CaptureOne Unlocks Xtrans

FA Limited said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that tiffs are inconvenient and inefficient.

At the same time hard drive storage space is so cheap it's not even worth discussing. I know pros who never delete a single raw file, even hideous loosers, because the time it takes to select and delete the files is too expensive compared to the cost of storage and back up.

I often end up converting raws to tiffs anyway for keepers because I use LR plugins like Viveeza 2 and PSE for final processing.

The XTRANS sensor is not going away and Adobe will eventually release an improved algorithm.
 
StaaleS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the explanation.
 
So far I like what I am seeing from trying the beta version myself. But given that my main photo sw is aperture and I use LR for those things aperture does not support like stitching... If they came out w/ a light version that supported Fuji raw files, I would buy it in a heartbeat. At 299, I would still eventually buy it, if apple does not step up to the plate. In the meantime I will use RPP for my raw developer.

Gary
 
I got the beta version and gave it a try but I going it a lot less intuitive that Lightroom. I'd like to use as I would like to get the best out if my images but, ill stick with Lightroom as I know how to use it.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
 
gavinlg said:
hmmmm....

I'm not convinced it's that much better. Not that I thought ACR/LR was particularly bad to begin with...
Click to expand...

I can see benefits from C1 but not at $299 - for that money I can live with Adobe's issues and wait for them to fix it - the fact that more and more people (including, it seems, DPReview) are calling Adobe out on it suggests to me that they'll have to release something for ACR/LR in the near future lest people point to the improvements in C1 and say "Why can't YOU do this???"

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I can see benefits from C1 but not at $299 - for that money I can live with Adobe's issues and wait for them to fix it - the fact that more and more people (including, it seems, DPReview) are calling Adobe out on it suggests to me that they'll have to release something for ACR/LR in the near future lest people point to the improvements in C1 and say "Why can't YOU do this???"

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, it does look somewhat better but yeah - the value to gains ratio is a little wrong (for me).

Capture one has interesting conversions, but I almost always find them harsh. As in they have more local contrast/sharpening compared to standard ACR conversions. Even with bayer sensor cameras. It's pretty crazy that the in camera JPEG is still the best for detail. They're some seriously good JPEGS.
 
gavinlg said:
Don't get me wrong, it does look somewhat better but yeah - the value to gains ratio is a little wrong (for me).

Capture one has interesting conversions, but I almost always find them harsh. As in they have more local contrast/sharpening compared to standard ACR conversions. Even with bayer sensor cameras. It's pretty crazy that the in camera JPEG is still the best for detail. They're some seriously good JPEGS.
Click to expand...

True dat (as the kids say... or may have said.. or something) - I too had thought C1 was a bit harsh - I haven't really used it since WAY back; maybe back in 2002/3? I'm going to stick with shooting RAW & Jpeg for the time being - if I overexpose or underexpose then I can use the RAW but if not, the jpeg is where it's at. Just going to load up on some 16GB SD cards.

As an aside, it should be interesting as lately I've been contemplating dumping my DSLR kit (D700 and a bunch of lenses) and just sticking with the Fuji for any work I do (weddings, portraits, events) - if Adobe can get their act together it may help me decide sooner rather than later.. while I can still get good money for the D700 :)

Cheers,
Dave
 
Downloaded and tried the C1 trial, but sadly it isn't doing it for me. It is an improvement over LR, no doubt about that, but not enough to make me part with money.

I've got by in most cases with a combination of Silky/LR/CS5 so I think I'll stick with that, at least I know it and can make it work for what I need.

I still live in hope that Adobe will get it together.
 
Stockman said:
I still live in hope that Adobe will get it together.
Click to expand...

I think many of us have that same hope.

So for now, I'm sticking with LR because I don't see enough of an improvement from the other options.

Also, when I read reviews of the various options, I have the feeling that LR is being miss-used by applying sharpening in the Develop module. From my experience, Clarity gives very nice "sharpening" results and I leave the sharpening of the image to the output stage where you sharpen for the output intention (print, web gallery, export, etc.). My 2¢.
 
I'd wait. AccuRaw will be out soon, and will be much cheaper than Capture One Pro, or even Capture One Express (which doesn't support Xtrans at the moment, with version 6.)

AccuRaw is Mac only, but who uses PC's anyway. ;)

Plus AccuRaw has user fine-tuning of the demosaicing process, unlike any other solution.
 
doncraig said:
I think many of us have that same hope.

So for now, I'm sticking with LR because I don't see enough of an improvement from the other options.

Also, when I read reviews of the various options, I have the feeling that LR is being miss-used by applying sharpening in the Develop module. From my experience, Clarity gives very nice "sharpening" results and I leave the sharpening of the image to the output stage where you sharpen for the output intention (print, web gallery, export, etc.). My 2¢.
Click to expand...

Clarity is mid-tone contrast. It does make things look sharper but it's not exactly sharpening.
I agree 100% about sharpening for intended output.

Just installed Capture one release edition. Let's see how this goes.
A 60 day trial is very generous. :) Kudos to PhaseOne!
 
f16sunshine said:
Clarity is mid-tone contrast. It does make things look sharper but it's not exactly sharpening.
I agree 100% about sharpening for intended output.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm very clear on Clarity! :) Just think many LR users are over doing it with sharpening, when it is often best left alone. And a little mid-tone contrast boost is a better option. Unless, of course you are working on a portrait; your client will pay extra to reduce clarity and sharpness!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom