GaryLH
Veteran
http://www.fujirumors.com/adobe-improved-x-trans-support-soon/
It seems there is enough Fuji users out there ( or loss of users switching to other sw), that they are going to up their support for the xtran raw file. Good news for u LR users.
I hope this triggers another round of raw support from the other vendors.
Gary
It seems there is enough Fuji users out there ( or loss of users switching to other sw), that they are going to up their support for the xtran raw file. Good news for u LR users.
I hope this triggers another round of raw support from the other vendors.
Gary
alienmeatsack
Well-known
I hope this is true. I've really been struggling with the fact that my JPG and my RAW aren't the same once i bring them into LR when I use BW or other settings.
MikeAUS
Well-known
Too late. Gave up on X-Trans ...
dfatty
Well-known
so what are people doing to process the fuji raw files now? is it the case that LR works, but not that well?
GaryLH
Veteran
There are a lot of raw processor out there that do a better job then LR. It is really an adobe issue only for those that do not want to change their work flow to account for using the other raw developers.
As I have said before, I only use adobe stuff for things I can't do in aperture like photo merge.. There are people who have figured out workarounds in adobe that work well enough for them, there are others that don't want to go thru the trouble and are waiting for adobe to provide better support.
Capture one and iridient are suppose to be the two best these days.
For example, in aperture, there is a raw processing engine that is not available in the normal work flow that I use when I it. It is designed to provide fine tuning tweaks and u can even save the settings as a camera default by camera model.
Gary
As I have said before, I only use adobe stuff for things I can't do in aperture like photo merge.. There are people who have figured out workarounds in adobe that work well enough for them, there are others that don't want to go thru the trouble and are waiting for adobe to provide better support.
Capture one and iridient are suppose to be the two best these days.
For example, in aperture, there is a raw processing engine that is not available in the normal work flow that I use when I it. It is designed to provide fine tuning tweaks and u can even save the settings as a camera default by camera model.
Gary
I use LR... and I have no issues. However, I'm not doing landscapes and I like post processing.
dfatty
Well-known
ah, okay, thanks. i'm not an apple user so aperture is out. i've seen good and bad comments on LR/fuji, but i'm not as critical of my pixels as i probably should be, so it probably won't be an issue for me. if i buy a fuji. this sale and reading all the glowing reviews is weakening my resolve.
in any event, it looks like the new LR update may make it better for those who are dissatisfied. whenever that is released.
in any event, it looks like the new LR update may make it better for those who are dissatisfied. whenever that is released.
GaryLH
Veteran
Cut and paste from getdpi
Cut and paste from getdpi
The biggest issue w/ adobe in terms of xtran sensor and green (plants, grass, trees, etc) is the sharpening algo they use according to a lot of stuff I have read. The sw like capture one and iridient uses a different approach for sharpening then the normal for Bayer. I know adobe changed there sharpening as well, but I don't think they did as much as some other vendors.
There is a on going thread at getdpi trying to help a fellow member w/ his new xt1 due to the smearing he is seeing. The cut and paste below is one of the better replies in terms of the why.
Gary
------------ cut and paste from getdpi --------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi
Ricardo, may I ask you which settings you have used in Iridient? I have tried myself and with the default settings I get a lot o reddish/purplish artifacts on the bark of the tree and very few also on the grass; to remove them completely I have to push to the far right the ChromAdaptive slider and a bit also the Chromalogic (5) recovering then some sharpness with RL Deconvolution (0.4 - 16). I am sure there are also better combinations but this is what I found in 10 minutes.
I will paste the Iridient settings I used. I actually screen-shotted them but forgot to upload. I am not at home now but when I get home I will paste it.
A few more words on the whole Bayer/Xtrans thing-
-----------------------------------------------
Fuji created Xtrans to feel confident to remove the AA filter to increase detail in capture while avoiding the risk of color Moire.
