View Full Version : Nikon Capture NX2 usage.
Please feel free to discuss the features of Nikon Capture NX2 and the good and the bad points as you have found them.
Keith Young
28-05-2011, 1:26pm
I was thinking of comparing it to LR3, PTLens, DXo, Adobe Camera Raw etc. You might get all the Canon shooters coming in and skewing the results? I don't know.
Well Keith, if you use it or have used it and would like to compare it to other software go right ahead.
This thread is designed to hear from NX users past and present, why they don't like it, why they do and if they switched to another program what do they like more about that program and what do they miss in Capture NX 2 after they switched.
Personally I used it when I first got it, liked it's raw conversion and the ability to use the nikon settings in camera to adjust ala jpeg.
In the end the slowness and to me lack of workflow hurt compared to lightroom for what I do
Lance B
28-05-2011, 2:31pm
I have never even used it. I use Capture One Pro and Photoshop CS5 exclusilvely.
Having had a play with 2 other processing programs lately I am in the "stay with NX2 and pray for a 64 bit version soon" camp.
Today, interestingly enough, was a session with DxO Optics Pro because I received an email offering 30% off the price which brought it down to 199 Euros, drive away no more to pay.
I downloaded the trial program and set it up. I then selected an unprocessed NEF image and played around with it using the differing methods available to the point where I had achieved what I wanted to see on the screen. I then processed the same image in NX2 using the methods I am familiar with and to my eyes at least I had indentical images on the screen in front of me in the 2 unsaved images.
The good points of DxO that struck me straight away were ----
I was able to figure out how to use it ( basic fashion ) quickly and easily.
The end result image was satisfactory, colour, contrast and sharpness all looked fine.
The batch processing ability for large numbers of files appears ( I didn't try it ) to be superior to NX2.
It didn't crash or hang up ( very positive for any brand new installation on any pc )
The bad points of DxO that struck me straight away were ----
I could not figure out how to get the image on one screen and the editing palette on the other ( if there is a way, then I couldn't find it after going through the menus and help section )
The histogram is tiny.
Slow, did I mention slooowwwww, it took one minute and eleven seconds to save the processed image ( the program tells you the time ) so I put the stopwatch on NX2 when it came time to save the same image. The result, twenty two seconds for NX2 and one must remember here that DxO is meant to run on a 64 bit machine whilst NX2 is still a 32 bit app.
Expensive, at $266.00 with the current 30% discount I don't feel that it offers compelling value.
Personally I used it when I first got it, liked it's raw conversion and the ability to use the nikon settings in camera to adjust ala jpeg.
In the end the slowness and to me lack of workflow hurt compared to lightroom for what I do
I'm with him ^^^
Resource hungry and clumsy interface
I'm with him ^^^
Resource hungry and clumsy interface
I guess the user interface of any program may suit some and not others but having become used to NX2 now I certainly don't see it as clumsy. The other part regarding the slowness and resource hunger I don't get either because the other program that I tried recently was lightroom and it was using 18% more cpu to run an image than NX and speed wise lightroom was markedly slower to open an image initially but saved them quicker than NX2 ( I would estimate the overall editing times times to be within seconds of each other ) so can't see why slow and resource hungry should apply at all as a negative compared to NX2
arthurking83
28-05-2011, 3:35pm
I have a love/hate relationship with CNX, I voted for I wished they'd hurry up .... but change my wish list for 64bit CNX 3 with a few more features, like a more powerful NR tool, a bit of proper cloning for when needed(as opposed to wanton needless and endless use of such tools :rolleyes:)
I have to be honest and have never really seen any of this slowness that a lot of others talk about. It's not light speed, but it's no slower than LR3 on my PCs, never has been and in fact is generally faster in most applications of it.
I tend to use ViewNX more tho, and really try to limit how much use CNX gets.
CaptureNX does have a lot of serious limitations for professional photographers, of that there's no doubt(such as a limit of 20 images open at once) But for the best quality image results on Nikon raw files, I still think it can't be beat.
For ease of adding tweaks and touch ups to images nothing came close to CNX for a long while until Nik introduced the same U-Point technology as a plugin for Adobe software.
Biggest advantage of the software over all others: this U-Point driven Colour Control Points method of editing/tweaking images, and the better NEF(Nikon raw file) handling.
Workflow methods are simply opinion driven, and there is no set baseline for determining which software is better in terms of workflow. I also have LR3 now, and for the life of me can't seem to understand how to get the best of an image as I can when using CNX. CNX is my native language so to speak, I grew up with CNX at my finger tips from day one. I understand the workflow, and use what abilities it offers(rather than look for other abilities it was never designed to handle).
