Very interesting q&a session w/ some Fuji guys on x series

The issue the X Pro 1 has with major raw converters could easily have been foreseen by Fujifilm as a problem which should be fixed prior to shipping, given the type of audience the camera is for.

They just don't seem to care about getting the software right the first time out the door.
 
Adanac said:
The issue the X Pro 1 has with major raw converters could easily have been foreseen by Fujifilm as a problem which should be fixed prior to shipping, given the type of audience the camera is for.

They just don't seem to care about getting the software right the first time out the door.
Click to expand...

In the q&a they inferred that most of the r&d work on the sensor involved getting the raw algo right. Given their knowledge of how long it took to get it right, I have been wondering if it is one of those items that just slipped thru the cracks in terms of starting conversation w/ someone other than Silky pics. Someone on another thread mentioned that in Japan Silky Pix is the accepted SW package for raw converters.

They tried to correct some of the learning curve issue by introducing an app which has tutorial on it.

But at end of the day, we all have our favorite photo programs and they have been taking heat big time since the xp1 shipped. Well deserved I might add given they knew how hard it was to develop the algo.

But this q&a shows that they listened and are working with other developers though a bit late.

Gary
 
gavinlg said:
Yes they can. in some high detailed areas at 100% magnification the algorithm is not quite right yet, making things like tree foliage look a bit 'painterly'.
Click to expand...

Let me preface this post by saying I do not own any Fuji camera, but I am considering the X-E1. Getting "good" RAW files is important to me.

Elsewhere, I have read about the "kludge" approach, whereby the Lightness channel of the JPEG (of a RAW+JPEG pair) is pasted into the L channel in the RAF file.

It was mentioned by one poster this does not always work well since in-camera lens distortion corrections are (automatically?) applied to the JPEG, but do not transport into LR or ACR in the RAF file. This means there may be luminance channel registration issues in trying the copy and paste method.

If so, does this mean Fuji does not write these corrections out to EXIF? In other words, there is no way Adobe could read these corrections and have LR apply them to the RAF file?

Is there any way to turn off these "automatic" corrections; and maybe using Adobe's DNG and lens correction profilers to get the JPEG and RAF files identical?
 
One comment: the interviewer mention that speed of transfer from sensor was never before improved by firmware update. This is actually not true. Canon EOS7D got similar improvent with its version 2.0(coincidence?) in august.
I still got rid of it to finance xpro1🙂
 
kufelt said:
One comment: the interviewer mention that speed of transfer from sensor was never before improved by firmware update. This is actually not true. Canon EOS7D got similar improvent with its version 2.0(coincidence?) in august.
I still got rid of it to finance xpro1🙂
Click to expand...

A lot of these components come from common vendors. Those same vendors usually provide the base drivers as well if u are using a common operating system such as vxworks or imbedded Linux, otherwise u roll your own.

Gary
 
gavinlg said:
Yes they can. in some high detailed areas at 100% magnification the algorithm is not quite right yet, making things like tree foliage look a bit 'painterly'.
Click to expand...

Yes, this can be the case.

Before getting and using my X-pro1 I could count on one hand the number of OOC jpegs I used from my Canon DSLRs. I was a complete RAW file fanatic 😛 , didn't think OOC jpegs could amount to a hill of beans.

The X-pro1 OOC jpegs have changed that for me. I shoot RAW + jpegs and use the jpegs 90% of the time. The jpegs have considerable adjustment headroom in LightRoom. The OOC jpeg auto white balance is excellent. In my experiments I can match but rarely better the OOC jpegs using the RAW files converted in LightRoom. I'm surprised that I'm using the OOC jpegs as much as I am. It isn't due to the painterly effect, which I've only encountered rarely with the RAW conversions.
The jpegs are just pretty darn good and allow significant adjustment if even reasonably exposed.

I would never have predicted this prior to using the camera.

Finally, the sturm and drang on the various forums about RAW conversions and the X-trans sensor are not objective expressions of what I've experienced.

other's MMV 😎
rasterdogs
 
This 'painterly' effect, is it just with the previews, or does Lightroom actually render this effect on output to .jpg or other file formats?


thanks
 
Just to add another voice here... I miss being able to process XPro1 Raw files in Aperture. BUT... the jpegs are beautiful. I haven't tried all the in-camera tweaking tools yet, but straight out of the camera images are excellent.
 
It's good to hear from the Fuji Guys that the converter issue is getting attention. It's a serious issue for committed RAW shooters using Lightroom. Not the end of the world, but enough to give pause. I am also remembering that it took some time (years) for Adobe to catch up to Nikon's RAW converter, so it's not unprecedented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GaryLH
A very interesting interview w/ CEO of Sigma
Replies
0
Views
1K
GaryLH
GaryLH
Back
Top Bottom