As it always happens, with any engineering solution, there are tradeoffs and pros and cons. I personally believe the tradeoffs that FujiFilm chose in pursuing this design work better than Bayer for most photography.
And always remember, Bayer *also* has artifacts. It's a de-mosaic algorithm after all. The only sensor design that would not be having these artifacts would be a Foveon X3 with no noise, but you can guess by that wording what tradeoff the Foveon sensor is making
Xtrans has *more* green photo sites than red and blue vs Bayer. This means for red and blue, a Bayer sensor would have more resolution. This is countered to some degree by the AA filter Bayer sensors need unless you are using an AAless Bayer.
But if you use an AAless Bayer, you risk color Moire and there's no free lunch here. For example Olympus mentions in their specs of EM1 there's no AA filter, but the shots and JPEGS I am seeing do not seem to have the sharpness or bite that I would expect from a good/pure AAless Bayer (a good comparison may be those Ricoh GR files). Why is that? Because they are doing post processing on the image to get rid of color Moire- and I am sure if you use iridient on it or other raw converters you can get more detail than the Jpegs- but now you have to deal with color Moire.
Xtrans *can still* get color Moire but is much more rarer than an AAless Bayer. And because as I mentioned Xtrans is richer in green, black and white conversions actually work better for Xtrans vs Bayer designs, due to that being the color our eyes are most sensitive for luminance.
With the right raw converter Xtrans detail is somewhere between typical Bayer (with AA filter) and Foveon- more so in B&W.
A pure AAless Bayer should capture in color more detail overall but then you will have to often nuke detail because color moire shows up. And if you hare shooting say a wedding with 250 shots (assuming you are that good to nail almost every shot), imagine having to look for color moire on every single shot.... all those dresses, clothes and veils.
It's what Thom Hogan said once- Fuji changed some artifacts for others when doing the Xtrans sensor and to me the tradeoff works for the bigger gain on most cases.
But this required a whole re-thinking of RAW converter algorithm (it took Fuji themselves 2 years to do the math for their JPEG engine after all) and RAW converters have had years and years of experience with the Bayer color filter array pattern. It's only natural that out of the gate most raw converters would have issues.
If you want the cheapest solution, grab the SilkyPix included- Fuji worked with them to do a new rev of their algorithm and if you know how to use the right settings it works reasonably well.
Capture one 7 for me is overall the best one. Iridient is pretty good, particularly when pursuing pure detail though it has more color artifacts. But again- will this really matter to your overall image printed or shown on a web page? The image still has that extra bite of micro contrast for not having the AA filter.
And that's pretty much it. The world doesn't end and a lot of you quite frankly seem to me buying this camera when you already had a -so you have said- a fantastic camera, so I don't get it.
Why the "need" to buy greatest and latest when the domains of shooting for the tool overlap with the one you have which you said you love so much?
Anyway
- Ricardo
Cut and paste from getdpi
The biggest issue w/ adobe in terms of xtran sensor and green (plants, grass, trees, etc) is the sharpening algo they use according to a lot of stuff I have read. The sw like capture one and iridient uses a different approach for sharpening then the normal for Bayer. I know adobe changed there sharpening as well, but I don't think they did as much as some other vendors.
There is a on going thread at getdpi trying to help a fellow member w/ his new xt1 due to the smearing he is seeing. The cut and paste below is one of the better replies in terms of the why.
Gary
------------ cut and paste from getdpi --------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi
Ricardo, may I ask you which settings you have used in Iridient? I have tried myself and with the default settings I get a lot o reddish/purplish artifacts on the bark of the tree and very few also on the grass; to remove them completely I have to push to the far right the ChromAdaptive slider and a bit also the Chromalogic (5) recovering then some sharpness with RL Deconvolution (0.4 - 16). I am sure there are also better combinations but this is what I found in 10 minutes.
I will paste the Iridient settings I used. I actually screen-shotted them but forgot to upload. I am not at home now but when I get home I will paste it.
A few more words on the whole Bayer/Xtrans thing-
-----------------------------------------------
Fuji created Xtrans to feel confident to remove the AA filter to increase detail in capture while avoiding the risk of color Moire.
As it always happens, with any engineering solution, there are tradeoffs and pros and cons. I personally believe the tradeoffs that FujiFilm chose in pursuing this design work better than Bayer for most photography.
And always remember, Bayer *also* has artifacts. It's a de-mosaic algorithm after all. The only sensor design that would not be having these artifacts would be a Foveon X3 with no noise, but you can guess by that wording what tradeoff the Foveon sensor is making
Xtrans has *more* green photo sites than red and blue vs Bayer. This means for red and blue, a Bayer sensor would have more resolution. This is countered to some degree by the AA filter Bayer sensors need unless you are using an AAless Bayer.
But if you use an AAless Bayer, you risk color Moire and there's no free lunch here. For example Olympus mentions in their specs of EM1 there's no AA filter, but the shots and JPEGS I am seeing do not seem to have the sharpness or bite that I would expect from a good/pure AAless Bayer (a good comparison may be those Ricoh GR files). Why is that? Because they are doing post processing on the image to get rid of color Moire- and I am sure if you use iridient on it or other raw converters you can get more detail than the Jpegs- but now you have to deal with color Moire.
Xtrans *can still* get color Moire but is much more rarer than an AAless Bayer. And because as I mentioned Xtrans is richer in green, black and white conversions actually work better for Xtrans vs Bayer designs, due to that being the color our eyes are most sensitive for luminance.
With the right raw converter Xtrans detail is somewhere between typical Bayer (with AA filter) and Foveon- more so in B&W.
A pure AAless Bayer should capture in color more detail overall but then you will have to often nuke detail because color moire shows up. And if you hare shooting say a wedding with 250 shots (assuming you are that good to nail almost every shot), imagine having to look for color moire on every single shot.... all those dresses, clothes and veils.
It's what Thom Hogan said once- Fuji changed some artifacts for others when doing the Xtrans sensor and to me the tradeoff works for the bigger gain on most cases.
But this required a whole re-thinking of RAW converter algorithm (it took Fuji themselves 2 years to do the math for their JPEG engine after all) and RAW converters have had years and years of experience with the Bayer color filter array pattern. It's only natural that out of the gate most raw converters would have issues.
If you want the cheapest solution, grab the SilkyPix included- Fuji worked with them to do a new rev of their algorithm and if you know how to use the right settings it works reasonably well.
Capture one 7 for me is overall the best one. Iridient is pretty good, particularly when pursuing pure detail though it has more color artifacts. But again- will this really matter to your overall image printed or shown on a web page? The image still has that extra bite of micro contrast for not having the AA filter.
And that's pretty much it. The world doesn't end and a lot of you quite frankly seem to me buying this camera when you already had a -so you have said- a fantastic camera, so I don't get it.
Why the "need" to buy greatest and latest when the domains of shooting for the tool overlap with the one you have which you said you love so much?
Anyway
- Ricardo
dfatty
Well-known
interesting gary, thanks for posting it. i usually grab med. format or the sigma for a walk around the arboretum, so perhaps i may not see this green issue much.
GaryLH
Veteran
Yeah.. I tend to grab the foveon cameras first for situations like still life or landscape. The Fuji when I need faster af and high iso situations.
Gary
Gary
FA Limited
missing in action
hahahaha i find this statement funny ... i found the Sigma AF To be pretty much always accurate and it didn't seem too much slower than the X100 (which if found at times even on the MF+AF-L method wasn't always accurate)
GaryLH
Veteran
Too me the xp1 and xe1 are slightly faster.. Especially w/ their latest fw update. Just fast enough to make a difference in certain situations but they are not as fast as a modern dslr like the Canon or Nikon.
Gary
Gary
Last edited: