Dissatisfaction with Capture One Tech Support

Discussions, questions, comments and suggestions regarding Capture One PRO, Capture One PRO For Sony / Fujifilm, Capture One for Phase One and Capture One Express For Sony / For Fujifilm 20.x for Mac

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:41 pm

SFA wrote:
thomaskyhn wrote:I finally got a reply from support; it didn't answer my question though – regarding keystone correction – only insinuated that I didn't understand the use of keystone correction.


Be careful about interpreting messages in a multi-language support and communication situation.

Naturally. But the reply showed no signs of a shaky understanding of the English language – I assume that it was written by a native speaker – and though it isn't my first language, I believe my grasp of English to be firm enough to avoid misunderstandings of the kind you give an example of. In any case, I'll paste the reply below. As you can see, the problems I had enquired about (the keystone tool producing unexpected results) are not addressed but rather written off as results of the keystone tool being used for something it isn't intended for.

"The way to use the Keystone correction tool would be to use something in the frame that you know to be square or perpendicular to the camera.

If you're using the tool with vectors [this refers to an example I had sent containing a four-sided figure with no parallel sides – a simple model of something you could come across and want to correct in an actual photo – which C1 was unable to straighten (Lightroom had no trouble with it)] in this way, then this will not give you a realistic perspective on how the tool is designed to work, which is most of the time with architectural photography.

In instances like you have illustrated, I would use the sliders to adjust the keystoning manually to your desired outcome."
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby SFA » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:09 pm

The question can be one of words or it can be something else - style of presentation for example.

Or perhaps an economic use of content that appears somewhat brusque.

I suspect there is a distinct but perhaps not always obvious, difference between the functionality (as designed) in C1 compared to LR.

C1 comes to the party with a software device intended to help with fine tuning Tilt and Shift lens work or the equivalent actions using a technical camera.

LR, presumably with a Photoshop library of technology behind it, probably sees the solution as a pixel manipulation exercise that can be achieves without too much concern for the niceties of lens adjustments because it can deliver its approach through pixel pushing.

I don't have the LS or PS products but I had a look in Affinity and there seems to be a perspective adjustment tool that is primarily pixel pushing. There may be more to it but I would need to look into it some more before being able to do a full comparison based comment.

Basically it looks to me like the concepts and the starting points are quite different. From what I have seen Affinity is quite squarely aimed at Photoshop with a RAW image processing attachment for those who need it.

I have not used LR since V1.4 so I have no feel for what it offers today.

But it does look like C1 has a rather different approach to alternatives and a somewhat dedicated (some might call it restrictive?) methodology that suits some types of image but not others. At least not others with the degree of simplicity of use that some applications seem to provide.

By the way for your sample image I'm not convinced the window frame is the best reference.

I suspect that there is some lens distortion in play. If not that then there is also no guarantee that the window frame is truly rectangular nor that the edges against which one might be comparing and adjusting are straight.

Using the join of metal to wall on the left of the frame or vertical, the line of the black overhang and the wall at the top of the frame for horizontal and compromising on the bottom line across the window frame and up the right hand side of the frame I thought I got a pretty balanced match that looked OK to the eye and worked pretty well with the guide lines I deployed. for a "squared up" window frame along 90% of its edges.

I would have liked to try some lens correction tweaks as well to see what happened but that's not possible with the jpg.

I would agree with content of the C1 helper's comment in that I found the fine adjustments much more useful using the keystone tool sliders and adjustment value fields compared to moving the Auto Correction Assist lines for this type of image for the fine adjustment.

Also to try to ensure one is working in 2 planes rather than 3 as far as possible. (Your example image is Ok for that if using as much of the width and height as possible. Reduce it to the window frame only and small inaccuracies of positions (of whatever cause) become more evident. That is compounded here by the apparent lack of "squareness" of the frame for what ever reason (i.e.e non-square frame as manufactured or perhaps lens distortion effects. Or both. At this point the "why" does not matter. The anomalies exist. To fix them requires a little pixel pushing if you feel it is needed for your purposes.

It has been an interest exercise experimenting. What was the lens?

Just my observations of course.

Grant

ETA: I appreciate that this post slips somewhat away from the primary topic of this thread but I feel it has some relevance to some aspects of the wider discussion.
SFA
 
Posts: 7725
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:22 am

SFA wrote:The question can be one of words or it can be something else - style of presentation for example.

Or perhaps an economic use of content that appears somewhat brusque.

I suspect there is a distinct but perhaps not always obvious, difference between the functionality (as designed) in C1 compared to LR.

C1 comes to the party with a software device intended to help with fine tuning Tilt and Shift lens work or the equivalent actions using a technical camera.

LR, presumably with a Photoshop library of technology behind it, probably sees the solution as a pixel manipulation exercise that can be achieves without too much concern for the niceties of lens adjustments because it can deliver its approach through pixel pushing.

I don't have the LS or PS products but I had a look in Affinity and there seems to be a perspective adjustment tool that is primarily pixel pushing. There may be more to it but I would need to look into it some more before being able to do a full comparison based comment.

Basically it looks to me like the concepts and the starting points are quite different. From what I have seen Affinity is quite squarely aimed at Photoshop with a RAW image processing attachment for those who need it.

I have not used LR since V1.4 so I have no feel for what it offers today.

But it does look like C1 has a rather different approach to alternatives and a somewhat dedicated (some might call it restrictive?) methodology that suits some types of image but not others. At least not others with the degree of simplicity of use that some applications seem to provide.

By the way for your sample image I'm not convinced the window frame is the best reference.

I suspect that there is some lens distortion in play. If not that then there is also no guarantee that the window frame is truly rectangular nor that the edges against which one might be comparing and adjusting are straight.

Using the join of metal to wall on the left of the frame or vertical, the line of the black overhang and the wall at the top of the frame for horizontal and compromising on the bottom line across the window frame and up the right hand side of the frame I thought I got a pretty balanced match that looked OK to the eye and worked pretty well with the guide lines I deployed. for a "squared up" window frame along 90% of its edges.

I would have liked to try some lens correction tweaks as well to see what happened but that's not possible with the jpg.

I would agree with content of the C1 helper's comment in that I found the fine adjustments much more useful using the keystone tool sliders and adjustment value fields compared to moving the Auto Correction Assist lines for this type of image for the fine adjustment.

Also to try to ensure one is working in 2 planes rather than 3 as far as possible. (Your example image is Ok for that if using as much of the width and height as possible. Reduce it to the window frame only and small inaccuracies of positions (of whatever cause) become more evident. That is compounded here by the apparent lack of "squareness" of the frame for what ever reason (i.e.e non-square frame as manufactured or perhaps lens distortion effects. Or both. At this point the "why" does not matter. The anomalies exist. To fix them requires a little pixel pushing if you feel it is needed for your purposes.

It has been an interest exercise experimenting. What was the lens?

Just my observations of course.

Grant

ETA: I appreciate that this post slips somewhat away from the primary topic of this thread but I feel it has some relevance to some aspects of the wider discussion.


Thanks for your comments.

The lens was a Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM.

The edges of the window frame aren't straight. Nevertheless, no matter how curved the edges may be, if you look at the four corners of the window frame after keystone correction has been applied – and disregard everything else in the photo – the four-sided figure that you would get if you connect these four corners should be a rectangle with two completely horizontal and two completely vertical sides. I've tried several times, placing the adjustment points at maximum zoom level, etc., and not a single time did I end up with 90° angles. It's possible that you can achieve a proper result using the adjustment sliders, but that isn't the point; the point is that keystone adjustment using the four adjustment points does not work properly in all cases. And I don't quite understand why the person who responded to my support request simply ignored this and referred me to using the sliders rather than acknowledge that this feature doesn't work as it should. It may be that keystone correction in Lightroom is based on a different principle, I don't know; the main thing is, though, that it works in Lightroom, whereas in C1 it often doesn't work. I hope that something will be done about it, but as long as the issue isn't recognized and users who report unexpected results are simply assumed not to understand what they're doing, that seems an unlikely prospect.
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby Ian3 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 am

But as I demonstrated in a reply to your other post about this problem...

http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=37472&start=15#p176504

... it can be made to work on this image.

I'd suggest that with care (and I'm not accusing you of lack of care!) the tool can be made to work OK sometimes on some images. I suspect that what would be an easier way of working for a tool like this would be one where you could drag the image rather than the guides - so you could have guides at right angles and pull the corners of the window in your example to the intersections of the lines. But whether that is a mode of operation more suited to a pixel editor like Photoshop or Affinity Photo I am not qualified to say.

Ian
Ian3
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Bristol, England

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:47 am

Ian3 wrote:But as I demonstrated in a reply to your other post about this problem...

http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=37472&start=15#p176504

... it can be made to work on this image.

I'd suggest that with care (and I'm not accusing you of lack of care!) the tool can be made to work OK sometimes on some images. I suspect that what would be an easier way of working for a tool like this would be one where you could drag the image rather than the guides - so you could have guides at right angles and pull the corners of the window in your example to the intersections of the lines. But whether that is a mode of operation more suited to a pixel editor like Photoshop or Affinity Photo I am not qualified to say.

Ian

I don't doubt that you succeeded in getting it right. Perhaps this example isn't the best suited to illustrate the issue as there's only a marginal difference here – the results I've been able to produce being pretty close to correct. The thing is that in several cases, C1's keystone correction tool produces unexpected results.

Regardless of the content of the photo, and regardless of where or how you place the four adjustment points, as long as you have a four-sided figure, the result of applying corrections should be a rectangle with two completely horizontal and two completely vertical sides. As I said, the content of the photo is irrelevant here, and so is the distortion that may result from the adjustment. This is what I expect the tool to do. If for some reason C1's keystone correction tool doesn't work in this way, it should at least be stated clearly in the user guide along with a description of what it is supposed to do.
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby Ian3 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:41 am

Yes, I think it is intended to work that way, and as I have said, sometimes it does. Though I agree that there are some cases where it gets it horribly wrong, and nothing I can do seems to get it right. (I get the random parallelogram that I think you mentioned earlier.)

Ian
Ian3
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Bristol, England

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:11 pm

Ian3 wrote:Yes, I think it is intended to work that way, and as I have said, sometimes it does. Though I agree that there are some cases where it gets it horribly wrong, and nothing I can do seems to get it right. (I get the random parallelogram that I think you mentioned earlier.)

Ian

I got another reply from support saying that they'd forward what I'd written about the issue to their R&D and Product Management team "as something to review for future releases". At least that's a sort of recognition that there is an issue.
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby Ian3 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:53 pm

That's good! Possibly.

Ian
Ian3
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Bristol, England

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby SFA » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:39 pm

Returning to the main theme of this thread I think that in this case there is not much more that Tech support can offer other than to review the functionality to see if it may be time to revisit what is offered and add something to it in some way or, perhaps, revised user guides and support documentation.

Out of interest I have been having a look around to see what I can discover about the options the "market leader"'s products offer.

I looked at a semi-official guidance for LR a few weeks back and got the impression that whilst offering "Keystone correction" they way it works is heavily slanted towards perspective change to deliver a "quick fix" - especially in "Auto" mode.The results for the sample image looked fine in principle as an image but I got the strong impression that the result was achieved be the use of significant perspective adjustment and compression of parts of the image.

I have no problem with that as an illustration of, in that case, an historic building but architecturally if one wanted a close to accurate record the results may not have delivered what was required since the adjustments had changes the sizes of features that probably should not have been changed - at least not as much as had occurred. No big deal for the casual viewer though.

This article, discovered during brief Google search, seems to be a useful piece for comparing the functionality that Adobe offers. I have no idea how old it is. No obvious date of publishing observed.

https://photographylife.com/how-to-use-perspective-corrections-in-lightroom-and-photoshop

My impression, having read that article, is that the main difference in concept between C1 and Adobe is that C1 starts with the concepts required for working with lens adjustments (Tilt and shift) on Technical cameras whereas LR, perhaps setting out to satisfy a different market, has gone for one click "Auto" correction as the headline feature leaving the software to decide what to do.

It seems, from my reading, that neither approach is full proof successful in totally satisfying the users needs for any type of photo that we might attempt to toss into the processing pot. On that basis it may not be entirely clear to designers and developers how they could make a decision about a practical and viable enhancement (in cost and technical terms) that would truly address user needs more broadly than current offerings.

Maybe, from a C1 perspective, develop a "Warp" tool based on AI? But precede that with some comprehensive tutorial guides about the practical matters involved with Keystone correction and visual perspectives with a view to helping us to understand the challenges of working with certain types of image and how to assess the images in advance of deploying the Keystone tool.


Grant
SFA
 
Posts: 7725
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:10 pm

SFA wrote:Returning to the main theme of this thread I think that in this case there is not much more that Tech support can offer other than to review the functionality to see if it may be time to revisit what is offered and add something to it in some way or, perhaps, revised user guides and support documentation.

Out of interest I have been having a look around to see what I can discover about the options the "market leader"'s products offer.

I looked at a semi-official guidance for LR a few weeks back and got the impression that whilst offering "Keystone correction" they way it works is heavily slanted towards perspective change to deliver a "quick fix" - especially in "Auto" mode.The results for the sample image looked fine in principle as an image but I got the strong impression that the result was achieved be the use of significant perspective adjustment and compression of parts of the image.

I have no problem with that as an illustration of, in that case, an historic building but architecturally if one wanted a close to accurate record the results may not have delivered what was required since the adjustments had changes the sizes of features that probably should not have been changed - at least not as much as had occurred. No big deal for the casual viewer though.

This article, discovered during brief Google search, seems to be a useful piece for comparing the functionality that Adobe offers. I have no idea how old it is. No obvious date of publishing observed.

https://photographylife.com/how-to-use-perspective-corrections-in-lightroom-and-photoshop

My impression, having read that article, is that the main difference in concept between C1 and Adobe is that C1 starts with the concepts required for working with lens adjustments (Tilt and shift) on Technical cameras whereas LR, perhaps setting out to satisfy a different market, has gone for one click "Auto" correction as the headline feature leaving the software to decide what to do.

It seems, from my reading, that neither approach is full proof successful in totally satisfying the users needs for any type of photo that we might attempt to toss into the processing pot. On that basis it may not be entirely clear to designers and developers how they could make a decision about a practical and viable enhancement (in cost and technical terms) that would truly address user needs more broadly than current offerings.

Maybe, from a C1 perspective, develop a "Warp" tool based on AI? But precede that with some comprehensive tutorial guides about the practical matters involved with Keystone correction and visual perspectives with a view to helping us to understand the challenges of working with certain types of image and how to assess the images in advance of deploying the Keystone tool.

Grant


None of what I've written about Lightroom's keystone correction refers to the "Auto" mode, which I don't use. What I'm referring to is the "Guided" mode, which allows you to draw two horizontal and two vertical lines – that is, eight adjustment points in all, two per line (which makes it a whole lot more useful than Capture One's four interlocked adjustment points). This is in all respects superior to Capture One's partly crippled and malfunctioning keystone correction tool, no matter how you look at it. I don't know anything about the technical basis of the two methods; the main point is that it works in Lightroom and it often doesn't work in Capture One.

Also, this is not about lens correction, etc., which is a different matter – the specific content of the image is irrelevant – this function should work with any image, no matter if a lens has been involved in producing the image or not.
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:24 pm

I asked about the keystone issue on the Facebook group CaptureOne Technical Forum and so far I've had four confirmations from other users that they have the same problem.
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:45 pm

thomaskyhn wrote: What I'm referring to is the "Guided" mode, which allows you to draw two horizontal and two vertical lines – that is, eight adjustment points in all, two per line (which makes it a whole lot more useful than Capture One's four interlocked adjustment points). This is in all respects superior to Capture One's partly crippled and malfunctioning keystone correction tool, no matter how you look at it. I don't know anything about the technical basis of the two methods; the main point is that it works in Lightroom and it often doesn't work in Capture One.


Here's a screenshot of the four adjustment lines / eight adjustment points in Lightroom, for those who aren't familiar with Lightroom's keystone function (placed at random just to show what it looks like):

Image
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby photoGrant » Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:24 am

Image
photoGrant
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:16 pm
Location: Midbest

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby Emile » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:17 am

photoGrant wrote:Image


I like their bug-reporting system. On the other hand I’ve had bugs in there, status “acknowledged”, for years. I think PhaseOne is monitoring this board but should participate more in it, like Adobe does.
Emile
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Dissatisfaction with C1 Tech Support

Postby thomaskyhn » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:37 am

Emile wrote:I think PhaseOne is monitoring this board but should participate more in it, like Adobe does.

They should. It's difficult to see what is gained by their insularity.
thomaskyhn
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:50 pm
Location: CPH, DK

PreviousNext

Return to Capture One 20.x Software for Mac



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest