Your down-sampling algorithm does not respect noise-reduction applied to the image at 50% zoom and smaller. Smaller zoom levels are re-sampled from the 50% image, which is aliased. It is impossible to gauge whether noise reduction edits did anything or are excessive or weak, unless zoomed in 100%.
--and there is no keyboard shortcut to toggle 100% zoom on/off, so this just adds to the annoyance.
It's been a topic that more users have asked about.
So far it seems a conscious decision and working as designed.
See this thread for example and the commentary of user 'Noob with a Nikon' who said that the answer they got from support confirmed the theory I had posed. It's done on purpose for performance reasons.
What I don't get is why you can't resize/resample (preview) images using an algorithm like Lanczos2. Even integrated graphics should be able to handle that without too much of a hit nowadays.
I had opened a feature request for better resampling filter to combat blurry previews, but that has vanished.
Support may have told you to post it in the forum for you to get community feedback (which you did get) but again, support does not actively monitor every post on this forum. They may chime in once in a while. If you want an issue to be looked into or at least get it into the backlog, you would file a support request. This doesn't guarantee that the request will be implemented anytime soon or ever. For certain things though, you might get lucky.
Support requests are for SUPPORT. This is not a problem support can handle. This is a problem the engineers should handle.
Any requests are handled or facilitated through support. If support cannot handle a request, they will forward it to whoever needs to handle it. Unless a software company is made up of just one developer that handles everything, you will not get to talk to an engineer. They are busy writing software and don't deal with end users directly, nor are they browsing the user forum for any features/bug fixes to implement. If anything, a request gets first to the Product team that determines whether they deem this issue important (they haven't, for the past idk-how-many years). If they did, they would have to check with Project management on whether implementation is feasible given what else they have on the roadmap. They in turn would have to check with engineers on technical feasibility and level of effort. I have to assume it is not a trivial fix with whatever setup they have, given how many years the issue has been "ignored".
This is incredibly inefficient. You do not need to do that. The 100% rendering works JUST FINE. Perhaps you didn't read my problem description.
I did read it and understood it completely fine. You may have missed in my reply that this issue has been in existence forever and I'm well aware that the 100% view works fine. 100% view is even what the official documentation suggests you use to check noise levels and sharpness detail (because the scaled view cannot be relied upon). But do I have a 120" screen to see the whole image at 100%? No. So 100% is irrelevant if you want to judge the image in its final form. Hence, I export it to see it in a tool that does proper scaling with all the relevant changes baked in. This is my workaround for the issue and whether you want to adopt that is up to you. I only gave you realistic expectations on whether you would see the issue resolved.
"to get around the terrible preview, I always export (Command-D) and use QuickLook or open it in Preview. "
This is incredibly inefficient. You do not need to do that. The 100% rendering works JUST FINE. Perhaps you didn't read my problem description. It's not about the 66% and 100% previews. It's about the 50% and lower previews. 50% doesn't respect the Noise Reduction. And <50% previews are a down-sampled version of the 50%, so the problem gets baked into them.
"This is a user forum. If you want to file a support request with CaptureOne, you can do so at the top of the page."
Hello, Eric, I was told by support to post it here. So, one of you is wrong.
And no, I do not want to file a support request. Support requests are for SUPPORT. This is not a problem support can handle. This is a problem the engineers should handle. No amount of hand-holding a customer can fix an engineering design flaw in the software.
This is a user forum. If you want to file a support request with CaptureOne, you can do so at the top of the page.
Having said that, the image viewer scaling has been terrible as long as I can remember and I started with CaptureOne 8. We’re at version 23 now. There are countless posts in older forums about this issue and just as many support requests have been filed. All these years, nothing has changed and one more support request is unlikely going to change that either. So, I’m just setting the expectations.
Personally, to get around the terrible preview, I always export (Command-D) and use QuickLook or open it in Preview. Then I make the adjustments accordingly in C1. It’s not real-time but export takes only 1-2secs., so I can live with it.
As for noise reduction in C1, my suggestion would be to not even bother. It’s as bad as it was in Lightroom before the AI updates. If you care about quality noise reduction, use third-party tools like DxO PureRAW or Topaz Denoise AI. I could shoot at my camera’s max native ISO (12,800) and still get useable files once I run it through DxO.
It's been a topic that more users have asked about.
So far it seems a conscious decision and working as designed.
See this thread for example and the commentary of user 'Noob with a Nikon' who said that the answer they got from support confirmed the theory I had posed. It's done on purpose for performance reasons.
What I don't get is why you can't resize/resample (preview) images using an algorithm like Lanczos2. Even integrated graphics should be able to handle that without too much of a hit nowadays.
I had opened a feature request for better resampling filter to combat blurry previews, but that has vanished.
Ryan,
Well, what do I know... https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/10682835826333/comments/10715486639645
Support may have told you to post it in the forum for you to get community feedback (which you did get) but again, support does not actively monitor every post on this forum. They may chime in once in a while. If you want an issue to be looked into or at least get it into the backlog, you would file a support request. This doesn't guarantee that the request will be implemented anytime soon or ever. For certain things though, you might get lucky.
Any requests are handled or facilitated through support. If support cannot handle a request, they will forward it to whoever needs to handle it. Unless a software company is made up of just one developer that handles everything, you will not get to talk to an engineer. They are busy writing software and don't deal with end users directly, nor are they browsing the user forum for any features/bug fixes to implement. If anything, a request gets first to the Product team that determines whether they deem this issue important (they haven't, for the past idk-how-many years). If they did, they would have to check with Project management on whether implementation is feasible given what else they have on the roadmap. They in turn would have to check with engineers on technical feasibility and level of effort. I have to assume it is not a trivial fix with whatever setup they have, given how many years the issue has been "ignored".
I did read it and understood it completely fine. You may have missed in my reply that this issue has been in existence forever and I'm well aware that the 100% view works fine. 100% view is even what the official documentation suggests you use to check noise levels and sharpness detail (because the scaled view cannot be relied upon). But do I have a 120" screen to see the whole image at 100%? No. So 100% is irrelevant if you want to judge the image in its final form. Hence, I export it to see it in a tool that does proper scaling with all the relevant changes baked in. This is my workaround for the issue and whether you want to adopt that is up to you. I only gave you realistic expectations on whether you would see the issue resolved.
Perhaps you meant to post this request in the "Improve Capture One" forum which is the expected place for feature requests.
Eric,
"to get around the terrible preview, I always export (Command-D) and use QuickLook or open it in Preview. "
This is incredibly inefficient. You do not need to do that. The 100% rendering works JUST FINE. Perhaps you didn't read my problem description. It's not about the 66% and 100% previews. It's about the 50% and lower previews. 50% doesn't respect the Noise Reduction. And <50% previews are a down-sampled version of the 50%, so the problem gets baked into them.
"This is a user forum. If you want to file a support request with CaptureOne, you can do so at the top of the page."
Hello, Eric, I was told by support to post it here. So, one of you is wrong.
And no, I do not want to file a support request. Support requests are for SUPPORT. This is not a problem support can handle. This is a problem the engineers should handle. No amount of hand-holding a customer can fix an engineering design flaw in the software.
This is a user forum. If you want to file a support request with CaptureOne, you can do so at the top of the page.
Having said that, the image viewer scaling has been terrible as long as I can remember and I started with CaptureOne 8. We’re at version 23 now. There are countless posts in older forums about this issue and just as many support requests have been filed. All these years, nothing has changed and one more support request is unlikely going to change that either. So, I’m just setting the expectations.
Personally, to get around the terrible preview, I always export (Command-D) and use QuickLook or open it in Preview. Then I make the adjustments accordingly in C1. It’s not real-time but export takes only 1-2secs., so I can live with it.
As for noise reduction in C1, my suggestion would be to not even bother. It’s as bad as it was in Lightroom before the AI updates. If you care about quality noise reduction, use third-party tools like DxO PureRAW or Topaz Denoise AI. I could shoot at my camera’s max native ISO (12,800) and still get useable files once I run it through DxO.