impressed (hopefully impressed).
Also in fairness I should say the 5d2 is/was not without it's problems. Shooting stills it's bulletproof, but shooting vertical video, something just happens and locks up. Strange thing is if you turn the camera horizontal it seems to go away , but in the vertical mode shooting video I had 3 lockups yesterday which is a buzz kill. It will go to CPS on Monday to figure this one out.
In finish, I'm not trying to sway anyone to use any camera, but honestly there is very little difference between the 5d2 file and the p30+ file, even both cropped to 4:3. Maybe 10% as far as detail but that's only at low iso.
The one thing the p30+ file has over the Canon file is you can move the hell out of it, from light to dark. It doesn't seem to hold highlights any better, but man does the center section move as long as you stay at 200 iso or below.
Also just a note for anyone shooting stills and video in the same project. The 5d2 file in video is a much different animal than the 5d2 file in stills. In stills it's deep, rich and has a lot of stops of latitude, but in video, especially at higher iso's it's crushed and looks like 4 stops of latitude just fly out the window.
Hair that was rich and detailed in the stills, was dead dark almost black in the video which requires a mindset of adding fill for every video session. Had time permitted I would have loved to compare the 5d2 footage to a RED. I will soon.
Regardless you can't help but be impressed how good the 5d2 is for the money and I can't help but think that if phase had a back that would go to higher iso, (at full rez) and had a real detailed lcd, how I might be tempted to upgrade, but instead I'll probably wait for the Epic. See how that shakes out.
And maybe it's the traditionalist in me, but it's so nice to have used the Contax again with real f stops on the lens, real shutter dial. It feels so much more like a camera instead of an electronic gizmo.
All IMO.
BC
Hi.
Agree,
C1 5 default sharpening is way too much. Have not found yet how to set it lower permanently. Strange that they choose this level. Also don't use DNG in C1, I had a bad experience some days ago. Despite, it's my favorite software. I curiously find it faster than previous versions.
About the Contax, well yes, I love this camera too. Want to thank you for your advices here when I was looking for MF gear. You and other Contax users have made me considered the Contax and indeed That's a camera.
Cheers.
-
A few observations. Last week we learned C-1 V5. It's OK, actually functional, but a very heavy program. You can really feel it get sluggish with a lot of images. For the most part it was stable, but when it goes, it goes and it takes camera and computer restarts to get it back synced (and yes we keep a clear capture machine), with a lot of drive space.
I very rarely see a P1-C1 connection require a computer restart on a Mac (where most of our testing/use/experience is). I guarantee you we could find out what was going on and fix it.
The p30+ files with a lot of light at 100 iso are amazingly detailed, though C-1 really over sharpens in default. For any people subjects all the luminance sliders need some tuning and sharpening we set to zero, because at default even beautiful young models there is just way, way too much sharpening.
"over sharpens" is relative of course to your taste and application. In the sharpening tool change the sharpening to whatever you want and set the default to that setting. (down triangle in the title bar for "sharpening" - see attachment).
Color is good though I've always felt the p30+ is very susceptible to ambient color.
The downside of accurate color and the ability to distinguish subtle color variations.
A few things I'd like to suggest to Phase. In C-1 why not single color adjustments, like Lightroom. Just something as simple as moving the yellow or orange with a quick slider...
That's exactly what the "basic" section of the color editor is: highlight a color and slide it's hue left or right (or saturation or luminance). It does require two clicks (one to highlight the color, a second to slide the hue) so from that point of view I could see the use for a even more basic color manipulation tool.
However, once you become an expert in the advanced tab of the color editor and start to use the "uniformity" tool in the color editor it sure is hard to use anything less powerful.
Also why not a sync/reset buttons like on lightroom?
There is a reset button. One at the top of the screen for reset all adjustments. One in each individual tool to reset that tool.
There is a sync all button though it's not put into the toolbar by default - go to View>Customize Toolbar and drag the "Copy and Apply" arrow into the toolbar at the location of your choice.
Secondly why not every adjustment on one single column that you can use a scroll wheel to go up an down on, once again like lightroom.
On a large monitor you can fit a LOT of the adjustments in one column. I'd personally rather have two or three columns which you can switch to instantly with keyboard shortcut than a column that is larger than the visible screen which requires you to scroll. Regardless, both systems make sense and have advantages and disadvantages.
Batching out 983 files with slight adjustments in C-1 takes a long time in comparison to the functionality of lightroom. Yes, on the plus side, even with Canon files, C-1 does produce an out of the can prettier image.
Wanna race sometime? How many total hours have you used C1 version 4/5 compared to the number of total hours you've used Adobe products? Give it another few days of use and/or take a class on C1 and I think you'd even up that equation a LOT.
I find c-1 v5 to be a unique but very complicated program and kind of wish phase had a simple dumbed down version for tethering, (think c-1 V3) and a slightly more streamlined v5 for processing.
[Window > Workspace > Simplified Tethering] will give you a "simple dumbed down version for tethering".
If desired you can further customize. In fact you could customize the program down to the point where there is nothing on the screen but the incoming image or up to the point where every tool in the program is on the screen at the same time.
In finish, I'm not trying to sway anyone to use any camera, but honestly there is very little difference between the 5d2 file and the p30+ file, even both cropped to 4:3. Maybe 10% as far as detail but that's only at low iso.
The one thing the p30+ file has over the Canon file is you can move the hell out of it, from light to dark. It doesn't seem to hold highlights any better, but man does the center section move as long as you stay at 200 iso or below.
Try not to generalize. Comparisons of file quality out of cameras is always extremely dependent on your usage. Sounds like for what you're doing the level of absolute details doesn't show a huge difference (I'm guessing shutter speed and DOF play into this a good deal with your shooting style) but the dynamic range and color and tonal fidelity are quite different. Highlight detail holding is of course a function both of the dynamic range as well as the default placement of tones within the curves. If desired you could always set the phase to underexpose but come up on the screen with a half stop push - no one on set would know except you. But I'm still a bit surprised by this as my last test showed a significantly higher ability to pull highlight detail in a P30+ vs 5DII file.
In other uses (anything with flash, anything with higher levels of continuous light, landscape, architecture, still life, etc) level of detail is significantly different between the two.
Also just a note for anyone shooting stills and video in the same project. The 5d2 file in video is a much different animal than the 5d2 file in stills. In stills it's deep, rich and has a lot of stops of latitude, but in video, especially at higher iso's it's crushed and looks like 4 stops of latitude just fly out the window.
RAW still capture compared to compressed video.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
C1 5 default sharpening is way too much. Have not found yet how to set it lower permanently. Strange that they choose this level. Also don't use DNG in C1, I had a bad experience some days ago. Despite, it's my favorite software. I curiously find it faster than previous versions.
Your experience with DNG was with a raw file from a camera where the supported-camera list in C1's release notes state "Only PEF supported" (e.g. NOT the DNGs from that camera).
See the attachment to my previous post for how to set the defaults for sharpening.
-
very heavy program. You can really feel it get sluggish with a lot of images.
In my experience it's much better (i.e. noticably faster) if you don't create several folders in one session (in V5).
The reason: C1 caches all the captures (previews) of a session - even those located in another folder within the same session.
Consequently it's better to create a new session for a new motif... idealy one session for each motif/theme to keep the number of captures in one session low.
C-1 really over sharpens in default
agreed. Even with the setting "Version 3 Soft Look" (which I use for preview) highlights look oversharpened. C1 is missing a masking mode to surpress halos in highlights and blacks.
why not every adjustment on one single column that you can use a scroll wheel to go up an down on
I much prefer the different tool tabs (especially as you can customize the order of the tabs). I am swichting the tool tabs with a keyboard shortcut. When you are used to that kind of workflow you need remarkably less mouse operations... it's much faster this way.
-
Your experience with DNG was with a raw file from a camera where the supported-camera list in C1's release notes state "Only PEF supported" (e.g. NOT the DNGs from that camera).
See the attachment to my previous post for how to set the defaults for sharpening.
As always Doug, thank you very much for your fast and constant support. Default sharpening setted now perfectly.
About DNG, I've been learning things with that experience. One point I'm not sure I understand ( in fact I'm sure I don't understand it ), if somebody has the clew: Doug in his repply seems to point that in the case of DNG, it was stipulated that they where not supported for that camera.
I thought DNG was an Adobe standard, whatever brand involved. So in my mind, DNG file was exactly the same if Leica, Pentax etc...
But it seems that it is not the case. I mean, if C1 does not support DNG from Pentax, it should not support them either for Leica. Confuse!!!
If there are different types of DNG, then yes I'd join Doug's opinion : I don't see the point of DNG format.
Cheers.
-
I would like to take up Fred and Doug's points about the so-called "DNG standard"
Earlier in this thread Doug suggested that I could use C1 Pro (which I have and really like) to process my Hasselblad files by exporting them as a DNG and then importing them to C1. Great idea but it doesn't work. It seems that this so-called standard is only standard when it is an Adobe produced standard and not a camera manufacturers' software produced standard. I don't have a problem with Hasselblad's software not being as good (arguably) as C! because I use it is free and I can put as many copies as I like on as many computers as I like. I do have a problem with a piece of software - which is not cheap or free unless you own a Phase One product - that won't recognise DNG files produced by camera manufacturers' software.
Doug is the problem here that Phase One are excluding Hasselblad wherever possible or that Phocus does not produce the required "industry standard" DNG files. I will pose this question on the Hasselblad forum as well and it will be interesting to get both Phase One's and Hasselblad's responses.
-
David
That is very curious because both ACR and LR will read DNG files exported by Phocus from Hasselblad 3FR raws just fine. So why C1 has a problem I can't imagine.
John
-
David
That is very curious because both ACR and LR will read DNG files exported by Phocus from Hasselblad 3FR raws just fine. So why C1 has a problem I can't imagine.
John
Hi John
You are quite correct - PS and LR seem to be more Catholic about which DNG files they accept which leads me to believe that C1 could easily read Phocus DNG files if they really wanted to. They just don't want to do anything which helps Hasselbald.
-
Not sure if it is still really the case that Hasselblad and Phase are actually trying to block out each other with competition in mind but it would be extremely foolish. Both should be helping each other as much as possible since today the choice for most people isn't between Phase or Hasselblad but much more between DSLR and MF. Hurting/obstructing or blocking each other and thus limiting options for MF is truly insane, IMHO naturally.
-
What we should know for sure is the real nature of DNG.
Out of the competition between brands and the consequences, the question remains that DNG if a standard, should be exactly the same for any brand.
Let's say like JPG.
But for a reason that remains oscur, it just appears that there are different types of DNG, wich does not make any sense IMO.
You pointed Hassy as a competitor to Phase but I can't see that's what is involved here, because what about Pentax DNG then? Pentax is not a direct competitor to Phase. Well yes, the 645D will be soon but I'm talking about aps format in this case.
Strangely, if you use native formats, no problem with any brand. So I guess it is a Phase position about DNG, regardless of the competition.
But why is that position? Why do they consider DNG is not worth? Mystery.
-
Not sure if it is still really the case that Hasselblad and Phase are actually trying to block out each other with competition in mind but it would be extremely foolish. Both should be helping each other as much as possible since today the choice for most people isn't between Phase or Hasselblad but much more between DSLR and MF. Hurting/obstructing or blocking each other and thus limiting options for MF is truly insane, IMHO naturally.
Totally agree with you! If anything they should be cooperating more fully in order to build up barriers to entry to protect their market from Canon and Nikon. They both still have a serious edge over their 35mm competitors notwithstanding the substantial cost of MFD. I guess it all started with Hasselblad "closing" their system or rather introducing a closed product range - they still supply the H2 which is Phase One friendly after all.
Roll on Lightroom 3 and ACR 6.1 and perhaps none of us may want to use either C1 or Phocus.
David
-
Totally agree with you! If anything they should be cooperating more fully in order to build up barriers to entry to protect their market from Canon and Nikon. They both still have a serious edge over their 35mm competitors notwithstanding the substantial cost of MFD. I guess it all started with Hasselblad "closing" their system or rather introducing a closed product range - they still supply the H2 which is Phase One friendly after all.
Roll on Lightroom 3 and ACR 6.1 and perhaps none of us may want to use either C1 or Phocus.
David
David:
The H2 was discontinued several years ago and replaced by the H2F. The H2F only recognizes Hasselblad digital backs. Hasselblad made the decision not to support Phase One (or Leaf or Sinar) digital backs with their cameras.
Steve Hendrix
-
David:
The H2 was discontinued several years ago and replaced by the H2F. The H2F only recognizes Hasselblad digital backs. Hasselblad made the decision not to support Phase One (or Leaf or Sinar) digital backs with their cameras.
Steve Hendrix
Hi Steve
You are quite correct - thank you for pointing that out. As I no longer use film I hadn't looked at the spec for the H2F. Nevertheless Hasselblad still sell their V system which of course accepts your digital backs as do virtually all of the film Hasselblads still in use out there. By the way I am a great admirer of your company's products but my investment in Hasselblad digital equipment and no migration path prevents me from changing. Perhaps that is what it is all about.
I still do not seem to have an answer to the question as to why C1Pro does not recognise DNG's produced by Phocus.
Thanks again for the info.
David
-
The thing is that coming from C1, I've been trying LR and really to me I've never been able to feel "at home with LR". I'm from the one who thing that C1 is a better software, at least its interface works naturaly for me.
But the fastest non-tethered workflow so far, I got it with combination of ACR+Bridge. Still prefer C1 to ACR anyway.
-
Hi Steve
You are quite correct - thank you for pointing that out. As I no longer use film I hadn't looked at the spec for the H2F. Nevertheless Hasselblad still sell their V system which of course accepts your digital backs as do virtually all of the film Hasselblads still in use out there. By the way I am a great admirer of your company's products but my investment in Hasselblad digital equipment and no migration path prevents me from changing. Perhaps that is what it is all about.
