Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Capture One versus Lightroom  (Read 12538 times)

Lundberg02

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2015, 11:22:45 pm »

Two or three years ago when I was looking at processors because I had just bought a Fuji camera, I bought the C1 Express 7 and tried the DxO. I hated the forced catalogging of C1. At that time one of the two didn't do DNG and the other didn't do Pro Photo. I have never bothered with either of them since. Iridient is my processor and Photoshop is my print interface to Epson. Iridient handles Fuji RAW like it was native and does geometry to boot. Photoshop loves Epson.  I have Lr but i'm too lazy to catalog even though I have 20 gB of images, really should get around to it.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8847
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2015, 03:41:48 am »

From your history with the program, would you see these improvements as part of the v9.X series, or as part of a future v10?

Hard to say, Bob. As we've seen in the past, it's not beyond Phase One to add or improve functionality during the update cycles of a version. But some of the things I'm hoping for would potentially (if fully implemented) require a significant recoding of some procedures, so that would be more in line with a new version. Partial implementation could be done faster, but they can not spread their resources too thin over too many branches of code, and I do not know what they are currently working on.

However, (preview of) sharpening after rescaling (linked to output recipe and from the print module) should not be postponed too long, it's really strange to not have it, and it might be relatively manageable to create, IMHO. A future new sharpening algorithm can then utilize that already present preview functionality.

BTW, AFAIK also Lightroom doesn't offer a real preview of the sharpening on output, just a choice of a few levels which have then to be judged on the real output, and compared with other iterative output attempts. So yet another opportunity for both companies to take a lead.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2015, 03:47:47 am »

Richard - Capture One doesn't force you to use the catalog option only offers it up as an option. You're perfectly welcome to use sessions. It's Lightroom that forces a catalog. C1 doesn't like dng files very much but will save into any ICC defined profile space you might want - as long as it's in your system. I have and use Iridient and have run into Brian in Monterey a few times, and as nice as his program is, it's still agonizingly slow when you have to run through, say, a couple thousand images, like I did last week. And, for some reason, the Iridient profile for the Canon 5DS is leaving a lot to be desired, with C1 providing the best conversions that I've yet seen on that camera. But you have to use what's best for you and your equipment and the way you shoot.
Logged

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 543
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #43 on: December 23, 2015, 07:12:43 am »

BTW, AFAIK also Lightroom doesn't offer a real preview of the sharpening on output, just a choice of a few levels which have then to be judged on the real output, and compared with other iterative output attempts. So yet another opportunity for both companies to take a lead.

I don't know that print sharpening even can be previewed on screen - the resolutions of the two devices being so very different. PK Sharpener uses an algorithm for print sharpening that is supposed to be "scientifically" correct based on the physical nature of different papers, inks, and the human eye at different feature sizes.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8847
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2015, 09:54:37 am »

I don't know that print sharpening even can be previewed on screen - the resolutions of the two devices being so very different. PK Sharpener uses an algorithm for print sharpening that is supposed to be "scientifically" correct based on the physical nature of different papers, inks, and the human eye at different feature sizes.

I've heard that argument before, and IMHO it's only partly valid. It's probably also why some applications do not bother to give a useful preview.

However, it is quite well possible to get a good impression about the amount of sharpening needed visually, when the resampling can generate a properly scaled preview, and that scaling is now available. I can go into much more detail (about artifact free resampling, viewing distances, medium surface diffusion, etc.), but that's perhaps going to take too much focus away from the general discussion at hand.

Suffice it to say, if we are going to down-sample the very finest (1 pixel) detail in our image by, say, a factor of 8, then we can't see it anymore if that pixel becomes significantly smaller than one output pixel. However, the 8 pixel large detail in the original image may become very high resolution 1 pixel detail in the output, so we need to sharpen with something like an 8x larger radius (if that is a meaningful parameter) if we can only view our original size. That's much harder to mentally envision than something that's properly dimensioned and only will vary a bit due to ink diffusion in the medium. That latter difference is quickly learned in practice, and is basically the only thing Lightroom (and probably Capture One as well) does.

I've also dealt with significantly upscaled output, and different things play a role there (including lack of resolution for reading distance viewing). But there are solutions that differ depending on the sharpening that's available.

Finally, there are sometimes innovations that go unnoticed for large groups of people. One example is the (also used for Smart Output) sharpening technique using so-called "Deep Focus Sharpening" that Mike Chaney developed for his Qimage Ultimate software. That is a completely Halo free output sharpening algorithm he developed, and it works great.

While I do not necessarily agree with the artistic choice of radius shown in this video, it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm (without the need for halo masks or such), and it works very well for printed output.

The premise is simple, if no artifacts are created in the image, then no artifacts will show in the output, WYSIWYG. It basically just becomes a matter of amount if the radius is adapted to the output size and viewing distance.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 543
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #45 on: December 23, 2015, 10:14:01 am »

While I do not necessarily agree with the artistic choice of radius shown in this video, it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm (without the need for halo masks or such), and it works very well for printed output.

The premise is simple, if no artifacts are created in the image, then no artifacts will show in the output, WYSIWYG. It basically just becomes a matter of amount if the radius is adapted to the output size and viewing distance.

That's a pretty convincing video. I wonder if it's all "free?" Are there downsides to that algorithm that the presenter didn't show?

If there's not, he needs to be licensing that algorithm to all comers for a very profitable price. And I assume if it's applicable to output sharpening, it would be equally good at capture and creative sharpening?
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8847
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2015, 10:30:29 am »

That's a pretty convincing video. I wonder if it's all "free?"

Well, free in the sense that he thought of it first, so it's copyrighted, but I don't think it is patented or such.

Quote
Are there downsides to that algorithm that the presenter didn't show?

No, I've not experienced anything negative, and it's not particularly slow either.

Quote
If there's not, he needs to be licensing that algorithm to all comers for a very profitable price.

Guess it depends on the terms. I know he once turned down Microsoft who were interested in some of his resampling and other findings, so it's not like money alone will do the trick. Qimage is his baby, so he'd need some real convincing to turn over part of his inventions.

Quote
And I assume if it's applicable to output sharpening, it would be equally good at capture and creative sharpening?

Not quite. Capture sharpening can actually restore a lot of seemingly lost resolution. We can actually increase resolution. His algorithm doesn't, but it does help restore edge contrast (without halos) which helps a lot perceptually. So it is typically used with (large) output, where enlarging will not add resolution.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

James R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2015, 12:18:08 pm »

Too bad it isn't Mac-able. 
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8847
Re: Capture One versus Lightroom
« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2015, 12:27:35 pm »

Too bad it isn't Mac-able.

Well, it doesn't run natively on Mac OS, but seems to do fine under Parallels and similar emulators.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up