Current intel on X-Trans and Lightroom?

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Hey all—been out of the game for a while but am shooting with the X system again. I wonder what the current status is of Lightroom's conversion of X-trans RAW files? Have they cracked that nut or do we still have blotchy foliage? I just upgraded to LR5 and think it's great.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

Support was added on 4.4 so you should be good to go with 5.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Thank you! I'm aware that support was added previously—but a lot of people were unsatisfied with the results. I'm just wondering if the converter has been improved since then.

 

[edge100]

Yes, it has; was improved in v5.

 

[den_sh]

Support was added on 4.4 so you should be good to go with 5.

This is not correct. Support was added much earlier, in 4.4 they have completely replaced their implementation with (much) better algorithm that doesn't smear as badly as previous one present in 4.3 and earlier. Demosaicing in 4.4 and 5 is the same and it is reasonably good.

 

[jpfisher]

Still seeing some desaturation of very high ISO Raw files from the X20 with Lightroom 5's default development settings. But not with files from the X100S.

I've been shooting with the X100S for a couple weeks and I've not run into an instance where I wasn't happy with LR5 as a Raw converter. I did roundtrip some photos to Color Efex Pro, as I wanted a really saturated look, but LR has done everything else that I've wanted.

 

[willie_901]

The rendering in LR 4.4/5.0 is improved to the point that some people have no issues. Others prefer Aperture, Capture 1, or others.

If you plan to use LR, the rendering parameters that optimize Bayer raw may not produce the best results for XTrans raw. Instead, XTrans raw requires different parameters. In my experience details (pixel peeping) are no less pleasing with D700 raw compared to XTrans raw. However many of the rendering parameters are very different for the same scene photographed with both cameras.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Sounds good—thanks, guys.

 

[Stockman]

Yes, unfortunately we do still have blotchy, painted looking foliage, there has been little or no improvement in that area

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

This is not correct. Support was added much earlier, in 4.4 they have completely replaced their implementation with (much) better algorithm that doesn't smear as badly as previous one present in 4.3 and earlier. Demosaicing in 4.4 and 5 is the same and it is reasonably good.

I should have inserted "improved". Nevertheless, bad support is no support.

 

[srtiwari]

FWIW, I've had a copy of Photo Ninja for a while now, and my RAW files look consistently, tho' only slightly better than from LR5.
One can download a trial copy of PhotoNinja from picturecode.com