rasterdogs
Member
As much as I appreciate my X-pro1 I'm starting to wonder if I will continue to expand my kit. This train of thought evolved as I've been thinking hard about if I will get an X-e1 as a second body to accompany my X-pro1.
A recent conversation with folks who develop 3rd party RAW conversion software where they mentioned that they are skeptical about supporting the X-trans files got me to thinking. By and large, it is clear that it is problematic for raw converters to deal optimally with the X-trans raw files.
Fuji have not directly communicated about what they are doing to facilitate development by the raw converter vendors.
I find the X-pro1 to be an excellent camera. I'm happy with the ooc jpegs. Generally when I do convert raw files (using LR4.2) I'm satisfied. Oh, and for me, life's too short to use software with a UI that is as deficient as Silkypix.
Having said all that, I'm becoming reluctant to invest any more in the Fujifilm X-series cameras and lenses. I don't want to invest in a system that excels with ooc jpegs but has real limitations when it comes to raw conversion.
If Fujifilm can't/won't say what they are doing to complement development of raw conversion of X-trans files I have to wonder why.
I'm becoming inclined to think this may be a dead end.
-rasterdogs
I've communicated this to Fujifilm USA and am not optimistic that I'll get a response.
A recent conversation with folks who develop 3rd party RAW conversion software where they mentioned that they are skeptical about supporting the X-trans files got me to thinking. By and large, it is clear that it is problematic for raw converters to deal optimally with the X-trans raw files.
Fuji have not directly communicated about what they are doing to facilitate development by the raw converter vendors.
I find the X-pro1 to be an excellent camera. I'm happy with the ooc jpegs. Generally when I do convert raw files (using LR4.2) I'm satisfied. Oh, and for me, life's too short to use software with a UI that is as deficient as Silkypix.
Having said all that, I'm becoming reluctant to invest any more in the Fujifilm X-series cameras and lenses. I don't want to invest in a system that excels with ooc jpegs but has real limitations when it comes to raw conversion.
If Fujifilm can't/won't say what they are doing to complement development of raw conversion of X-trans files I have to wonder why.
I'm becoming inclined to think this may be a dead end.
-rasterdogs
I've communicated this to Fujifilm USA and am not optimistic that I'll get a response.
Brody LeBlanc
Established
Fuji is working with Apple/Adobe on solving the RAW processing issue.
Once that happens, we'll be set.
It's very clear that both the X-Trans sensor technology (which took them over six years to develop) and the X-mount system will continue on.
People don't realize that Fuji as a company is very driven and well directed, compared to many companies.
I even read an interviewa while back with Canon and when asked what other company worries them the most in the industry, the answer was Fujifilm (not Nikon or Sony.)
Once that happens, we'll be set.
It's very clear that both the X-Trans sensor technology (which took them over six years to develop) and the X-mount system will continue on.
People don't realize that Fuji as a company is very driven and well directed, compared to many companies.
I even read an interviewa while back with Canon and when asked what other company worries them the most in the industry, the answer was Fujifilm (not Nikon or Sony.)
rasterdogs
Member
I'm hopefully optimistic that this is true. The X-pro1 is the most fun I've had with a camera since I gave up film ~10 years ago. The Chromasoft blog does concern me. I have real appreciation for the Adobe team's chops. I just hope they find a good business case for investing in demosaicing the X-trans sensor files.
palec
Well-known
This week I've spoken with guy from Phase One - the company which bought Leaf from Kodak and also owns Mamiya. They also have very high quality RAW conversion software Capture One so I've asked about their support for 3rd party cameras, mainly Fuji. The answer was that Fuji does not want to share technical details with them, that's why they cannot support X-trans sensors.
I understand that Phase One is not only potential business partner but also a competitor (Phase One might be looking for live view sensors). Still I think if Fuji will play proprietary king of the hill game, this product might not last long. Openness is the key to success, not proprietary standards (hello Xd card).
I understand that Phase One is not only potential business partner but also a competitor (Phase One might be looking for live view sensors). Still I think if Fuji will play proprietary king of the hill game, this product might not last long. Openness is the key to success, not proprietary standards (hello Xd card).
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I'm another x-pro1 owner waiting for Apple's Aperture RAW support for Fuji's sensor. However its clear to me that the X-Pro1 jpeg's are superb. I can foresee a possible future in which Fuji decides to limit RAW support and instead continues to upgrade firmware that produces excellent jpegs. Personally I don't really care if the image quality I desire comes from a jpeg or RAW file. Up to this point I've not missed having RAW files from the x-pro1. I've made big prints for exhibition from the jpegs and they are as good as anything else I've ever printed (darkroom prints included).
gavinlg
Veteran
Let me put it this way. In comparing the x100 (which has a very well regarded bayer sensor) and the x-pro1, I found that I strongly preferred the x-pro1 images - almost as if they had come from a larger sensor camera. In that regard, the x-trans is definitely superior to bayer in my opinion. The LR conversion could be better, I'm sure, but at this moment it's definitely good enough.
rasterdogs
Member
The 'proprietary king of the hill' problem is the type of skepticism I got from another respected, though not an industry giant, raw conversion software firm that I communicated with.
I'm disappointed that the X-trans sensor raw conversion seems to be an outlier. Fuji don't seem to be involved in the way that can most assure the success of this technology. They seem not to be particularly concerned. Don't know what to make of this but it certainly gives me pause to consider further commitment to this product line. :bang:
edge100
Well-known
There's a LOT of upside to the X-Trans sensor, and once Adobe gets things sorted (hopefully with Fuji's help), we'll all be laughing.
As it stands, for us LR 4 users, there are three workarounds:
1. Process in Silkypix. The difference from Lightroom 4 is striking; there really is an astounding amount of detail there. That said, Silkypix is a UI nightmare. Still, this is my preferred method of working on images that demand the utmost detail (i.e. landscapes and portraits). I also tried RPP, but it's just not as good as Silkypix for these images.
2. Shoot JPG. This is a great choice, since the built-in Raw processing engine is very, very good (and you can bracket your JPGs to give you various looks, if you want). The obvious downside is the lack of PP flexibility, but this may less of an issue for some. I hardly ever shoot JPG, but it's something I might consider.
3. Process Raws in Lightroom, as usual. The upside is a simple workflow. The downside is a fairly substantial loss of detail in some (but not all) images. This is how I work on my street photography images, since these generally do not require massive amounts of pixel-level detail.
Let's face it: Lightroom is as close as we have to a standard in Raw conversion software, and we really need Adobe and Fuji to figure this out and put out a product that does justice to this sensor and this system. As for me, I'm 100% committed to Fuji for my digital work; the X-Pro1 just suits me better than any other digital camera I've used. Here's hoping that support continues to improve, as the platform becomes more and more accepted.
As it stands, for us LR 4 users, there are three workarounds:
1. Process in Silkypix. The difference from Lightroom 4 is striking; there really is an astounding amount of detail there. That said, Silkypix is a UI nightmare. Still, this is my preferred method of working on images that demand the utmost detail (i.e. landscapes and portraits). I also tried RPP, but it's just not as good as Silkypix for these images.
2. Shoot JPG. This is a great choice, since the built-in Raw processing engine is very, very good (and you can bracket your JPGs to give you various looks, if you want). The obvious downside is the lack of PP flexibility, but this may less of an issue for some. I hardly ever shoot JPG, but it's something I might consider.
3. Process Raws in Lightroom, as usual. The upside is a simple workflow. The downside is a fairly substantial loss of detail in some (but not all) images. This is how I work on my street photography images, since these generally do not require massive amounts of pixel-level detail.
Let's face it: Lightroom is as close as we have to a standard in Raw conversion software, and we really need Adobe and Fuji to figure this out and put out a product that does justice to this sensor and this system. As for me, I'm 100% committed to Fuji for my digital work; the X-Pro1 just suits me better than any other digital camera I've used. Here's hoping that support continues to improve, as the platform becomes more and more accepted.
ChrisP
Grain Lover
I don't know much about the situation but if Adobe is as quick bringing solid X-Trans support to their Raw Developers as they have been about bringing solid Faveon support to their Raw Developers than they should be good to go in approximately... Well you get my point.
edge100
Well-known
The key determinant is how many X-Trans cameras are sold. It looks like the X-Pro1 and X-E1 are doing quite well (much better than Sigma's Foveon cameras), so that may provide the impetus that Adobe needs.
DtheG
Established
4. Raw and use the in-camera processing to produce a jpeg copy. Not the full flexibility of every form of post-processing but some opportunity to defer a decision on jpeg options.
Any proof?
If Silkypix can export 16-bit TIFF, then these can give you more "headroom" in subsequent Lightroom adjustments.
Anyone using RPP for TIFFs, and Lightroom?
edge100
Well-known
I have. It's better than LR, but it has its own quirks. The files are still not exactly as expected.
Silkypix still provides the best conversion on most files.
GaryLH
Veteran
Here is a post I made w/ sample results from each program... Lr4, RPP, and silkypix.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2014892&postcount=17
Gary
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2014892&postcount=17
Gary
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Yes, that comparison shows why I use RPP 64 for RAW development when the JPEGs don't give me what I need. A bit of a learning curve but very powerful once understood.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
To each his own, of course, but I wonder at the romance apparently shared among the majority for RAW. The X-Pro1's jpegs are outstanding, they pass critical examination by stock agencies, they hold up well for second and even third generations, the files can be accessed by all applications and life becomes much simpler and stress free.
Am I a slob among perfectionists? (Don't answer that!)
Am I a slob among perfectionists? (Don't answer that!)
Herjulfr
Established
I'm just like you. I rarely really need raw and i am more than satisfied with the jpg. It was another story when i was using Canon digital slr, the jpgs were not too good.
markrich
Enthusiatic amatuer
Not all of us use Adobe or Apple. I am very happy with Darktable and RawTherapee on my machines. It's still going to be a problem if only these two companies are able to get the necessary documentation from Fujifilm to develop the plugins necessary for RAW support.
This documentation should have been available day 1 in a form for all developers to use instead of this piecemeal working with big companies approach. That's old school thinking more reminiscent 1990s Microsoft than a modern company. As lovely as the jpegs are, I am keen to work with my RAW files.
I don't think the sensor is a dead end. Unique yes, but Fujifilm will develop more equipment around it in the future. Uncertain who would consider using it also, even if Fujifilm would allow them. Right now it's a marketable selling advantage for their kit.