Fuji X-trans raw processing

[Jim Evidon]

.. Which is what causes the twitchy processing issues. Yes, I'm fully aware of their intent, I just don't think it gives enough benefit to be worth sacrificing the robust processing of the standard Bayer array, particularly since with the recent high resolution sensors the need for the AA filter has decreased to the point where three of my five cameras have dispensed with it as well. I see very few if any issues with them that resolve to the lack of an AA filter.
Fuji took an alternative path that had some promise, I just don't feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

The problem with XTrans sensor cameras in post-processing is that initially, software engineers had problems modifying their programs to utilize the XTrans array since they were more familiar with the Bayer system. Several companies didn't feel it was worth their while to do so with what they deemed a low volume market. As Fuji sales increased, Adobe and others jumped on the band wagon.

None of the Raw developers are in the least "TWTCHY" as you call it. Some do it better than others and all of them issue new versions from time to time to steadily improve their output.

I have been shooting and RAW developing Fuji XTrans images for a couple of years now and I find the IQ to be better than my Bayer array sensor cameras in terms of color and noise. Sharpness in some cases has been very slightly less than optimal until recently as new software versions are released.

Your comment sounds as if you have never owned let alone processed an image from an XTrans camera but seems to be based on comments of others. I have nothing against Bayer array sensors as I regularly rely on my OM-D E-5M and my Leica M9, both extraordinary instruments capable of getting me '9' scores in competition. But so does the Fuji with no more effort than with the other two.

There seems to be an ongoing argument by forum contributors on all the photographic forums by X trans advocates and X trans detractors as to which is better, Bayer or Fuji arrays. This is only one of the more useless debates similar to comparisons between Mercedes and Cadillac. Both will get you there in style but the experience in getting there is different.

XTrans sensors are simply another way to make the soup. I find that all are delicious and bring me back for seconds. But all have a different flavor; not necessarily a better flavor.

 

[Godfrey]

The problem with XTrans sensor cameras in post-processing is that initially, software engineers had problems modifying their programs to utilize the XTrans array since they were more familiar with the Bayer system. Several companies didn't feel it was worth their while to do so with what they deemed a low volume market. As Fuji sales increased, Adobe and others jumped on the band wagon.

None of the Raw developers are in the least "twitchy" as you call it. Some do it better than others and all of them issue new versions from time to time to steadily improve their output.

I have been shooting and RAW developing Fuji XTrans images for a couple of years now and I find the IQ to be better than my Bayer array sensor cameras in terms of color and noise. Sharpness in some cases has been very slightly less than optimal until recently as new software versions are released.

Your comment sounds as if you have never owned let alone processed an image from an XTrans camera ...

Sorry, but I disagree.

I do not own any XTrans cameras ... I tested the X-Pro1 a while ago and recently tested the X-TI (and I retest my images made with them in subsequent versions of Lightroom and other raw processors), found I didn't like the editability of the files and other issues, and decided not to buy any of them. (I'd already made that decision by the time the X-TI came out, but I was curious about it.)

I find the adjustment curves when processing hit odd inflection points which cause it to be difficult to get precise green-yellow tones and there's always a bit of red-green bleeding. Green-yellow elements in highly detailed scenes look mushy and unsharp to me. Overall, I get much better results, more easily, when processing other cameras' raw files.

I know lots of people love these cameras and feel they have excellent characteristics. Unfortunately, I find that to be the case mostly when using the in-camera JPEG engine, which I find rather limiting. I don't disparage those willing to take the time to work with them. There are other issues I have with the Fuji line (ergonomics, menus, etc) that also weigh in against them for me.

I just have too much to do, limited time, and too many other very good cameras that I like much more to find it worth my while to make the effort with the Fujis. The X-Trans processing twitchiness is number one on my list of dislikes.

G

 

[gavinlg]

I think a lot of you guys waaay overthink this whole processing thing. I mean, you're allowed to - if it's what you enjoy go ahead, but on the grand scheme of things pretty much any camera or any processing method is easily good enough at this point.

 

[Jim Evidon]

That may be the problem. I don't like any camera's JPEGs. Some engineer decides what makes a good image. I find most out of the camera JPEGs too saturated and too over-smoothed and smeared in an effort to conceal JPEG artifacts. I shoot RAW using my JPEGs only as a backup until my RAWs are post processed.