Capture One 11 announced and available

[pemihan]

I have a never used v. 10 license. Does anyone know if that will be valid for v. 11?

[DP]

I have a never used v. 10 license. Does anyone know if that will be valid for v. 11?

it shall be very valid for the upgrade price 

[pemihan]

it shall be very valid for the upgrade price 

That I'm sure of 

[Alto]

Hi All


Finally have a working copy of CO11 but what a faf it should be be seamless for registered users.

Regards

Jon

[jonride]

The prices for the upgrades gone up, didn't they used to be lower?

Definitely seems significantly more expensive in the UK.  It's now more than the annual licence for Lightroom + PS.  Giving me second thoughts...

[Rado]

The subscription (which I use) price went up earlier this year too. So far I'm grandfathered with my original price so it doesn't bother me much, but if P1 wants to turn C1 into a more substantial revenue stream by itself they should start supporting the other micromedium format cameras like GFX50 or X1D as well.

That said, I haven't upgraded to v11 yet even though I can, the past few major releases have been plagued with GUI bugs (especially on Windows) in the beginning and I'm not willing to do QA for P1.

[Rhossydd]

but if P1 wants to turn C1 into a more substantial revenue stream by itself they should start supporting the other micromedium format cameras like GFX50 or X1D as well.

No significant revenue from targeting minority products. The gold is getting the dissatisfied mass market to move from LR.

[Mike Dale]

More a question for Dave Grover than anything.

When can we expect to see Lens Profiles for some of the more popular lenses such as the Nikon 300mm PF and the Sigma 135mm Art?

[jeremyrh]

Definitely seems significantly more expensive in the UK.  It's now more than the annual licence for Lightroom + PS.  Giving me second thoughts...

Likewise - maybe I will have to do what I did with PS and only upgrade alternate years.

[Rhossydd]

Definitely seems significantly more expensive in the UK.

Not once you use the discount code above, then it's roughly the same.
At least CO continues to have an upgrade policy enlightened enough to allow you to skip a version without a massive financial penalty.

[mediumcool]

I bought into the Capture One universe in 2010, and looked up my payment history earlier this morning. What I saw was not as expensive as I had dreaded:

Bought C1 Pro v5 SEPTEMBER 2010 €179
Upgraded to v6 FEBRUARY 2011 €69
Upgraded to v7 MARCH 2014 €45

Switched to subscription APRIL 2015 @ €8/month
Paid €96 total until 28.03.2016

Subscription increased to €12/month in April 2016
Paid two subscription fees total €24 until June 2016

Reverted to paid upgrade (v9) MAY 2016 €99

Upgrade to v10 paid (via Paypal) 23 February this year failed, and I was given a temporary number the next day, which lasted quite a long time! I have been getting by on v11 betas since. Or reverting to v9.

Now the upgrade to v11 is €119 = $186AU!

Total spent over seven years—if I include the not-yet-paid upgrade to v11: €631 = €90 per annum = $140.67AU/pa or $11.72AU per month.

Happy enough with that costing—I am officially retired, but still get paying work occasionally. If only I could get rid of my Adobe Photography plan!

[The View]

Thanks, that's the best C1 11 overview I've seen.

Have you noticed any improvements regarding the often poor quality of C1 previews?

Apparently, not all users seem up in arms about this issue but it has popped up multiple times (e.g., on the C1 forum as well) and any discerning user should take issue with the lack of micro-contrast at low magnification levels.

Working at 100% magnification (which would address the preview issue) is simply an unworkable proposition as many image adjustments require full view of the image for context. Using the "Proof" feature is a workaround but implies a very distracting "Proofing" label and makes editing too slow.

Independently of the fact that the previews are often unfit for editing, they shouldn't look so bad in the first place. With many shots, it looks like they should be discarded as being too blurry to be useful, but zooming in a couple of magnification steps (or using the "Proof" feature) reveals that they are perfectly sharp and only require adequate rendering at the viewing size when shown at "full size".

I believe the problem is the following: C1 generates a preview image at a user-specified size (-> Preferences | Image | Preview Image Size). This size is typically much larger than a typical rendering size which means that the image has to be downscaled. We are thus talking about a second-generation downscale (1. from original size to preview size, 2. from preview size to viewing size). C1 simply does not sufficiently counteract for the softness introduced by the second downscaling.

If one sets the preview size to 640, thus forcing C1 to custom-generate a preview for any viewing size that exceeds 640px, the generated preview is fine! I would live with the small delay this causes (although it would be much better if C1 simply stored additional previews for low viewing magnification levels) but when I edit images with this low preview size setting, the experience is very jarring, as C1 apparently uses the 640px preview image instead of the just-in-time custom-generated image for showing adjustments.

Long story, short: C1 10 has a preview quality issue that is the result of an engineering compromise. The fix is easy and could be made optional, i.e., not mandatory for those who do not want to pay the price in increased preview storage or slight re-rendering delays. If C11 does not address this issue, I most likely won't pay the increased upgrade price to get C11.

I set the preview size to the dimensions of my 27" screen and it is horrible and blurry. Does it really give you a good preview if you set the size to something as small as 640px? Logically one would expect a totally pixelated preview.

[The View]

In the review was no mention that the poor and unworkable database has been replaced with something that works as well as Lightroom's.

And has gotten a better search interface.

I see unnecessary features, but no fix to the core problems.

[Rhossydd]

I see unnecessary features, but no fix to the core problems.

They may be unnecessary to you, but the new features will please the existing user base. The 'problems' you see are a lack of a particular functionality that hasn't been a major concern.

Yes, I'd like to see the DAM features ramped up a lot, but we'll probably have to wait a year before the next upgrade before you might see anything significant.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I set the preview size to the dimensions of my 27" screen and it is horrible and blurry. Does it really give you a good preview if you set the size to something as small as 640px? Logically one would expect a totally pixelated preview.

I don't think so. Viewing at a larger size than the preview will trigger a re-rendering with the current settings, and is thus a bit slower.

Having said that, I'm still not convinced that your issue is not hardware related. On my Windows 10 system with Nvidia graphics processor, I see hardly any loss of sharpness (I've shown a comparison in another thread), beyond what can be expected from a downsampling without resharpening for micro-contrast.

Cheers,
Bart

[fdisilvestro]

In the review was no mention that the poor and unworkable database has been replaced with something that works as well as Lightroom's.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. The database in C1 V11 is the same sqlite database as in version 10 and before, with a few additional columns in some tables. No new or deleted tables.
And LR also uses sqlite. The difference is in the data model, which is completely different between LR and C1

[Rhossydd]

I'm not sure I understand this statement.

It's just a moan that CO still lacks severely in it's DAM capability.

Yes, the database is sqlite for both, but database format isn't really important. How you put the data into the images/library and how much flexibility there is in finding and sorting it is the real importance.

[The View]

I don't think so. Viewing at a larger size than the preview will trigger a re-rendering with the current settings, and is thus a bit slower.

Having said that, I'm still not convinced that your issue is not hardware related. On my Windows 10 system with Nvidia graphics processor, I see hardly any loss of sharpness (I've shown a comparison in another thread), beyond what can be expected from a downsampling without resharpening for micro-contrast.

Cheers,
Bart

It has nothing to do with hardware. It's a problem how previews are worked with. This problem is confirmed.

There are just different sensibilities. Differences that for some are unacceptable aren't even noticed by others.

Just take a look about those comparisons between medium format files and the high pixel Nikons. There are reviews that put images side by side and state that there's not much of a difference, even though you can see - even though the test images are very poor - that there are a lot of differences.

[The View]

They may be unnecessary to you, but the new features will please the existing user base. The 'problems' you see are a lack of a particular functionality that hasn't been a major concern.

Yes, I'd like to see the DAM features ramped up a lot, but we'll probably have to wait a year before the next upgrade before you might see anything significant.

This is why C1 has become a mass market software.

Features for the masses, and lacking in core functionality like DAM and preview quality. And the masses eat it up. So the company saves on expensive coding to fix those confirmed issues. Expensive because this goes to the core of the software.

Instead Phase One tacks on some features which is cheap to code and leaves the core problems untouched.

It' all marketing - they can call this version with more features a new full version instead of an incremental upgrade - which it truly is.

A preview that is not exactly what you get in the output file makes a software useless for finer work as you cannot see what you are doing. And you cannot edit in 100% view.

Why would I want features if I can't correctly see what I am doing as the preview is bad?

If you do not see the difference between absolutely necessary core functionality and tacked-on features you are joining the majority of software users.

Which is why Phase One and many other software companies do it. It's a quick buck strategy, and they get away with it.

[fdisilvestro]

The preview issue is really annoying. The worst part is that in some conditions it actually changes the color appearance at different sizes.

With respect to DAM, it is debatable if this should be a core functionality or not. I'm interested in the best raw converter instead of a good at everything, excel at nothing kind of tool.