Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 94

Thread: Studio 2 is a total disaster

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Option #3 is what Olympus has tried to do and it has required the greatest effort on their part and, judging by the report of Studio 2, may no longer be an option for a demanding or high-volume workflow.
    Why not download it and give it a spin yourself?

    Here's why I think Olympus is mistaken to try to develop their own image editors: They lack the experience, programming resources and vision. They can't come close to matching an Adobe image editor---that's why more camera makers are starting to farm out the work to other software companies.
    And yet the image quality out of the RAWs from Olympus, other than dealing with highlight burn recovery, is in my opinion superior to Adobe CS3/Lightroom/ Silky Pix 3 (latest), LightZone. Particularly when talking about lower light / higher iso sensitivity shots.

    Part of this of course, because Olympus makes the camera, but this also goes for other manufacturers.

    - Raist

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by markky99 View Post
    Well I have to agree with Raist - on my AMD 3800 dual (Win XP) it runs a lot faster than 1.51, and with better results - good detail, nice noise reduction algorithm. Also I find the interface quite workable/better.

    It seems to me that most of the complainers re speed appear to be MAC users.
    On the Mac (Intel, core 2 duo) it also runs faster. I haven't tried a powerPC mac 1.52 Oly Studio vs the latest on an Intel core 2 duo though, but comparing to the my dual core athlon and knowing how the power PC was lagging in performance vs intel chips at that level, I think it's relatively safe to say it's faster.

    - Raist

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,321
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Raist3d View Post
    On the Mac (Intel, core 2 duo) it also runs faster. I haven't tried a powerPC mac 1.52 Oly Studio vs the latest on an Intel core 2 duo though, but comparing to the my dual core athlon and knowing how the power PC was lagging in performance vs intel chips at that level, I think it's relatively safe to say it's faster.

    - Raist
    I tried it on Mac mini with G4 processor and it was faster then Studio 1.5

    Also as a RAW converter in my opinion it was MUCH better then Studio 1.5
    My trial expired and now I'm using Master at the moment, Master/Studio 2 brought to new life some of my images - especially in dark areas of photos.

    I'll post this soon in a new thread.

    On Mac, from my point of view, only RawDeveloper is Image quality wise the same like original Oly converters. On PC nothing unfortunately.

    Yours Bojan

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Raist,

    I hope I can explain what I meant by my comments without this turning into an argument - I have no interest in arguing with anyone..... if it works fine for you, then I'm happy for you...... it doesn't work for me - or a few other mac users that I know.....

    What kind of Mac do you have?
    I have a tiny dinky imac - underpowered as can be...... but Studio 1 works fine on it, Raw Developer works fine on it, ACR works fine on it, Silkypix is a bit slow, but still quite usable....

    I find the speed of the new one a bit faster than 1.52.
    I don't make things up - I ran several batches of 10 files each.... Raw Developer took approx 1.5 minutes to process them, Studio 1 took about 2 minutes to process them and Studio 2 took over 6 minutes to process them....

    that is why I said it was 3 times slower.... I hope it is faster for those on windows and I hope it is faster for you on your system - but it is definitely much slower on my system.... and I've talked to other mac users who are reporting the same as me....

    I completely disagree on the interface. I actually welcome the new interface because not only it looks much better, but seems much more functional to me.
    much of the new functionality is about creating emails and making albums - stuff I'm not interested in at all, especially from my 'professional' converter....

    and there is lost functionality, too..... but what I really dislike is that it now takes many steps and many clicks to do what I used to be able to do with one click - the new interface is less efficient for me, and efficiency was one of the primary benefits to the Studio 1 interface.

    I don't understand this at all. I have been able to open files that are not "registered" with Studio 2.
    well, all I can say is that if my files are already 'registered' with Studio or put into a place where they are automatically registered (which might be what you are seeing), then I had no problems opening files.

    but if I moved a new image onto the desktop, for example - Studio 2 refused to even 'see' the file until I 'registered' it.

    Moreover, I am glad that Studio 2 apparently does have a digital photograph management facility
    ok, I'm glad that works for you....

    but what about those of us who already have DAMs and don't want to have to worry about messing around with Studio's registry just to be able to process raw files?

    -- can no longer batch from current image, must create batch setting file
    Don't quite know what you mean with this one.
    I meant exactly what I said - in Studio 1, you could run a batch using the current settings of the displayed image (which is how I usually did it) or you could create and save a settings file and then load that to run a batch.

    now you can only run a batch by creating, saving and then loading a settings file --- not a big deal, but it shows the loss of efficiency - see how many more steps that takes than just running a batch from the file already on display?

    -- can't batch folder with both vertical and horizontal images, at least not with resizing - it forces vertical images into horizontal shapes by stretching and warping them (hey, I guess if you want a cheap 'fisheye' function)
    Don't quite know what you mean with this one.
    I posted a warped photo to show what Studio 2 did to my photo - did you take a look at that? have you run a mixed batch of verticals and horizontals where you specified a resize? did all the verticals get warped?

    I'm surprised that no one has commented on the warping - either my photo or whether it happens to their photos.....I am genuinely interested if someone using a mac can run batches without that happening.... I've tried many times -- and spent time on the phone with tech support - and none of us can figure out how to make it stop warping my photos...

    and lest you tell me that is somehow my fault, I have seen the same warping occur on other mac systems much larger and newer than mine.

    at the very least, even you must think that is unacceptable behavior!

    I don't know what this means, but you can actually start converting a raw image in the background while you continue working. YES, OLYMPUS STUDIO 2 HAS THE LONG AWAITED/PROFESSIONAL FEATURE of BACKGROUND RAW CONVERSION. How you can say it's a total disaster over the first, I don't understand.
    well, I didn't say this particular thing was a disaster - I didn't mention it at all because this is not the least bit relevant to my particular workflow - I prefer to run a batch after I've decided on the settings for the batch....

    even with Raw Developer, where it is fast and easy to set individual settings for each and every image, i still prefer to finish all the settings and then run the whole batch for processing - I just leave and do something else while the images are cooking for me...

    I have never used - or even looked for - this feature, so can't comment at all, other than to say I'm glad it works for you.


    -- resize within edit function is totally unpredictable - a lotto game, just enter the numbers and see what bizarre sizes you actually get
    On the Mac (this is a bug probably- or was it the PC version, can't remember) you need to have at least 1 number up before entering the others or it will force a certain one.
    no, I'm not talking about constraining the sizes to a certain proportion.... what I mean is that I can enter 800 x 600 and get an image that is 600 x 450 --- not at all related to the specified size....

    I need to try this but as far as I know you can specify *any* name you want when you batch, so I don't get this.
    but Raist, here is another thing where you are disagreeing with me but you haven't even tried it yet!

    if I process a single image, I get the specified name.... but every single time I ran a batch - where I specified the name using the "File Naming Rule", I got names that had both 'ORF' and 'JPG' as suffixes....

    I tried every possible combination --- and spent more than an hour on the phone with Olympus tech support who couldn't think of anything else to try, either - and could not get Studio to drop the 'ORF'....



    Does this include converting to exit-tiffs? There's an explicit format to save when doing so and both the old and new Olympus Studio behave the same way. What exactly you are seeing not getting saved?
    'exif-tiff' is 8 bit tiff, I'm talking about 16 bit tiffs..... I suppose I should have specified that, but I sort of figured that everyone knew the old Studio would not save exif data for 16 bit tiffs - and that is what people want - so I was just pointing out that the new one doesn't either.

    I have yet to see a better RAW converter for Olympus images when doing high iso than Olympus' Studio. Moreover, I like the quality of the overall conversions more
    I also like the quality of the Studio conversions - although please be aware that Studio 2 has a different tone curve than Studio 1 did.....

    I do think Raw Developer works better with high ISO - it has several early stage noise removal tools that are rather unique and work very well...

    but in general, Studio 1 was my preferred converter for E1 files - that is precisely why I am so crushed with disappointment at what they did to it!

    BTW, there are several places within Studio 2 where it calls itself 'Master 2' - you can decipher that for yourself...

    I am sorry but I completely disagree with you.
    PS: I urge the other posters than instead of going by a single review- try the thing for yourself. And please don't try it for like 5 minutes without getting around the interface a bit and think it suxors- try it a bit. Any program has a minimum learning curve, and it's when you get that past point you can really assess it.
    I don't mind at all that you disagree with me - we can all have different opinions and different workflows, no reason for that to be a problem....

    but I don't like it so much that you've attributed my opinions to only trying it 'for like 5 minutes' - I'm quite sure that I've used it at least as much as you have.....
    doreen

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by dmpbyrdwatcher View Post
    Raist,
    but I don't like it so much that you've attributed my opinions to only trying it 'for like 5 minutes' - I'm quite sure that I've used it at least as much as you have.....
    I am sorry but I have to answer this right away- where exactly did I do this? I was talking to other people to try it for themselves, and like many people that seem to try something superficially I encouraged everyone to try it for longer than 5 minutes. That was not directed at you.

    I want to make sure this is clear.

    - Raist

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by dmpbyrdwatcher View Post
    Raist,

    I hope I can explain what I meant by my comments without this turning into an argument - I have no interest in arguing with anyone..... if it works fine for you, then I'm happy for you...... it doesn't work for me - or a few other mac users that I know.....
    That's cool. After reading your reply I wonder if the issue is RAM usage. How much RAM do you have in your Mac? I wouldn't be surprised if Studio 2 uses more ram. If your Mac needs to hit the hardisk for swap space more often, that alone would explain why it's running slower.

    BTW, I understand that it may not work for you and work for me, but when you read a title that says "Studio 2 is a total disaster" which seems a strong categorization without asking for feedback on running different machines, don't expect too many flowers if it works well for someone else :-). Imagine if someone posted "Olympus E-1 camera is a complete joke" because it doesn't work well for their super fast auto focus needs for sports journalistic photography and had their work rejected for being only 5 mega pixel shots in Sports Illustrated.

    Hope that made sense ;-) That said, let me see if we can dig a bit deeper why Studio 2 runs so bad on your machine.

    I have a tiny dinky imac - underpowered as can be...... but Studio 1 works fine on it, Raw Developer works fine on it, ACR works fine on it, Silkypix is a bit slow, but still quite usable....
    Is your Mac Intel or Power PC? It's possible Studio 2 is not as optimized on PowerPC this time around which is bad, but I don't have an easy way to corroborate that having no powerPC Mac. How much ram you have? What cpu?

    I don't make things up - I ran several batches of 10 files each.... Raw Developer took approx 1.5 minutes to process them, Studio 1 took about 2 minutes to process them and Studio 2 took over 6 minutes to process them....
    There are many other possible explanations for why it would run much slower. I am trying to find out (hence I am asking what machine you have). Now, I am not saying you are making things up- by the same token I am not either. So something else is going on.

    that is why I said it was 3 times slower.... I hope it is faster for those on windows and I hope it is faster for you on your system - but it is definitely much slower on my system.... and I've talked to other mac users who are reporting the same as me....
    Well I have a Mac core 2 duo power book and I can say, it's not slower than the Athlon dual core PC I have. Unless Studio was taking full advantage of Altivec (and your machine is a Power PC mac), and this advantage gave it such a big improvement I don't see how that would quite happen (again, I am not saying you are lying, saying there must be something else going on). Altivec doesn't accelerate all the applications in all operations though.. so I wouldn't expect the jump to be big except in specific operations like an unsharp mask.

    much of the new functionality is about creating emails and making albums - stuff I'm not interested in at all, especially from my 'professional' converter....
    You can also backup CD/DVD's and track photos. There's also new raw converter options like isolated point removal, new options for sharpening/unsharp masks, dealing with curves on different channels, and a couple of others.

    and there is lost functionality, too..... but what I really dislike is that it now takes many steps and many clicks to do what I used to be able to do with one click - the new interface is less efficient for me, and efficiency was one of the primary benefits to the Studio 1 interface.
    I would like to know what scenarios specifically... I don't see any in particular but I could certainly be wrong or may have missed something.

    well, all I can say is that if my files are already 'registered' with Studio or put into a place where they are automatically registered (which might be what you are seeing), then I had no problems opening files.

    but if I moved a new image onto the desktop, for example - Studio 2 refused to even 'see' the file until I 'registered' it.
    I don't have a problem there either. I have found I have to refresh the view like going from one folder to another, but there's no registeration per se in Studio's database I have to do.

    ok, I'm glad that works for you....

    but what about those of us who already have DAMs and don't want to have to worry about messing around with Studio's registry just to be able to process raw files?
    Again, I don't have to register any raw files to process them. I can even open files from the memcard device directly and raw process them. I can do this, so obviously then Studio 2 can allow someone to do this (or I am hallucinating). As for "those of us who have DAMS already" it doesn't take away from the program the fact it has that feature. What about the ones that are interested in Studio 2 because they don't have a DAM program and can use it as such?

    I mean I find a comment like that weak. Many applications have features that other applications we already have, have. It is to the benefit of each software developer to put whatever feature they deem in their product to be competitive. I think Studio 2 having this is actually a step forward in the type of program it is. If someone already has a DAM program then simply don't use that feature of Studio 2.

    I meant exactly what I said - in Studio 1, you could run a batch using the current settings of the displayed image (which is how I usually did it) or you could create and save a settings file and then load that to run a batch.
    Then I am confused because you can run a batch of the current settings of the current displayed image. You can actually select several raw files with individual settings and convert them in the background.

    After trying Studio 1.5x again, I see what you are saying regarding the batch in the edit mode (where the filters are). I don't know exactly what the difference is n the 1.5x workflow and this since in Studio 1.5x you would have to open all the files you want to set this way, while if all you care is to process a single file you can just save it in Studio 2. If you open several images then use the settings, then that's different - if this is what you mean.

    But it' snot all bad- like I said, now you can batch in the background, image conversions. Before you couldn't. Before you had to sit and wait until Studio finished all RAW conversions. You can even do batch-processing in the background! Before with Studio 1.5x you were stuck there waiting.. correct? Isn't this a BIG improvement over 1.5x?

    This is why I decided to put my point of view. I see a lot of "bad bad bad" with nothing about new improvements. I understand that if it doesn't work on your machine that's real bad, but again, there could be other reasons other than the program. Or perhaps on a Power PC Mac (if you have one) now it works horrible.. but on a core 2 duo Intel Mac it runs comparable to what I see on the PC (runs better than my dual core Athlon, but then the core 2 duo is faster than the dual core athlon).

    now you can only run a batch by creating, saving and then loading a settings file --- not a big deal, but it shows the loss of efficiency - see how many more steps that takes than just running a batch from the file already on display?

    In this particular scenario yes, but again, I don't see what is the big issue in this regard. If you are converting only one image, you can simply save it directly. Oly 1.5x allowed you to open several but you couldn't open may as that would eat ram fast. If you batch process them now you get the benefits of background processing.

    I posted a warped photo to show what Studio 2 did to my photo - did you take a look at that? have you run a mixed batch of verticals and horizontals where you specified a resize? did all the verticals get warped?

    I'm surprised that no one has commented on the warping - either my photo or whether it happens to their photos.....I am genuinely interested if someone using a mac can run batches without that happening.... I've tried many times -- and spent time on the phone with tech support - and none of us can figure out how to make it stop warping my photos...

    and lest you tell me that is somehow my fault, I have seen the same warping occur on other mac systems much larger and newer than mine.

    at the very least, even you must think that is unacceptable behavior!
    I find the "even you" a bit excessive, but yes, I confirmed the behavior. Seems like Oly Studio 2 gets confused with the photos being in a particular orientation at the rotate exif data level (meaning it seems like I coudn't get this to happen on certain situations but on others I did see it). Ironically given the conversion does rotate them it means Oly Studio 2 has the information it needs to make the right choice but it doesn't. Yup, this is unacceptable.


    well, I didn't say this particular thing was a disaster - I didn't mention it at all because this is not the least bit relevant to my particular workflow - I prefer to run a batch after I've decided on the settings for the batch....

    even with Raw Developer, where it is fast and easy to set individual settings for each and every image, i still prefer to finish all the settings and then run the whole batch for processing - I just leave and do something else while the images are cooking for me...
    You can actually do this but only with the RAW settings- which is cool except it doesn't make much sense why Olympus didn't do it for tweaks in the edit window, not just the RAW window.

    [del]

    but Raist, here is another thing where you are disagreeing with me but you haven't even tried it yet!
    Blah blah blah blah! I am sorry but this particular point doesn't describe the tone of my entire post nor my other points. I even said I have to yet tried and made it clear. Yes, the name will have the ORF, I just saw it. I don't think this marks the end of the world though.

    if I process a single image, I get the specified name.... but every single time I ran a batch - where I specified the name using the "File Naming Rule", I got names that had both 'ORF' and 'JPG' as suffixes....

    I tried every possible combination --- and spent more than an hour on the phone with Olympus tech support who couldn't think of anything else to try, either - and could not get Studio to drop the 'ORF'....
    Confirmed, though I don't see this as the end all be all of cons.

    'exif-tiff' is 8 bit tiff, I'm talking about 16 bit tiffs..... I suppose I should have specified that, but I sort of figured that everyone knew the old Studio would not save exif data for 16 bit tiffs - and that is what people want - so I was just pointing out that the new one doesn't either.
    Ok, fair enough.

    I also like the quality of the Studio conversions - although please be aware that Studio 2 has a different tone curve than Studio 1 did.....

    I do think Raw Developer works better with high ISO - it has several early stage noise removal tools that are rather unique and work very well...

    but in general, Studio 1 was my preferred converter for E1 files - that is precisely why I am so crushed with disappointment at what they did to it!

    BTW, there are several places within Studio 2 where it calls itself 'Master 2' - you can decipher that for yourself...
    Well, yes, no kidding.

    I don't mind at all that you disagree with me - we can all have different opinions and different workflows, no reason for that to be a problem....

    but I don't like it so much that you've attributed my opinions to only trying it 'for like 5 minutes' - I'm quite sure that I've used it at least as much as you have.....
    I didn't. You made a (wrong) assumption, but to be crystal clear, no, I didn't suggest you only tried for 5 minutes. I was referring to whoever else I encouraged to try it.

    At the end of the day, I still stick by the fact that Oly Studio 2 in my opinion gives the best quality conversions except if you get to highlight recovery tweaks. So if I was shooting raw and wanted the best looking image from my Oly camera, I would stick with studio particularly with high iso low light shots.

    However, for me this works usually well since I have more exceptions of images that are RAW than my whole workflow based on the idea that I am going to tweak the images after I captured them. I get most of my shots out of the camera, no tweaks in jpeg, so I can understand someone who post processes a lot and converts a lot of RAWS to have some issues.

    But again, it's not all bad, and apparently on different machines there are different experiences. I stand by my comment that those that see this thread should check it out by themselves.


    - Raist

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,393
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by dmpbyrdwatcher View Post
    BTW, there are several places within Studio 2 where it calls itself 'Master 2' - you can decipher that for yourself...
    Apart from the features aimed at professional workflows like batch, DAM, light table etc., do the two programs Master 2 and Studio 2 share the same RAW engine - including setting possibilities?

    I'm shooting jpgs for 95% of my scenes and I just want an Olympus original fully featured RAW developer for the occasional RAW images I take in difficult light. Is there then any point in buying Studio 2 if I already have Master 2 (assuming that it works smoothly on my computer)?

    Cheers, Jens.

    PS. I don't think Studio 1.51 is running that good all the time either. Quite often the program will shoke when browsing RAW images and doing certain actions.
    Motto: Wildlife won't come to me unless I go to it.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    My Wildlife Photos: jensbirch.smugmug.com

    E-5, E-3, E-510, IR-E-1 ,E-P2
    ZD: 7-14, 14-54, 50, 50-200 SWD, 90-250/2.8, 300/2.8, EC-14, EC-20
    Peleng 8mm fisheye, shift Tamron SP 17/3.5, Tokina AT-X 300/2.8
    FL-50R, FL-40, FL-20, HLD-2, HLD-4, cleaved ZD EX-25 w. electric bypass, 250D, 500D, KatzEye Plus OptiBrite
    Feisol CT-3472LV and CM-1471

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by jebir View Post
    Is there then any point in buying Studio 2 if I already have Master 2 (assuming that it works smoothly on my computer)?

    Hi Jens,

    If Master 2 runs ok on your computer and you only need the 'processing engine' for occasional raw developing, then I would just stick with Master 2, especially if you would have to pay for Studio 2.

    I didn't spend much time with Master 2, but the differences between Master 2 and Studio 2 appeared to be related to the 'extras', such as tethered shooting, and not the actual processing capabilities.
    doreen

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Hi Raist,

    After reading your reply I wonder if the issue is RAM usage.
    let me see if we can dig a bit deeper why Studio 2 runs so bad on your machine.
    one thing that is interesting - the Oly US site says:

    "Olympus Studio 2 is compatible with Windows® 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and Windows Vista."

    no mention of mac compatibility at all.... but they do provide mac downloads and Studio 2 itself provides mac 'system requirements' - all of which my system easily meets...

    so thanks for the sleuthing offer, but it doesn't really matter - all I need to know is that all my other converters work fine and many of my mac friends are having the same problems with Studio 2....

    If someone already has a DAM program then simply don't use that feature of Studio 2.
    I would be very happy to simply not use that feature of Studio 2 - the problem is that it won't let me...

    Oly 1.5x allowed you to open several but you couldn't open may as that would eat ram fast. If you batch process them now you get the benefits of background processing.
    no, from this comment and another one that I didn't quote again, I don't think you understand what I mean - I never opened more than a single file when I ran batches in Studio 1.... but never mind the details, the point I was making is the loss of efficiency - which is not relevant to you perhaps if you enjoy the background processing. I don't and I miss the loss of efficiency from the clean and simple interface of Studio 1.

    I confirmed the behavior.
    thank you for confirming that Studio 2 warps verticals if you run a batch with both horizontals and verticals.

    IMO, this alone is a showstopper - how can a converter that actually WARPS images be considered 'professional' or even 'usable'?

    it is a disgrace!

    Yes, the name will have the ORF, I just saw it.
    thank you for confirming that bug, too.

    see, I just don't understand how Olympus cannot be ashamed of itself for releasing --- and charging people for -- a piece of software that makes these kinds of idiotic mistakes.

    no, I didn't suggest you only tried for 5 minutes.
    ok, thanks for clarifying that.

    At the end of the day, I still stick by the fact that Oly Studio 2 in my opinion gives the best quality conversions except if you get to highlight recovery tweaks.
    yes, as long as you don't mind that half of your photos are WARPED and all of them are called 'orfs' when they are really jpgs!

    sorry, couldn't resist.... but these are still only a sampling of the problems that make this software unreliable and unusable - and certainly unprofessional - IMO...

    I'm not criticizing people who use it or like it (heaven knows I suffered through enough criticism for liking Studio 1) -- I'm criticizing Olympus for apparently not even testing it on macs..... and for calling this a 'professional' tool....
    doreen

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by dmpbyrdwatcher View Post
    Hi Raist,



    one thing that is interesting - the Oly US site says:

    "Olympus Studio 2 is compatible with Windows® 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and Windows Vista."

    no mention of mac compatibility at all.... but they do provide mac downloads and Studio 2 itself provides mac 'system requirements' - all of which my system easily meets...

    so thanks for the sleuthing offer, but it doesn't really matter - all I need to know is that all my other converters work fine and many of my mac friends are having the same problems with Studio 2....
    But some apparently aren't. Maybe your friends have similar configurations- who knows. I am only trying to understand why were are getting in some areas different results. Someone else posted here that they noted Studio 2.0 does indeed run faster on their G4 Mac. Why is it so hard just to say the kind of Mac you are running this on?




    I would be very happy to simply not use that feature of Studio 2 - the problem is that it won't let me...

    no, from this comment and another one that I didn't quote again, I don't think you understand what I mean - I never opened more than a single file when I ran batches in Studio 1.... but never mind the details, the point I was making is the loss of efficiency - which is not relevant to you perhaps if you enjoy the background processing. I don't and I miss the loss of efficiency from the clean and simple interface of Studio 1.
    But this is why I am asking questions, to see where I am misunderstanding what you mean then. I welcome the corrections in my misunderstanding.

    thank you for confirming that Studio 2 warps verticals if you run a batch with both horizontals and verticals.

    IMO, this alone is a showstopper - how can a converter that actually WARPS images be considered 'professional' or even 'usable'?

    it is a disgrace!
    Yes, that is bad, but like I said, at the end of the day I still find RAW conversions from it better than what I am seeing elsewhere, hence I stick with it for that kind of job. This is the kind of thing I expect them to fix just like they added patches to Studio pre 2.0

    thank you for confirming that bug, too.

    see, I just don't understand how Olympus cannot be ashamed of itself for releasing --- and charging people for -- a piece of software that makes these kinds of idiotic mistakes.
    Well the naming I don't think is the end all be all of bugs. The one about mixing verticals and horizontals is.

    ok, thanks for clarifying that.



    yes, as long as you don't mind that half of your photos are WARPED and all of them are called 'orfs' when they are really jpgs!

    sorry, couldn't resist.... but these are still only a sampling of the problems that make this software unreliable and unusable - and certainly unprofessional - IMO...
    I am sorry but your little paragraph above suggests I am some kind of idiot that puts up with that. I think I made it clear, that yes, it's a horrible bug, and that for good for for evil, Oly Studio 2 still does a better job in my opinion at raw conversion. Moreover, you are blasting at the bugs all the cons without mentioning any of the benefits like background raw conversion, which if you look around is what most if not all raw converters have nowadays and I know several people that were screaming for this feature to be in.

    As for the ORF preffix, again, this is hardly an issue. The .jpeg extension is used.

    As for program bugs in general, I have seen my share of Photoshop Bugs.. I think this speaks more about the state of software development than Olympus specifically, though I agree they should have done more testing and put out a patch for this ASAP.

    BTW, if you paid for the upgrade and you had a valid license of Studio 1.xx, you over paid- the upgrade is free.

    I'm not criticizing people who use it or like it (heaven knows I suffered through enough criticism for liking Studio 1) -- I'm criticizing Olympus for apparently not even testing it on macs..... and for calling this a 'professional' tool....
    What makes you think these issues are not on the PC?

    - Raist

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    233
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by dmpbyrdwatcher View Post
    First, let me say that I actually like Studio 1 - it is my preferred converter.....

    clean and convenient interface, easy to use, some nice features (tone and distortion correction, etc.), great results - all within its known limitations, of course....

    so I was eager to 'upgrade' to Studio 2...

    what a disaster.... Studio 2 on a mac is not even usuable...

    Mostly I just don't understand why Olympus would even consider publishing this unusable and embarrassing piece of [insert expletive here] - even for free.... how could they look anyone in the eye and say this is their 'professional' software for the new E3??
    I'm in full agreement with you, Doreen. With so many competent RAW workflow solutions on the market these days, I can't imagine what Olympus is thinking. It is interesting that Studio 2 was very late (remember the website message to the effect of "coming in May 2007" that stayed up through June?) and, even when it finally became available, it was pretty hard to get. Clearly, something went wrong.

    Like you, I was a fan of Studio 1 because, despite its glacial performance, it produced the best RAW development results in most cases. With Studio 2, I don't even see the superior results, as compared to products like RAW Developer, LightZone, etc. Personally, I'd much rather use Lightroom, LightZone, and other non-destructive RAW workflow tools these days. I can no longer see any reason to excuse Studio's myriad flaws.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Here's the reason I put up with it...

    As a raw converter. And this example is not even a best case for it. I made this post at photo camel.. reproduced here... The same goes for LightRoom (yes, I tried the very latest) though not quite as exact as Silky Pix. Bible (latest one) actually surprised me in that it was pretty decent and has one of the best highlight recoveries.

    BTW, I love LightZone but not for this reason. LightZone to me is the best photography oriented post processing tool as far as feature+interface goes... but then I don't do much post at all....


    ------8X CUT HERE

    I have to say I still like the Olympus RAW converter better. It's slower, yes, but I find it does a better job. Here's an example for dealing with ISO 1600 noise, with the false color cancellation vs Silky pix... I also find the Oly Studio RAW - "grain" far more natural than the somewhat more digital Silky Pix (ACR and others do the same thing, the worse in my book was Raw Shooter):

    UPDATE- these are 100% crops, taken as a screen shot from the application screen, and compressed in a very high quality jpeg for this comparison (PaintShop Pro jpeg "5" compression with 1x1x1).

    First Silky Pix 3:



    Oly Studio (1.5):



    Oly Studio 2.0 still includes this kind of control.... The nice thing is I can apply the false color cancellation blindly in a batch process and it all comes out pretty nice.

    - Raist

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    233
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Here's the reason I put up with it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Raist3d View Post
    As a raw converter. And this example is not even a best case for it. I made this post at photo camel.. reproduced here... The same goes for LightRoom (yes, I tried the very latest) though not quite as exact as Silky Pix. Bible (latest one) actually surprised me in that it was pretty decent and has one of the best highlight recoveries.

    BTW, I love LightZone but not for this reason. LightZone to me is the best photography oriented post processing tool as far as feature+interface goes... but then I don't do much post at all....

    Well, if ISO 1600 is the reason to use Studio, I won't miss it. That's good to know. My ISO dial never exceeds 400 and only very rarely exceeds 100.

    These days, I use LightZone quite a lot and I highly recommend it for people who don't mind spending a little time on PP to coax a bit more out of the special or particularly challenging images.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Here's the reason I put up with it...

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrtolite View Post
    Well, if ISO 1600 is the reason to use Studio, I won't miss it. That's good to know. My ISO dial never exceeds 400 and only very rarely exceeds 100.

    These days, I use LightZone quite a lot and I highly recommend it for people who don't mind spending a little time on PP to coax a bit more out of the special or particularly challenging images.
    Well, to me certainly, it works better at all ISO's, but I find low light and high ISO a best case to highlight the quality of the conversion vs others - except highlight recovery which it doesn't do as good as others.

    Certainly though, I dont' mean to say Studio 2 is perfect or such thing or everyone would realize benefits in situations like that (as you very well mentioned yourself as an example).

    LightZone built in converter is not all that incredible, but I like it enough vs some others I have seen ironically. But LightZone itself is a gem otherwise.

    - Raist

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Frankly I think studio 1 was a disaster, and 1.52 wasn't much better. Had a lot of potential though.
    It crashes a lot, it's slow, the interface is completely stupid. What it does, it does pretty well. But not worth the misery. I do love the camera control though....that was the only reason I bought it. That and I got it for a steal.
    I'm surprised so many posters here mention using Studio regularly. Am I missing something?
    My main toolbox is Adobe Lightroom. Why are you guys using Studio? I ask because I really am wondering if I'm missing something here.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hongkong, China
    Posts
    5,062
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    A little bit OT here, please forgive me ....
    I guess the RAW development of Studio 2 and Master 2 are identical, only Studio 2 offers a bit more, for e.g. the color filter function, also the camera control with USB cable connected to PC.

    The price of the Studio 2 is 84 Euros .....

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    2,437
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    I am so annoyed with Olympus software at the moment, it is making ME want to change systems. I have 200 files trying to get ready for a client and the damn crap doesn't work. I cannot get master to develop them. I have installed it on two computers and both are doing the same thing

    There is absolutely no excuse for this. I need my raw files developed. I don't have time for this BS

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,141
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Jesse

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Studio 2's trial is about to run out for me. I guess I'll have to go back to PSE 4.0 & ACR. That's not bad, but I'm going to miss the ability to preview all of my RAW files at once.

    JW

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,777
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Sorry to hear about your problems. Studio 2 has worked well in all respects on my Windows machine. My only problem is I can't get the key to continue using it now that the trial period has expired.
    Good shooting,
    English Bob

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,141
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Jesse

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    E.B.,

    I'm in the same boat my last day is today. I tried to purchase the key and the page says not available until July. Last time I checked July is almost over!

