Reikan Focal Mac Client is NOT native

[EvilTed]

Just shelled out the money for the Pro version and downloaded the Mac version, only to find out that I need to install the Mono framework, which for those not in the know is an open source port on Microsoft's bloated .NET framework.

What kind of crap is this?
I understand it's probably easier to port but there are not many Mac users happy install something as bloated as this on their Mac.

I've downloaded the Windows version and will run it on a Win7 laptop.

Disappointed to say the least

ET

 

[Drizzt321]

Looking at the latest blog posting about the latest release of FoCal beta for Mac OS X, it clearly states that it requires the Mono framework.

And why is it crap that it needs additional libraries/runtime? Most other applications will either use ones that ship with OS X, or have them bundled alongside as part of the installation file, just you don't see them. Mono is a bit larger than most of those, true, but it's much the same.

 

[AlanF]

Why would a Mac user annoyed at having to download a Microsoft product then go and use Windows instead?

 

[Loswr]

...there are not many Mac users happy install something as bloated as this on their Mac.

Who, besides you, constitutes 'not many'. I cared a lot when the Mac beta version would not properly connect to my 1D X. I cared that their server was down last weekend and I couldn't download a new Mac beta to replace the one giving me a 'version expired' message and not launching. But the need for the Mono framework? That's what you're going to complain about? Personally, I couldn't care less.

 

[victorwol]

Really? Who cares? I don't think they are saying anywhere the software is compiled to run natively, and does it works and help your to get the lenses correctly focused? That's the important thing I believe...

 

[crasher8]

Don't get me started. I can't do squat with my copy of Focal Pro (Mac household only) and my 5D3. Waiting for Canon to update the SDK? Is that what's going on?

 

[ashmadux]

I think I understand what the op means. It means we paid 100 bucks for a shoddy/lazy software port.

It's always best to have code run natively- it will just be a better, smoother app, period. Witt that said, having two distinct code bases is a pain in the arse for devs. Someone's going to get the short end of the stick here, and sadly it's us Mac folk.

However to the op- chances are most n the forum are only tech guys as far as camera goes so eh don't really have a clue to what the negatives could be. So in this forum, the argument is a wash, unfortunately.

 

[Loswr]

Don't get me started. I can't do squat with my copy of Focal Pro (Mac household only) and my 5D3. Waiting for Canon to update the SDK? Is that what's going on?

Yes, the issue is the Canon SDK. But what else isn't working? AFAIK, other than needing to manually change the AFMA (which you also need to do with the Windows version of FoCal), the other tests all work.

 

[crasher8]

Well for one it keeps telling me it is not a licensed serial number and shows the wrong serial number even though I'm using the current beta version and I own a Pro copy. It locks up, freezes and then there's the manual only issue.

 

[victorwol]

I think I understand what the op means. It means we paid 100 bucks for a shoddy/lazy software port.

It's always best to have code run natively- it will just be a better, smoother app, period. Witt that said, having two distinct code bases is a pain in the arse for devs. Someone's going to get the short end of the stick here, and sadly it's us Mac folk.

However to the op- chances are most n the forum are only tech guys as far as camera goes so eh don't really have a clue to what the negatives could be. So in this forum, the argument is a wash, unfortunately.

Lazy port? So you are paying only for the port not the developing of the algorithms to make it work? And how you know it is lazy? How many hours took him?

 

[Loswr]

Well for one it keeps telling me it is not a licensed serial number and shows the wrong serial number even though I'm using the current beta version and I own a Pro copy. It locks up, freezes and then there's the manual only issue.

Did you confirm the camera serial number in Reikan's license portal? What did their support say?

 

[dstppy]

I wasn't all that agitated, but it felt sort of lame to me. Then again, I'm a Java developer and see no problem with people needing the JRE ;D

I *DO* sort of feel bad for Reikan though, I was trying to compile the code from Selenium WebDriver for IE (so we can do source analysis) and Visual C++ is about as similar to C++ as Java for setting up a project; if you don't have their professional kit (only the free version), nothing is easy.

Honestly, would the OP have complained if it required macports and X11 to run? I certainly hope not (because you can get some awesome software that way!)

 

[crasher8]

Yes my serial shows up correctly in the license portal and no I have yet to ask Focal Support about this, will do in a day or two. Thanks for the prompt.

 

[EvilTed]

Yes I would have complained if they had required X11 too.
This reminds me of SlickEdit.
X11 is not a good solution for providing a Mac user interface these days and while I don't disagree that there have been good software produced this way, they are mainly Unix applications dating back 20+ years.

This is 2013, not 1993 and the Mac is no longer a 2nd class citizen compared to Windows.
Having been a software architect and developer most of my career, I can see that they developed everything originally using Windows software (.NET) which is very common for the UK.

In Silicon Valley where I work, this is definitely not the norm.
Here people will use Open Source implementations of libraries a lot more readily (or write their own).
If I were to propose a product architecture that included installing Mono for Mac support, I'd be laughed right out of the building...

It's sloppy engineering and sloppy user experience.
While it maintains a single code base (good for the developer) it has a poor user experience (bad for the people who actually pay for it) and it installs unnecessary bloatware (Mono) which will most likely only be used by this product but takes up valuable disk space and risks compatibility problems with other software on the Mac.

Do you think Apple would endorse such a product?

ET

 

[Loswr]

Using Mono saved them £. Having paid for the Windows version, I would have complained had they decided to charge me additional licensing fees for the Mac version, which is not an unlikely scenario given the size of the firm.

 

[camlars]

It's sloppy engineering and sloppy user experience.
While it maintains a single code base (good for the developer) it has a poor user experience (bad for the people who actually pay for it) and it installs unnecessary bloatware (Mono) which will most likely only be used by this product but takes up valuable disk space and risks compatibility problems with other software on the Mac.

Sloppy user experience, probably, but sloppy engineering? Bullcrap. It only makes sense to write a native client for Mac if there is enough of a market to justify development costs and if Reikan has the resources to maintain two codebases.

Mono taking up valuable disk space? This is indeed 2013 and not 1993... disk space is cheap, the size of mono is insignificant. And Mono will not give compatibility problems for any other software not using Mono.

I would prefer a native app yes, but I would also prefer a Mono app instead of no app at all.

Edit: Spelling

 

[Zlatko]

Reikan FoCal is a great concept and it works. Saves me time. I don't care how they get it done. The need for Mono is explained before you buy it.

 

[AlanF]

I have just downloaded the Mac version of FoCal Pro. It works absolutely fine with my new 5D III plugged into a MacBook Pro - I updated the Canon EOS and DPP software first. I used FoCal under completely crappy conditions of poor light, shaky floorboards, a cheap tripod and poorly centred on target and with the difficult task of a 600mm lens. 10 measurements gave an adjustment of 5.7±0.6. The classical sloping ruler method gave me 6, and visual analysis of iso 12233 images gave me the sharpest at 6.

As it worked correctly under those bad conditions, I am going to get a decent tripod etc and steam through doing 20 lens combinations on the 7D and 5DIII. For the long white lenses, I am going to get the target printed on much larger paper as it is a bit silly having a tiny A4 target 15-20 metres away.

 

[Loswr]

For these big white lenses, I am going to get the target printed on much larger paper as it is a bit silly having a tiny A4 target.

I'm not sure that matters, unless you routinely shoot at very long distances and want to calibrate for that. If you're shooting at 50x the focal length, the A4/letter-sized target will be the same relative size, whether that's 30 m with a 600mm lens or 0.8 m with a 16mm lens. The reason 50x focal length is a commonly recommended distance is that beyond that, the AFMA doesn't change much with distance, and the DoF is getting deep enough that a minor focus error is usually unnoticeable.

 

[ashmadux]

I think I understand what the op means. It means we paid 100 bucks for a shoddy/lazy software port.

It's always best to have code run natively- it will just be a better, smoother app, period. Witt that said, having two distinct code bases is a pain in the arse for devs. Someone's going to get the short end of the stick here, and sadly it's us Mac folk.

However to the op- chances are most n the forum are only tech guys as far as camera goes so eh don't really have a clue to what the negatives could be. So in this forum, the argument is a wash, unfortunately.

Lazy port? So you are paying only for the port not the developing of the algorithms to make it work? And how you know it is lazy? How many hours took him?

"Lazy" all depends if the dev went for the easiest option at the expense of how well the app runs in the mac environment. Im not saying either or, thats on them- but native will ALWAYS be better, regardless of any circumstances.

Personally, Im always curious about visual related software not appearing on macs first- osx is still the lead content creation platform for most creatives. Photography, i would think, falls under that realm.