I still can't get my head around many of the aspects of using most other software(especially LR) as something so simple as saving a file as you work on it seems to require a PhD in micro electronics and advanced programming!
What the hell ever happened to Ctrl-S and the [Enter] button? What ever happened to a simple file open and work, why do I NEED a library? I want a simple and powerful image editing software. That's what CNX tries to be, not a swiss pocket army knife with a bonus limited trial offer of a home gym and bonus bread maker, complete with a free steak knife set(I'm vegetarian thanks very much!).
Nope! I want it to edit my images, I then use a more powerful DAM handling software, with open source database ability(so that when they stuff me around I can easily migrate this database to a new program(or one that I choose to build for myself). Same can't be said for most other(that I know of) cataloging software. Once you get stuck with it, you're stuck with it.
I always have bad things to say about CNX(such as some useful modern tools to play with, and even a simple image resizing routine).
While it only takes a second or two to save a file in CNX(as opposed to the few minutes in other software :p), one thing that's really annoying in CNX is the ability to save a file with two specific criteria. pixel dimensions and file size, allowing the software to automatically use the best quality it can. Many free software can do this, and do it well.
Many times I have to keep re-saving an image with a slightly lower quality setting (eg to keep under the 250kb AP limit) with frustration setting in when not getting close to the limit.
I then shut the entire process down delete the last saved file and do it all again with some freebie software(usually FSViewer, sometimes BDSizer). Bad effort there from Nikon!
FWIW, I've also used Bibble(5 trial), on recommendation that it was faster, and it was.. but not by much on a single image basis.
Batching lots was noticeably faster in Bibble compared to CNX and LR beta(back then). Once again, making simple edits(I mean simple in CNX) seemed to take an eternity in Bibble as well.
My main concern for a lot of these thirdparty software is the implied(but not clearly stated) quality of the image you are viewing on screen as you process.
CaptureNX is and has always been clear and concise as to what you are editing(when editing an NEF file). Where ever you've set the cache file location, will be stored a multitude of files with crazy long filenames, and no extensions.
These are all tiff files of massive sizes depending on your camera, but a 25Meg NEF will create a 80-90Meg tiff file. That is, CNX renders a tiff file as you edit. This means simple maths, you need a fast PC to use CNX, fast hdd, separate cache, etc, speedy PC's make CNX fly. Even my old AMD XP3200 PC from 10 years ago still drove along nicely unless the hdds were in need of a clean out. I'd easily fill a 250G drive in under a year and performance would suffer.
Unless someone can enlighten me with more accurate info, I'm sure most other 'high quality' image editing software only use a jpg file rendered as you edit.(dunno about CS2/3/4/5, I used to have it, and will never load it onto my pc again).
I can't remember how it handled files, but I do remember that I used to use a Nikon bridging software to transfer a TIFF file to PS instead of an NEF file.
But as I use LR3(and had done with Bibble as well) I delved deeply into as many directories as I could, and have never found any temp file larger than about 8 or 9 Megs.. implying it's working on a jpg file(or something or other).
On a high quality screen, where you seem to think you are working on a TIFF file, the difference can be noticeable.
Of course if this is true, then there are obvious performance benefits in using these other jpg rendering software when compared to using CNX. That CNX even keeps up in any way is what I find weird and worthy of respect. it has to render a file and edit it when this file is up to 10x larger, meaning more data transfers from the hdd's more data through to the graphic card.. etc, etc.
This is easily noticed when converting an NEF to tiff format. Using LR3, this process takes what seems like an eternity.. maybe in reality 30 secs or so. BUT using CNX, and doing the same the TIFF file is saved in only a few seconds, maybe 5 or so. Irrespective of what file type you choose such as JPG or TIFF, CNX takes roughly the same amount of time to save it from an NEF file. LR3 takes considerably longer to create a tiff file when compared to saving a jpg file.
What this all means: if you want a nice slow cooked meal of exceptional quality, choose CNX. If you want a frozen Macca's style dinner, use <insert almost every other image editing software here>
(Of course this doesn't take into account if the PS/CS products use a tiff file in rendering :confused013).
I have been using Phase One's software version 5 and when version 6 came out I decided i'd see if it was worth switching to a different raw converter or upgrading. One of the converters i tried (again) was NX2. I dont know if it is my incompetence or what, but it kept freezing up and crashing at various inconvenient times, like when I had just finished all the editing and went to save my work. I know its not my system as the other converters/photoshop work fine so I put it down to 32/64 bit incompatibility. Also I found the capabilities a bit on the basic side. A new version came out a few days after I had installed it to fix stability problems on windows7/64 bit machines so that gave me a clue that not everything was fine with the program. After it froze up on me during a time sensitive session i cracked a sad and uninstalled it only 10 days into the 60 day trial. Back to Phase One Capture 6 and all is well and then some.
I guess the user interface of any program may suit some and not others but having become used to NX2 now I certainly don't see it as clumsy. The other part regarding the slowness and resource hunger I don't get either because the other program that I tried recently was lightroom and it was using 18% more cpu to run an image than NX and speed wise lightroom was markedly slower to open an image initially but saved them quicker than NX2 ( I would estimate the overall editing times times to be within seconds of each other ) so can't see why slow and resource hungry should apply at all as a negative compared to NX2
I'm glad you haven't experienced the slowness and unexpected crashing, but myself and many others have, just read a few web reviews. I find LR2 & LR3 superior in terms of speed and reliability hands down.
I use NX2 almost exclusively, together with Nik Color Efex and HDR Efex filters. I have not spent a lot of time with other processing software. I like the ease of use of NX2 and specially the Control Points, makes complex selections and masking very quick.
I have never had the problems others have mentioned, with crashing and locking up etc. I am running it on a Dell Vostro laptop with i5 processor, 6Gb of Ram, Win 7 Pro 64 bit.
YMMV.
Zollo, there was a version that did cause a few issues, the current is 2.2.7 and I have not had a single glitch with it.
Wayne, there are always plenty of "horror" stories on the net, just as there are ardent supporters of products who would never admit to their choice of gear being the wrong one lest they lose face in the popularity stakes. As I said above to Zollo, there was one particular version that did crash occasionally but with the current version I have not had a single issue.
Slowness is something I reject still, its is not slow compared to other products including lightroom. It is only a few weeks a go that I tried lightroom and the first thing I noticed about it was how slow it was to render images to the screen and then how it still was visibly slow rendering them when magnifying them. Saving them was faster in lightroom but overall the process was very much even between the two programs from opening, editing and saving an image.
incisor
28-05-2011, 4:59pm
love NX2
i find it much more intuitive than LR3 and quicker to get the basics done
no argument that LR3 has better work flow and Photoshop is better at many other things, but i find myself going back to NX2 to do the basics before pulling them into LR or Photoshop.
no argument that LR3 has better work flow
Can you please tell me what the "better work flow" is in lightroom compared to CNX2
incisor
28-05-2011, 5:36pm
Can you please tell me what the "better work flow" is in lightroom compared to CNX2
i am not a pro snapper so my needs are not that complicated nor that demanding and from my somewhat limited experience it is immensely obvious to me that the more demanding the project the better LR3 seems fits the bill due to its interface.
IF i have to do a fair bit to them to get them where i want them to be, i find the LR3 interface is more conducive to easily interfacing with the pics you have in a project, the ways you manipulate them and then the way you share them. be it on disc, website or printed media.
NX2 is better and quicker for things you don't need to do much too and / or just want to export as jpg.
Incisor, can you give me examples of an instance where lightroom has a better workflow.
Give a step by step rundown on your workflow where it is so clearly faster please.
I am not saying I doubt you but I am very interested to compare it with the way I do things. :)
I'm a big fan of CNX2. I selected "I use other editing software in conjunction..." however I find I can do pretty much all of my processing in CNX2, but do use PS Elements occasionally (usually just to add a border).
The most recent few upgrades have really improved stability of CNX2. It's probably a bit slow generally but doesn't bother me too much (but might bother others). However it is particularly slow sometimes when you want to show what's being masked, and also when re-opening a saved NEF that has had heavy previous processing. (I should stress that I have an older PC that is not highly spec'd).
For me one of the best aspects of CNX2 is its ease of masking, particularly with the U-Point thingos.
About a month ago I had some PC problems and did a system restore, after which CNX2 refuses to work. (It asks for a product key but won't accept my original key). While I'm getting that sorted I have been using LR3, and have been quite impressed at how well LR3 converts the NEF files - a big improvement since I last tried LR (v1.0). However I don't like having to go through the import process in LR3 - with CNX2 i can right-click on a NEF and open that one file, whereas LR3 seems to want to load the whole directory and then I still need to select the file I want to work on. (Although my experience with LR3 is limited so there may be ways to do this). I'm also finding it difficult to get images as sharp in LR3 as I could in CNX2, but I'm willing to concede this to lack of experience at this stage.
Cheers.
and also when re-opening a saved NEF that has had heavy previous processing. (I should stress that I have an older PC that is not highly spec'd)..
If you regularly clean your cache files out on the PC then that heavily processed image can take a long time to render. They can seem to take forever even on a reasonably new machine to rebuild all the info but if those files aren't deleted I usually find that a heavily processed image will take about 5 seconds to build.
The system restore and NX2 product key issue is a non problem for those with genuine codes, a quick call to Nikon Australia will sort that out.
farmer_rob
29-05-2011, 9:17am
I trialled CNX2 some time back. I liked it, but it was too slow for me (even slower than PSE). Also, integration with PSE's catalog was not perfect ( admittedly this is Adobe's fault IMO) and CNX doesn't have DAM worth a damn.
Maybe I'll try again after I get a faster computer - which is a long way off unfortunately.
arthurking83
29-05-2011, 11:25am
Nikon software in effect have no DAM tools.
The keywording ability is there, that's for sure, and I use both ViewNX and sometimes CaptureNX to add data into the keywording, but there is nothing that you can do with this data other than to read it back when the file is opened.
You can't search for any of the keywords using Nikon's software(which seems a ludicrous concept. They allow you to add it, but make it close to impossible to search for it.
I use IDImager for my DAM management, it reads all the keywords in all their gory detail, and searching for them all is quick and easy :th3:
Seeing as some people who have used CNX and expressed the thoughts that it is slow I thought I would conduct an experiment regarding the speed CNX2 works at and the time taken with "work flow" the way I do things and present some pretty accurate times.
I selected 10 NEF files from the same series and folder that were similar enough to be used as a batch processing experiment.
All were between 15 and 18 mb in size.
I put the stop watch on one to see how fast it opened to be ready to process = 6 seconds.
I did fairly standard / typical processing and for the purpose of the experiment added 2 filters from the Nik Software range.
I saved that file which created an 85mb cache file. Saving time = between 3 and 4 seconds.
I then saved and named the settings that I had used as a .set file to apply to the 10 images I had selected.
I then told CNX to batch process those selected files and to apply the same enhancements with the saved .set file and to out put them as 100% quality JPEG images.
From starting the batch process to having 10 images processed and saved = 77 seconds or 7.7 seconds per image.
Given that some people who have used the program and found CNX to be slow, how do those results compare to the program/s that they have replaced it with.
arthurking83
29-05-2011, 7:50pm
Sounds about right to me Andrew(but you cheated!.. you have two of the fastest hdd's available to read from and write too! ;))
CNX is all about hdd speeds. Faster is an advantage for running CNX quickly and smoothly.
if your drives are slowish, you will see sluggish performance from Capture.
As an example, a file opened in CNX where the file is stored on my Samsung drive, the image is rendered sharp and smooth in about 1sec flat. Some already processed images may take 5sec to render completely.
Same files on my slower WD drives, which I've had since about 2005, produce woefully slower results. Same routine takes about 20 sec or so if the files are stored on the WD drives.
As a guideline: I have three Samsung F3 hdd's. Two with a model number of 103SJ(being the important faster versions, and and one 103SI variant being slower greener 5400RPM drive.
The SJ models easily sustain transfer speeds of 90 odd Mb/s and transferring files to and from these drives is markedly faster than any other drive on my PC(I have 5!.. plus the two externals.. 7 in total)
The Si drive only sustains about 45Mb/s over the long haul, and I've seen short bursts of 60-70Mb/s. The SJ's can give short bursts of up to about 120, but for a shorter duration than the SI's 60-70 short burst.
The old 250G WD drives only give about 30Mb/s by comparison over the short term, and can slow down to 20Mb/s or less over many hundreds of gigs of data. Of course your current remaining space availability is also going to make a difference too.
The performance difference is chalk and cheese.
I accidentally placed the OS/Programs on the slower SI drive instead of one of the SJ drives, and this makes the entire system run slightly slower overall.
When I did have the entire software system on the the faster SJ drives, everything felt perkier. CNX was instantaneous in it's operation. And I've said this before about the performance of it.
I don't disbelieve all those comments about it's sluggishness, and in fact I can imagine them all to be 100% accurate, but it does take a small concerted effort to set up your PC to get CNX to run smoothly.
As not many people are divulging their PC and software setups, I can only imagine that Capture is set on a slow drive, with the cache file set to the same OS/software drive and where the actual images(being edited) are also stored.
Setting all these parameters by hand to speedier drives can make a difference on a slower system.
All these variables are available for tweaking in the preferences section.
I'm curious as to whether anyone experiencing sluggish CaptureNX performance has ever tried to configure these settings and had any success?
FWIW, I've run CaptureNX since day one and never really experienced any problems with it. It used to run slower on my old PC(10 year old PC mind you), but so did everything else.
I did have trouble with v1.5 of ViewNX some years back where a dll caused me issues in opening any image files. Stuck with v1.4 until VNX2 came out and had no issues henceforth :D
Some months back I did strike a peculiar issue with colour management tho. no idea on what happened, but my mono toned images all looked different in CNX when compared to all other image viewers. LR3 is always different so that one didn't count as part of the group. I ended up having to set my colour space profile with my monitor calibration profile's ICC setting to get CNX to conform to what the image actually looked like. :confused013
it was the only way to make any sense of an image edited in CNX when viewed in another image viewer program.
Then without warning it seemed to correct itself(I think), where I had this crazy looking image on screen one day after opening CNX, and had to reset the colour space profile back to the default sRGB ICC profile.
The really weird bit was that the difference in rendering was only affecting the tonal rendering of monochrome images. All colour images were rendered exactly the same.
So I'm the first to admit that CNX is not without faults(and this one was very weird, self correcting(so far) and could have been due to some compatibility with my screen calibration software instead!?
But if I were to rate the usability/stability/performance of CNX and LR3 over the course of time I've used them, CNX would easily get 10/10 as I've hardly had any issues with it(long term), whereas I've had far too many crashes and bugs with LR3, where in dual monitor mode it continually crashed, always wanted to link/sync to my Bt connected PDA(where I rather it didn't!!) and there didn't appear to be any way to stop it doing that.
I remember being totally impartial to the Photoshop workflow way back when I first began digitally processing images, and I much preferred the simpler WYSIWYG do/undo method that every other software appear to use effectively.
I prefer my software to be at least more configurable in many ways and while CNX is not perfect, LR3 is even less configurable in some of the the most basic concepts!
Mongo uses it purely as a viewing aid for Nikon RAW (NEF) files and as a bulk resizing and bulk file conversion tool.
farmer_rob
30-05-2011, 9:59pm
Both CNX and VNX are resource heavy. There is something about the .net framework base that just sucks on older computers. I'll freely admit that on a computer better configured, it probably runs better. (PSE is no speed demon either and I suspect that Cs5 would barely start on my machine.) I'd have persisted with CNX if it had either a DAM function or could intergrate a bit more tightly with the PSE catalog. (I know there are alternatives for DAM, but I don't want to recatalog my existing library.)
Used the trial version of CNX and liked it. Managed to get educational pricing for LR and PSE so have become a convert.
Both CNX and VNX are resource heavy.
the other program that I tried recently was lightroom and it was using 18% more cpu to run an image than NX
Maybe a new machine helps Rob but those cpu usage figures I measured are from mine running View NX and Capture NX at the same time.
When I noted the lightroom figure the program was only running by itself.
The machine is a 64 bit OS with 8gb of ram.
Lightroom is a 64 bit program that should have been able to make us of all the goodness available.
View and Capture are only 32 bit programs and not able to use all the goodness yet they run faster and require less resources than lightroom.
On the old machine both Nikon programs were slower ( but still not as painfully slow as some ) and after following Arthur's advice about hard drives, the Nikon programs run faultlessly, as fast as others ( faster than some ) and use less processing power to do the job.
farmer_rob
31-05-2011, 7:18pm
Andrew, point taken but I think you are comparing a resource heavy program with a disgrace to the programming profession. Adobe programs do some wonderful things, but there are aspects to the way they interact and and work with the operating systems that make me hang my head in disgust.
Mngo uses it for viewing NEF and other files, great for RAW conversions, uses it for just some steps of a total editing chain.
However, just noticed a problem yesterday - it will edit and save changes to NEF and TIF files but when you edit a Jpeg with it, it says it saves the changes and probably does BUT Mongo cannot then open that Jpeg file in any other program (particularly CS3) !! So, to Mongo , it has even more limitations now but still usable for other things as mentioned.
Forget everything Mongo said above - He does NOT use "Capture NX2" - he was talking about "View NX2"
BTW - new version of Capture NX2 has just been released
arthurking83
23-12-2011, 5:37am
Thanks Mongo.
Have just downloaded it, and normally I used to just download it without thinking nor looking at the updates to it.
In general, CNX updates are 60 or so Mb in size, whereas this update(full version but still an update) is over 100Mb in size!! :eek:
If you look at the list of updates for it, it specifically states that :
"This software now operates as a native 64-bit application under the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Windows Vista."