I still do not seem to have an answer to the question as to why C1Pro does not recognise DNG's produced by Phocus.
Thanks again for the info.
David
Yes they still sell the V system, and it is a open platform still, though it is being phased out (no pun) slowly but surely. No lenses are being made anymore longer than 150mm, the only remaining available body is the 503CW. It would be difficult and expensive (if at all possible) to produce a closed 503CW and probably not worth their effort. As a result, it remains an open platform for digital backs (though hobbled in terms of current and new product development).
Steve Hendrix
-
The downside of accurate color and the ability to distinguish subtle color variations.
There really is no reason to have this conversation, but for the record I didn't paint c-1 or phase with a broad brush.
I made it clear about what I shot and what the results were. I didn't mention shooting trees and landscapes cause that's not what I shoot.
Do I like the images yes, do they have great detail, yes, did C-1 crash and freeze, yes, did it require a complete restart, yes. It could be the firewire cords were glitchy, I have one trusty set I use all the time, but switched to the other two backups and kept working.
Again, for the record one of our assistants works part time at a large digital department in NY that rents Phase exclusively, (most of the time on H series blads) and she says she hears of V5 crashing. Maybe she's also doing it wrong, maybe the cameras have issues, I don't know.
Now one thing I've learned is don't shoot too many p30+ files to one folder, it seems to slow the system down, at least on a powerbook. I personally will keep it around 100 to 200. I think we shoot over 200 when the issues happened the most.
As far as the color response of the p30+ (or the software) if it was possible I would post an image, but it's not released yet and it will be a few days until we go through selection and post production, but shooting on a pink toned background, everything picks up that color, garments, hair, skin.
In C-1 I can make it pretty, but not accurate, in other words a yellow garment is pink toned or the color controls are so global in their process, that to get the garment close to correct the background goes yellow warm. It's very difficult to be specific, at least in my use. The only way to get there is to process out a few images with different colors and go into photoshop and blend them.
We do this anyway in post so it's not the end of the world, though something as simple as those little color squares in lightroom that you can adjust different colors in saturation, hue and luminance would be helpful. Especially in the early viewing stage of web galleries, because it's not a lot of fun to tell a client, yes the bra will be yellow, the background will be pink, you'll just have to wait until we go to final.
Now for the record I find C-1 to make more pleasing processing of Canon files than any adobe product, but for p30+ files I find cs4 extended or lightroom more moveable.
As far as speed, are we gonna race? Race for for what, a software license? I'm not racing, I'm just giving a paying user's experience.
Other people feel different, other people use different cameras.
But if your going to bullet point everything, then make mention of the phase lcd, cause that's a fright for AD's, on set artists and the talent and that's something that really should be addressed, even when you tether, because when your shooting there is always someone standing behind you.
At this stage everyone is use to seeing a pristine lcd image, whether it be on their iphone, TV, tech station, or their kids point and shoot, so to keep people from gasping, I just taped over it.
But also for the record, I really didn't use the Contax because of the digital back, I used the digital back because I wanted to use the Contax and the only reason on this project that any Canon came out of the case was to shoot motion in conjunction with the stills and the only reason we shot stills with the Canon was if I saw some look I liked we repeated it and shot a few still frames. The by product was the 5d2 files hold up really well and I think in ways are sharper than than the 1ds3.
All IMO.
BC
-
I still do not seem to have an answer to the question as to why C1Pro does not recognise DNG's produced by Phocus.
Thanks again for the info.
David
Capture One works quite similar to Aperture (Mac OS), meaning that it first needs to support the camera (or file) by which the DNG was produced.
Yair
-
Does C1 have focus checking in live video mode with an instantly updated line graph similar to Phocus?
-
Capture One works quite similar to Aperture (Mac OS), meaning that it first needs to support the camera (or file) by which the DNG was produced.
Yair
What??!!? Is that it really? Then it's completly absurd. (not talking about C1, talking about DNG).
-
What??!!? Is that it really? Then it's completly absurd. (not talking about C1, talking about DNG).
Absolutely right. Completely absurd. It negates the whole object of DNG as a supposedly open and universal format. It's like PS not being able to open a jpeg if it comes from a camera which Adobe didn't happen to like. All that this is about, is a stupid childish spat between Phase and Hasselblad. C1 can reject a Hass DNG because somewhere in the EXIF data is an identifier of the camera type used. And so it does. Why we have to put up with this crap I really don't know.
John
-
Absolutely right. Completely absurd. It negates the whole object of DNG as a supposedly open and universal format. It's like PS not being able to open a jpeg if it comes from a camera which Adobe didn't happen to like. All that this is about, is a stupid childish spat between Phase and Hasselblad. C1 can reject a Hass DNG because somewhere in the EXIF data is an identifier of the camera type used. And so it does. Why we have to put up with this crap I really don't know.
John
I think it makes sense. All other software from camera makers are made for their cameras only. The great thing about photoshop is that it accepts all these image files. It is third party software. We shouldn't expect the same thing from MF digital makers, but it looks like things will end up getting there within the next couple version releases.
-
Capture One works quite similar to Aperture (Mac OS), meaning that it first needs to support the camera (or file) by which the DNG was produced.
Yair
Exactly take a S2 DNG file into C1 and it sucks big time. Reason is there is no profile for the S2 in C1 it sees it as a generic DNG file just as it sees a Phase file as generic in LR, it's not supported . DNG is NOT the gold standard that people hoped or thought it would become. Far from it it still is in the hands of the OEM's putting there proprietary algorithms in it. There is nothing open standard about it, except anyone can use it but they all put there own sauce in it, but if a program can't read it than it is generic . Here comes the Adobe god's now to pour fire on that comment.
I don't know all the ins and outs on DNG but there has been a lot of criticism on it as well. Here is some more data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format))
-
But in the end, and like with browsers, flash etc...who's the victim of this generalized mess? The consumer of course.
There should be an international organism to put order in all that and prevent abuses once for a while. But that's another step I'm not sure it fits in the nowdays situation.
Anyway, so we have a supposed standard that is not. As I pointed before in another thread, comparing RAW files from native/dng I have not been able to notice any difference. At least from my eyes perception.
Exporting the same shot in tiff from DNG or Native brings exactly the same result, a part from the inherent characteristics of the sofware involved.
Wich makes the all situation even more absurd. Why should we use DNG then? If it's to make sure we gona use Adobe software then I'll go against this standard, as it happened with Flash.
But in the kingdom of absurdities, the non-flash Ipad position has maybe the crown. I can understand Apple, I can even think they are right with HTML 5, but the result is that 70% of the websites can not be viewed properly. No more no less. Completly stupid!
I see with DNG something similar in a way. Thought it was the promised land of Raw standardization and in fact we are in non-sense-land.
-
I've never understood why DNG. What's wrong with the manufacturer's software?
If my Lexus breaks, I don't get mad because I can't take it to the Ford dealer to get fixed. How would Ford know the exact ins-and-outs of Lexus? They didn't make it.
I think DNG was the brainchild of some beancounter newspaper editor. He had one guy shooting Canon, another guy shooting Nikon, and another guy shooting Sony, and he was too lazy (or cheap) to learn all three softwares. So he stands up and says we need DNG.
Does anyone not think, in ten years, that you wont' be able to find some way to process your RAWs? Is that it? If that's so, why not just batch your RAWs now, into TIFFs, as a safeguard. The whole DNG thing seems like a solution for a problem that never was.
-
Fred that was the idea of DNG and it was a good one but many companies just ignored even using it. If you can't get them to the party than they can't drink the water either. I think that is the case with DNG. Obviously this is a big discussion that has been tossed around like a football for quite some time. But it still has not hit the ground. Again i don't know all the in's and out's but I do know many OEM's said not for us we want our own deal for our cams and the ability to use there secret sauce in those programs that can see there files. Some would say DNG is just a wrapper around a proprietary file ext.
-
Fred that was the idea of DNG and it was a good one but many companies just ignored even using it. If you can't get them to the party than they can't drink the water either. I think that is the case with DNG. Obviously this is a big discussion that has been tossed around like a football for quite some time. But it still has not hit the ground. Again i don't know all the in's and out's but I do know many OEM's said not for us we want our own deal for our cams and the ability to use there secret sauce in those programs that can see there files. Some would say DNG is just a wrapper around a proprietary file ext.
Agree Guy. The idea was good, but as you point, everybody should play the game then to make it interesting. But there is no problem for a Brand to both admit a RAW standard, DNG or whatever, and at the same time developp their special secret sauce for their native files. IMO, it could even be a strong sale argument like: "look what we are able to do compare to the standard"...but the reality seems, (and I say that with caution because I'm not absolutly sure if I'm right), that there is no difference in file quality between Brand native Raw and DNG version.
Gwhitf pointed to backup Tiff if we fear a RAW uncompatibility in the future, but if you think about it, catastrophy is not likely to happen. So, yes, what's the point? It was because we were sure than a new gear was immediatly usable in PP. In fact it's usable in Adobe and they have the monopoly with Photoshop. There is no alternative. (please don't say me the Gimp ).
Gwhitf, What's wrong with the manufacturer software? nothing, just some thoughts. For example: I have not upgraded yet to CS4, still use CS3 because I do not feel the need of upgrading so far. It results that the last camera I bought is not supported by CS3 but yes by CS4. So DNG is the only way I can devellop the RAW files in Adobe. But the native files are fully supported by my C1 5 (and not the DNG). Combining 2 softwares I have full compatibility. It just would be nice to have this in one. But I admit, you can say: "and so, what's the problem?". I use both ACR and C1, fine, no hassle but I thing that concentrate in a sofware you like and are use to is getting a better and safer workflow.
Regarding manufacturer software, it's a little bit of an hassle to have to deal with different animals. I use different brands like most of us and I don't want to inundate my computers of each brand's softwares. Whithout talking about the time of adaptation to each etc...Really, less is more IMHO. In fact if all those files would just work in C1 I'd be happy.
-
I thought I was the only one who did not upgrade to CS4 and now 5
am
-
I had an interesting thing happen yesterday, that seemed worth mentioning. Was shooting a studio job in New York, and the Tech that I hired did not have EOS Util or DPP installed on his tower. He only used Capture One 5.1.1. The job was to be shot with the 5dMarkII, tethered.
Everything chugging along fine until about lunchtime, when the camera began to slow down and appeared to hit the buffer. I'd never seen that, EVER, using EOS utility to tether. It just jams right along, no matter how many images in the folder. As it turned out, CaptureOne 5.1.1 was the culprit. For some reason, after you get so many images in one Capture Folder, it just begins to bottleneck, no matter how fast you're shooting. Luckily, it was lunchtime, so I just called it, and we broke for lunch, and the client never knew there was a problem. The Tech started a whole new Session after lunch, and we shot the rest of the day.
But I just found it odd that this high-falutin' CaptureOne bogged down, when the laughed-at Canon software never bogged down once. So just be forewarned about this. Maybe there could be some jobs where you'd really need all the bells and whistles of CaptureOne to tether, but if you just need super fast, super clean Previews, and hassle free performance, stick with EOS Utility and DPP linked together.
If CaptureOne bogged down with sissy little 5d2 RAW files, imagine how quickly it might bog down with P65 RAW files.
No thanks.
-
I friend of mine told me the other day C-1 rules.
OK, for him I guess it "did", but shooting lingerie last week, beauty this week we started both projects with the p30.
Same thing, everything went fine, then all of a sudden a slow down, then a stop then we went through the process of reconnecting, changing firewire cords, checking batteries, etc. etc. etc.
The clients didn't say anything, because we did the checking and rechecking when we did the video sessions, but it was a little tense on our end.
So we decide to make a new session for each change and never let the folder get much past 100 images.
We finished the day fine.
Flash forward 4 days and we do a beauty shoot. Different tech running the computer and we purposely deleated everything c-1, (this is the capture computer so everything is kept clean), added new firewire cords and tested the evening before.
All was fine until mid morning and same thing as before except this time the client did notice the slowdown so I just yanked off the phase backs, went to the Canons, shoot to eos utility and the day went smooth.
Turned out the new tech was shooting everything to one folder and I don't know how many images were in it, a few hundred and I don't know if that was the problem, but on a day with 11 different beauty setups and a color story, very intricate lighting, you just don't have time to try to reconnect a camera.
Now maybe we're dong something wrong, I'm not going to lay it on Phase because it could have been a thousand things, but I do know that the Canon plugged in to eos utility and running bridge in the background works flawlessly and easy.
And I have to admit I'm not a real fan of V4/5 for tethering. I think it's fine for processing, but I like v 3.7 something a lot better. 3 didn't have the best previews and anything over 400 images to a folder would crash it but it restarted quickly, always kept the settings and I had such few problems with it I could count them on two fingers.
BC
I had an interesting thing happen yesterday, that seemed worth mentioning. Was shooting a studio job in New York, and the Tech that I hired did not have EOS Util or DPP installed on his tower. He only used Capture One 5.1.1. The job was to be shot with the 5dMarkII, tethered.
Everything chugging along fine until about lunchtime, when the camera began to slow down and appeared to hit the buffer. I'd never seen that, EVER, using EOS utility to tether. It just jams right along, no matter how many images in the folder. As it turned out, CaptureOne 5.1.1 was the culprit. For some reason, after you get so many images in one Capture Folder, it just begins to bottleneck, no matter how fast you're shooting. Luckily, it was lunchtime, so I just called it, and we broke for lunch, and the client never knew there was a problem. The Tech started a whole new Session after lunch, and we shot the rest of the day.
But I just found it odd that this high-falutin' CaptureOne bogged down, when the laughed-at Canon software never bogged down once. So just be forewarned about this. Maybe there could be some jobs where you'd really need all the bells and whistles of CaptureOne to tether, but if you just need super fast, super clean Previews, and hassle free performance, stick with EOS Utility and DPP linked together.
If CaptureOne bogged down with sissy little 5d2 RAW files, imagine how quickly it might bog down with P65 RAW files.
No thanks.
-
I know this is OT, but as someone who shoots beauty often, how in god's name do you shoot 11 looks in one day? I mean, maybe if you have 6 models and 6 sets of MU/Hair that could be doable, but good lord man, I would like to watch that production!
I friend of mine told me the other day C-1 rules.
OK, for him I guess it "did", but shooting lingerie last week, beauty this week we started both projects with the p30.
Same thing, everything went fine, then all of a sudden a slow down, then a stop then we went through the process of reconnecting, changing firewire cords, checking batteries, etc. etc. etc.
The clients didn't say anything, because we did the checking and rechecking when we did the video sessions, but it was a little tense on our end.
So we decide to make a new session for each change and never let the folder get much past 100 images.
We finished the day fine.
Flash forward 4 days and we do a beauty shoot. Different tech running the computer and we purposely deleated everything c-1, (this is the capture computer so everything is kept clean), added new firewire cords and tested the evening before.
All was fine until mid morning and same thing as before except this time the client did notice the slowdown so I just yanked off the phase backs, went to the Canons, shoot to eos utility and the day went smooth.
Turned out the new tech was shooting everything to one folder and I don't know how many images were in it, a few hundred and I don't know if that was the problem, but on a day with 11 different beauty setups and a color story, very intricate lighting, you just don't have time to try to reconnect a camera.
Now maybe we're dong something wrong, I'm not going to lay it on Phase because it could have been a thousand things, but I do know that the Canon plugged in to eos utility and running bridge in the background works flawlessly and easy.
And I have to admit I'm not a real fan of V4/5 for tethering. I think it's fine for processing, but I like v 3.7 something a lot better. 3 didn't have the best previews and anything over 400 images to a folder would crash it but it restarted quickly, always kept the settings and I had such few problems with it I could count them on two fingers.
BC
-
I know this is OT, but as someone who shoots beauty often, how in god's name do you shoot 11 looks in one day? I mean, maybe if you have 6 models and 6 sets of MU/Hair that could be doable, but good lord man, I would like to watch that production!
You work 14 hour days, run two sets, and work damn fast and hard.
Except for the color story this wasn't a one background shoot, but the good side of beauty is the sets aren't that large. I also keep about 15 lights and modifiers, flags, etc. all mounted and ready. No time for hunting around, it's all ready to slide in
You also block it out before hand and are very clear to the clients of what your going to achieve, stop the moment you get there.
Hell, compared to working three distinct locations in Hong Kong, or San Francisco, (I'm talking with a crew of 20 something) shooting 11 different looks in studio in a day is easy. The color story is a different animal as it's pretty much detail work.
The new world.
BC
-
I had an interesting thing happen yesterday, that seemed worth mentioning. Was shooting a studio job in New York, and the Tech that I hired did not have EOS Util or DPP installed on his tower. He only used Capture One 5.1.1. The job was to be shot with the 5dMarkII, tethered.
Everything chugging along fine until about lunchtime, when the camera began to slow down and appeared to hit the buffer. I'd never seen that, EVER, using EOS utility to tether. It just jams right along, no matter how many images in the folder. As it turned out, CaptureOne 5.1.1 was the culprit. For some reason, after you get so many images in one Capture Folder, it just begins to bottleneck, no matter how fast you're shooting. Luckily, it was lunchtime, so I just called it, and we broke for lunch, and the client never knew there was a problem. The Tech started a whole new Session after lunch, and we shot the rest of the day.
But I just found it odd that this high-falutin' CaptureOne bogged down, when the laughed-at Canon software never bogged down once. So just be forewarned about this. Maybe there could be some jobs where you'd really need all the bells and whistles of CaptureOne to tether, but if you just need super fast, super clean Previews, and hassle free performance, stick with EOS Utility and DPP linked together.
If CaptureOne bogged down with sissy little 5d2 RAW files, imagine how quickly it might bog down with P65 RAW files.
No thanks.
By the way . .
USB is the problem. I recently teched a job with a P65 to a laptop and it never locked up, crashed or slowed down. Most shoots are Canon though and there is always a problem when you hit the buffer. If you shoot more than a frame a second tethered with Canon you will crash the software. No way around it. Shoot at a steady pace - not too fast - you can shoot all day. Of course if you need to shoot fast then you have to go to card. I believe it is just the reality of the connection USB vs. Firewire. Also Canon has changed their USB connection specs and third parties do not have access to everything - according to Phase One. Even working in a session - not shooting - with canon files vs phase files is very difficult on some machines like laptops.
But I can say Capture One 5.1 with a macbook pro a year old - not one problem. Also when people have issues keeping connections with Phase one backs it is usually from bad firewire cords - cheap ones or they get stepped on all day, a bad firewire port or a machine that needs some maintenance.
-
By the way . .
USB is the problem.
Hmm. Same USB cable going to EOS Utility, and shoot as fast as you want, as long as you want.
Plus, when I hit that bottleneck, I wasn't shooting any faster then than I had been earlier in the day.
Plus, when it stopped, it really stopped; as in, shoot one or two frames, and bam, you're dead -- wait for it to clear out, or whatever it was doing when it clogged.
-
Hmm. Same USB cable going to EOS Utility, and shoot as fast as you want, as long as you want.
Plus, when I hit that bottleneck, I wasn't shooting any faster then than I had been earlier in the day.
Plus, when it stopped, it really stopped; as in, shoot one or two frames, and bam, you're dead -- wait for it to clear out, or whatever it was doing when it clogged.
Every situation has its own issues, its not always predictable with tethered capture, there are many variables involved. I have been using eos utility for a few years too, works fine usually, does what it supposed to do. I currently use bridge to rename files shot to a card then view them in C15 because the rename function in C15 is terrible. Unfortunately I think Adobe's color and image processing are not very good (even the new LR3) compared to C15 so I have to use a few applications to get it all right, but that's ok for now, its not a perfect world.
Recently (and since the USB canons were introduced) I was having Canon tethering issues with C15 so I compared it to eos utility on a shoot. The problem was it was fashion, a good fast moving model, quick recycling lights - we were shooting too fast for the camera. Eos utility locked up tethered just as C15 did. It might be alittle better with some types of shoots but its not the answer for what we are shooting.
That said if you are considering a DB do not judge C15 on its Canon performance at all. It is a totally different thing.
-
The problem was it was fashion, a good fast moving model, quick recycling lights - we were shooting too fast for the camera. Eos utility locked up tethered just as C15 did. It might be alittle better with some types of shoots but its not the answer for what we are shooting.
That said if you are considering a DB do not judge C15 on its Canon performance at all. It is a totally different thing.
I understand. I was shooting a model, and also using Hot Lights, so I did not even have to wait for Profoto recycle. So who knows, maybe I was shooting faster than I even realized.
Yes, you might be right about Canon being its own animal, since it uses USB. Maybe it's completely different performance than using DB with FW.
Having said all this, I still wish that Phocus and Capture One could break apart their tethering application from their processing application. I say, give me a "Mini Me" version of the master application, with it's only role in life being just to to capture the file, tethered. Streamline it. If you want to process your big TIFFs later, that's fine, but do that in the main application. But while the client is in the room, and everyone is watching, make sure that that Tethering Application is rock solid, and that it can run quickly and reliably on even a MacBook Pro.
Just one opinion.
-
I understand. I was shooting a model, and also using Hot Lights, so I did not even have to wait for Profoto recycle. So who knows, maybe I was shooting faster than I even realized.
Yes, you might be right about Canon being its own animal, since it uses USB. Maybe it's completely different performance than using DB with FW.
Having said all this, I still wish that Phocus and Capture One could break apart their tethering application from their processing application. I say, give me a "Mini Me" version of the master application, with it's only role in life being just to to capture the file, tethered. Streamline it. If you want to process your big TIFFs later, that's fine, but do that in the main application. But while the client is in the room, and everyone is watching, make sure that that Tethering Application is rock solid, and that it can run quickly and reliably on even a MacBook Pro.
Just one opinion.
I totally agree with this part. I would welcome an application that solely tethers as well.
-
I totally agree with this part. I would welcome an application that solely tethers as well.
I've been claiming that for ages.
Agree 100%.
Strange that in the overall mess and useless applications the software industry provide us many time, there is not so far an independant solid application for tethering any camera. Let's say a kind of photoshop for tethered.(that would just do that), or a distracting erotic movie that shows up to the client when the application detects any slowness, so the distracted client won't notice the disaster )
-
USB and Macs never really got along oh so well in the first place.
-
USB and Macs never really got along oh so well in the first place.
Have you tethered thousands of captures with a updated mac, a canon and eos utility? Because I don't find USB to be anything other than stable and fast. Since Apple seems to be constantly limiting the amount of firewire ports on their computers, it seems that the days of firewire and apple are numbered, or at least limited.
Anyway;
Tethering can always be an issue.
I tethered Leaf to V-8. We learned it back to front (which was not easy) and it was bullet proof, though clunky, then V-10 came out with a lot of issues.
I moved to Phase solely to use C1 version 3 and except for the 400 images in a folder thing. no real issues ever with a p30, p30+, p21+ shooting many thousands of frames many pressured projects.
Once again we learned c-1 v3 front to back and I found it so reliable that nobody really had to man a tech station unless you needed to rename or review images with the client on the fly.
I routinely ran V3 to 24" I-macs connected to a 23" mac monitor. The client's saw the second monitor, the tech (if we used one) and I saw the I-mac.
Then V4 and well I lost interest with version 4 and moved to the 1ds3 and eos utility, running bridge in the background.
The only issue with usb and the macs was the usb was slow. Mac fixed that with a 10.5.8 update and I find eos utility very solid and secure and fast.
Recently we moved to V5.1.1 with the p30+ and the P21+ and it's back to never really knowing what's going to happen.
Since we're prepping for an upcoming project, yesterday we went through everything, on both capture machines, a new 2.8 ghz mackbook pro running 10.5.8. and our previous 2.5 ghz macbook pro running 10.5.8.
We took all the Contax bodies, lenses, finders, pocket wizards, everything that has an electrical connection and polished the contacts like a jewel thief prepping the Hope diamond for a quick sale.
This time got good results with the p21+, running either small IQ or Large IQ (almost identical speed), spotty results with the p30+. 10' cord, 30' cord we get the same results and yes we have both backs set to battery power and yes all batteries, camera and back are fully charged.
Just to make sure it was not the cords, the backs, the batteries, etc. we pulled out the two white 24" Imacs we use to use with v3.78 and the backs ran flawlessly with version 3. As good as eos utility and the 1ds3's which for capturing I find to be the gold standard.
Anyway, with the p21+ and version 5.1.1 we now have stable results, EXCEPT that it fires so fast that we are constantly 8 frames ahead of the previews and it's not like the previews keep popping up 8 frames back, they just sit there on one preview while the thumbnails load.
Stop shooting and the large preview finally goes to the last frame, but the 8 to 10 previous ones are bypassed, so you have to stop and scroll through them for client review. The p21+ shoots so fast, with 5.1.1 after the first frame, the client sees nothing until you stop and then it goes to the last frame.
Talk about a perplexed A.D.
The thing I don't get is this. We can go project to project, fly in late from LA to NY, set up, pre light, plug in a Canon to the powerbook and without touching, cleaning, massaging a thing it always works.
With the Phase backs and the contax, we have to take everything apart, clean all the contacts, tape in all the connectors, make sure the cables never get a twist pray that nothing glitches, UNLESS we decide to run version 3 on the Imacs then we're back to solid.
So my view is yes, we do need a simplified version for tethering. Actually we had that with c1 version 3, have that with EOS utility, but V4/5 is a much more complicated and different process.
Though I am loathe to purchase any new expensive cameras, I would love to see how Phocus and the HD40 performs in the scenarios that I work.
Not just IMO, just in my everyday use.
BC
P.S. One fashion A.D. I worked with knew C-1 v.3 as well if not better than any tech we've employed. She could sit down in front of the machine during a change of sessions, or a break, rename, organize, even check focus and have her selects moved to a folder so by the end of the day she had no editing to do. With V4/5 she just shakes her head, especially for renaming. For her we have moved back to the Imacs and V3, or shoot with the Canons and let her edit in bridge.
EDIT; On the top menu in the c1 browser their is a camera setting for viewing and you must drag down the menu for immediate preview. Then you get fast previews.
I stand corrected on this point. It's still a very heavy program.
-
I totally agree with this part. I would welcome an application that solely tethers as well.
Do you guys also want this application to show you 100% preview for focus check?
Do you want it to run on a 30" Eizo? Do you want the previews to look sharp and nice on that 30"
Do you want to adjust contrast? Saturation? WB?
-
Do you guys also want this application to show you 100% preview for focus check?
Do you want it to run on a 30" Eizo? Do you want the previews to look sharp and nice on that 30"
Do you want to adjust contrast? Saturation? WB?
What I want is to have stable capture.
For checking focus, renaming, Bridge works fine.
As far as setting a look, nothing is easier than the Canons. You can do it from the camera, do it from the software and lock it in.
If your working a very trick look, like really moving curves, or desaturating various colors to give a unique look, you can easily set up a hot folder to lightroom and every now and then let the client see the exact look.
That one is a no brainer, other than it does take someone to man the station and every now and then let a client see a result.
But for overall capture the main thing you want is a clear, clean, large preview (see eos utility) that comes up quickly, or at least quick enough to let the client see the session as it goes and you must have STABILITY.
Now I have limited experience with lc11 though I understand it does this well.
The only question I have with a leaf back is the firewire power consumption, since the leaf backs cannot be powered from the battery like a phase or a canon when tethering. I don't want to get into a situation where we have another set of chargers or some kind of powered firewire cord/repeater.
I have been told (so take this with a grain of salt) that if you are using a new powerbook and a leaf back you must power the firewire cord with a separate device. If this isn't so, I stand corrected.
BC
-
Have you tethered thousands of captures with a updated mac, a canon and eos utility? Because I don't find USB to be anything other than stable and fast.
I completely agree. I thought his statement was completely irresponsible. I see nothing but stability and speed.
-
Do you guys also want this application to show you 100% preview for focus check?
Do you want it to run on a 30" Eizo? Do you want the previews to look sharp and nice on that 30"
Do you want to adjust contrast? Saturation? WB?
Yair,
Yes, to all those things. I just want the RAWs to flow in, with nice tight Previews, and with WB/contrast/etc controls, but those would only overlay a Tag onto/into the RAW file.
The tagged RAWs would live in some kind of Capture Folder, with their Tweaks embedded or sidecar, but then, later, if you wanted to actually Process them into TIFFs, you would open the main application, ie Leaf 11 or Capture One 5.1.1 or Phocus 2.5.
The RAW development engine would be disabled, but you'd be able to have a tiny Focus 100% window.
Actually, I don't really WANT this mini-application, but it just seems that so many people are reporting bloated performance, especially with laptops, that using the main application is like trying to run a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine to power a V12 Hummer -- these Macs are simply underpowered. Phocus seems to be the very worst in this regard -- very sluggish, especially if you arent' running a hot-rod video card.
I would pattern this after how Canon approaches their software -- EOS Utility is used to capture and tether, but if you want to process a big fat TIFF, you've got to use DPP. But the key point is: They are two different stand-alone applications.
-
Yair,
Yes, to all those things. I just want the RAWs to flow in, with nice tight Previews, and with WB/contrast/etc controls, but those would only overlay a Tag onto/into the RAW file.
The tagged RAWs would live in some kind of Capture Folder, with their Tweaks embedded or sidecar, but then, later, if you wanted to actually Process them into TIFFs, you would open the main application, ie Leaf 11 or Capture One 5.1.1 or Phocus 2.5.
The RAW development engine would be disabled, but you'd be able to have a tiny Focus 100% window.
Actually, I don't really WANT this mini-application, but it just seems that so many people are reporting bloated performance, especially with laptops, that using the main application is like trying to run a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine to power a V12 Hummer -- these Macs are simply underpowered. Phocus seems to be the very worst in this regard -- very sluggish, especially if you arent' running a hot-rod video card.
I would pattern this after how Canon approaches their software -- EOS Utility is used to capture and tether, but if you want to process a big fat TIFF, you've got to use DPP. But the key point is: They are two different stand-alone applications.
I don't know if that should be able to acheive with servers via intranet.
2 units would be required, a main unit with the tethered stuff and the dedicated folder. When a pic is choosen to be process in tiff it is sent wireless o cabled in real time to a server on another computer where the AD or retoucher is taking place.
I don't know if it sounds logical or no technically.
-
Have you tethered thousands of captures with a updated mac, a canon and eos utility? Because I don't find USB to be anything other than stable and fast. Since Apple seems to be constantly limiting the amount of firewire ports on their computers, it seems that the days of firewire and apple are numbered, or at least limited.
No and absolutely no desire too either but that was not the point it was about Macs and USB which have nothing to do with any camera or software. It has been problematic for a long time. Glad it works for you and yes agree Firewire seems to be fading which is really strange and the plug for Firewire 800 is a poor design no question. Back to the cameras obviously software designed for the back or cam will most likely always be the most stable solution. C1 and canon sure it works but why would anyone be expecting miracles out of it. Phase to C1 it better damn work well all the time just like Hassy to Phocus. I have not experienced a slow down in this area or buffer wall and obviously that is something for Phase to look at with there backs and C1.
On a separate tethered program, I think it is a great idea but I would still like color editor involved in the program.
-
No and absolutely no desire too either but that was not the point it was about Macs and USB which have nothing to do with any camera or software. It has been problematic for a long time. Glad it works for you and yes agree Firewire seems to be fading which is really strange and the plug for Firewire 800 is a poor design no question. Back to the cameras obviously software designed for the back or cam will most likely always be the most stable solution. C1 and canon sure it works but why would anyone be expecting miracles out of it. Phase to C1 it better damn work well all the time just like Hassy to Phocus. I have not experienced a slow down in this area or buffer wall and obviously that is something for Phase to look at with there backs and C1.
On a separate tethered program, I think it is a great idea but I would still like color editor involved in the program.
I think Guy that an independant tethered software would be good to have. It would have the basics editions so no weight, then the big heavy artillery on another computer. My idea is to completely divide the speed and stability requirements and the real software unit.(heavier retouching, classification...)
That would also have the adventage to isolate a little more the photographer. Units could be placed relatively far.
-
No and absolutely no desire too either but that was not the point it was about Macs and USB which have nothing to do with any camera or software. It has been problematic for a long time. Glad it works for you and yes agree Firewire seems to be fading which is really strange and the plug for Firewire 800 is a poor design no question. Back to the cameras obviously software designed for the back or cam will most likely always be the most stable solution. C1 and canon sure it works but why would anyone be expecting miracles out of it. Phase to C1 it better damn work well all the time just like Hassy to Phocus. I have not experienced a slow down in this area or buffer wall and obviously that is something for Phase to look at with there backs and C1.
On a separate tethered program, I think it is a great idea but I would still like color editor involved in the program.
If your not tethering with a phase back how the heck do you read intricate lighting through the camera lcd and present the images to your clients?
No knock on you or Phase, but that lcd scares me, in fact it scares everyone unless you shoot with soft subdued lighting.
I'm not a fan of tethering, clients are to the point a non tethered or problematic tethered shoot can be a deal breaker.
BC
-
I am tethering the Phase to c1 back quite often actually just not a canon or Nikon, sorry if that was written wrong or misunderstood.
But if it is hot and heavy sometimes i will pull the cord and after things are set in stone on the set or it becomes a party going on to the side. At some point you just have to say screw everyone else and your just trying to work and i know you guy's run into a whole mess sometimes with a side party going on around you.
I know your as old school as me and come from no look see anyway and you go with your gut and what you know. At least we are past polaroids or worse nothing at all. Believe me i do remember the days when there was nothing but a meter on a set and it was ALL guess work.
-
Yair,
Yes, to all those things. I just want the RAWs to flow in, with nice tight Previews, and with WB/contrast/etc controls, but those would only overlay a Tag onto/into the RAW file.
The tagged RAWs would live in some kind of Capture Folder, with their Tweaks embedded or sidecar, but then, later, if you wanted to actually Process them into TIFFs, you would open the main application, ie Leaf 11 or Capture One 5.1.1 or Phocus 2.5.
The RAW development engine would be disabled, but you'd be able to have a tiny Focus 100% window.
Actually, I don't really WANT this mini-application, but it just seems that so many people are reporting bloated performance, especially with laptops, that using the main application is like trying to run a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine to power a V12 Hummer -- these Macs are simply underpowered. Phocus seems to be the very worst in this regard -- very sluggish, especially if you arent' running a hot-rod video card.
I would pattern this after how Canon approaches their software -- EOS Utility is used to capture and tether, but if you want to process a big fat TIFF, you've got to use DPP. But the key point is: They are two different stand-alone applications.
FWIW, we did a shoot 2 weeks ago in Wendlingen, Germany; Bikes n' babes type of shoot
We had a 15" MBP (2.33Ghz with 2GB RAM, about 2.5 yr old, quite clean) running LC11 on 10.5.8
Aptus-II 10 on a 645DF and Aptus-II 8 on 645AF, 10m Leaf FW800 cable, laptop plugged in (no repeater) and a 21" Quato monitor attached showing a full size preview
Shot about 650 frames overall in 5 hours so not massive volumes but there were many long bursts there.
We also had a Netgear router and the Leaf Remote server sending previews to a couple of iPhones
No real issues to report, no crashes, no freezes, no real slowdowns either.
Yair
-
No real issues to report, no crashes, no freezes, no real slowdowns either.
Yair
Leaf Capture used to be the kid in the schoolyard that everybody kicked around. Maybe now, with 11, they've leapfrogged even CaptureOne and Phocus. Congrats.
-
I don't know if that should be able to acheive with servers via intranet.
2 units would be required, a main unit with the tethered stuff and the dedicated folder. When a pic is choosen to be process in tiff it is sent wireless o cabled in real time to a server on another computer where the AD or retoucher is taking place.
I don't know if it sounds logical or no technically.
With all due respect, are you a photographer, working in situations like this?
Maybe it's a language thing. Maybe not.
-
Now I have limited experience with lc11 though I understand it does this well.
The only question I have with a leaf back is the firewire power consumption, since the leaf backs cannot be powered from the battery like a phase or a canon when tethering. I don't want to get into a situation where we have another set of chargers or some kind of powered firewire cord/repeater.
I have been told (so take this with a grain of salt) that if you are using a new powerbook and a leaf back you must power the firewire cord with a separate device. If this isn't so, I stand corrected.
BC
From my experience, LC 11 is rock solid, unlike LC 10 .
But I don't do much high-volume shooting, so take it fwiw.
It is very easy to work with, unlike C1 5.x ; not very much has changed since LC8 in terms of usability .
It's a bit like EOS utility, only less ugly and more intuitive .
The Leaf backs I used do indeed draw a lot of power when tethered, but always worked well on MacBook Pros without Firewire repeaters (powered or not) .
The MBPs have fairly low power output on the Firewire ports, but to my knowledge the latest models are considered a little more stable than they used to be, I never had issues with a straight Leaf DB-Mac connection.
Apple desktop models performe just fine with any configuration, to my knowledge .
USB - I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like Canon have a very well implented camera-computer 'file exchange technology' , for lack of a better term .
Usually, with continious large file transfer, USB gets bogged down very easily; I can only assume the in-camera processing is playing a big part here.
Well, that's why you bring those big spare batteries .
Doesn't really matter, as long as it works .
-
From my experience, LC 11 is rock solid, unlike LC 10 .
But I don't do much high-volume shooting, so take it fwiw.
It is very easy to work with, unlike C1 5.x ; not very much has changed since LC8 in terms of usability .
It's a bit like EOS utility, only less ugly and more intuitive .
The Leaf backs I used do indeed draw a lot of power when tethered, but always worked well on MacBook Pros without Firewire repeaters (powered or not) .
The MBPs have fairly low power output on the Firewire ports, but to my knowledge the latest models are considered a little more stable than they used to be, I never had issues with a straight Leaf DB-Mac connection.
Apple desktop models performe just fine with any configuration, to my knowledge .
USB - I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like Canon have a very well implented camera-computer 'file exchange technology' , for lack of a better term .
Usually, with continious large file transfer, USB gets bogged down very easily; I can only assume the in-camera processing is playing a big part here.
Well, that's why you bring those big spare batteries .
Doesn't really matter, as long as it works .
+1
we do a lot of high volume shootings with LC11, could happen more than 750 frames in one folder. We use a MacPro setup in studio or for location work a 2009 MBP unibody. Both systems are dedicated for shooting, are build in a case, have a small UPS, use a calibrated display and store the files on a mirrored volume. No issues ever, never polished any contacts, no pimped graphics card and the same fw cable for a long time - always sleep well the night before.
That´s probably why Yair used LC11 during that shoot in Germany.
Cheers, Ulf
-
know the topic has moved on somewhat but was using phocus today on a speced out macpro tower (h3d 39, 10gb ram + v good video card) and it was really poor - seemed worse than on m y 4gb ram macbookpro. i timed 7 seconds for the preview to rez at 100% and 2 minutes to process out one medium sized jpg (in fact it seemed to be the same time for a 16 bit tiff -everything except quick preview jpgs take 1 min 50 - i did a test). This is after rebooting and running disk permissions, cache cleaning etc. Maybe there is another issue but it was a real pain!
-
i timed 7 seconds for the preview to rez at 100% and 2 minutes to process out one medium sized jpg (in fact it seemed to be the same time for a 16 bit tiff -everything except quick preview jpgs take 1 min 50 - i did a test).
Wow. I really hope that that can't be normal. Or else, you just saved me twenty grand.
Please report back if something changes. Thanks.
SEVEN seconds...? Using a Tower...?
-
know the topic has moved on somewhat but was using phocus today on a speced out macpro tower (h3d 39, 10gb ram + v good video card) and it was really poor - seemed worse than on m y 4gb ram macbookpro. i timed 7 seconds for the preview to rez at 100% and 2 minutes to process out one medium sized jpg (in fact it seemed to be the same time for a 16 bit tiff -everything except quick preview jpgs take 1 min 50 - i did a test). This is after rebooting and running disk permissions, cache cleaning etc. Maybe there is another issue but it was a real pain!
Something wrong there, I just checked and process out a medium JPG from a 31 MP file and it took 8 seconds.. A 16 bit TIFF from the same file took 11 seconds. I'm guessing you have the moire filter turned on at 3 or more as that filter is very processor intensive (but works better than anything else I've used).
Nick-T
-
Something wrong there, I just checked and process out a medium JPG from a 31 MP file and it took 8 seconds.. A 16 bit TIFF from the same file took 11 seconds. I'm guessing you have the moire filter turned on at 3 or more as that filter is very processor intensive (but works better than anything else I've used).
Nick-T
And to clarify I went with medium JPG as that's what you had processed (albeit from a 39 and not a 31).
While I'm waving the flag I just about 325 fast previews for client selection measuring 1082 X 812 px in 46 seconds.
All this on a well specced tower (about 18 months old).
-
And to clarify
Tethered, how long from pressing the shutter to see full-rezzed-in Preview on a Macbook Pro Unibody?
-
How quickly for JPEGs via Lightroom?