Capture One Pro 10 Launched!

[Paul2660]

Note that Phase One added more Leaf/IQ100 profiles.   

I don't think they were in the final version of 9.

Paul Caldwell

[N80]

C1 10 is much slower that 9.3 on my system (MacPro D700 12-core, 64gb ram), going from image to image.

There is a noticeable delay between pressing the arrow key and advancing to the next image. C1 9.3 instantly advances to the next image, and then takes an instant to render. C1 10 won't advance instantly, but doesn't have the render lag after the image appears.
I prefer the former, as it is easier to edit this way. And the delay between pressing the arrow key is frustrating.

Hopefully this gets fixed!

It is not slower on my 2016 27" iMac, and it may be a tiny bit faster but not much if any. I did notice what you are seeing about advancing through images and while I hate to be cynical, my first thought was that this was just a gimmick to make it seem faster.

I upgraded on the prospect of more speed. I'm usually not an immediate upgrader, so shame on me this time as I just don't see it.

I am looking forward to the various sharpening features.

jwsti, not sure which Mac you are using but at this point I would not upgrade solely on the prospect of improved performance.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

C1 10 is much slower that 9.3 on my system (MacPro D700 12-core, 64gb ram), going from image to image.

There is a noticeable delay between pressing the arrow key and advancing to the next image. C1 9.3 instantly advances to the next image, and then takes an instant to render. C1 10 won't advance instantly, but doesn't have the render lag after the image appears.
I prefer the former, as it is easier to edit this way. And the delay between pressing the arrow key is frustrating.

Hopefully this gets fixed!

Hi Gregory,

The experience may be a bit different for different users, depending on their specific hardware and display resolution. Also make sure that, when comparing, you have the same settings activated between versions, like the generated preview image size, and proofing. Capture One is great at presenting you with proofed image quality, and now with version 10 that optionally even includes the various sharpening options.

Cheers,
Bart

[sankos]

I can't see it being that hard, Iridient developer has had support for months now.  That's a one man show, so I give him a lot of credit.  And his conversion is very good.

What the RT team are working on is the pixel-shift with motion correction, and that seems to be much more of a challenge than the regular pixel-shift. Does Iridient correct motion ghosting? (I can't try Iridient as I'm on Windows).

[Paul2660]

What the RT team are working on is the pixel-shift with motion correction, and that seems to be much more of a challenge than the regular pixel-shift. Does Iridient correct motion ghosting? (I can't try Iridient as I'm on Windows).

Yes it seems to handle both. However pixel shift with motion correction is a bit of a misnomer.  Even the Horrible code zpentax gives with the camera can't do much with it in my experience. The only software I have found that can make something out of it is the Silky Pix Developer Studio. They do I very good job on slight wind movement however they have a terrible tool set compared to C1 and for what ever reason they won't support pixel shift on the Mac. They also have ZERO customer support.

It would be great if C1 would reach out to photographers like myself who have used the feature and could work with them. It's unfortunate the Pentax does not have the foresight to work closer with Phase as Sony did.  Also if C1 just gave the conversion Adobe offers that would be great. LR conversion is fine until movement is involved (wind). With all the improvements to sharpening C1 added with VR 10 being able to use them on pixel shifted images would be a huge advantage.

Paul Caldwell

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What the RT team are working on is the pixel-shift with motion correction, and that seems to be much more of a challenge than the regular pixel-shift. Does Iridient correct motion ghosting? (I can't try Iridient as I'm on Windows).

Yes, not addressing motion artifacts would be relatively simpler, but also a poor solution for the intended market segment. The more complicated approach is much preferred. Even then, it will probably only be applicable to one type of Raw file (unless programmed with foresight). A more flexible approach would allow to accommodate full and half pixel shifts and a combination of both. That, in combination with color-balancing of the CFA transmissions and pixel non-uniformity calibration, maybe even across the image circle, gets pretty involved very quickly, just to serve a small part of the potential market.

It would be wonderful if it got implemented, but R&D money needs to be spent wisely.

Cheers,
Bart

[Paul2660]

One other thing to note as a user of this camera, the K1, I would not get so hung  up on motion correction as the actual camera can't do very much with motion.  If you take a shot with the K1 in pixel shift and can see motion artifacts on the camera LCD on prevuew kids are these will not be correctable about 50 percent of the time. In fact I have quit using the MC option for pixel shift as it takes even longer to record and have limited if any effect. Net if things are moving don't use pixel shift as the current state of the tech can't accomidate much. Is it more forgiving than Hasselblad multi shot? Yes but not by much. More needs to done to the tech for both hand holding and for much more motion than a slight breeze.

Paul Caldwell

[alain]

speed:
While brushing in local adjustments it still seems the CPU that's the most limiting factor. 
My CPU 2500K goes close to 100% and the (older) GPU stays at about 25% or less.

[E.J. Peiker]

I have now done well over 100 raw conversions with v. 10 and have not had a single one of the previously very common RAW conversion failures that plagued the previous version.  Sometimes it would take two or three tries before a specific file would convert.  This seems to be completely resolved finally!

[Chris Livsey]

I agree, all processes run smoother and the program feels more responsive with less lag.
The proof view is a great help for output but my first conversion was nothing like the screen, my recipe had lost its associated ICC profile and was set at embedded camera. All others were still as before so it must have been my error.

[Rory]

I have tried Capture One several times but never been sufficiently inspired to move from lightroom although I am constantly tempted by repeated statements from photographers I respect that the image quality is the best.  I have wondered about the program stability and how well the catalog part works.  In this thread I read about how Capture now has a proper sharpening process and will reliably convert raw files the first time.  To me these are pretty basic requirements for a top-of-the-shelf raw converter.

My question is does Capture have any other shortfalls still?

[Jimmy D Uptain]

I have tried Capture One several times but never been sufficiently inspired to move from lightroom although I am constantly tempted by repeated statements from photographers I respect that the image quality is the best.  I have wondered about the program stability and how well the catalog part works.  In this thread I read about how Capture now has a proper sharpening process and will reliably convert raw files the first time.  To me these are pretty basic requirements for a top-of-the-shelf raw converter.

My question is does Capture have any other shortfalls still?

From what I have been reading and my own experience, the catalog is still lacking in speed. It seems that if you stay at or under 10,000 images per catalog things run much better.

[Chris Livsey]

My experience is of using sessions exclusively never catalog, as a disclosure.

[sjprg]

I have just completed Version 10 processing about 2000 landscape images from 2002 through 2016 and finally a processor that does what is expected with the camera raws. For years I suspected that the software was not capable of really doin what the camera was capable of, and kept upgrading the cameras and software in a search for a decent landscape image. My images from 2002 with a Minolta Xg while not having the MP count. look as good on an HD monitor as my 5DS R and Sony A7RII. The difference still shows on a 4K monitor though.
KUDOS to PhaseOne.
Paul

[Dave Rosser]

From what I have been reading and my own experience, the catalog is still lacking in speed. It seems that if you stay at or under 10,000 images per catalog things run much better.

For me the problem is the long start up time for a large catalogue. My 31000 image catalogue takes nearly six and a half minutes to load before I can start working with it.  Once loaded though searches etc. etc. are almost instantaneous.  The other thing I have noticed is that CO 10 uses a lot of memory on my Windows 10 machine - I have seen over 10GB, not a problem for me as I have 32 GB but must be a problem for some.

[Doug Peterson]

I have just completed Version 10 processing about 2000 landscape images from 2002 through 2016 and finally a processor that does what is expected with the camera raws. For years I suspected that the software was not capable of really doin what the camera was capable of, and kept upgrading the cameras and software in a search for a decent landscape image. My images from 2002 with a Minolta Xg while not having the MP count. look as good on an HD monitor as my 5DS R and Sony A7RII. The difference still shows on a 4K monitor though.
KUDOS to PhaseOne.
Paul

Great to hear! Now just imagine the results you'd get if you used Capture One with the hardware that Phase One designs . For every hour they spend making Canon/Sony/Nikon look good they spend ten hours to make their own cameras sing.

[sankos]

For every hour they spend making Canon/Sony/Nikon look good they spend ten hours to make their own cameras sing.

Interesting. Is that the official pecking order and can Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and Ricoh users (who pay as much for the software as others) hope for an equal treatment? (I mean comparable with Canon/Sony/Nikon)

[sjprg]

I imagine that I have spent probably 20 to 30 thousand over the years on camera equipment and software, but spread out over the years it was affordable. At the going price of PhaseOne equipment in any one of those years it was impossible to afford their products unless you were established in a major market or were a very well to do person. Hobbyists were excluded by price and location. I have used Photoshop since the beginning and kept expecting them to finally get there deconvolution process working, but no joy there. I did use some of the astronomy programs for a few years which were far in advance of anything else available at the time. So once again Kudos to PhaseOne for V10. FINALLY!
Paul

[douglevy]

One thing I can't seem to find - what cameras are supported with the new focus feature? Just the XF and Sonys?

[E.J. Peiker]

One thing I can't seem to find - what cameras are supported with the new focus feature? Just the XF and Sonys?

Yes, and the reason it doesn't work with the others, according to a Phase One webinar on the feature is because they do not have the hooks in their firmware to allow that operation.  It isn't for a lack of wanting to have that feature on Canon and Nikon, it's that they deemed it not possible.