Whoot! .. took their damned sweet time about it, but whoot nonetheless! :D
There seems to be a new Astro NR option in there too according to some of the other feature updates, but most of the updates seem to be for the J1/V1 series cameras and a few (re)updates for the P7100.
Whoot! .. took their damned sweet time about it, but whoot nonetheless! :D
Exactly my thoughts when I saw the updater flash me the message at 4.00 am Wednesday.
I downloaded and installed it an had a play and was quite impressed with the way it ran. A lot faster rendering images and instantaneous saves on edits!!!
Unfortunately, it was uninstalled and 2.2.8 was reinstalled in place of it. :(
Nikon and Nik software are seemingly not talking to each other at the moment as the Nik software filters, either version 3 or 4 are not compatible with CNX in 64 bit mode.:angry0:
I will wait patiently for a compatibility upgrade but I aint holding my breath.
arthurking83
23-12-2011, 7:04pm
Ah! I didn't even know there was a version 4 to Nik's filters :o
But they don't work, so I'll be in the same pickle, up the creek as you .. so you'll have some company! :p
CEP 3.003 works fine with the 32bit CNX 2.3
I would not waste my time going back to 2.2.8, even the 32 bit version (2.3.0) is a substantial improvement.
there is some anecdotal stuff out there which refers to Nik waiting on Nikon before releasing the updated CEP for capture, this kinda makes sense since Nikon have invested in Nik software, however the capturenx plugin has certainly taken a back seat in recent years.
arthurking83
24-12-2011, 12:56am
I did some testing myself too.
V2.3 is indeed faster, but more so in x64 mode than x86 mode.
In the end, if you have to run in x86 mode because you're running the CEP filter set, then the advantage is not as good.
For some reason, CNX2 runs and has always run very fast and smoothly on my PC.
I did the speed tests I found on the flckr website and can tell you that v228 on my PC did the test in 1m:05s, where v230 x86 mode did it in 58.6s.
By comparison, v230 in x64 mode ran the test in 47.4s, so I think until they upodate the CEP plugins to x64bit, the reality is that there is no point in stuffing about for minimal gains.
I read comments of sluggish and slow to render a large edited NEF file, but for me(and I remember for Andrew(I@M) CNX2 opened an NEF file of any type/edit, in a matter of a few seconds. Most of mine are opened rendered and ready to edit between 1-5sec. I can't see the fuss.
But for me(again in my testing) having a fast image storage drive is the key. If the stored images are on a slow drive then yes .. they take 20-30sec to open in some cases.
If CNX2 is running slow and sluggish, then maybe there is a reason to update to v2.3, and especially in x64 bit mode(if you're not using the Nik filters).
Amazes me that CNX2 was suddenly updated and released and finally to x64bit mode .... after all this time, and yet there wasn't a coordinated update to the Nik filter set as well!
Boggles the mind at how some companies simply don't cooperate together when they have a vested interest in each other's products.
Nik produced the Software that we know as Capture NX, so it's not as tho they didn't know what was going on! (unless Nikon used another software engineering company to re write v2.3 :confused013
I'd say that Nik are probably going to release the CEP v4 update soon enough with x64 mode compatibility.
I've lost track of what I installed over the past few hours, but I think I'm now back to 2.2.8. I'll now wait for the x64 version of the filter set.
I just installed the 32 bit version as I use CEP v3. I have found even the 32bit version to be considerably faster then 2.28, so I would recommend the upgrade.
I have seen some benchmark tests by Jason O'Dell, and he says the speed loss in using 32 bit instead of 64 bit is only about 10%.
arthurking83
24-12-2011, 4:37pm
....
I have seen some benchmark tests by Jason O'Dell, and he says the speed loss in using 32 bit instead of 64 bit is only about 10%.
Jason doesn't specifically state this, but I'm sure he ran his tests in the Mac environment, and it seems that Mac users seem to be having more of the speed issues that CNX is(was) famous for.
The difference in speed between the two different version of 2.3 is more like 15-20%, and I'm only really seeing 10% difference between x86 2.3 and 2.2.8.
And remember this is for batch editing, I can't measure the differences in times between clicking to open an NEF and a finalised rendering of that NEF.
(I think) I still have a copy of CNX2 on my very old, now disused AMD XP3200 machine which is single core, non optimised and slow as hell(as far as modern PC specs go).
Can't remember if I wiped the original drive, or simply installed Ubuntu on another drive for the kids to play with.
I'll go check in a day or two .... or later tonight.
They must have re written some parts of ViewNX too tho, as they had to update it to work with the Picture Control utility.
Another issue for me on this current PC. ViewNX is lightning fast on here so I couldn't measure any speed differences other than for a large batch edit job lot.
But on my feeble tablet, VNX is rather slower .. due to the very low power system specs.
Frustration has set in! :Doh:
Alcohol may be the only answer. :beer_mug:
I cannot get the CEP filters, either 3.003 or the earlier version, to work with CNX 2 / 2.3.0 32 bit.
If I install the program it simply doesn't show the filters.
If I attempt to install the filters I get a message immediately after the set up program un packs itself saying "Installation cancelled because Capture NX2 is not installed, please install Capture NX2 and try again". :angry0:
Oh well, 2.2.8 was never that bad anyway. :D
arthurking83
25-12-2011, 9:38am
The trick is that you need to have 3.003 installed with v 2.2.8 before you attempt the update to v2.3.
That is, apparently you can't install CNX 2.3 and then the CEP filters.
Installation sequence should be
1. install CNX 2.2.8
2. install CEP 3.003
3. uninstall CNX2.2.8 -> install CNX2.3(obviously in the optional 32bit mode.
I was also reading that you can still install CNX2.3 in 64bit mode and still run the program in 32bit mode in Windows too.
There's a how too for Mac, but there's very little info on doing it for Win.
If I head one day to capture some night time astro shots, I may update back to 2.3 one day, but at the moment I don't feel any need to rush into v2.3 due to the incompetence of the filter issue.
Seriously! .. how hard would have been for Nikon to say .. "Hey Nik bludgers!! We're making a 64bit version of your software, you wanna get cracking on the update for your filter sets at the same time!"
It really is a case of dumb and dumber with these two!!
Installation sequence should be
1. install CNX 2.2.8
2. install CEP 3.003
3. uninstall CNX2.2.8 -> install CNX2.3(obviously in the optional 32bit mode.
Did that, repeatedly, no joy. :devil1:
Seriously! .. how hard would have been for Nikon to say .. "Hey Nik bludgers!! We're making a 64bit version of your software, you wanna get cracking on the update for your filter sets at the same time!"
It really is a case of dumb and dumber with these two!!
The response from the tech in charge at C.R.Kennedy ( Nik software Aus. Distributor ) is that Nikon are the ones that stopped talking to Nik at the time of CEP 4 development. :confused013
Try uninstalling all of your nikon products including the .NET then doing a fresh install of 2.3.0 followed by CEP 3.003. Whilst it should not be necessary on Win7, i would also reboot between the uninstall and install.
I assure you that you can install CEP 3.003 after installing CNX 2.3.0.
"Hey Nik bludgers!! We're making a 64bit version of your software, you wanna get cracking on the update for your filter sets at the same time!"
as I@M mentioned, its the other way round, nik is apparently waiting on nikon.
Thanks Gerry,
I did all those things including a registry clean out but it simply will not happen on this machine.
I know that they will work together, a few threads on sites that contain sensible discussion on NX usage and not just troll type posts have indicated just as you rightly have that they will work together.
It appears that there is some conflict on my machine that is causing the hassles.
I basically wasted all of yesterday mucking around with it and now it sounds like a job for next year.
It appears that there is some conflict on my machine that is causing the hassles.
I basically wasted all of yesterday mucking around with it and now it sounds like a job for next year.
royal pain in the ass, there is nothing worse then spending time like that for no gain, i feel for ya.
For anyone waiting for the 64 bit version of Color Efex Pro for NX2, I believe it is out, Version 3.0.0.4.
I haven't tried it yet.
For anyone waiting for the 64 bit version of Color Efex Pro for NX2, I believe it is out, Version 3.0.0.4.
I haven't tried it yet.
That is the best thing I have heard today :th3: and will try it when we get home next week.
arthurking83
13-01-2012, 10:33am
cool. I'll check it out over the weekend too.
thnx for the info.
Apparently, there'll be a v2.3.1 release for CNX2 soon as well, to cater for D4 users.
davidd
14-01-2012, 11:11am
Well, I uninstalled the old version of NX2 and Color Efex Pro, and then installed the 64 bit versions of both.
I needed my activation keys for both, but it all installed without a hitch! I had to set up my preferences for NX2 again, and point the program to my settings files.
I tried it out with a NEF file of a large pano (162Mb), and it just flies! I opened the NEF (took seconds), removed the previous crop, added a Contrast step, re-cropped and saved it, and it's very quick! It all happens almost instantly.
Happy NX2 user here! :D
Happy NX2 user here! :D
Ditto!!!
All installed without a hitch and working splendidly here as well.
I am still running teh 32 bit version but I gotta say its a vast improvement on teh previous version - the speed is noticeable, but moreso, the stability is a 1000 times better
When I up grade the hardware I look forward to a even better experience, if I have not merged fully into lightroom :)
bigjobs
15-02-2012, 7:47am
I use it primarily as my raw converter... normally only adjust wb and distortion correction, Photoshop for everything esle.
I have to say though, that the most useful addition to the new version for me, has to be the Astro Noise Reduction feature - really good at removing hot pixels from long exposures :th3:
Oh, and it's quite a bit more stable too.
image2paint
15-02-2012, 10:45am
I use it primarily as my raw converter... normally only adjust wb and distortion correction, Photoshop for everything esle.
I have to say though, that the most useful addition to the new version for me, has to be the Astro Noise Reduction feature - really good at removing hot pixels from long exposures :th3:
Oh, and it's quite a bit more stable too.
What do you convert your RAWs into ? I usually convert them to TIFFs and then begin a workflow in PS. I hate that Lightroom can't read nikons image data correctly and you get these images which are completely different to the images you took... It bugs the hell out of me !!! Lightroom is amazing but as a Nikon user I cant use it knowing that its not reading my files correctly. :angry0::angry0::angry0:
ALSO
Today Nikon released new versions of View NX (v2.3.0) and it has added support for 64bit.
Today Nikon released new versions of View NX (v2.3.0) and it has added support for 64bit.
The 64 bit version released compliments Capture NX2, today's update was for a few corrective adjustments and to add a couple of features, presumably they are to recognise the new camera models just released. The two mode auto iso is the one that stands out the most as being for the new bodies and probably digging deeper there will be a few more features relating to video etc.
arthurking83
16-02-2012, 4:37pm
What do you convert your RAWs into ? I usually convert them to TIFFs and then begin a workflow in PS. I hate that Lightroom can't read nikons image data correctly and you get these images which are completely different to the images you took... It bugs the hell out of me !!! Lightroom is amazing but as a Nikon user I cant use it knowing that its not reading my files correctly. :angry0::angry0::angry0:
You can set LR3 to render the NEFs as pseudo Nikon rendered files, by using the option in develop to use 'Nikon Profiles' .. way down the bottom of the develop module on the RHS pane.
They're not the same, kind'a similar, but I wouldn't classify them as the same .. but is s close point to start with.
I used to hate seeing highlight that I got right in camera(and Nikon software!!) blown out in LR3 and similarly lost shadows.
....
ALSO
Today Nikon released new versions of View NX (v2.3.0) and it has added support for 64bit.
Old news, the discussion has been going for a while since Dec '11.
There were some pitfalls, and issues that needed to be dealt with since the update to 64bit, but all seems to be good again now.
Worth the upgrade to 64bit if your system is 64bit.
Note that there will also be another update to CNX2 with the arrival of the D4 and D800 very soon.
Hopefully this will be an update to CNX3, with a swag of new features and so on .. but alas we all know that his is only hysterical hallucinogenic optimism on my part! :p
image2paint
16-02-2012, 11:20pm
You can set LR3 to render the NEFs as pseudo Nikon rendered files, by using the option in develop to use 'Nikon Profiles' .. way down the bottom of the develop module on the RHS pane.
They're not the same, kind'a similar, but I wouldn't classify them as the same .. but is s close point to start with.
I used to hate seeing highlight that I got right in camera(and Nikon software!!) blown out in LR3 and similarly lost shadows.
Old news, the discussion has been going for a while since Dec '11.
There were some pitfalls, and issues that needed to be dealt with since the update to 64bit, but all seems to be good again now.
Worth the upgrade to 64bit if your system is 64bit.
Note that there will also be another update to CNX2 with the arrival of the D4 and D800 very soon.
Hopefully this will be an update to CNX3, with a swag of new features and so on .. but alas we all know that his is only hysterical hallucinogenic optimism on my part! :p
Yes adobe came up with a Nikon profile, and yes i knew about and had it, but it was just as you say a "psuedo" one. Anyone who uses Lightroom with a Nikon D5100 should open their images in View or Capture NX 2 and they will be amazed !
I am 64 bit on 2 machines and yes I did update ;-)
bigjobs
17-02-2012, 8:06am
What do you convert your RAWs into ? I usually convert them to TIFFs and then begin a workflow in PS.
Yep, same here. I found that I get nicer results from CNX>TIFF>CS5.
Unfortunately, I don't really like Lightroom. I appreciate that it may improve my workflow but I just don't like the 'feel' of the program... perhaps it's the interface (not that CNX is anything special either).
Cheers,
Bill
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.