BFD
Active member
Except it seems to have introduced a number of bugs that affects existing users (both XF and tech cameras).
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!
New Phase One Firmware for IQ, XF, and XT
- Thread starter dougpeterson
- Start date
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I agree, very poor execution. I’m in the software/cloud business and we try to adhere the hippocratic oath of do no harm ... when it comes to upgrades in particular.
You need a full set of regression test cases on all platforms (ok, three, maybe four+ if you include industrial). If you pass ALL of the test cases then put it into alpha/beta with users who’ll stress the platform and only then go to public beta / conditional release.
I had it with IQ4 Achromatic, which is why I initially believed that it would only be Achromatic Back. Yesterday I tried to repeat it on the XF, but since I had no failures.
I will not test it further as I will switch back to the previous firmware to avoid further unpleasant surprises. In the dumbest case, they cost money ...
Greeting Gerd
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
Dominique,
My XF just came back from Phase One few months ago and worked well with the previous firmware.
I spent more than 2 hours with the new firmware and the result was as I reported. Again, it frozen with XF > 50% of the time (both with SP at 2 sec or less and > 2 sec) and was unusable with the tech cam.
I will try again after my trip. I have no time to test it again and am not interested to do so.
Pramote
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
Some people like me do extreme long-exposure photography (beyond night photography) with 10-15 stop ND.
Not having to carry 150mm-filter set is a big deal. Do you know how big and expensive they are, especially the Wine Country?.
As you said, I don't care much either about improving DR as the sensor of the IQ4150 is already quite good for this.
drunkenspyder
Well-known member
Ditto. Well, almost. Daytime AFA is a big deal for me. And so is virtually noiseless, amazing dynamic range. A fully stocked WCC 150mm kit weighs several pounds. It takes up more room in its [really nice] Kinesis pouch, and as much weight capacity as a backup camera. Granted, AFA cannot take the place of everything in that WCC kit, but it replaces enough so that leaving it at home is an option. That, plus 16-bit, well, it goes a long way toward compensating for these serious PITA issues. I sympathize with bad firmware experiences and agree that, maybe, just maybe, this release should not have been labeled anything other than a beta or even alpha release; heck, 16-bit could have been done as a delta release. But the problems are curiously not universal. Yesterday, I shot several AFA tests on the XF after installing the new firmware, and also did some wireless tethering. All worked fine with no lockups.Now, I did not bang on it hard yet, so maybe I have not been tripped up. But so far, so good [fingers crossed].
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
As Frame Averaging is very important to me, I changed my mind and tried the current firmware version 6:00:52 (by set up to the factory setting --->4.02.7--->6:00:52) again. I tried many times with the XF and Tech Cam but still got the same result during the Frame Averaging.
Now the DB froze while the XF would continue forever 100% of the time.. The batteries on the XF and DB were full and the DB was not too hot.
When I switched back to the previous firmware version 5:01, the Frame Averaging works just fine.
Do you use the current firmware 6:00:52 or the previous beta one 6:00:44 to test the Frame Averaging on XF?
Is it possible there's something changed between the Firmware 6:00:44 (beta) and the current one 6:00:52?
Thank you
Pramote
drunkenspyder
Well-known member
Pramote, I have 6.00.52 Installed. Works fine on the XF, but is flaky on my Cambo 1600 the way the Capture Integration team discussed on their blog. And it seems clear to me the answer to your question is "yes, something clearly changed, and not for the better."
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
I just want to update. I've postponed my trip (car trip) for 1 day just to figure out what is going on. Fall this year is delayed any way.
I reinstall the firmware to the beta version (6:00:44) instead of the current published version (6:00:52) on my IQ4150. It works like a magic on both XF and Tech Cam! However, it's too soon to conclude.
Although I am a doctor and have a little knowledge about technology, my son is a computer science/biomedical engineer. We talk frequently about everything.
I am also a researcher. Finding the truth is what I do for living. Therefore, I gave him my hypothesis. I told him Phase has a new owner. I asked him if it is possible Phase might have a last minute call to prevent Tech Cam users from using the new upgraded Frame Averaging to promote the XT sale. Then things go haywire. He expressed my hypothesis is possible but for sure they made a final change before the final release. But changing the beta version while it worked was a question mark. He also said they are a new company and might have a low budget. He never heard of P1 before. He was shocked when I told him the camera was $50, 000. I told him to promise he would never tell his mom
It is a big mistake to abandon IQ3100 and Tech Cam users. It certainly will have a negative impact on the XT and Phase One overall.
I hope my hypothesis is wrong and the whole things are about software glitches!!! If I'm right, IMO it is very unethical and it's betrayal to Phase One users.
Most likely, we will never know the truth behind it. Same as many things in life, it's just gray.
Fore sure, I am happier to be able to use the upgraded Frame Averaging on my XF and Tech Cam during my Fall trip.
I will leave it here to prepare my trip. Will update in few days from the field.
I reinstall the firmware to the beta version (6:00:44) instead of the current published version (6:00:52) on my IQ4150. It works like a magic on both XF and Tech Cam! However, it's too soon to conclude.
Although I am a doctor and have a little knowledge about technology, my son is a computer science/biomedical engineer. We talk frequently about everything.
I am also a researcher. Finding the truth is what I do for living. Therefore, I gave him my hypothesis. I told him Phase has a new owner. I asked him if it is possible Phase might have a last minute call to prevent Tech Cam users from using the new upgraded Frame Averaging to promote the XT sale. Then things go haywire. He expressed my hypothesis is possible but for sure they made a final change before the final release. But changing the beta version while it worked was a question mark. He also said they are a new company and might have a low budget. He never heard of P1 before. He was shocked when I told him the camera was $50, 000. I told him to promise he would never tell his mom
It is a big mistake to abandon IQ3100 and Tech Cam users. It certainly will have a negative impact on the XT and Phase One overall.
I hope my hypothesis is wrong and the whole things are about software glitches!!! If I'm right, IMO it is very unethical and it's betrayal to Phase One users.
Most likely, we will never know the truth behind it. Same as many things in life, it's just gray.
Fore sure, I am happier to be able to use the upgraded Frame Averaging on my XF and Tech Cam during my Fall trip.
I will leave it here to prepare my trip. Will update in few days from the field.
Last edited:
I'm also very disappointed that Phase One has yet another buggy firmware release (I think every single IQ4 firmware release has had serious bugs, other than the bug-fix releases... and even some of those have been buggy!). HOWEVER, I seriously doubt that Phase One is intentionally causing tech cam malfunction to promote their XT sales. Surely such malfunctions do far more harm than good for XT sales, plus the whole concept of purposefully sabotaging their own releases is inconsistent with all my interactions with the company. Moreover, the bugginess of this firmware release is entirely consistent with the bugginess of all their firmware releases for the IQ4, as sad as that sounds! One could be justified in questioning their firmware authoring competence, but I don't think they are acting in bad faith here. They are having a hard enough time (and deserve our criticism for firmware bugs) without conspiracy theories!
I just want to update. I've postponed my trip (car trip) for 1 day just to figure out what is going on. Fall this year is delayed any way.
I reinstall the firmware to the beta version (6:00:44) instead of the current published version (6:00:52) on my IQ4150. It works like a magic on both XF and Tech Cam! However, it's too soon to conclude.
Although I am a doctor and have a little knowledge about technology, my son is a computer science/biomedical engineer. We talk frequently about everything.
I am also a researcher. Finding the truth is what I do for living. Therefore, I gave him my hypothesis. I told him Phase has a new owner. I asked him if it is possible Phase might have a last minute call to prevent Tech Cam users from using the new upgraded Frame Averaging to promote the XT sale. Then things go haywire. He expressed my hypothesis is possible but for sure they made a final change before the final release. He also said they might have a low budget because they're a new company he never heard of. He was shocked when I told him the camera was $50, 000. He promised he would not tell his mom
It is a big mistake to abandon IQ3100 and Tech Cam users. It certainly will have a negative impact on the XT and Phase One overall.
I hope my hypothesis is wrong and the whole things are about software glitches!!! If I'm right, IMO it is very unethical and it's betrayal to Phase One users.
Most likely, we will never know the truth behind it. Same as many things in life, it's just gray.
Fore sure, I am happier to be able to use the upgraded Frame Averaging on my XF and Tech Cam during my Fall trip.
I will leave it here to prepare my trip. Will update in few days from the field.
Maybe we'll never know the truth but we will know for sure if Tech cameras are on the back burner. If it turns out that way then this, for sure, will be my last Phase DB. There are just too many other avenues available where I can still use the majority of my LF lenses and have full movements.I just want to update. I've postponed my trip (car trip) for 1 day just to figure out what is going on. Fall this year is delayed any way.
I reinstall the firmware to the beta version (6:00:44) instead of the current published version (6:00:52) on my IQ4150. It works like a magic on both XF and Tech Cam! However, it's too soon to conclude.
Although I am a doctor and have a little knowledge about technology, my son is a computer science/biomedical engineer. We talk frequently about everything.
I am also a researcher. Finding the truth is what I do for living. Therefore, I gave him my hypothesis. I told him Phase has a new owner. I asked him if it is possible Phase might have a last minute call to prevent Tech Cam users from using the new upgraded Frame Averaging to promote the XT sale. Then things go haywire. He expressed my hypothesis is possible but for sure they made a final change before the final release. But changing the beta version while it worked was a question mark. He also said they are a new company and might have a low budget. He never heard of P1 before. He was shocked when I told him the camera was $50, 000. I told him to promise he would never tell his mom
It is a big mistake to abandon IQ3100 and Tech Cam users. It certainly will have a negative impact on the XT and Phase One overall.
I hope my hypothesis is wrong and the whole things are about software glitches!!! If I'm right, IMO it is very unethical and it's betrayal to Phase One users.
Most likely, we will never know the truth behind it. Same as many things in life, it's just gray.
Fore sure, I am happier to be able to use the upgraded Frame Averaging on my XF and Tech Cam during my Fall trip.
I will leave it here to prepare my trip. Will update in few days from the field.
These backs will plummet in price as potential buyers will more than likely know about all of the issues and the soft support for tech camera owners.
Nobody likes being made a fool.....
Victor
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
I hope you're right about it.
I've always been a proud owner of Phase One since the early IQ180 and hope the best for them.
It's just my opinion. I respect everyone's voices but please do not judge me.
This will be my last response in the next few days as I will be leaving for Fall shooting soon.
Don't forget to go out and take fall color pictures with P1, Nikon, Sony etc. or whatever. They are just tools!
Enjoy Fall shooting guys!
Pramote
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
There’s no conspiracy here guys; they just F’d up.
Phase One needs to improve the QC on their firmware releases; it’s as simple as that. If you add several good features, and break a single one, it’s often rightly seen as a net-negative for the user, and sows doubt, confusion, and annoyance. As someone said above: “first, do no harm”.
I’m *really* hoping this is the last time that I have to post a “don’t do this update” note on our website.
Phase One needs to improve the QC on their firmware releases; it’s as simple as that. If you add several good features, and break a single one, it’s often rightly seen as a net-negative for the user, and sows doubt, confusion, and annoyance. As someone said above: “first, do no harm”.
I’m *really* hoping this is the last time that I have to post a “don’t do this update” note on our website.
No expert here, but as someone who worked in the computer industry, both sales and tech support for close to 30 years, I find it a bit strange for a company to issue a "beta" that works, then issues a "formal release" that doesn't work.
Net, the whole point of a beta is to test a firmware that is as close to release as possible. If you change the "beta", it should be re-released as another beta, and testing should start all over again.
Here it seems pretty obvious that 1 of 2 things happened.
1. Phase added an additional feature for the XT to the "released" beta and did not feel it was necessary to release a new beta to the field, which IMO defeats the whole point of a beta testing.
2. Phase choose to remove the ability of non XT tech cameras to use the FA feature. And chose not to tell the field/dealers/beta testers.
I personally can't believe Phase would do the latter, so hopefully it's number 1, which still points to sloppy testing but seems to have become the norm for firmware on the IQ4.
Paul C
Net, the whole point of a beta is to test a firmware that is as close to release as possible. If you change the "beta", it should be re-released as another beta, and testing should start all over again.
Here it seems pretty obvious that 1 of 2 things happened.
1. Phase added an additional feature for the XT to the "released" beta and did not feel it was necessary to release a new beta to the field, which IMO defeats the whole point of a beta testing.
2. Phase choose to remove the ability of non XT tech cameras to use the FA feature. And chose not to tell the field/dealers/beta testers.
I personally can't believe Phase would do the latter, so hopefully it's number 1, which still points to sloppy testing but seems to have become the norm for firmware on the IQ4.
Paul C
Doug,
Thanks for the clarification.
1) Has Phase given the dealers any idea as to timing for a fix? I recall w/ the last FW update issue P1 provided communication through the dealers they would have the fix out fairly quickly and then followed up relatively soon thereafter w/ the corrected FW. There's nothing about this FW issue in the Phase forum.
2) If one wanted to roll back their FW version back to 501, is that accomplished by simply installing that version on the back and XF or is there more to it?
Thanks,
_Robert
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
1) I do not have an update/fix timeframe yet, but would expect to have one early next week. My suspicion is that the issue was probably caused by a very simple mistake, like a flag or value changed after most of the testing had already been done (which makes it that much more frustrating) but I don’t know that for sure. If I’m right then a fix would not take more than a week or two to make and test.
2) I would like to check that with the head of my support team on Monday before providing a definitive answer. However in general installing any relatively recent firmware package should be a simple affair; just make sure to have a full battery and not to interrupt the process part way through.
mkphotomedia
Member
As a fellow former software engineer now full-time pro (and POCP): while it's strange (and pains me greatly) from a software engineering point of view, this isn't the first time that Phase has released a stable beta but borked the release. They've done it with at least a couple of Capture One releases.
Not-so-fond memories of testing one CO release where I was testing a late-beta on a studio shoot, and it worked fine; next day's shoot we'd moved to the release version, but something (I think it was 100% zoom to focus on live view for Canon bodies, which would seemingly break and get fixed about every other CO release until Phase built their own tethering driver) would blow up, hard, some ways through the shoot. Reinstalled the beta, submitted a bug report, and it worked fine. I think I ended up leaving the beta in service until the next point release came out. Happened again with one of the .1 releases where CO would routinely crash on startup in certain situations. In both cases, the fix came pretty quickly, but boy was it annoying.
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
I uploaded the new firmware yesterday and tested it extensively on my XF/IQ4-150 today. Everything seems to work fine - the FA works with 16 bit and the new level looks better than the old.
The only slight glitch I had was that after exposing a FA scene, the next shot also used the FA though I didn't order it to do so. However, as I could not get it to do it again I have to assume it was an error on my part.
I'm wondering how there could be a disparity between some saying the new FW works fine and other say differently. Same FW, same HD. Interesting. Assuming this means the glitch is with Tech cameras and not with the XF. Forgive me if I've missed this in previous threads.
Robert B
kdphotography
Well-known member
The problem is when the new firmware is used with technical cameras, particularly the new Frame Averaging feature.