dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I would be interested in hearing if (or when) Capture One Express will support it - I can justify $99 but not $300
Cheers,
Dave
Cheers,
Dave
bwcolor
Veteran
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Ok.. hold on.. I'm confused in re-reading this thread (and elsewhere online) - so there is NO Capture One version (pro or otherwise) currently available that supports the x-pro1? The only one that does is a beta version that is supposed to be released soon? And at that point we don't know if it will only be the "Pro" version with that support or if they'll make it available on the "express" version?
Just looking for clarity here as I may just wait for Adobe to get their act together instead.
Cheers,
Dave
Just looking for clarity here as I may just wait for Adobe to get their act together instead.
Cheers,
Dave
f16sunshine
Moderator
Hi Dave
The beta was available for CO7 and may still be. The Beta test period ended on Janaury 7. The Beta CO7 (7.0.2.) downloads will expire Jan 31.
FA Limited
missing in action
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-7/Pricing.aspx
looking at the Capture One pricing, the features excluded in Express 6 include such "frills" as Noise Reduction, Local Adjustments, Black and White conversion, Levels and Curves, Batch Adjustments ... looks more like the Pro version the only real choice but $299 is steep considering Lightroom is $149
i am not willing to move between two programs to make prints. that is why i for now would not touch a Sigma camera..
looking at the Capture One pricing, the features excluded in Express 6 include such "frills" as Noise Reduction, Local Adjustments, Black and White conversion, Levels and Curves, Batch Adjustments ... looks more like the Pro version the only real choice but $299 is steep considering Lightroom is $149
i am not willing to move between two programs to make prints. that is why i for now would not touch a Sigma camera..
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
$299 is nothing compared to Photoshop. Adobe wants $20 a month for CS6 -- $240 a year. And C1P is substantially more capable than LR or Aperture.
Seems to me a reasonable compromise.
Seems to me a reasonable compromise.
willie_901
Veteran
A batch conversion to tiff using CaptureOne with no other processing and the automated import into LR va a LR watch folder does not seem to be that inconvenient. Further processing would be in LR. However it is not clear if the Fuji lens correction parmeters are used by CaptureOne during tiff creation.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
In the C1P beta, the answer is yes. For example, distortion is corrected for the XF 18/2.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Just for fun, knowing it didn't support my XP1, I downloaded both the versions and if that's someones idea of an easy work flow I would hate to see what they considered complex. In fairness, I don't read instructions I just start using. Worked for Photoshop, worked for Lightroom and Aperture. Didn't work for Capture One. I got a version of it with the software that came with the M8 and wound up trashing it. These two programs went the same way. I'll wait for Photoshop to get caught up to Fuji.
I felt that way about Lightroom and went with Aperture instead...
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
$299 is not "nothing" and neither is paying $20 a month but I am still running CS3 and that's all I need for my film work and basic touch ups to any digital work I do. $299 is a significant investment into "pro" software for many folks who cannot write it off (and I can write it off but there's still initial outlay which is, to me, steep for a program that I would only use with the X-Pro1 vs Lightroom/PS which work for my film and Nikon digital equipment)
I know Adobe has the information (based on Fuji's reps statements today on Twitter) that they required from Fuji to "make it happen" for the XTrans but it seems they're dragging their heels....maybe not as much as Apple.. but still.
Cheers,
Dave
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Did you write off CS3? For 299 you're set for the life of your camera. How much was cs3 again?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
CS3 for me was $99.
Hence asking if "Express" would work - I can live with a $99 amount but 3 times that is a bit much.
Cheers,
Dave
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I mainly use Lightroom but C1P makes more sense to me.
2WK
Rangefinder User
It does take a bit of getting used to. But once you understand it, it works well. It is very minimal, yet a very powerful tool.
willie_901
Veteran
Thank you very much.
FA Limited
missing in action
FA Limited
missing in action
converting to TIFF and having a folder full of TIFFs and more file management is what i am trying to avoid. if C1 really does work though maybe the $299 would be worth it, it's not really a large amount relative to other camera spending.
djonesii
Well-known
in the day, I had a phase on back and use C1P
in the day, I had a phase on back and use C1P
Back in the day, I had a phase one p30+ digital back on a mamiya body. Great setup for somethings, way too much for others.
In order to do anything with the raw files of value, Capture One DB was required. Thus, I learned the code.
For me, the hybrid C1DB/LighrRoom flow just was not that big a deal. Get things just about the way I wanted then in C1, write out the TIFFS into a sub-directory of where my "Other" Raws were going to live, and then just import the entire thing to LightRoom. When shooting more than one system, I keep my RAWS separate anyway.
There is no arguing personal preference, and I just like the UI in lightroom better.
Alas, the Phase on has gone the way of the dodo, and thus, so has my use of C1DB. If they ever come out with the "light" V7, I would not mind spending the $99 to get that, but for the moment, I just live with LR and the raw+jpeg solution.
Dave
in the day, I had a phase on back and use C1P
Back in the day, I had a phase one p30+ digital back on a mamiya body. Great setup for somethings, way too much for others.
In order to do anything with the raw files of value, Capture One DB was required. Thus, I learned the code.
For me, the hybrid C1DB/LighrRoom flow just was not that big a deal. Get things just about the way I wanted then in C1, write out the TIFFS into a sub-directory of where my "Other" Raws were going to live, and then just import the entire thing to LightRoom. When shooting more than one system, I keep my RAWS separate anyway.
There is no arguing personal preference, and I just like the UI in lightroom better.
Alas, the Phase on has gone the way of the dodo, and thus, so has my use of C1DB. If they ever come out with the "light" V7, I would not mind spending the $99 to get that, but for the moment, I just live with LR and the raw+jpeg solution.
Dave
StaaleS
Established
The basic problem for the RAW decoder programmer is that for every single pixel in the RAW file, you only actually get either a red, a green or a blue color measurement. The two "missing" values have to be borrowed from two neighbouring pixels in order to decide an actual RGB colour value for the pixel you are looking at.
Basically every single digicam on God's green earth uses a standard Bayer RGB pixel layout. Which means that when you need to implement RAW support in your program, you can use your old, tried and tested, highly optimized and thoroughly debugged Bayer decoding program algorithm and maybe tweak it a little to handle the vagaries of whatever camera you are writing a decoder for. Easy-peasy.
Fuji's pixel layout however is different. Which means that you basically have to write the "find the two missing colour values from a neighbouring pixel" code from scratch. You cannot borrow anything from your old code. And, to add to the problems, the "neighbouring" pixel you are looking at may be as much as two pixels away on the sensor, instead of being the next-door neighbour. Way more room for complications and errors in interpretation; just look at the pixel-level colour bleeding that Adobe's Fuji RAW decoder seems to be prone to. As a programmer myself, I would _hate_ this situation.
The situation is not helped by Fuji, for reasons best known unto itself, not being particularly helpful towards third-party software vendors. Their excellent JPG output show that it is eminently possible to decode the "X" RAW files if you just know how, and they _do_ know how, but they do not seem eager to share this knowledge with others. As a result, Adobe and others have to reinvent the wheel, with varying amounts of success.
It's not really Adobe's or the others' fault. Blame Fuji. If they had two working braincells they would be actively pushing this information at software developers. Having the best possible RAW file support in the leading software products would be in Fuji's best interest.