    JW

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,777
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Well, I've loaded Master 2 and am using that as a RAW developer for now and then editing as necessary in PWP. Hopefully the problem with the key for Studio 2 will be resolved in the near future. It was reasonably fast on my machine and the additional feature of background RAW development while editing other images was overdue and most welcome.
    Good shooting,
    English Bob

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Reading, with some trepidation
    Posts
    987
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by cifcap View Post
    Studio 2's trial is about to run out for me. I guess I'll have to go back to PSE 4.0 & ACR. That's not bad, but I'm going to miss the ability to preview all of my RAW files at once.

    JW
    Consider Lightroom for Mac or PC. It teams up with the PSE editor quite well.

    If you are using the PC, you could also consider ACDSee V8 or V9, (V8 was still available for download at softwareoutlet.com as of about a week or two ago) or a host of other free or inexpensive managers. You may have to search a bit to find equivalent Mac titles.

    The cool thing with ACDSee and I assume other organizers, is you can browse the raw files and Right click a raw photo and send it to PSE/ACR. you get a lot of the functionality of Lightroom without the cost.

    Anyhow I don't think you have to settle for less functionality.
    Glen Barrington
    Cheese Whiz

  23. #73
    DSLR Hunter Guest

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Sorry to hear all of you are having problems with Studio 2. I have it installed on my Windows Vista machine and I also have the code. It is working well for me, but understand that I am a rank amateur and I probably would not recognize quality problems unless they were very obvious.

    Now I still have problems with USING S2. First of all I cannot get the batch process feature to work. It requires that I use a batch processing file, yet whenever I try to create one, the option is minimized and will not allow me to save settings for a processing file. I have tried it from all angles - menu, icons, etc. No joy.

    I can still "batch process" a number of raw files (appears to be no limit) by selecting all the files I want to process and developing them as shot. Seems to work much quickly than S1.X Then I move on to Adobe.

    But things like it being sluggish or crashing or anything like that - no problems at all. Maybe it just works better on Vista? That is the only explanation I can provide.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    232
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    as the question has been raised:

    YES, it is indeed possible to work with 1.51 (and do good work with it!), I really love what Studio 1.51 does with RAW, and yes, with additional manual setting of false colour suppresion and noise reduction in RAW you get good results in developing high ISO pictures or - too - in using it for LOW ISO if you underexpose pictures heavily in order not to blow the highlights (e. g. brilliant sky plus hard shadows) and then raise the shadows in RAW: this of course produces noise in RAW even at ISO 100 if you push up the shadows quite a lot (BTW, I do only about +0,5 EV in RAW and then use the apical feature up to 70-90% which might be equivalent of +2-3 EV or even more, just a guess): then in RAW adjust colour noise reduction as required but no noise reduction, and you get good sharpness, good detail, no colour noise - and no blown highlights with good shadows
    besides, it works fast on my XP notebook, and for me converting RAW in 1.51 is really, really simple

    BUT of course Oly Master 1.xx is quite some disaster, whereas 2.0 is improved in some ways but not the "real thing", nevertheless

    I DID try out Studio 2.01, but it was way to slow on my XP notebook (but reputedly it should work much faster on Vista); anyway, for me batch processing with 1.51 was more comfortable than with 2.0 as it allowed for changes (meaning: I did save all settings, load the next picture, applied the settings and adjusted them for each picture ...), with 2.0 you'll have to save the batch processed files with the same settings for all files: I'm not best pleased with that, otherwise (and despite the speed) I did like 2.0
    and its new possibilities quite a lot

    I only had the trial of 2.0 and now am back to 1.51; I also did test Silkypix trial, and though it did quite well with Oly RAWs it wasn't at all faster than 1.51, probably even slower, and the same goes for Adobe trial which I didn't like at all for RAW conversion



    so, really, I love my 1.51 - honestly; but then, I'm not sure if 1.51 even supports the new models E-510/410, so possibly for them you will just need Studio 2.0 (and probably Vista, or Mac if 2.0 finally also runs OK on a Mac)
    Cheers, Herman

    sokolblog

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,141
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Jesse

    Default Re: Studio 2 is a total disaster

    Master was okay, but slower than a peanut butter sandwich going down a dry throat. I may just get Lightroom. It's expensive, but and the upgrades should be cheap.

    JW

Similar Threads

  1. Total Lunar Eclipse February 20th
    By roger h in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 12:03 PM
  2. Total cost of E-3 ownership
    By Stuttaton in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2007, 10:59 AM
  3. Free Studio 2 Upgrade from Studio 1.5
    By eelect in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 12:09 PM
  4. Total number of pics taken
    By Caver in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-28-2007, 02:38 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 11:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •