Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: Doug Peterson on December 01, 2010, 01:56:42 pm
-
Ladies and Gentlemen I'm very excited to announce Capture One version 6 has been released today by Phase One.
Press Release (http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/12/01/capture-one-6-released/)
Buy Now - 10% discount for Capture Integration customers (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Opinion Piece: Thirteen Best Changes from Version 5 (http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/12/01/capture-one-6-ten-best-changes/)
Easy to Navigate Video Intro Tutorials List (http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/11/30/capture-one-6-tutorials/)
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Great News, but i've a question: i've purchase the upgrade from capture one to capture one pro in 29/09/2010, i do pay for the upgrade?
Regards
Antonio
-
Doug,
I found your "13 best changes" to be interesting, but I would like to hear about certain other performance issues, e.g. noise reduction. It is no secret that C1-5's NR was rather poor, especially when compared to the latest version of ACR. Can you tell us if NR in C1-6 has been significantly improved? It should have been a top priority. Also, what about the quality of raw conversions/demosaicization? C1 was already king of the hill, IMO, but have the wizards made it even better?
BTW, I am surprised that you did not include localized adjustments in your list, as this is something that Phase One is going to promote heavily.
Rob
-
Doug,
I found your "13 best changes" to be interesting, but I would like to hear about certain other performance issues, e.g. noise reduction. It is no secret that C1-5's NR was rather poor, especially when compared to the latest version of ACR. Can you tell us if NR in C1-6 has been significantly improved? It should have been a top priority. Also, what about the quality of raw conversions/demosaicization? C1 was already king of the hill, IMO, but have the wizards made it even better?
BTW, I am surprised that you did not include localized adjustments in your list, as this is something that Phase One is going to promote heavily.
Rob
Kind of a secret to me! I find the noise reduction to be excellent; though as pointed out elsewhere (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49229.0) the defaults for many cameras at high ISOs were not very good. If you change the defaults or create your own style (takes 1 minute up front) the noise reduction, in my opinion is best in class.
-
BTW, I am surprised that you did not include localized adjustments in your list, as this is something that Phase One is going to promote heavily.
Basically I ran out of time! :-) There are several other features, local adjustments being probably the most notable, that I wanted to write about. But then the press release went out so my deadline was up! It may soon become "the 16 best changes" :-).
-
"oh, by the way kids, meet your new step-mother"
???
-
"oh, by the way kids, meet your new step-mother"
???
I.......
don't get it.
-
Kind of a secret to me! I find the noise reduction to be excellent; though as pointed out elsewhere (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49229.0) the defaults for many cameras at high ISOs were not very good. If you change the defaults or create your own style (takes 1 minute up front) the noise reduction, in my opinion is best in class.
This is certainly not my experience. Even with careful adjustment of the luminance slider, it is common for C1 to smear detail as it reduces noise in high ISO images. For this reason, I find it best to set luminance NR to zero and do serious NR using Topaz DeNoise. ACR is far superior in this area, although I find its overall image rendering to be mediocre, at best. In any case, I gather that you have not looked closely at NR in C1-6, as it did not seem to you to be of concern. Understood.
I would really enjoy having first rate NR in the raw stage, so as to minimize the need for NR after conversion. Topaz DeNoise is superb, but it is a step that I would just as soon do without for all but the noisiest images.
Rob
-
Wow - local adjustments and printing - the two things I really wanted. Fantastic! The keystone adjustment and import of movies are a nice bonus, too.
Would love to hear more about the printing as compared to output from Lightroom...
-
Would love to hear more about the printing as compared to output from Lightroom...
here's an overview: http://help.phaseone.com/en/CO6/Output/Printing-photos.aspx
The screen preview is color managed (it doesn't provide the simulation of paper color though).
-
Kind of a secret to me! I find the noise reduction to be excellent; though as pointed out elsewhere (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49229.0) the defaults for many cameras at high ISOs were not very good. If you change the defaults or create your own style (takes 1 minute up front) the noise reduction, in my opinion is best in class.
will it be difficult for you, Doug, to share with the community what is the right set of NR parameters in C1 v6 from your personal, subjective point of view for this rather simple ISO6400 raw file from Canon 5DmkII : http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2hSLI06400.CR2.HTM
thank you ;)
-
One thing I missed in your points is the Capture Pilot.
Seeing images coming in on iPad and iPhone.
-
am i right in thinking this is not a free upgrade from 5?
EDIT: just seen the upgrade prices on the website. they seem good value ;D
-
will it be difficult for you, Doug, to share with the community what is the right set of NR parameters in C1 v6 from your personal, subjective point of view for this rather simple ISO6400 raw file from Canon 5DmkII : http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2hSLI06400.CR2.HTM
thank you ;)
Working on an article for next week on this topic.
With the right presets the noise reduction for such very hard files is very very good.
-
Working on an article for next week on this topic.
With the right presets the noise reduction for such very hard files is very very good.
I can't get the "grain" (when doing NR, not when trying to imitate some film of course) in C1 to be as "beautiful" as in LR when I deal w/ high ISO raw... to get a grainless high ISO image is not my target as the resulting visual smearing of the details will be too ugly (like Topaz Denoise does at some of its default presets, unless you will work its sliders manually)... so of course the look of the "grain" is subjective - but w/ ACR (LR) it is w/ quite uniform structure, unlike in C1... so I wonder whether it is my personal taste how it looks or I am missing something between 5 sliders (and sharpening sliders too) ?
here is what I like in ACR for example (not stating that this is the best of course) just to give an idea about (using the same publicly available ISO6400 raw file from imaging resources) :
direct link to full size screencopy = http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/861/acr1w.jpg
(http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/861/acr1w.jpg)
-
I can't get the "grain" (when doing NR, not when trying to imitate some film of course) in C1 to be as "beautiful" as in LR when I deal w/ high ISO raw... to get a grainless high ISO image is not my target as the resulting visual smearing of the details will be too ugly (like Topaz Denoise does at some of its default presets, unless you will work its sliders manually)... so of course the look of the "grain" is subjective - but w/ ACR (LR) it is w/ quite uniform structure, unlike in C1... so I wonder whether it is my personal taste how it looks or I am missing something between 5 sliders (and sharpening sliders too) ?
here is what I like in ACR for example (not stating that this is the best of course) just to give an idea about (using the same publicly available ISO6400 raw file from imaging resources)
In my limited experience using C1-6 on high ISO images and comparing it to ACR, I would agree that ACR gives a somewhat smoother appearing grain, but at the cost of greater image softening. One has to be very careful in C1 with the luminance and surface noise sliders to avoid blotchiness and horizontal striping, especially in black areas. Whether the end results are as good as those from ACR is a matter of personal preference, but C1-6 is now at least competitive in terms of NR.
Rob
-
In my limited experience using C1-6 on high ISO images and comparing it to ACR, I would agree that ACR gives a somewhat smoother appearing grain, but at the cost of greater image softening.
Rogbo2, show where is the softening exactly ?... for once - post a raw conversion parameters in C1 v6 that are in your personal subjective opinion will deliver for this specific raw file results better than ACR (LR)... because you posted a lot of posts recently here and @ P1 forums - but no images, no raw conversion parameters...
-
In my limited experience using C1-6 on high ISO images and comparing it to ACR, I would agree that ACR gives a somewhat smoother appearing grain, but at the cost of greater image softening.
Rogbo2, show where is the softening exactly ?... for once - post a raw conversion parameters in C1 v6 that are in your personal subjective opinion will deliver for this specific raw file results better than ACR (LR)... because you posted a lot of posts recently here and @ P1 forums - but no images, no raw conversion parameters...
deejjjaaaa, how did you miss the link that I posted in the Phase One Forum? It had nothing to do with NR but rather with a comparison of Capture One 6 and ACR in terms of IQ.
Here is a 100% crop of photo of a compact disk (Mahler's incredible 9th Symphony) taken with a Pentax K-7, ISO 3200, 31mm, f2.2. I have tried to equalize exposure and color balance as much as possible, but some differences persist. Beyond that, I applied no adjustments and no sharpening. Sorry for the sloppy cropping. I don't believe that the high baseline level of noise shows very well in these web jpegs. However, the difference in detail and sharpness in the two NR versions is apparent. Understand that this is my best attempt to apply NR using two different programs. Others with more skill may achieve superior results. Zoom your browser for best viewing.
The NR settings were: ACR--Luminance 25, Luminance Detail 50, Color 28, Color Detail 50
C1-6--Luminance 24, Color 62, Surface Noise 72.
-
Doug,
Can you shed any light on the viewer problem I have and others have with the image not showing full view?
This has been talked about on the Phase One forum but without any response?
The image is cropped at the bottom missing about 25 Percent and right justified on the screen this also causes the
adjustment tools (local adjustment etc) to only work on the left half of the image.
I have tried all the suggestions from the users on the forum but on go.
I have a windows 7 box i7 64 bit 12 gig ram.
Thanks,
Gene
-
I can't get the "grain" (when doing NR, not when trying to imitate some film of course) in C1 to be as "beautiful" as in LR when I deal w/ high ISO raw... to get a grainless high ISO image is not my target as the resulting visual smearing of the details will be too ugly (like Topaz Denoise does at some of its default presets, unless you will work its sliders manually)... so of course the look of the "grain" is subjective - but w/ ACR (LR) it is w/ quite uniform structure, unlike in C1... so I wonder whether it is my personal taste how it looks or I am missing something between 5 sliders (and sharpening sliders too) ?
here is what I like in ACR for example (not stating that this is the best of course) just to give an idea about (using the same publicly available ISO6400 raw file from imaging resources) :
direct link to full size screencopy = http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/861/acr1w.jpg
Tricky area! Both programs are very good and it's great that these are the options photographers have now (as opposed to e.g. LRv1 which was just very poor at very high ISO rendition).
The raw file "test shot" referenced in this thread is a bit contrived given that we're talking about very high ISO dSLR images. I prefer, whenever possible, real world images. VERY few ISO6400 shots are taken with scientifically perfect exposure in a studio with front studio daylite balanced strobe on a tripod. These shots in real world usage are almost always hand held, have areas of under and over exposure, are taken in mixed lighting environments and very often include skin tone.
So I wrote my article using an ISO6400 shot from the 5D Mark 2 I did in a bar with off camera flash, handheld with a Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens. The exposure is relatively accurate (given the guerilla nature of the shoot) but the hands are a bit over exposed. It's under mixed lighting and requires a good bit of highlight recovery; to me this represents a very real-world use of ISO6400 on a 5D Mark 2.
You can read my article, download the raw file (or the 100% JPGs), and see my settings (including a download for a "Capture One v6 style" for ISO6400) here:
Capture One 6 vs. Lightroom Noise Reduction (http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/12/03/noise-reduction-in-c1-6)
I consider myself an expert user of both programs, but certainly by main expertise and bias are towards Capture One (one reason why I included the raw file). So please feel free to download the raw and let me know what revisions you might have to the LightRoom processing. Bear in mind that all comparisons are flawed in that you have to either A) match settings as close as possible which may not be getting the most from either program or B) do your best in each program. We do our best to be fair while trying to be realistic as well, but have included the raw file in case you disagree with our choices.
I agree LightRoom's grain rendition is very pleasing, especially since it requires zero change to the defaults. However, the grain structure of Capture One is quite pleasing to me as well. They are like two different film emulsions and each will likely look better for different files/scenarios. However, other areas of image quality that this article highlight are:
- highlight recovery (especially as pertains to highlight color accuracy in skin tones)
- tonal gradations (look at the abrupt line of color change on the models lower cheek in LR vs. C1)
- shadow color accuracy (look at the false color introduced in many shadow areas on the model in LR)
- lens corrections (especially chromatic aberration and purple fringing which are very common in these types of shoots since they are often shot wide open on f/1.2-1.8 lenses)
To me this represents a much more real world evaluation of the noise reduction and overall image quality of each raw processor for very high ISO shooting.
If an expert Aperture user would like to download the raw, and run some settings in Aperture I'd be happy to post a followup on the article on our website, or you could post it here and I can link to your post.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
I love this stuff! So much fun to investigate and learn about. Our options today are so much better than they were 5 years ago.
-
Here is another example of NR comparing C1-6 and ACR. Again, the camera is a Pentax K-7, ISO 3200. My impression is that ACR produces finer, more even grain but with less detail and sharpness.
Rob
-
ACR has not less details than C1 and better NR ( http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9559&p=41952&hilit=deejjjaaaa#p41952 )
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4798/acrparameters.jpg)
full size = http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3961/rogboacr.png
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3961/rogboacr.png)
-
I prefer, whenever possible, real world images.
I see - you are smart to shot a test image @ f 1.2 to avoid any fine details and have a lot of OOF areas to save C1 ;D ... however we use high ISO also when we have lesser light because we need to have more DOF, so it will be nice to see another one shot @ f 5.6 for example ::)
my take @ your crop
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7543/ci5d26400.png
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7543/ci5d26400.png) (http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8183/dougacr1.jpg)
-
I can see the exact same demosaic "chequerboarding" in Doug's C1 conversion as I've been talking about on the Phase One forum - it's not pretty, and has no place in software positioning itself at the top of the IQ tree. The Lr conversions (and Rob's) simply don't show this, and are far better for it.
This artifact is visible to some extent at any ISO, incidentally.
I've also got a feeling that the extra detail Rob is seeing in his comparison is actually this harsh artifact, rather than sharpness per se: but I know from my own experience that it is counter-productive to fine detail (fine feather detail, for example) because it breaks that detail up, and because its removal takes too much NR. You can see something of this in the texture of the black phone cradle in Rob's examples.
Look at the flex in both images too - or at any edge, in fact. In the C1 image edges are routinely ragged, uneven and messy. Lr's demosaic and NR retain edges a lot better, which again has a direct relevance to fine detail and sharpness.
Remember too, that Lr's finer grain allows for more useful sharpening to be applied before demosaicing artifacts get exaggerated beyond acceptability - in Cap One that limit isn't at all hard to reach.
I've gone from being a huge advocate of Cap One - and strong critic of Adobe image quality on RAW conversion - to being completely convinced by Lr and deeply unimpressed by Cap One, simply on the basis of Adobe recognising the need to improve its demosaicing and NR: in making these changes it has easily overtaken Cap One in IQ and noise handling terms, and Cap One is now an also-ran which has gone backwards in real terms where IQ is concerned.
It's something when a free converter like Raw Therapee can produce significantly cleaner and more impressive conversions than Cap One: but RT's devs recognise the importance of improved demosaicing - Cap One's IQ is no better in v6 than it was in v4, and that's pretty shoddy for "the world's most advanced image processing engine".
-
Keith Reeder
Do you see this awful ugly artifacts on the print ever?
-
1) In common with most bird/wildlife photographers, both professional and enthusiast, much of my work does not routinely get printed (some do, but that's not the main outlet), but it's a nonsense to suggest that in this day and age print should be the only arbiter of acceptable image quality;
2) There's a lot of stuff in any image file that might not show in a print - but that doesn't make its presence acceptable;
3) As a matter of fact, yes I have seen evidence of this artifact in some prints I've made, especially when I've needed to crop (like a lot of bird photographers, I sometimes find myself focal length limited), and as I made clear in my earlier post, the artifact unquestionably impacts on fine detail and on the ability to sharpen an image.
-
When I print through capture one my print comes out somewhat desaturated even tho I select the correct paper profile. When I print the same file through Lightroom with the same profile selected it comes out correctly.
Anyone know what the issue could be with C1? Eleanor
-
I see - you are smart to shot a test image @ f 1.2 to avoid any fine details and have a lot of OOF areas to save C1 ;D ... however we use high ISO also when we have lesser light because we need to have more DOF, so it will be nice to see another one shot @ f 5.6 for example ::)
It wasn't so much "smart" as "relevant". When I looked through my catalog of personal images prior to writing the article I found that almost all of my ISO6400 frames were below f/2. That owes to my personal style of shooting and my personal needs. I'd be very happy to see you (or anyone else) write up an evaluation of C16, LR3.2, Aperture, Raw Developer (take your pick) with other images that better represent your needs. I may write another article on lower ISO performance but these articles take a lot of time to do correctly and I'm a bit swamped with requests for other articles (e.g. on best practices for the iPad app "Capture Pilot").
Thanks for posting your take on the crop.
I think the vibrance reduction surely helps with the overly saturated rendition of the skin tone; though the harsh highlight to shadow transition in the skin tone still shows a specific band where the saturation falls off - leading to a line on her cheek. I'm surprised (and glad to be informed) that it also has a positive effect on the chromatic aberration on the lines of paint. Elsewhere in the image it does take away somewhat from the red body paint which was selected by the body painter specifically for it's "pop" (aka high saturation).
-
I can see the exact same demosaic "chequerboarding" in Doug's C1 conversion as I've been talking about on the Phase One forum - it's not pretty, and has no place in software positioning itself at the top of the IQ tree. The Lr conversions (and Rob's) simply don't show this, and are far better for it.
This artifact is visible to some extent at any ISO, incidentally.
I've also got a feeling that the extra detail Rob is seeing in his comparison is actually this harsh artifact, rather than sharpness per se: but I know from my own experience that it is counter-productive to fine detail (fine feather detail, for example) because it breaks that detail up, and because its removal takes too much NR. You can see something of this in the texture of the black phone cradle in Rob's examples.
Look at the flex in both images too - or at any edge, in fact. In the C1 image edges are routinely ragged, uneven and messy. Lr's demosaic and NR retain edges a lot better, which again has a direct relevance to fine detail and sharpness.
The issue is pretty subjective and a lot of users feel the exact opposite as you (here, on other forums, and offline). While I'm surprised (after re-examining it) to hear you refer to the grain in Capture One is such strongly negative terms, but I can see where you'd prefer LightRooms' grain structure (even if I do not), and it's great that we have multiple raw developers that each might suit different user's tastes!
Elsewhere in this image the skintones, highlight/shadow color accuracy, color noise, fine detail, chromatic aberration, tonal transitions and overall "look" (indefinable but utterly important) are other topics for debate and are very important to deciding which developer works best for you. Not to mention that whole "workflow" thing.
Anyway the whole point is to debate it so I guess we'll agree to disagree!
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Well said Doug!
I've done comparison of my Leica shots for few months just to came to the conclusion that C1 is the better raw developer, me and the people who saw the developed versions from c1 and Lr3 (without knowing what is what) always choose the c1 version. Better colors, dynamic range, presence, details, 3d...
I also compared it to Aperture, RPP, Raw developer, Raw Therapee.
Also IMHO the best noise reduction and sharpening are from Topaz Denoise and Detail not LR.
Just for information...
-
ACR has not less details than C1 and better NR ( http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9559&p=41952&hilit=deejjjaaaa#p41952 )
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4798/acrparameters.jpg)
full size = http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3961/rogboacr.png
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3961/rogboacr.png)
It's still not as sharp or as detailed as the unsharpened C1-6 version, which you conveniently failed to sharpen for the sake of comparison.
Rob
-
This thread is similar to a Nikon v Canon debate. LR3 and C1 are both fine products. If you don't like one, try the other, after all, the cost isn't as punitive as switching from one camera brand to another.
-
Well said Doug!
I've done comparison of my Leica shots for few months just to came to the conclusion that C1 is the better raw developer, me and the people who saw the developed versions from c1 and Lr3 (without knowing what is what) always choose the c1 version. Better colors, dynamic range, presence, details, 3d...
I also compared it to Aperture, RPP, Raw developer, Raw Therapee.
Also IMHO the best noise reduction and sharpening are from Topaz Denoise and Detail not LR.
Just for information...
That's what most people say when they see ACR and C1 images side by side, and it isn't even a close call. C1 provides great presence, clarity, depth and pop, while ACR provides lots of dull, flat detail with a maddening pink color cast. One has to think that the demosaicising algorithms have something to do with it, so the folks at Phase One must be doing something right.
Still, Keith is troubled by certain microscopic artifacts that he believes affect some of his bird photos, and I think we must accept his judgement on this. They are, after all, his photos, and they have to meet his standards. My question to Keith is: How often do these artifacts visually impact your images at actual viewing size--rarely, occasionally or frequently? If rarely, then the problem is little more than a minor nuisance. If frequently, then you had better start using some other raw converter. I realize that you feel that Capture One let you down, but those are your choices.
Rob
-
That's what most people say when they see ACR and C1 images side by side, and it isn't even a close call. C1 provides great presence, clarity, depth and pop, while ACR provides lots of dull, flat detail with a maddening pink color cast. One has to think that the demosaicising algorithms have something to do with it, so the folks at Phase One must be doing something right.
Still, Keith is troubled by certain microscopic artifacts that he believes affect some of his bird photos, and I think we must accept his judgement on this. They are, after all, his photos, and they have to meet his standards. My question to Keith is: How often do these artifacts visually impact your images at actual viewing size--rarely, occasionally or frequently? If rarely, then the problem is little more than a minor nuisance. If frequently, then you had better start using some other raw converter. I realize that you feel that Capture One let you down, but those are your choices.
Rob
Yes true, also frequently I have to export a tiff to photoshop so i'll do the noise reduction there (or with some plugin) expecially if it's a troublesome high iso pic, so i don't place noise reduction tool so high in my raw developer features choice. Not to mention if i have to print.
-
Capture one seems to render my images purple-ish in colour. Pretty much every program (lightroom, aperture, dxo optics, PS) renders it correctly.
Any ideas why?
EDIT: more specifically - it renders the colour blue into purple
-
Capture one seems to render my images purple-ish in colour. Pretty much every program (lightroom, aperture, dxo optics, PS) renders it correctly.
Any ideas why?
EDIT: more specifically - it renders the colour blue into purple
You mean only C1's display is purple and the output correct? Or is the display purple and output is also purple? The first is probably a monitor profile issue, the second is possibly camera profile. Which camera is it?
I've had the opposite with certain camera profiles, some purples rendering too blue. But a different profile corrects it, or just adding some red to blue in the color editor.
-
Hey have not been in here for a long time..
Pulled out my P30 yesterday and when I tried to shoot tethered to capture 6.0.1 on a MacBook Pro running 10.6.5 kept getting a could not connect to camera error.....
Can anyone help me out here... read through the C-1 guide and tried about everything and just gave up and went back to the 5DII..
Have not been following MF in a while and not sure if there were any problems with tethering 6.0.1 and P30 with a firewire cable 400 to 800 which is the same I used to use with my MacPro in studio..
Thanks for any help
Snook
-
I bet you a dollar if you follow our Ideal Tethered Setup that it will work:
http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/09/09/the-ideal-tethered-setup/
My bet is your laptop isn't producing enough power over the firewire cable and you just need to switch to battery power [menu > configuration > power source] which takes 5 seconds.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Thanks Doug for the quick reply.. I did try that but is still gave me a camera cannot be connected error.. I will try tomorrow and restart computer with just a fresh battery in the Back...
Thanks and will let you know tomorrow..
Snook
-
Try a different cable, most connection problems are cable related.