CaptureOne raw output is too bright

[xpatUSA]

Anybody seen this yet?



http://alexonraw.com/capture-one-an-...ring-pipeline/

Refers to Capture One Pro 9, hopefully not too much out of date. Helpful at first glance but lacking in pedantic detail. It's mostly written in SPV (Standard Photographic Vague) but we see that the working file (never seen directly) appears to be a de-mosiaced (therefore RGB) "bitmap". We see also that a DCP is applied immediately to the bitmap before it is rendered e.g. for on-screen review while editing.

For completeness of the thread topic, here's a view or two from a LibRaw forum:

https://www.libraw.org/node/2309

Responses from Alex Tutubalin (@Lexa) are the most relevant, he is after all the LibRaw man. Iliah Borg knows a bit, too ...

HTH.

[dje]

Ted I think that diagram is a bit too lacking in detail. What it doesn't show is that most of the processing adjustments are done on what he calls the bitmap file. The camera profile is used for viewing and output but not used to transform the bitmap file into a standard internal working space. Although there are a couple of exceptions to that as mentioned by the CO rep in the link I originally posted. These are layer adjustments and B&W if I remember correctly. He didn't really say how these are handled.

Dave

[billtils]

Hi!
I am just wondering if anyone is using CaptureOne for processing raw images, specifically from PhaseOne cameras.

I'm very late to this thread and now having read it will add that I'm confused too!

If you have a PhaseOne back and are using CaptureOne, surely posting to the PhaseOne and CaptureOne forums would be more appropriate than posting here or on any other general user forum? I had a look at posts on the CaptureOne forum but did not see anything that looked like your query.

[xpatUSA]

Ted I think that diagram is a bit too lacking in detail. What it doesn't show is that most of the processing adjustments are done on what he calls the bitmap file.

Agreed.

The camera profile is used for viewing and output but not used to transform the bitmap file into a standard internal working space.

Also agreed that the bitmap remains as the internal working file. It would make sense that the undefined bitmap is an RGB with a very wide gamut but that is just my speculation ...

Although there are a couple of exceptions to that as mentioned by the CO rep in the link I originally posted. These are layer adjustments and B&W if I remember correctly. He didn't really say how these are handled.

Dave

Just found this which may be of interest re the difference between Capture One and other raw conversions. Phase One is mentioned:

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...tml#post699562

Long thread and I've only glanced at the first page but, in the first illustration, one of the images is brighter ...

[billtils]

Wow, you've been digging deep into rarely visited archives Ted - that's an 8 year old post in a forum I've never heard of! Interesting read though, and contains this gem which I personally think says about all that needs to be said "The raw converter choice to me is more about which one you like the most in terms of adjustment tools and workflow."

[Manfred M]

The one thing that is missing from this whole discussion is whether or not there is any advantage of the Phase One's approach. Is superior or inferior to any other raw converter? If so, what is it?

If it were out there, I suspect we would have heard about it by now...

[xpatUSA]

The one thing that is missing from this whole discussion is whether or not there is any advantage of the Phase One's approach.

Eek! Am I to understand that Capture One is Phase One's proprietary converter? If so, I didn't know!

Is [it] superior or inferior to any other raw converter? If so, what [other converter]?

If [a superior converter] were out there, I suspect we would have heard about it by now...

And, if so, the basis of the original post becomes much more familiar to me as a Sigma shooter. Sigma's raw converter often gets disparaged - with third-party converters being said often to be "better" for some reason or other.

I take the view that a proprietary raw converter should always be the starting point and I shouldn't have to say why.

Meaning that my serious advice to Tarek now is to use Capture One for raw conversion and nothing other than Capture One. It was quite a waste of time and energy wondering why other converters render differently, IMO.

[xpatUSA]

Wow, you've been digging deep into rarely visited archives Ted - that's an 8 year old post in a forum I've never heard of! Interesting read though, and contains this gem which I personally think says about all that needs to be said "The raw converter choice to me is more about which one you like the most in terms of adjustment tools and workflow."

Interesting quote, Bill. I think it is affected by the purpose of the converter's use. I have several converters, for which I have different usages:

For culling, FastStone Viewer is "the choice" i.e. pretty speedy.

For checking sensor exposure, RawDigger is "the choice" i.e. gives me raw histograms.

For the ultimate output, the proprietary converter is "the choice" i.e. gives the most accurate, neutral output for further processing.

There is a tendency in the photography world to seek a holy grail - a converter that does everything including also whatever Photoshop can do. Personally, I favor something that converts and does little else ...

[Manfred M]

Eek! Am I to understand that Capture One is Phase One's proprietary converter? If so, I didn't know!

Yes it is, and its history is a bit interesting too. Capture One started out as software used for tethered shooting when using Phase One data backs. Over time it evolved as parametric editing capabilities were added to it. Later on a wider range of cameras were covered in their "premium" version with Sony, then FujiFilm and more recently Nikon bundling a stripped down version of the software as the raw converter that is bundled with their cameras. I have read somewhere that Capture One has become Phase One's cash cow and they make more money with it than with their data backs, bodies and lenses (the latter two are built by Mamiya; Phase One owns a major stake in Mamiya). I believe that Leaf is also part of the same company now.

Not really all that different than Lightroom, that started out as a Digital Asset Management (DAM) tool with some basic editing functionality

[billtils]

... Later on a wider range of cameras were covered in their "premium" version with Sony, then FujiFilm and more recently Nikon bundling a stripped down version of the software as the raw converter that is bundled with their cameras.

Not quite ... They do have a stripped down version that is available free to Sony, Fuji and Nikon users but (based on my son's experience when he bought a Sony) it has to be downloaded from the CaptureOne website and is not bundled with the camera. In recent times (very recent in the case of Nikon) they offer Sony, Fuji and Nikon users the full version of the software for purchase or subscription at a discounted price - it is not stripped down in regard to what it can do but each "flavour" will only work with designated models in the specific manufacturers' lines.

Based on what I have seen with the Nikon version - and somewhat relevant to the OP and some of the subsequent discussion - the manufacturer-specific packages incorporate simulations of the in-camera development routines, and all include CaptureOne's set of raw conversion "flavours". Personally I don't see much point in the former as all I want is a raw file without embellishments.

The selectable options give the user some flexibility in the image to use as the starting point for their workflow. I was about to type "Personally I don't see much point in the former as all I want is a raw file without embellishments." again but realised that I do make use of it, pretty well always using Linear Profile for serious edits and Auto for what may be delicately referred to as "Family record shots".

Here are screenshots showing results of applying the options together with the relevant histograms.


Auto



Linear Response



Film standard



Film Extra Shadow



Film High Contrast



Portrait




I'm not fussed how or why CaptureOne did this - it is what it is and can be ignored or applied by the user.

[Manfred M]

Not quite ... They do have a stripped down version that is available free to Sony, Fuji and Nikon users but (based on my son's experience when he bought a Sony) it has to be downloaded from the CaptureOne website and is not bundled with the camera.

Carefully said, we are getting into semantics here. A lot of devices don't ship with a physical disk and one has to type in a URL or scan a Q-code to access software downloads and installs. The downloads of the "crippled" Capture One software is a very good start to post-processing for new users. I remember starting with Nikon's View NX as my prime raw convertor.

In terms of the pre-packaged recipes that come with Capture One, this is really not that different that the "Profiles" Asobe supplies with Lightroom / Camera Raw. I tend to use the custom camera profile I created with xRite ColorChecker Passport and associated software. It gives me a starting point I can live with.

[xpatUSA]

yeah I've mentioned that the curve response is set to "linear" but still the output is really strange for me! It seems just like there is an auto-brightness adjustment being done

For what they're worth, here are two auto-brightened images - one with 2.2 gamma and one linear - no adjustment, raw composites straight out of RawDigger. Posted to illustrate the difference between gamma-corrected and linear.

[xpatUSA]

Frankly I have trouble seeing a use for RIMM.

FYI Dave, this is how RIMM is used in ACR according to ICC:

http://www.color.org/scene-referred.xalter

Quite an old publication, some might say.

xalter-speak is not real easy to understand either - a price pedants have to pay, it seems ...

P.S. I downloaded ICC's ISO RIMM profile (ISO22028-3_RIMM-RGB-exCR.icc) then opened an image in RawTherapee with it as the 'input profile'. I kept the working space as 'ProPhoto', made no adjustments and saved with an output profile of 'sRGB2014'.

The color in the saved image (mostly foliage) was slightly more pleasant to my eye. In RT, one can save the entire processing sidecar .pp3 file and re-use it on a new image ... tempting ...

I also tried their linear RIMM profile (linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc) but, used as an input profile, it seemed to render with a pretty high black level. Bloody v4 strikes again ... ??

P.P.S. There's an ISO flowchart here which clarifies the difference between and usages of scene-referred and output-referred encodings.

[dje]

FYI Dave, this is how RIMM is used in ACR according to ICC:

http://www.color.org/scene-referred.xalter

Quite an old publication, some might say.

xalter-speak is not real easy to understand either - a price pedants have to pay, it seems ...

P.S. I downloaded ICC's ISO RIMM profile (ISO22028-3_RIMM-RGB-exCR.icc) then opened an image in RawTherapee with it as the 'input profile'. I kept the working space as 'ProPhoto', made no adjustments and saved with an output profile of 'sRGB2014'.

The color in the saved image (mostly foliage) was slightly more pleasant to my eye. In RT, one can save the entire processing sidecar .pp3 file and re-use it on a new image ... tempting ...

I also tried their linear RIMM profile (linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc) but, used as an input profile, it seemed to render with a pretty high black level. Bloody v4 strikes again ... ??

P.P.S. There's an ISO flowchart here which clarifies the difference between and usages of scene-referred and output-referred encodings.

Thanks for those references Ted. I’ve given them a quick scan but will need to look at them in more detail as the day goes on. There appear to be some interesting concepts mentioned which will take my ageing brain a while to decipher!

Dave