The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Capture One 10 released

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I tested 50 Raws from my Sony in version 9 full res. Took 3:38

Same Raws in version 10 1:33 or something like that I posted the results in software section

Any over twice as fast. When I'm cranking out 15 thousand Raws next month. I'll be screaming for joy. I actually may find time in 4 days of heavy shooting and processing to sit down to a meal.

Thanks phase this is the best news I got all year
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
That was reality 1. Here is reality 2 . I just bought a new 2016 MBP maxed out at a cost of 3500 with business discount . Now in Capture one 9 to even close to these new speeds in 10 I would have to buy a MAC Pro maxed out at maybe 8 thousand dollars. Now do the math and tell me the speed did not help me save money.

I have been fighting this battle a long time with processing speed on gigs like this. I'm in heaven
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I stand by my observation that Phase One is running a bottomless upgrade money pit. This is spare change but the back upgrade prices are criminal
Interesting.

Is there another brand of camera that you've found that provides you a better trade-in value on the previous generation?

AFAIK Phase One consistently has offered the highest trade-in value of any camera maker. Most don't even have trade-in programs, leaving you to sell the older model on eBay with the hassle/risk/time that entails.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Out of curiosity I tried out the 'Diffraction' sharpening and certainly there is some improvement but I would never in my wildest dreams shoot any of my Schneider Digitar lenses at f22. This is not criticism of the software - there's only so much that can be done with something shot at f22.
If you're expecting a miracle then diffraction sharpening won't give it to you.

Going from f/8 to f/22 costs you detail. Diffraction sharpening won't get all of that detail back for you, but it does get some, and at no additional cost (other than processing time).

So it sounds like you won't suddenly start using your lenses at f/22. That makes sense to me. Still this might mean that you're comfortable shooting at f/14 where previously you wouldn't have gone past f/11 (or whatever the specific numbers are in your case).

In other words, it's free DOF when you need it. Not a ton; can't beat physics – but you can cheat it slightly.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I'm assuming there's a DB version digital back owners can download for free?
As a reminder:

Capture One, for use with Team Phase One raw files, was, is, and always will be 100% free.

It is only the Pro version that also supports 3rd party raws that ever costs anyone any money.
 

ejpeiker

Member
I stand by my observation that Phase One is running a bottomless upgrade money pit. This is spare change but the back upgrade prices are criminal
It's optional, nobody says you have to buy it. It isn't against your will and therefore isn't criminal.
 

ejpeiker

Member
I'm assuming there's a DB version digital back owners can download for free?

The speed increases tempt me the most and I'd pay to get that alone!

And no improvements to the image processing and NR pipeline for CCD backs?
You just download and install the full version and then when you first launch it you select the DB version. It works for Mamyia/Leaf and Phase One backs with all features enabled. Any other type of RAW file will have all of the tools grayed out. There is no cost for this option.

There is a bug in V10 where it will tell you you are running in Sony Express mode when running in DB mode but that's just an error on the license screen, not an actual functionality bug. (On Windows, haven't verified that the same bug exists on Mac)
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Below is a link with some further details and some examples that illustrate some of the improvements.

https://captureintegration.com/capture-one-10/


And the overview:

https://captureintegration.com/introducing-capture-one-pro-10/



Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve..... I have never responded to one of your posts but this is the exception. There is no way in this world that an f16 image (shot with Rody/Schneider) will be equal to the same image shot at f8 with ANY software correction from anyone.
Come on Steve.... this is just BS! I certainly expect more from you.....
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Steve..... I have never responded to one of your posts but this is the exception. There is no way in this world that an f16 image (shot with Rody/Schneider) will be equal to the same image shot at f8 with ANY software correction from anyone.
Come on Steve.... this is just BS! I certainly expect more from you.....

Victor, I went back into the blog post and could not find anywhere that a statement was made saying that f/16 would be the equal of f/8. Then when I clicked on the comparison image, I found an alternative caption field with the statement: "f/16 now with the sharpness of f/8", though I couldn't see where this showed in the header. I didn't write this. I believe it was a rough working caption from the author that was not meant to be final or literal. However, I only saw that it didn't have a displayed caption and wondered why my final version caption I had written earlier (which was: "From left to right, F/8, F/16, F16 with Diffraction Sharpening") did not appear.

So what we have is a misunderstanding based on something I didn't write and actually tried to modify because I felt similarly to you that the f/16 equal to f/8 statement was too simplistic and not necessarily factual. But I did want viewers to look at the sample and judge for themselves. My revised caption was supposed to only explain the differences in the 3 captures. I just would have appreciated if you had approached a disagreement with what you felt was being said with more restraint.

Wth that being said, I don't have a lot of identified f/16 images, but the few I've looked at and compared to the same shot at f/8 look very close to the f/8 capture, perhaps even better (without adding any additional sharpening). Of course, applying additional unique sharpening to each could potentially produce a result where the f/8 capture retains a sharpness edge.

In any event, the Diffraction Sharpening works amazingly well and allows for f/16 image capture, IMO. I haven't tested results at f/22, but as has been previously mentioned, that may be pushing it a bit far.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 
Last edited:

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I just re-read Steve's links. The first link refers to an improvement in diffraction-softened images. I find this to be eminently true. The other link ("corrects lost sharpness") implies it cures the problem, which is a bit of an ambitious statement!

But I really can't call it BS....This feature is very useful.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I just want to know when can I get a hold of one of the Capture One Logic keyboards!

Heck the Tangent Workstations look intriguing. Just what I n.... ok, let's cut to the chase, want/lust over. (And don't need at all). :chug:
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
I just re-read Steve's links. The first link refers to an improvement in diffraction-softened images. I find this to be eminently true. The other link ("corrects lost sharpness") implies it cures the problem, which is a bit of an ambitious statement!

But I really can't call it BS....This feature is very useful.

Thanks for your comments, Bill. Please note on the second link that this is a reproduction of the Phase One announcement. In that link, "corrects lost sharpness" is Phase One's wording.

The first link is our proprietary editorial quick take.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 
The annual upgrade fleecing continues
Well said! I watched all their new videos last night in the hopes that something "significant" (to my workflow) would be included...dud.

It is clear to me that the "Improvements Road Map" is aimed at the beauty/fashion/studio commercial photographer crowd. I have sent "suggestions" in the past that I think would be helpful for us landscape photographers, but the responses are akin to "Thanks, we value user impute...blah, blah, blah...".

There are two items I would like, that PS has, that would better my work flow; 1) stitching, and 2) focus stacking. Oh well, while I am dreaming, how about luminosity masking?
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Victor, I went back into the blog post and could not find anywhere that a statement was made saying that f/16 would be the equal of f/8. Then when I clicked on the comparison image, I found an alternative caption field with the statement: "f/16 now with the sharpness of f/8", though I couldn't see where this showed in the header. I didn't write this. I believe it was a rough working caption from the author that was not meant to be final or literal. However, I only saw that it didn't have a displayed caption and wondered why my final version caption I had written earlier (which was: "From left to right, F/8, F/16, F16 with Diffraction Sharpening") did not appear.

So what we have is a misunderstanding based on something I didn't write and actually tried to modify because I felt similarly to you that the f/16 equal to f/8 statement was too simplistic and not necessarily factual. But I did want viewers to look at the sample and judge for themselves. My revised caption was supposed to only explain the differences in the 3 captures. I just would have appreciated if you had approached a disagreement with what you felt was being said with more restraint.

Wth that being said, I don't have a lot of identified f/16 images, but the few I've looked at and compared to the same shot at f/8 look very close to the f/8 capture, perhaps even better (without adding any additional sharpening). Of course, applying additional unique sharpening to each could potentially produce a result where the f/8 capture retains a sharpness edge.

In any event, the Diffraction Sharpening works amazingly well and allows for f/16 image capture, IMO. I haven't tested results at f/22, but as has been previously mentioned, that may be pushing it a bit far.


Steve Hendrix/CI
It does look as though we agree to some extent regarding this so called feature. Its one thing to 'Puff' and another to make outlandish claims which aren't true. Its impossible, at least at this point in time, to recover detail that is lost due to diffraction. The only accomplishment is the sharpening of a 'dulled' image and not the addition/creation of any detail. Nuff said...... I've always appreciated your postings.... Keep up the good work..

Victor
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Its impossible, at least at this point in time, to recover detail that is lost due to diffraction. The only accomplishment is the sharpening of a 'dulled' image and not the addition/creation of any detail.
Actually, that's the cool thing about deconvolution sharpening. It is, in fact, recovering detail lost to diffraction – it just can't recover all of it.

This is different than traditional sharpening methods like Unsharp Mask which can only add additional contrast to the detail that is already there.

It should not be thought of as a miracle worker. It won't make f/64 look like f/8. But it can scratch back a moderate amount of the actual detail lost and modestly extend the aperture range you are comfortable with.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
It is clear to me that the "Improvements Road Map" is aimed at the beauty/fashion/studio commercial photographer crowd. I have sent "suggestions" in the past that I think would be helpful for us landscape photographers, but the responses are akin to "Thanks, we value user impute...blah, blah, blah...".

There are two items I would like, that PS has, that would better my work flow; 1) stitching, and 2) focus stacking. Oh well, while I am dreaming, how about luminosity masking?
James,

I'm sorry you feel left out, but, in fact many of the improvements made in the last 18 months have been with landscape photography in mind. It might help to read my post here first about the type of development model Phase One is using now. You shouldn't expect X.0 releases to have a dozen new features, and, in my opinion that's a very good thing.

But in the last 18 months:
Batch Create Masked Layer from Selection is hugely helpful for masking blues or greens in a landscape; especially helpful when dealing with prior-to-stitched panos
Diffraction sharpening: HUGE in landscape where you are frequently up against the diffraction wall to get sweeping depth of field.
1-click Eizo Calibration: Most landscape photographers I work with care massively about nuanced color but don't work in a large studio where someone else handles all the color management. Having simple calibration with Eizo (arguably the leader in this space) makes their life easier.
LCC improvements for 100mp: Pretty much only applies to landscape and architecture shooters and extends the usability of the image circle a couple mm (a big deal given it doesn't require buying new lenses to accomplish).
Improved Color Editor: Probably the single most powerful tool for a landscape photographer. Great for helping to even out a sky or create a more uniform look of green or blue across several images.
Masking Improvements: Self explanatory. Working with masks is just as common in landscape, especially for those diving deep into the color editor.
Luminance Curves: It was one of the largest complaints I received from landscape shooters; with standard RGB curves any change in contrast massively affected perceived saturation. This was especially problematic if you were working on a cohesive series (e.g. The Desert) and wanted to have a consistent color pallet across a variety of images which called for different curves.
Enhanced Proofing and 3 stage sharpening: If your landscape work goes both to print and to screen (i.e. website) then this is a dramatic improvement to where and how you can sharpen the image for each purpose. There are stand alone software packages that do this (and this only) but do it less well, in a less useful workflow, that cost far more than the upgrade cost of C1.

And of course any improvement to overall speed and stability benefits everyone.

The two specific feature requests you've mentioned are definitely hot topics of discussion at Phase One. I'm sure you understand they can't engage in a long-form debate with a particular customer as to the likelihood/prioritization/schedule for new features. But they absolutely positively for-sure listening to that feedback. Customer requests via dealers and support cases are the #1 source of prioritization at HQ for feature planning. If you'd like, we have at least a couple events every year in our NYC and LA offices where high-up R+D guys (typically the head of a particular division, i.e. the head of software, or the head of camera hardware, or the head of firmware development, or chief color scientist) come to present and to listen to feedback from our customers. You don't need to attend to have your feedback heard (as I said feedback via dealer or support case are absolutely read, tabulated, and tracked) but there is something nice about talking face-to-face directly to the person in charge of the final decision. It's also a nice reminder that it's not a faceless black-box corporation; Phase One gets its engineers out into the field far more than any other camera company I've ever worked with.

We expect to add at least two events like that to our Phase One Events Calendar in the next few weeks.
 

ejpeiker

Member
There are two items I would like, that PS has, that would better my work flow; 1) stitching, and 2) focus stacking. Oh well, while I am dreaming, how about luminosity masking?
Focus stacking is probably lower on their priority list since they give away Helicon Focus for free to owners of the XF. I know that doesn't help those that use C1P for non Phase cameras...
 
I appreciate the response, and while most of the newest updates are used by all types of photographers, I still think the 3 I mentioned are at the top of the list for landscapers, and are still the ones "missing".

Landscapers need to stack, they need to stitch, and now luminosity masking is so important to landscape shooters, that there are at least 3-separate plug-ins to PS that do it - Lumenzia, Raya Pro, and the TK Actions.

Full disclosure; I am CFO for a large SaaS software company, and over the past 15-years I have been a part of the new release & pricing decisions, and they are always about giving enough of an update that makes it look like there is progress, thus justifying a price increase.
 
Last edited:

vjbelle

Well-known member
Actually, that's the cool thing about deconvolution sharpening. It is, in fact, recovering detail lost to diffraction – it just can't recover all of it.

This is different than traditional sharpening methods like Unsharp Mask which can only add additional contrast to the detail that is already there.

It should not be thought of as a miracle worker. It won't make f/64 look like f/8. But it can scratch back a moderate amount of the actual detail lost and modestly extend the aperture range you are comfortable with.
I stand by my comments..... there is no software, at this point and time, that can recover detail that is lost due to diffraction. I've tested this with just a 'One' f stop differential (f11 vs f16) and no matter what I do I cannot replace the detail that is lost. I have tested this with both Focus Magic and Topaz InFocus. Of those two Topaz is, imho, superior by a smidgeon. The so called diffraction sharpening utilized by PhaseOne is crude by comparison and something I would never recommend or use. It actually degrades the image with its extreme aggressiveness and causes irreparable damage. So for me its f11 or bust and no PhaseOne diffraction sharpening......

Victor
 
Top