Why are the previews of Capture One Pro of such low quality?

[Dinarius]

I've always had the same experience, but learned to live with it.

What I see in Photoshop is a tack sharp TIFF, with smooth tonal variation, and less contrast and saturation.

What I see in C1 is something softer, with more contrast and a little more saturation.

C1 is set to its Output Recipe (always Adobe RGB/16 bit TIFF) and Proofing is turned on.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about what one sees at 100%. Yes, what I see at 100% is identical in both C1 and CS6.

But, when I'm editing, I want to view the overall image most of the time, to get a "feel" for what's happening as I edit. I don't want to be making global adjustments at 100%.

And, for whatever reason, I'm not seeing that in C1 when viewing the full image (as opposed to viewing at 100%)

This problem is quite evident when viewing my 5D Mark IV files, and extremely so when viewing my Sony RX100 files. The Sony files are transformed after saving and opening in CS6.

In C1, Edit/Preferences/Image is set to the default 2560. Colour is Perceptual. Open CL is set to Auto and being used by C1.

I would love someone to tell me that I have screwed up a setting, and my issue can be solved. 

Thanks.

D.

[Jimmy D Uptain]

I've always had the same experience, but learned to live with it.

What I see in Photoshop is a tack sharp TIFF, with smooth tonal variation, and less contrast and saturation.

What I see in C1 is something softer, with more contrast and a little more saturation.

C1 is set to its Output Recipe (always Adobe RGB/16 bit TIFF) and Proofing is turned on.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about what one sees at 100%. Yes, what I see at 100% is identical in both C1 and CS6.

But, when I'm editing, I want to view the overall image most of the time, to get a "feel" for what's happening as I edit. I don't want to be making global adjustments at 100%.

And, for whatever reason, I'm not seeing that in C1 when viewing the full image (as opposed to viewing at 100%)

This problem is quite evident when viewing my 5D Mark IV files, and extremely so when viewing my Sony RX100 files. The Sony files are transformed after saving and opening in CS6.

In C1, Edit/Preferences/Image is set to the default 2560. Colour is Perceptual. Open CL is set to Auto and being used by C1.

I would love someone to tell me that I have screwed up a setting, and my issue can be solved. 

Thanks.

D.

Yup, I came back from a road trip with a few pics. I was disgusted how soft the photos looked. I was shooting a D800E with a 24mm PC lens. I figured I screwed up somewhere.

However, when viewing them on anything but "fit to screen" they looked super sharp. Like you, I edit (at least globally) at less than 100%. This issue makes that all but impossible.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have difficulty understanding what some are saying that they observe.

An example of two screenshots, one from C1 and one from the TIFF conversion in PS, might be helpful for a meaningful discussion.

I've tried viewing an existing TIFF in both C1 and PS at a fit screen zoom-level, and they looked almost identical (except for minor resampling quality differences). In C1 I had to turn off all my default style changes, in Contrast, Saturation, Clarity, Sharpening, etc.

The general lack of differences that I observed, suggests that it is probably not the resampling that produces the effects (e.g. blur, contrast) mentioned by others. If true, then that would leave the generation of the preview image when viewed at a reduced (fit screen) size. If that's the case, then perhaps the generation of a larger (than fit screen) size previews might help? It would slow down imports and use more space to store previews.

It's all a bit hard to say something meaningful about it without actual comparison examples of (C1 preview versus PS display of the resulting TiFF, both at roughly 'fit screen' resolutions) screen shots which demonstrate the observations. It could also be something else, like Retina display settings, who knows?

Cheers,
Bart

[David Grover / Capture One]

I have difficulty understanding what some are saying that they observe.

An example of two screenshots, one from C1 and one from the TIFF conversion in PS, might be helpful for a meaningful discussion.

I've tried viewing an existing TIFF in both C1 and PS at a fit screen zoom-level, and they looked almost identical (except for minor resampling quality differences). In C1 I had to turn off all my default style changes, in Contrast, Saturation, Clarity, Sharpening, etc.

The general lack of differences that I observed, suggests that it is probably not the resampling that produces the effects (e.g. blur, contrast) mentioned by others. If true, then that would leave the generation of the preview image when viewed at a reduced (fit screen) size. If that's the case, then perhaps the generation of a larger (than fit screen) size previews might help? It would slow down imports and use more space to store previews.

It's all a bit hard to say something meaningful about it without actual comparison examples of (C1 preview versus PS display of the resulting TiFF, both at roughly 'fit screen' resolutions) screen shots which demonstrate the observations. It could also be something else, like Retina display settings, who knows?

Cheers,
Bart

Me too Bart.  It would be good to see a shot showing the issue.

There should be no reason why you couldn't adjust comfortably at fit screen.  But for any task that involves sharpening / structure, there is no way other that to view at 100%.  Capture One is not unique in this regard!  Or use the excellent proofing feature.

[Dinarius]

With a file open to "fit in screen" in C1, save it as a TIFF and open it in Photoshop (in my case CS6).

Now toggle between the two.

Are you saying that you don't see a difference?

I'm Windows 10 Pro x64, and unless there's some setting in either program (C1 / CS6) that I should be changing, I do see a difference - as I outlined above.

Thanks.

D.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

With a file open to "fit in screen" in C1, save it as a TIFF and open it in Photoshop (in my case CS6).

Now toggle between the two.

Are you saying that you don't see a difference?

I'm Windows 10 Pro x64, and unless there's some setting in either program (C1 / CS6) that I should be changing, I do see a difference - as I outlined above.

Hi,

What I see is a very slight difference, due to different resampling methods (and slightly different zoom ratios due to workspace layout) and a different CMS. What I do not see is blurry images, or very different contrast, or much changed colors, that would qualify as low quality. As said, they are not 100% identical (C1 is slightly darker, or PS slightly lighter) but very close, despite obviously different technologies being used. If I would not have labeled them, you would most likely not be able to tell which one is from what application.

That's why I asked for an example from those who do see issues, in order to ferret out whether it might be caused by certain settings (e.g. wrong settings in the export recipe or the display settings).

Anyway, I've spent some time and produced the attached side-by-side screenshot comparison, which looks quite similar (not optimal due to conversion from display profile to sRGB), and without output sharpening or the other refinements in Photoshop that I normally would do. But for sharpening itself, one must use 100% zoom (or larger) anyway, so this is just for getting an overview of the image.

So, slightly different yes, low quality no.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The image size is set to 2560 pixels - which is the resolution of my 27" monitor.

But compared do DPP, sharpness and detail is much reduced. I have experimented to set it to an even higher pixel size, but this did not bring any advantage.

DPP uses better/additional processing for downsampled / fit to screen previews. So it's not that C1 is particularly fuzzy, it's that DPP is particularly sharp. I assume that C1 just downsamples (like LR does), without compensation for the resampling. Resampling by definition softens the image (depending on the filter used), otherwise the images would be riddled by aliasing artifacts. Photoshop's downsampling is somewhat crude (quick and dirty). Adding additional sharpening for display, would add processing time.

In theory, C1 could add that as an option, just for downsampled display, or for previews.

I've experimented with such post-resampling sharpening in the Resampling script based on ImageMagick that I developed in cooperation with Nicolas Robidoux here. My addition resulted in an adaptive deconvolution filter (a Difference of Gaussians filter) that would be used for a deconvolution which could easily be optimized to run faster if encoded in a lower level programming language.

Could it be that DPP has a very high contrast setting out of the box? The preview images is just so much crisper while the C1 preview is "soggy" and "softish", inviting the use of contrast and detail sliders.

As mentioned before, especially sharpening should only be done at 100% zoom (or larger for detail inspection). Capture One Professional nowadays has excellent sharpening Proofing for that purpose. Contrast is hard to nail at reduced sizes, because that involves eye adaptation that subtends a small angle of 1 degree, and a phenomenon which is also known as simultaneous contrast. A slightly sharper fit to screen preview only solves a very small portion of that issue.

PS: hardware acceleration (us open CL) is set to "never" for both display and processing. It was a recommended setting a while ago. Is this still the best setting? I'm on a 2012 retina MacBook Pro with 16GB ram.

That is only necessary if hardware acceleration causes errors. I have it on auto, without issues.

Cheers,
Bart

[Paul2660]

The only issue I have ever noticed with C1 previews, when view at normal size is that if you have pushed the shadows considerably, say 2.5 stops (which is possible with some Phase backs and other DSLRs), the preview does not show the correctly unless you zoom to 100%, it's almost as if a compression on dynamic range is taking place.  It's actually both on color and dynamic range.  Colors will appear more saturated at least that is what I see. 

I have opened several tickets with P1 myself and through my dealer in the US and P1 agreed it's an issue, and agreed the problem exists, but no idea if and when they will fix it. 

This is not the case unless you really push up the shadows.  The view at 100% is the way C1 will actually export the file.  And you can see this if you choose to "edit in" photoshop as C1 will export the image to CC and the view there agrees with the view at 100%. 

Using a NEC 30" monitor with spectraview, windows 10 and Mac, both OS show the same issue.

Once you are aware of it, it's easy enough to work with at least for me.

Paul Caldwell

[IanSeward]

Hi,

What I see is a very slight difference, due to different resampling methods (and slightly different zoom ratios due to workspace layout) and a different CMS. What I do not see is blurry images, or very different contrast, or much changed colors, that would qualify as low quality. As said, they are not 100% identical (C1 is slightly darker, or PS slightly lighter) but very close, despite obviously different technologies being used. If I would not have labeled them, you would most likely not be able to tell which one is from what application.

That's why I asked for an example from those who do see issues, in order to ferret out whether it might be caused by certain settings (e.g. wrong settings in the export recipe or the display settings).

Anyway, I've spent some time and produced the attached side-by-side screenshot comparison, which looks quite similar (not optimal due to conversion from display profile to sRGB), and without output sharpening or the other refinements in Photoshop that I normally would do. But for sharpening itself, one must use 100% zoom (or larger) anyway, so this is just for getting an overview of the image.

So, slightly different yes, low quality no.

Cheers,
Bart

I have done a quick test with C1 and CS6 and find the same as Bart.

The obvious, but the OP does have output sharpening off in C1 when he exports a photo?

Ian

[The View]

DPP uses better/additional processing for downsampled / fit to screen previews. So it's not that C1 is particularly fuzzy, it's that DPP is particularly sharp. I assume that C1 just downsamples (like LR does), without compensation for the resampling. Resampling by definition softens the image (depending on the filter used), otherwise the images would be riddled by aliasing artifacts. Photoshop's downsampling is somewhat crude (quick and dirty). Adding additional sharpening for display, would add processing time.

In theory, C1 could add that as an option, just for downsampled display, or for previews.

I've experimented with such post-resampling sharpening in the Resampling script based on ImageMagick that I developed in cooperation with Nicolas Robidoux here. My addition resulted in an adaptive deconvolution filter (a Difference of Gaussians filter) that would be used for a deconvolution which could easily be optimized to run faster if encoded in a lower level programming language.

As mentioned before, especially sharpening should only be done at 100% zoom (or larger for detail inspection). Capture One Professional nowadays has excellent sharpening Proofing for that purpose. Contrast is hard to nail at reduced sizes, because that involves eye adaptation that subtends a small angle of 1 degree, and a phenomenon which is also known as simultaneous contrast. A slightly sharper fit to screen preview only solves a very small portion of that issue.

That is only necessary if hardware acceleration causes errors. I have it on auto, without issues.

Cheers,
Bart

The comparison I am using is what I get when I output an image.

And the output I get from C1 - either to Tiff and to open in Photoshop, or directly to jpeg for first stage proofs - the output is very different from what I see in a preview. Contrast and general appearance are so obviously different that I am astonished that this hasn't been noticed more.

DPP is very sharp in the preview, but so is the output.

The foundation of all digital image editing is that what you see is what you get. And the output of C1 is several degrees better than the poor preview. The difference is so striking that I simply can't rely on the preview and I use only minimal adjustment in C1 because of this.

Sure, I could zoom in 100% - but edits need to be done seeing the whole image to really see what one is doing. Peeking at a crop won't do it.

There is an absolute need to work on this - all those extra features and editing features cannot be used with a specific outcome in mind because the full view is so off.

You remember, Photoshop had this problem, too in earlier versions like CS3. You could get a really blurry picture with percentages that were off the 25% 50% 100% sequence, and 50% used to be better than 25%. Now you can get a good representation of the image at almost any percentage. Photoshop's display/preview coding has gotten extremely good.

Wouldn't be achieving such a reliable preview a great goal for C1 11?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The comparison I am using is what I get when I output an image.

And the output I get from C1 - either to Tiff and to open in Photoshop, or directly to jpeg for first stage proofs - the output is very different from what I see in a preview. Contrast and general appearance are so obviously different that I am astonished that this hasn't been noticed more.

Maybe because others do not see such 'very different' results? Hard to say without an example from what you see. The differences that I experience are rather small.

DPP is very sharp in the preview, but so is the output.

Indeed, but they use additional processing. I remember that the earlier versions had an option that the user could turn on to get a higher quality display. I assume that the current version has that switched on by default, and it no longer offers such an option. They probably assumed that faster hardware made it less of an issue to do the extra processing with a reasonable time delay.

The foundation of all digital image editing is that what you see is what you get. And the output of C1 is several degrees better than the poor preview. The difference is so striking that I simply can't rely on the preview and I use only minimal adjustment in C1 because of this.

Sure, I could zoom in 100% - but edits need to be done seeing the whole image to really see what one is doing. Peeking at a crop won't do it.

There is an absolute need to work on this - all those extra features and editing features cannot be used with a specific outcome in mind because the full view is so off.

You remember, Photoshop had this problem, too in earlier versions like CS3. You could get a really blurry picture with percentages that were off the 25% 50% 100% sequence, and 50% used to be better than 25%. Now you can get a good representation of the image at almost any percentage. Photoshop's display/preview coding has gotten extremely good.

Wouldn't be achieving such a reliable preview a great goal for C1 11?

I wouldn't object if they offered an option for sharpened zoomed-out display. A very simple deconvolution on down-sampled images is not too complicated IMHO, but it is an additional step that would slow down image display as images and display resolutions grow larger and larger as technology progresses.

Cheers,
Bart

[The View]

Maybe because others do not see such 'very different' results? Hard to say without an example from what you see. The differences that I experience are rather small.

Indeed, but they use additional processing. I remember that the earlier versions had an option that the user could turn on to get a higher quality display. I assume that the current version has that switched on by default, and it no longer offers such an option. They probably assumed that faster hardware made it less of an issue to do the extra processing with a reasonable time delay.

I wouldn't object if they offered an option for sharpened zoomed-out display. A very simple deconvolution on down-sampled images is not too complicated IMHO, but it is an additional step that would slow down image display as images and display resolutions grow larger and larger as technology progresses.

Cheers,
Bart

So it it's not that hard to do... I don't think it will slow down the computer much. Sure, in Photoshop you have only one or few images open, and in C1 people want to go through images fast.

So, an option like in the old DPP to turn off that extra processing for browsing, and turn it on for image processing, where it is important.

I'd love to see a preview quality that matches the current Photoshop CC's - which is top of the line.

And, again, for me the differences of the preview of C1 and the output are dramatic for me, in both contrast and detail, and it changes the mood of an image considerably. (The more people work on very sharpened images and hard contrast like in commercial looks, the less you'll see it, but the more you go after mood and light characteristics, the more dramatic the difference is. It leads, in my opinion, to oversharpening and to applying way too much contrast, and, as a consequence, doing major damage to images)

This one extra processing that brings output and preview together, and that can be turned off for quick browsing (a la photomechanic) - THAT, Phase One, would be an important improvement!

[TeeKay]

There should be no reason why you couldn't adjust comfortably at fit screen.  ... Or use the excellent proofing feature.

There are a number of reasons why the standard "fit screen" rendering of C1 is suboptimal.

• It is too soft. This makes it hard to ascertain whether a shot is usable or not without zooming in and out all the time. Not everyone likes to use the focus mask feature. The general softness of the image also makes it impossible to enjoy ones images while browsing through them. It does not make sense to be forced to either zoom in at least a couple of steps or use the proof feature in order to get a crisp rendering.
• Noise can look vastly different.
• Probably, due to the change in noise rendering characteristics, colour tints can be introduced in the previews that are neither visible when zooming in, nor in the exported images. Its been a while since I worked with images of this kind, so perhaps the latter issue has been addressed in the meantime.

I realise that downscaling comes with its challenges and that of course noise looks different when downsampling a large image. I am familiar with the notion of noise levels being dependent on spatial resolution. I understand why a normalized 8MP image can have a higher dynamic range then a 24MP original (-> DxOMark).

However, it is also clear that the fuzziness of C1 previews are not owed to insurmountable downscaling problems. The proof that useful renderings at the "fit size" are possible are

• the exported images at such (low) resolutions.
• the rendering when the "proof" option is turned on.
• the rendering when one sets the preview size in the settings such that one forces C1 to always generate the preview afresh.

It seems that C1 -- if a preview image of sufficient size is available (has been cached) -- uses that preview source to downsize it to the "fit size". This process yields a different result compared to when C1 renders the image at the "fit size" directly from the RAW data. In my view, that is the problem with C1's previews which clearly could (and should) be more useable, obviating the need to have the proofing option turned on with the distracting "Proofing" label in one's sight.

I believe the preview rendering got better in V10 (compared to V9) but it is still not as good as it should be, AFAIC. Activating the "proof" option is a workaround, but I don't like to see the distracting "proof" label all the time and it also should not be necessary to regenerate from the RAW data all the time. All it would take to show crisp previews very quickly is to store more cached versions (at various sizes) or a better downsizing from a larger preview. For the downsizing, the user could be asked which sharpness parameters to apply (or parameters adapted from those in the proofing options could be used).

It clearly it is not a solution to zoom in at 100%, or even just a couple of steps (the latter often being enough to force a proper generation which results in a crisper rendering).

I understand that the preview has to be a trade-off between accuracy and something that can be produced/shown quickly, and I can accept that as an explanation. Explanations alluding to downsampling challenges in principle are, in my view, not acceptable for the aforementioned reasons.

[DanFreck]

I've just joined LL just because I have this same issue. It's extremely frustrating, and
everything is exactly like what 'The View' is saying. Pictures in Capture One preview look like, well, crap.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so

The first one is a screenshot of me working in capture one; it also shows the preview size (and yes, I've regenerated the preview many times).

http://scenicdesktops.com/test/Capture1preview.png

The other picture is the output at 2160 x 1440.

http://scenicdesktops.com/test/Output.png

Look at the difference between them. It's obvious. I'm a stubborn man, but this is honestly ticking me off. Can anyone help with this?

[TeeKay]

A picture is worth a thousand words, so

Yep, your images show the difference between a typical mushy C1 preview at fit size (a couple of magnification steps in, this problem disappears) and a correctly rendered output.

Am I assuming correctly that your output is not the result of using a recipe that includes output sharpening? If extra output sharpening is applied then this obviously explains the crisper rendering. From my experience, however, even with no additional output sharpening added, exported files look better than the standard C1 Viewer previews.

I encourage you to create a support case with Phase One. You should attach your evidence and/or point to this thread. I had created a support case a while ago and I think after a while my issues were appreciated, however, I have the feeling that the programmers are still struggling to find the right compromise between rendering quality and rendering speed.

Perhaps it is also a matter of only certain cameras / image sizes being affected?
I see others post about this issue here and there but there does not seem to be a real revolt of the masses going on.

Anyhow, the more people create a respective support case, the more Phase One will know that this is an issue that bothers more than a couple of users.

AFAIC, there is an easy (albeit potentially more storage-intensive) solution which just creates previews with the best possible quality at the fit size and caches them. Then these could be quickly displayed without requiring expensive re-renderings. I'd be fine with any delay when I start to zoom in (even if it is just a modest zoom step in). However, flicking through images at the fit size should be quick but without implying a rather mushy rendering.

If there is a price (in the form of rendering delay) to pay, it should be when I want to look really close. Currently, workarounds force me to pay a price when I'm just browsing or doing overall adjustments (that do not require 100% views and cannot be done at 100% views either).

Can anyone help with this?

Try setting the preview image size to the lowest size possible value (640). This may seem counterintuitive but it will force C1 to regenerate a quality rendering instead of showing you the mushy standard preview (which is probably downscaled from the higher-res, but not original preview data). I'm currently away from my C1 installation so I cannot double-check this approach but I'm pretty sure it helped me in the past (with V9). The downside to this approach is that you'll see the really low-res (640px wide) previews before they get replaced and that there is always a delay caused by the need to go back to the RAW (or already demosaiced?) data and compute the view on the fly.

N.B., you may have to force regeneration of previews and/or restart C1 to see a change to the preview image size have an effect. It is otherwise possible that you'll be served still existing renderings for a while.

The other solution is to simply pick a suitable proof profile and use the "Recipe Proofing" option (-> glasses symbol in the tool bar). The downsides of this approach are the distracting "Proofing" label in the Viewer area and, again, the delay caused by on-the-fly rendering of the proof view.

[The View]

There are a number of reasons why the standard "fit screen" rendering of C1 is suboptimal.

• It is too soft. This makes it hard to ascertain whether a shot is usable or not without zooming in and out all the time. Not everyone likes to use the focus mask feature. The general softness of the image also makes it impossible to enjoy ones images while browsing through them. It does not make sense to be forced to either zoom in at least a couple of steps or use the proof feature in order to get a crisp rendering.
• Noise can look vastly different.
• Probably, due to the change in noise rendering characteristics, colour tints can be introduced in the previews that are neither visible when zooming in, nor in the exported images. Its been a while since I worked with images of this kind, so perhaps the latter issue has been addressed in the meantime.

I realise that downscaling comes with its challenges and that of course noise looks different when downsampling a large image. I am familiar with the notion of noise levels being dependent on spatial resolution. I understand why a normalized 8MP image can have a higher dynamic range then a 24MP original (-> DxOMark).

However, it is also clear that the fuzziness of C1 previews are not owed to insurmountable downscaling problems. The proof that useful renderings at the "fit size" are possible are

• the exported images at such (low) resolutions.
• the rendering when the "proof" option is turned on.
• the rendering when one sets the preview size in the settings such that one forces C1 to always generate the preview afresh.

It seems that C1 -- if a preview image of sufficient size is available (has been cached) -- uses that preview source to downsize it to the "fit size". This process yields a different result compared to when C1 renders the image at the "fit size" directly from the RAW data. In my view, that is the problem with C1's previews which clearly could (and should) be more useable, obviating the need to have the proofing option turned on with the distracting "Proofing" label in one's sight.

I believe the preview rendering got better in V10 (compared to V9) but it is still not as good as it should be, AFAIC. Activating the "proof" option is a workaround, but I don't like to see the distracting "proof" label all the time and it also should not be necessary to regenerate from the RAW data all the time. All it would take to show crisp previews very quickly is to store more cached versions (at various sizes) or a better downsizing from a larger preview. For the downsizing, the user could be asked which sharpness parameters to apply (or parameters adapted from those in the proofing options could be used).

It clearly it is not a solution to zoom in at 100%, or even just a couple of steps (the latter often being enough to force a proper generation which results in a crisper rendering).

I understand that the preview has to be a trade-off between accuracy and something that can be produced/shown quickly, and I can accept that as an explanation. Explanations alluding to downsampling challenges in principle are, in my view, not acceptable for the aforementioned reasons.

Yes, this issue needs to be taken care of.

C1 is so many versions in and still has this core and crippling problem.

It is also true that you can't really look at your pictures, as C1 presents them in that horrible blurry and low-quality, hazy preview.

Speed is not everything. What advantage do I have from speed if the quality is terribly low?

And when editing, you are flying bling because C1 is NOT what you see is what you get. On the contrary. And going 100% in is not an option as sharpness and contrast have to be considered when looking at the whole image. Going in close is pixel-peeper habit, but it's not the way of the photographer.

C1 / Phase One have to stand up to their claim to bring highest quality. This has to included the preview.

C11 has to bring major improvements on this - give us a break with features-overload, Phase One, but fix this core issue!

[DanFreck]

Thank you for the vindication guys. This really is a "core and crippling problem".

I've been discussing this over at the phase one user forums. I ended up refining my examples down to the bone, to remove any comparison issues, and make everything equal. Here's what I put there:

I made a preview without any adjustments. This way any edits I made play no role whatsoever. Took a screenshot, again from within Capture One:
http://scenicdesktops.com/test/CapturePreview.png

Then, I took that screenshot, of exactly what's on my screen, and cropped out just the preview part. It ends up being 1927 x 1286:
http://scenicdesktops.com/test/CapturePreviewCropped.png

Then, in capture one, I exported the image at this same resolution, 1927 x 1286. That way the output matches the exact dimensions of what I see, on screen, in capture one.
http://scenicdesktops.com/test/CaptureOutput.png

Now compare those last 2 links. No difference in resolution, no adjustments, just pure comparable quality differences between two 1927 x 1286 pictures, generated by capture one in different situations.

There's an obvious difference between what you see in capture one, and the image itself being worked on, which could undeniable look better (as the output demonstrates quite clearly). Look at the trees, mountains, and logs at the bottom right. The same program produces a mushy, cruddy looking picture at 1927 x 1286 in-program, while at the same time producing a better, higher quality picture at the same resolution of 1927 x 1286 when exported.

I will try and create a support case with Phase One. I'm moving away from Aperture, since it's been unsupported for a while now, and my desktop PC is faster and easier to edit with anyway. I expected this program to be better, and gave it the benefit of the doubt at first. Now I'm turned off, because this non-destructive raw program can't seem to even make decent in-program images to work with. This is face-on obvious stuff, which I noticed right away the first time I used capture one.  How are people not up in arms about this? How old is this program?

[The View]

Thank you for the vindication guys. This really is a "core and crippling problem".

I've been discussing this over at the phase one user forums. I ended up refining my examples down to the bone, to remove any comparison issues, and make everything equal. Here's what I put there:

I made a preview without any adjustments. This way any edits I made play no role whatsoever. Took a screenshot, again from within Capture One:
http://scenicdesktops.com/test/CapturePreview.png

Then, I took that screenshot, of exactly what's on my screen, and cropped out just the preview part. It ends up being 1927 x 1286:
http://scenicdesktops.com/test/CapturePreviewCropped.png

Then, in capture one, I exported the image at this same resolution, 1927 x 1286. That way the output matches the exact dimensions of what I see, on screen, in capture one.
http://scenicdesktops.com/test/CaptureOutput.png

Now compare those last 2 links. No difference in resolution, no adjustments, just pure comparable quality differences between two 1927 x 1286 pictures, generated by capture one in different situations.

There's an obvious difference between what you see in capture one, and the image itself being worked on, which could undeniable look better (as the output demonstrates quite clearly). Look at the trees, mountains, and logs at the bottom right. The same program produces a mushy, cruddy looking picture at 1927 x 1286 in-program, while at the same time producing a better, higher quality picture at the same resolution of 1927 x 1286 when exported.

I will try and create a support case with Phase One. I'm moving away from Aperture, since it's been unsupported for a while now, and my desktop PC is faster and easier to edit with anyway. I expected this program to be better, and gave it the benefit of the doubt at first. Now I'm turned off, because this non-destructive raw program can't seem to even make decent in-program images to work with. This is face-on obvious stuff, which I noticed right away the first time I used capture one.  How are people not up in arms about this? How old is this program?

I also have experimented with preview dimensions, and it has no effect to have a higher resolution.

The problem is that the preview window has old and outdated code and is not up to snuff with modern solutions like in Photoshop CC.

Phase One needs to address this - stop filling up the software with easy to code gadgets and features, but give us important core performance.

1. great image processing (this C1 does extremely well)

2. Great preview so you see what you are doing when you adjust images (here C1 truly fails - which is why I only give very basic and minimal adjustments to images in C1 - since I started to avoid adjustments in C1 it has helped my work a lot. The unusable preview destroys images.

3. Image organization - here is C1 behind Adobe as well. the catalog is close to unusable. Keywording is slow and unreliable and a hassle to do. Adobe Lightroom is ten times better here.

I can deal with a bad catalog - but the low quality and incorrect image preview must be fixed.

[myotis]

Tom Fitzgerald has just published a suggested workaround for this

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2017/9/capture-ones-preview-problem-and-how-to-get-around-it

Don't have time to try it right now, and it may well be something already suggested, but just in case it helps anyone.

Graham

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Tom Fitzgerald has just published a suggested workaround for this

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2017/9/capture-ones-preview-problem-and-how-to-get-around-it

Yes, an export recipe with fixed width or height for Proofing will somewhat work, but it combines the Sharpening settings at full size with the Output Sharpening settings for display (if any are set). That's also not the same as proper downsampling + rescale-sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart