Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested

ACR 7.4 RC vs Camera JPEG

Below we compare the performance of ACR 7.4 RC against Fujifilm's internal JPEG engine. Click on a full scene thumbnail for the original resolution image.

Adobe Camera Raw 7.4 RC: Default settings Camera JPEG: Default settings
100% crop 100% crop
100% crop 100% crop

The most obvious difference here is that the in-camera JPEG displays greater contrast and saturation than the ACR 7.4 RC file. This is no great surprise, as ACR typically follows a conservative approach with its default settings. If you look carefully you'll see the in-camera JPEG offers marginally crisper looking details than the ACR 7.4 RC rendering. The difference is slight though, and we're happy to say that Adobe's revamped processing is free of the fine detail artifacts and color smearing that we saw in the previous ACR version (shown in the following section of the article).

Adobe Camera Raw 7.4 RC: Default settings Camera JPEG: Default settings
100% crop 100% crop
100% crop 100% crop

In our studio test scene, the ACR 7.4 RC processing compares extremely well against Fujifilm's internal JPEG engine. And keep in mind, we've found the Fujifilm X-Trans JPEGs to be among the finest we've seen from an enthusiast camera. While moiré and aliasing patterning are ever so slightly more prominent in the ACR conversion, this is well in line with what we've seen over the years from third party raw converter engines. For a default setting, we have little complaint with these results.

ACR 7.4 RC vs Capture One Pro 7.0.2

We compared Capture One Pro 7's raw processing against the X-Pro1's in-camera JPEGS in an earlier article using these same image files. Here then, we take a look at the default settings of ACR 7.4 RC and Capture One Pro 7.02. Click on a full scene thumbnail for the original resolution image.

Adobe Camera Raw 7.4 RC: Default settings Capture One Pro 7.0.2: Default settings
100% Crop 100% Crop
100% Crop  100% Crop

As we saw in our Raw Converter Showdown, Capture One Pro 7 produces more crisp results than ACR with contrast and saturation defaults that more closely mimic the in-camera JPEG. Having said that, however, ACR 7.4 RC avoids the edge halos and even more obvious aliasing patterns that exist in the Capture One Pro 7 renderings of our real world and studio test scene. Overall, the ACR 7.4 RC files deliver more realistic, natural results in areas of organic low-contrast detail like the foliage in the street scene above and the fuzzy balls in the studio scene below.

Adobe Camera Raw 7.4 RC: Default settings Capture One Pro 7.0.2: Default settings
100% Crop 100% Crop
100% Crop 100% Crop

Summary and file downloads

While it's important to recognize that ACR 7.3 and earlier was certainly very usable for many types of X-Pro1 images - especially if they weren't subjected to 100% view scrutiny - there's no question that with the 7.4 release candidate, Adobe has substantially improved their raw processing for the camera's X-Trans sensor. Our hats are off to Adobe for committing the not-insignificant resources necessary to improve support for X-Trans sensor cameras with relatively limited market share. The results speak for themselves and we feel confident in saying that ACR 7.4 RC is the update that X-Pro1 users have long been waiting for.

Default settings offer a useful comparison of a raw engine's demosaicing capabilities but of course you'll want to tweak these parameters to get the most out of any raw file. In re-processing dozens of X-Pro1 images with ACR 7.4 we found that they all benefited from slightly more aggressive than usual sharpening, with a higher radius value than we'd typically use. You can download the original Raw files below to try your hand with your own settings in the raw processor of your choice. Share your findings with the community in the comments section. We'd love to hear what works best for you.

Download Tram Raw File

Download Test Scene Raw File


Amadou Diallo is a photographer and staff writer at dpreview. You can keep tabs on what he's up to on his Facebook, Google+, Instagram or Twitter feeds.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Comments

Total comments: 144
12
Mioshaman
By Mioshaman (11 months ago)

Do you guys and gals ever take pictures or just criticize?

0 upvotes
Bhargav Mistry
By Bhargav Mistry (Apr 6, 2013)

I use Fujifilm X-E1 and the result I found using Silkypix Pro 5 with "V4 compatible" Color profile is always outstanding compare to Photoshop Camera Raw 7.4

I am still not convinced with the quality of ACR even though I am a fan of Adobe ACR which I use for all my other Raw file conversion for Canon & Nikon cameras but only for Fujifilm I vote for Silkypix Pro5.

I am confident that ACR will work to sort out the issue soon so that I use ACR powerful tools for Raw File Conversion.

0 upvotes
Douglas69
By Douglas69 (Mar 8, 2013)

As a long time Fuji faithful, mainly in Medium format but also S5 (Nikon Hybrid) I am bitterly disappointed that waiting years after the day they simply stopped making Professional cameras altogether, this 'new' sensor is all they have to offer professional photographers who used Fuji equipment, expecting something new before it was too late.

It's very sad that Fuji have abandoned professional photographers completely. The rumors that floated around were all lies. The only professional offerings in digital cameras come from Fuji's rivals. SO the wait is over. For me and some of my contemporaries the choice Phase one or Pentax.

Bye bye Fuji.

0 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Mar 1, 2013)

OMG Fujifilm, put this sensor in an SLR body ALREADY!!!

It would be outstanding stitched together for a FF sensor (the noise ceiling alone would be pushed so far beyond normal ISO range we could get 100 performance at ~3200) but if APS-C is all Fuji wants to do atm that is fine. Just work with 'someone' and get this into an SLR body..!
Combine the base IQ of this sensor with real AF performance, broader lens selection, lighting capability - too many added benefits to list - and it would be the best implementation of the only real technology innovation we have seen in this industry for years.

(Higher MP and more noise massaged to look like 'grain' is not technology progress..)

3 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Feb 28, 2013)

X-Trans sensor is 5-6 year late. New cameras 16-36 MP with Bayer sensors without AA filter have very weak level of moire. It's not a problem at all.
X-Trans is invention of new bicycle without technical support. Deadborn.
Fuji can't make the best software for X-Trans sensor and can't solve the problem of their sensor. We get false colours and other types of artifacts instead of moire of Bayer . Adobe and other software developers try to offer anything, but no any serious results.
I can't see any advantages of this marginal technology.

Sigma offers the best software to develop RAW from their specific Foveon.
Why can't Fuji offer RAW converter?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ulrikem
By ulrikem (Feb 28, 2013)

and the FUD continues... Had you done just a little research, you'd have found out that Fuji delivers a (technically fine) RAW converter with their cameras.

3 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Feb 28, 2013)

Is it superior? Is it the best to convert RAW from Fuji?
Is it better than C1Pro, ACR or DXO...?

I don't talk about ANY RAW converter. I talk about X-Trans sensors problems and that there is no high effective RAW converter from Fuji.

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Mar 1, 2013)

Seems to me you like to WHINE to WHINE.

0 upvotes
miniTO
By miniTO (Mar 3, 2013)

They do its called Silkypix and its bundled with the camera...

The professional version DP5 has IMO the best X-Trans conversions and is FAR more usable... though it should be the camera is bundled with v3 and this is v5!

DP5 easily out does both CP1 and Lightroom once you learn it...

0 upvotes
aleckurgan
By aleckurgan (Feb 28, 2013)

Moire appears to be much more pronounced with the new ACR release.

0 upvotes
Christos Tolis
By Christos Tolis (Feb 28, 2013)

Those who say that the in-camera JPEG is better than the LR RAW based on the samples presented here, have obviously no clue whatsoever as to how to use LR or indeed any need to do so. In fact, to my mind, it is misleading to even juxtapose them. I have used several raw converters with Fuji X-Pro 1 files and I can honestly say if you are familiar with them the results they are capable of are damn near identical (although LR did have some issues that I find have been most the part dealt with). Of course I wasn't happy with the fact that Adobe's support was sub-optimal in the beginning since my workflow is based around LR, but there is really a lot to like about the camera and I'm sure that an X-Pro 2 will pretty much be all that most enthusiasts and the semi-pros need it to be and tick all the right boxes. Still, Fuji has to be commended for what is essentially a great product and a real alternative to other mirrorless offerings out there. Shoot and print more, pixel peep less guys.

2 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Feb 28, 2013)

I don't see that the problem is solved. I see just the try to solve.
Some problems are tried to be solved and solved a bit, the rest problems are unreal to solve. Corrected colours, lost resolution.
The problem of X-trans sensor is not the software. The main problem is color filter array pattern of Fuji sensor.

1 upvote
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Mar 1, 2013)

No one said the problem was 'solved' (if we assert there is a 'problem' at all given Fuji's jpg output is better than most sensors raw conversion can produce) DPR said that raw support had been 'improved'...

2 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Feb 28, 2013)

Still looks pretty soft and mushy for an AA'less camera... Bit of a shame really, so much promise.

3 upvotes
ulrikem
By ulrikem (Feb 27, 2013)

I didn't expect Adobe to update their engine, looking at the almost negligible market share Fuji X has. So, really great, Adobe DOES move.
I wonder if Fuji funded (at least a part of) the additional development required...

0 upvotes
jonte0
By jonte0 (Feb 27, 2013)

X-E1 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8207/8213605842_5a32156906_o.jpg from http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=x-e1+35%2F1.4+fleur&m=text

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi3G
By AngryCorgi3G (Feb 27, 2013)

Still has those terrible yellow lines diagonally streaking through patterns. One of the clear drawbacks of the Xtrans filter.

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 27, 2013)

I've never seen a photo from a Fuji x-trans camera that I liked the look of. They all seem to have an insubstantial texture and pale colour balance and contrast, even the ones on the Fuji site are unimpressive to me. Shame as the camera bodies are a bit nice!

0 upvotes
matt k
By matt k (Feb 28, 2013)

I've been a photographer for over 40 years and I can confidently say that the colors from the Fuji XPRO are easily the best I've ever seen to come out of a digital camera. Maybe you need a new monitor.

3 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 28, 2013)

Amazing, I too have been taking photos for that long and yet when I compare them to others on the SAME monitor, all I see is a weak looking, slightly soft photo. Perhaps you have what we call buyers blindness?

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Feb 28, 2013)

maybe it is the little fact that everyone likes something else?
If everyone would see the things exactly the same way we would have only single camera on the market instead of hundreds.

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Feb 28, 2013)

One day people may begin to understand that overstatement is the enemy of credibility.

1 upvote
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Feb 27, 2013)

Adobe is to be commended for its work on this and DPReview is to be commended for its analysis.
Ultimately, I think there is something very subjective about what constitutes a good quality photograph. I have used RAW for years. And yet, it you removed all the provenances from this article and just asked me to pick the quality I like the best, I would probably opt for JPEG. My second choice might vary from picture to picture, but would likely be split 50-50 between RAW 7.3 and 7.4.
Ouch.

1 upvote
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Feb 27, 2013)

I think lightroom 4 is broken.

2 upvotes
WellyNZ
By WellyNZ (Feb 27, 2013)

Yeah.... Nah, I think it's probably just you.

10 upvotes
pevece
By pevece (Feb 27, 2013)

The red color of the playcard looks odd to me (colorshift ? ) both in jpeg and RAW.

I noticed that the shutter speed used for the fuji 3200 ISO studio comparison scene is almost identical to the speed used for the NEX6 1600 ISO scene. Does this means that there is a discrepancy of almost 1 stop, and that the fuji 3200ISO in reality corresponds with 1600ISO ?
(btw used aperture is identical)

Fuji E1: 1/500s 3200 ISO
NEX6: 1/400s 1600 ISO

5 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Feb 27, 2013)

Your comment reminds me how a lot of cloth brands are used nowadays to show on their products label a size smaller than what the size actually is in order to stroke the (woman) customers pride. "Oh, my gosh ! I still can wear a so small size !"

Could it be possible some camera makers use such a stratagem to claim a higher high-ISO ability than what they can really achieve ?

1 upvote
hellocrowley
By hellocrowley (Feb 28, 2013)

It's not just "possible". It's been done by Fuji & Olympus.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Feb 27, 2013)

This is surely not my specialty. But I have nevertheless the impression that the industry (i.e. companies developing photo cameras and companies developing RAW-processing software) should come up with new additional standards in the area of RAW formats in order to avoid future repeats of the problem that we have encountered.

These new additional standards should on one side allow camera developers to be innovative (for example in the current particular case the use of other than Bayer arrays) and on the other side make sure that the developers of RAW processing Software can support without too much struggles these innovations. .... (continuation in next post)

2 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Feb 27, 2013)

continuation from previous post.....

As I mentioned in the previous post: I am not a specialist and the ***example*** that I provide below is probably extremely poor or even flawed. But the following example nevertheless illustrates what is meant by this these "new additional standards": provide in the area of RAW formats an additional standard that allows the camera manufacturers to perform their own demosaicing in such a way that the result of that demosaicing can be processed without much struggles by RAW processing software like ACR, Capture One, Lr,.... while still allowing the users of the RAW Processing Software to exploit the current headroom and the white balancing capabilities provided by the RAW format.

And of course, it does not matter (at least for me) if such solutions will be for something that will still be called RAW, RAW2, DNG, or something else ...continuation and end in the next post.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Feb 27, 2013)

continuation (and end) from the previous posts....

Notice, that it is Auke Nauta (not me) who proposed on the dpreview Website some weeks ago (for the particular instance of the problem that we encountered) a solution along the lines of the above example

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Feb 27, 2013)

As we can't see any full stop at the end of the third paragraph, I think I'm justified to say: good continuation !

0 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (Feb 28, 2013)

Do you mean like Adobe dng?
Good idea I mean there is only one Jpeg type isn't there? So why not a standard Raw file that is standard across all manufacturers.

It's quite possible I don't know what I am talking about.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Feb 28, 2013)

Backayonder,

Yes, something like dng. But from what I learned from the discussions in another thread, it seems that dng as currently is, is probably not yet sufficient. Because Software like Lr, Capture One, ACR.... will still be confronted with the problem of demosaicing.

You might be interested to read what Auke Nauta (he is an excellent specialist) had proposed and I therefore include below the link to his post and the link to the discussion thread.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50654221
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50656814

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Feb 28, 2013)

As you can see from this update there is no definitive way to demosaic any file. If you'll store already demosaiced files than you'll be tied to the algorithm used. What happens if a new one with greater detail is invented in 5 years? You won't be able to just reprocess your photos with it if they are stored in already demosaiced form.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Feb 28, 2013)

Den, you have surely in this area more experience then I have (in fact, I have nearly none).

But.... it could very well be feasible for the camera to provide options (like the options that currently exist: options allowing us to choose whether we only want a jpeg file, or only a RAW file or both).

The camera could provide options allowing its user to choose for examples between creating one or more of the following:
- "traditional" RAW Files (i.e files that have neither been demosaiced nor otherwise been pre-processed)
- RAW Files that have been demosaiced (or to be more precise, that conform to the new standards/formats)
- Jpeg Files.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Mar 1, 2013)

In my previous Post, I forgot to mention, that the pre-processing of the RAW data into the new/future format could (depending on what the camera manufacturers and the RAW proceesing Software companies decide) be performed in the camera or in the RAW Processing software (e.g. as a kind of camera-manufacturer-provided plugin to Lr, ACR, Camera-one).

0 upvotes
GEAH
By GEAH (Mar 2, 2013)

Why are people typing raw in ALL CAPS? Does it stand for something?

0 upvotes
matt k
By matt k (10 months ago)

The problem with an International standard format for RAW is what if my company can produce images from RAW files that are superior to the standard format? Do I downsample to fit the standard or do I take the market advantage and release a non standard format that will give superior results?

0 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (Feb 27, 2013)

So the advice here is that for anyone who wants to take close up shots of Washinton Street signs or money is not to buy a Fuji. But for most other subject matter the Fuji will be fine.

3 upvotes
texinwien
By texinwien (Feb 27, 2013)

I disagree, and am certainly not the only one. Many have described the X-Trans output as having a 'watercolor' look. When the X-Pro1 reviews and sample photos first started coming out, I heard speculation that Fuji was applying noise reduction to the RAW files. What some thought were signs of NR were actually X-Trans artifacts, and not only in close-up shots of Washington Street signs or money.

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Feb 27, 2013)

Bayer has artifacts too, including the smearing caused by the AA filter and considerably more noise. Identifying artifacts in isolation without comparing prints is fairly meaningless, and I can assure you A2 prints look very good, even compared to a D600.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Feb 27, 2013)

To sum up the Backayonder's thought: if you're gonna have a money shot, don't go there with your Fujifilm hanging to your neck ! (in bygone days, Polaroid was OK but these days I don't know).

1 upvote
Donald Duck
By Donald Duck (Feb 27, 2013)

If you wonder what the face of the queen on that bill really looks like - go to the comparison tool and compare with the NEX-7 or any other camera with a Bayer sensors. You will be amazed how fake the X-Trans image looks like.

Non-existing black spots, non-existing diagonal lines on the face, etc.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/25

1 upvote
Aquaroid
By Aquaroid (Feb 27, 2013)

Yes! You are so right!!! No diagonal lines at all!!!! WOW! I was really thinking to buy that thing. But now I don't think so!

0 upvotes
NYCeditor
By NYCeditor (Feb 27, 2013)

Drop the ISO to 200 on the NEX-7. Go to the Paul Smith watch. Look at all that noise. Compare that to the Fuji Xpro-1's JPEG. Then, zoom over to the paper clips, and gander at those jagged lines and nasty detail. Go up to the gray scale, and behold all the mid-tone noise. Then, while you're at it, take a look at the woman's face in the upper right, and once again, gander at all that NEX-7 NOISE at just a mere ISO 200. I had the NEX-7, but was tired of the grain/noise at such low ISO. While the NEX-7 picks up detail in certain areas better than others, it loses in low ISO noise. Then for kicks, up the ISO to a widely used 1600 ISO. NEX-7 shows it's own star system with that noise. Holy crap, I don't miss that. Fuji's on the other hand? Non-existent.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Aibenq
By Aibenq (Feb 27, 2013)

Oh come on both of you~

even they say the Nyquist frequency test is very close to NEX-7, it's doesn't mean the true resolution is close to NEX-7. NEX-7 is 24MP and X-Pro1 is 16MP, so the detail of X-Pro 1 is limited to 16MP resolution, NEX-7 can reveal diagonal lines and black spot better due 24MP resolution. and don't forget, they useACR version is when isn't fully support X-Pro1 and had problem with color bleeding and watercolor like effect.

and don't forget, due different filter, they had different way to demosaicing. SONY, NIKON, CANON, etc use basic Bayer filter, so they can reveal more detail because they already improving they way to demosaicing the bayer filter.

if you care about it, compare it with Pentax K-30/ K-5 IIs, Nikon D7000, and SONY NEX-5 who had same resolution. even they resolve the diagonal lines, but the result is still crispier and had more detail (specially in JPEG).and even Fujifilm didn't show any moire, while the other show more moire.

2 upvotes
Donald Duck
By Donald Duck (Feb 27, 2013)

The only reason I mentioned the NEX-7 is because it is there already, in the comparison tool. Choose the D5100 then. Night and day. Fuji renders false color and false detail in the both faces. The color moire on the coin is replaced by a zig-zag junk which cannot be cleaned up.

About the noise - you have to know how the scene was exposed. The ISO does not mean much. BTW, most cameras of this class have and should have ISO 100.

0 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Feb 27, 2013)

Please....
You are simply seeing the effect caused by any sensor without a low pass filter. The D800e looks like she is wearing blush, it is color moire (zoomed in) - and the diagonal lines are the most visible, even on the D800/e, 645D, etc.. not to mention the image is in color. It is not green ink like US notes nor black and white. If capturing the face on a currency note was your intent you would not do it from a distance and you would use a macro lens.

The Fujifilm X-Trans sensors are capable of showing higher/comparable levels of detail even though they are lower mp, which is the big deal about them as the lower mp count also contributes to much lower noise by comparison.

I am just waiting for DxO support, could care less about Adobe for image processing/correction. If you look at what DxO can do with the S5-Pro compared to what anything else was capable of doing when it was reviewed it is a whole new camera. Same thing will happen with the newer Fujifilm sensors.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (Feb 27, 2013)

You need to compare it with another sensor without an anti alias filter eg D800E. The D800E shows significant cross hatching on the face. Oddly the Fuji misses the left to right cross hatch and it only really picks up the right to left hatch. Comparing to the 5D MKIII or 6D it is quite similar.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 26, 2013)

Now we all can understand why DxO is so cautious about releasing X-Trans support...

0 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Feb 27, 2013)

Because they are DXnikOn? ;)

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 27, 2013)

Oh, a Canon fanboy bitterly resenting Canon's less-than-stellar DxOMark tests. Spare me!

5 upvotes
tomtom50
By tomtom50 (Feb 26, 2013)

That Fuji refuses to release the algorithms they use in-camera amazes me. I won't buy from a company that so disregards the needs of their users.

1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Feb 26, 2013)

It did provide those algorithms to at least Adobe, Apple and Capture One. The problem before was reluctance to make changes in their initial algorithm from Adobe. This has been discussed a few times already.

8 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Feb 26, 2013)

They are on record as having released the algorithms to various RAW conversion companies. Adobe didn't come up with this on their own.

4 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Feb 26, 2013)

No, but they had to incorporate the new development parameters and algorithms into their existing workflow. With Bayer, it's just tuning - there is no algorithmic difference in the underlying demosaicing algorithm. Every time you adjust a slider, the effect has to be recalculated and optimised, which is non-trivial.

2 upvotes
tomtom50
By tomtom50 (Feb 26, 2013)

Where did you read that Fuji released the algorithms?

0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Feb 26, 2013)

Tom it was reported here if I recall by one of the VP's of Fuji that they gave them the algorithms last year.

Also my own contacts in FujiFilm have also told me the same information. Adobe has had the algorithms for a better part of a year, but because they are trying to adapt Bayer Algorithms to this X-Trans sensor, it is writing the proper countermeasures to make it work.

Re-engineering is still not an option at this point.

2 upvotes
tomtom50
By tomtom50 (Feb 26, 2013)

I stand corrected.

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (Feb 27, 2013)

Also on Twitter they stated that they had given all the algorithms to the various raw-converter devs. They asked their twitter followers to put pressure on Adobe, Apple etc. to please implement them.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Feb 26, 2013)

A nice improvement but as I look at the default sharpening vs. Capture One it still looks like you can't have it both ways. You can keep things sharp, and live with artifacts and halos or... you can lower the sharpness a little to minimize problems and add the sharpening back in at the end. Sort of a digital AA filter.

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Feb 26, 2013)

Who cares about defaults? With C1 it was hard to get rid of the colour and geometric moire but the level of fine detail isn't any higher, only the level of micro-contrast.

0 upvotes
Paul Petersen
By Paul Petersen (Feb 26, 2013)

Thats nice how about an update to their X3F support.....

2 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Feb 26, 2013)

Also- does anyone know if this will transfer over to older versions of Lightroom? Im running 3 (v3.6 I think).

0 upvotes
piratejabez
By piratejabez (Feb 26, 2013)

From my understanding, camera support is built-in to each version, so you would need to upgrade to take advantage of it. (I recommend it!)

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Feb 26, 2013)

Version 4.x is so much better than 3.x that it is a no-brainer to upgrade to 4.4 when it is officially available. The adjustment sliders for black, white, shadow and highlight plus clarity are just godsent.

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Feb 26, 2013)

Right on Adobe! And DPreview, for staying at the forefront of this, testing & keeping us updated. It's a good day for Fuji & it's shooters.

10 upvotes
Ak pinxit
By Ak pinxit (Feb 26, 2013)

for shooter - yes
as for Fuji - doesn't looks like they care much

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 26, 2013)

@ Ak pinxit - without knowing exactly what's gone on behind closed doors, it's impossible to know how much each company 'cares.'

I have every reason to think Fujifilm considered good third-party Raw support to be very important.

7 upvotes
SergeyMS
By SergeyMS (Feb 26, 2013)

Perfect! I never supposed so high quality!

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 26, 2013)

Kudos to Adobe, this 4.4 do a better job overall. Just proves that there is always room for improvements,. That's what you want from a leader in image processing. This time, it seems that many people are tempted to buy the X100S. Now I'm more interested in buying X100S. None of this is by chance, Adobe did this even before the launch of X100S, everything has a logical. Business logic.

3 upvotes
Nikon007
By Nikon007 (Feb 26, 2013)

The Washington sign is clearly better but there is much more moire in the new LR version so pick you faults they both have issues.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Feb 26, 2013)

Has anyone tried the moiré reduction brush in LR 4.x to reduce the added moiré? I haven't tried that brush yet.

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Feb 26, 2013)

The moire brush works pretty well in my experience.

3 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Feb 26, 2013)

The moire brush works very well. I agree with Asylum Photo, but why it's not part of the Sharpening panel has always confounded me. Spot correcting is a better idea regardless, and corrects for things like that colour moire in the queen's head (it does not correct for any maze-like moire that occurs in sharpened details)

3 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (Feb 26, 2013)

For the first time we have seen the red mesh on the upper right side of the queen's head showing negligible moire. Hope Lightroom 4.4 achieves the same.

0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Feb 26, 2013)

One more thing I'd like to add that is an improvement that most people wouldn't know about is something I call Zipper Aliasing. This isn't something that Lightroom 4.3 had a problem with (because it never resolved the details high enough), but with the increase of details, it's a fine balance between this unique zipper alias that happens only with the X-Trans files.

It is as far as I can tell by looking at just a RAW demosaic file, that it's the Green sensors that cause a unique zipper like pattern to form between certain details (only visible at 200-400%). This was present in processors like Silkypix and DCRAW especially if you over-sharpened. Lightroom's increase in detail did not result in any zipper aliasing when over-sharpening which is good. The trade off of slightly softer interpolation gives better control over that phenomena.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Feb 26, 2013)

Zipper alias might happen any time when you don't "synchronize" demosaicing of separate color channels (e.g. channels doesn't use luminance info of others channels). It doesn't depend on specific color filter array at all.

1 upvote
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Feb 26, 2013)

Great news!

Among other for me, because I am strongly interested in the X20 and use both ACR (via PSE --- I guess that i will need to wait a little bit until these enhancements appear also in that version of ACR used by PSE) and Lr.

It is also excellent to experience, that ACR and Lr users are not left in the cold by Adobe, when they are interested in a camera that use inovative (but not yet very widespread) sensors.

0 upvotes
Photohobbyfun
By Photohobbyfun (Feb 26, 2013)

I heard part of the issue with ACR was that pushing a file would cause the water color affect to appear.

Has this issue also been resolved with the new release?

I was hoping DPReview would show how ACR and Capture One handle files when they are being pushed.

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Feb 26, 2013)

The new RCs seem to sharpen RAFs well. There's still some detail inaccuracies, but we're talking about stuff that's hard to spot at 100% viewing, so I consider it a non issue.

1 upvote
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Feb 26, 2013)

The 'watercolor' issue you're referring to was easily visible in default conversions of Capture One and ACR 7.3. No 'pushing' necessary. In ACR 7.4 RC I have not seen it in any of the dozens of files I re-processed even with agressive sharpening custom settings.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
DenisBBergeron
By DenisBBergeron (Feb 26, 2013)

At my eyes, the 7.3 give less moiré and more sharp rendering and on my screen I don't see any difference on colors in theses jpeg.

0 upvotes
jaykumarr
By jaykumarr (Feb 26, 2013)

see the 'Washington' board. 7.3 looks light green letters while 7.4 looks white .

0 upvotes
roblarosa
By roblarosa (Feb 26, 2013)

I agree, except 7.4 does have a bit better color. Personally, I'd rather tweak the color than trying to get rid of moiré and sharpening.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 26, 2013)

Thank you for this quick and dirty update. Short and to the point. Very useful.

@DPR: have the other converters been updated as well, or is it just Adobe that covers the Fuji as well?

I'm eyeing the Fujis, so this is all good to know.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Feb 26, 2013)

Capture One, Adobe, SilkyPix and open source DCRaw based editors are basically it. Aperture has yet to be updated, as well as DXO, I believe.

0 upvotes
elRicardo
By elRicardo (Feb 26, 2013)

Did anyone of you notice extreme purple fringe in backlight situations, after the 4.4 rc update?

0 upvotes
vkphoto
By vkphoto (Feb 26, 2013)

After hours of testing , re-testing and pixel peeping I have to say that I am impressed. Adobe finally delivered excellent RAF converter.
"Water colour" and "colour bleeding" effects are completely gone, the output has accurate colours and tons of details.

14 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Feb 26, 2013)

You seem to forget to turn off [Noise Reduction Advanced > Details] option in Capture One. It's the setting that adds weird bi-linear artifacts but improves detail a bit. It works even if you have noise reduction disabled. Without it you aren't really looking and clean demosaicing output like in Camera Raw.

And if you compare without this detail improvement setting Adobe's demosaicing looks superior resolution-wise.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 26, 2013)

so what is it worth?

you have no AA filter so your images look sharper.... but then your images look like crap because no software knows how to handle your damn sensor.

lol

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 26, 2013)

Except now they do know how to handle the sensor.

16 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Feb 26, 2013)

By essentially blurring the image, a bit like an AA filter?

The X100 images were as good as any other Bayer 12MP image, and better than most. X-Trans hasn't worked yet, but at least it's no longer an Achilles heel so people can get on with enjoying their camera and fine lenses. And who knows, one day they may also get the promised benefits of colour and detail.

I love a lot of what Fuji does for photography, but have become completely bored by their over hyped, under-performing sensor 'innovations' that cause developers headaches, while the worlds best cameras still seem to get by just fine with Bayer.

4 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm not going to hype the sensor tech, because in the end it doesn't matter a whole lot what the process is as long as the result is good...

But your post is kind of ironic when the article is specifically talking about better support for the sensor in question.

1 upvote
EdB3
By EdB3 (Feb 27, 2013)

Too bad Henry doesn't have a clue. The lack of the AA filter has nothing to do with the issues the X trans has had with PP. Just like Najinsky has no idea what he's talking about and wants to accept 40 year old tech that the Bayer is and have to live with it and never get better. Headaches to devs? Boo effing hoo. You probably still watch a crt TV. lol

The X Trans IS innovative and it's companies like Fuji that advanced the industry where companies like Canon just force feed crap on their customers. Canon USED to innovate but now they just rest on their laurels while smaller companies pass them by.

And just so their are no fanboy comments, I've been a Canon shooter since the 70's

2 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Feb 27, 2013)

LOL @ EdB3

Ironic you mention people not having any idea what they are talking about (you were referring to me). The clue is in the article:

"The idea behind X-Trans is that its pattern repeats less often than the Bayer pattern, rendering redundant the low-pass filter that usually protects against moiré."

Lets do that last bit one more time.

"rendering redundant the low-pass filter that usually protects against moiré."

Got that yet? The X-Trans CFA is directly related to the removal of the AA, and was done to protect against moiré.

Now, you see that old lady in the test shots above, that yellow banding isn't part of the scene. Do you know what it's called? That's right moiré. Clever sausage.

So has X-Trans succeeded in suppressing moiré?

And has it caused a headache for raw developers?

So which one of us is clueless? The answer is neither, the clues are right there in the article for all to see. But only one of us wants to ignore them and then accuse others of being ignorant.

0 upvotes
Donald Duck
By Donald Duck (Feb 27, 2013)

The X-Trans reduces (color) moire, which is easy to fix. It creates mess everywhere else. Almost every part of the image where you expect detail, you see a mess.

It is not because "raw developers cannot handle it". It is more like: junk in - junk out.

0 upvotes
tcab
By tcab (Feb 26, 2013)

What about Fuji x100 raw support - doesn't that need improvement too?

Most people can't get x100 raw to look as good as in camera jpeg, which shouldn't really be the case. I've tried it myself and simply gone back to jpeg - it's just too hard fiddling with the raw files.

Has Adobe forgotten the x100 and the x100s?

0 upvotes
Digital Imaging Technician
By Digital Imaging Technician (Feb 26, 2013)

X100s improvement are included in this update. I've never noticed any difficulties with my X100 files.

6 upvotes
stevez
By stevez (Feb 26, 2013)

No need to include the X100 as is does not have the X-Trans sensor. If you're looking for better detail do not sharpen in ACR but rather in PS.

6 upvotes
Backstage
By Backstage (Feb 26, 2013)

The X100 in opposite to X100s, X-E1, etc. has a standard pattern. Once the RAW file read all optimizatin algos work fine as on all other sensors. Therefore until now X100 RAW files looked better in some situations that the X-E1 RAW files.

It takes a great expertise to optimize something that is relatively new. Let's see if now the X-E1 can produce images that look sensibly better than the X100.

3 upvotes
Digital Imaging Technician
By Digital Imaging Technician (Feb 26, 2013)

Great that they have made some improvements. But I must say I'm a bit disappointed. It very much looks like the same mushy watercolor effect (slightly less of it) but with lowered sharpness. This is judging from samples, I have to give it a go in LR.

Lesson learned: just go bayer the next time. I don't think X-trans offers anything that has justified all this trouble.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Feb 26, 2013)

Try sharpening the same image converted with old and new demosaicing. You won't be able to improve detail with the old one at all. New conversion looks much more natural and sharpening-friendly.

2 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Feb 26, 2013)

Give your own files a shot. In my files, the clarity is about on par with the jpegs, close enough to not see a difference unless I zoom to 200% anyways. Also, the new demosaicing allows for sharpening and clarity adjustments without getting really odd details. I understand being disappointed in the sensor, but this update is clearly an improvement.

1 upvote
smatty
By smatty (Feb 26, 2013)

Kudos to Adobe for going back and improving the Fuji X-Trans demosaicing algorithm and to dpreview for this early comparison here! :)

I would have liked to also see a closer default resemblance of the Fuji Provia JPG colors, as this is where I usually spend the most time tweaking the RAWs.

But one BIG point still needs to be taken care of: The XF "LENS PROFILES" in LR could really help to get better default RAW results after importing. That is also one of the reasons why the JPG often look better...

3 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Feb 27, 2013)

I could be missing something but isn't lens correction information included in the RAW files such that no such profiles are necessary? It's the same for M43s.

0 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Feb 27, 2013)

It may be in there, but Adobe does not seem to do a whole lot with it comparing a XF 18mm OOC JPG to the same RAW image in LR

1 upvote
McJ
By McJ (Feb 26, 2013)

Is anyone else getting these odd dots everywhere in the image? I'm using the ACR 7.3 to DNG converter. Image below is from a crop of the DPR raw.

http://imgur.com/jhoDY6b

1 upvote
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Feb 26, 2013)

What were your DNG settings? I got those dots on some old conversions, but the dots disappeared when I upgraded ACR way back when. (I think 7.1?)

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Feb 26, 2013)

Does this affect the EXR sensor Fuji cameras (XF1, for instance) that have similar problems with their RAW files??

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 26, 2013)

For the full story open the resolution charts from Imaging Resource. The color star targets still look horrid.

This is still not ready for prime time.

Kudos to Adobe for taking up the challenge though! I'm curious if they can still take this further. Fuji would be foolish not to share some their secrets with them, but...well, I suspect they -are- foolish.

7 upvotes
Pdf Ninja
By Pdf Ninja (Feb 26, 2013)

The new ACR demosaicing is based on the algorithm that Fujifilm gave to Adobe (and Apple). However, demosaicing is just the first step in RAW processing.

2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 26, 2013)

The solution is FUJIFILM buys ADOBE.

7 upvotes
texinwien
By texinwien (Feb 26, 2013)

Ah, doesn't look great to me, comparing the color chart in the linked studio sample images. The new version is considerably less sharp and shows strange 'halos' at hard-edged color changes. See the two images at 100%, and take a look at the Kodak color chart.

Do yourself a favor and 'forget' which image is the new and which is the old, look both over, closely, and decide which one looks better. I chose the old version, hands down.

Seems there's still a way to go on this technology.

0 upvotes
Eigenmeat
By Eigenmeat (Feb 26, 2013)

I think C1 looks sharper simply because C1 apply higher default sharpening and saturation. It would be better to compare the "tweak" settings across softwares. Comparing default settings in raw converters are like comparing OOC JPG across cameras, not very meaningful.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Feb 26, 2013)

It's pretty simple - there might be some minor detail here or there that looks nicer on ACR 7.4, but with C1 they look more like real 3D objects, both indoors and out.

It's still good to see that Adobe has made some much-needed improvements.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 26, 2013)

To my eyes, the Capture One files look a bit sharper, but also almost brittle, kind of like a some of the Foveon files I've seen. It looks impressive at normal viewing size, but at 100% the crop of the Lira note, the engraving lines on her face are showing artifacts and too much sharpening.

The ACR files looks more natural, and with just a bit of USM they'd be perfect.

I be happy with either editor, but as a LR user I'm delighted with this news.

Thanks DPR for the update.

11 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (Feb 26, 2013)

A definite improvement, colour is better, still colour bleeding in areas like typography, artifacts less objectionable, the one case of moire I had is gone, actually prefer it to capture one - especially for the integration with my LR database. I am pretty sure the sensor has some physical limitations which I do not think any demosaicing can deal with 100% compared to Bayer . Happier with the results and more confident about using the camera's files than I was before.

1 upvote
awgk
By awgk (Feb 26, 2013)

I still like Capture One but huge improvement from Adobe.

1 upvote
vkphoto
By vkphoto (Feb 26, 2013)

To DPR: It would be interesting to know your opinion how new ACR compares to Capture One Express 7.

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Feb 26, 2013)

On the second page of this article we make a direct comparison between ACR 7.4 RC and Capture One Pro 7 which uses the same raw engine as Capture One Express.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Tony Bonanno
By Tony Bonanno (Feb 26, 2013)

I just finished my own tests using LR 4.4 RC and Capture One Express 7. I definitely had to do a bit more aggressive sharpening and some other post processing tweaks in LR 4.4 RC, but afterwards I found that the files were so similar that I had a hard time deciding which I liked best (and that is good news). BTW, I pull back the noise reduction in C1.. and don't care for the default "structure" setting in C1. Overall, aside from some of the color differences, I found both programs to give very similar results.

4 upvotes
vkphoto
By vkphoto (Feb 26, 2013)

Thanks Amadou, I just wasn't 100% sure that engine is the same.

1 upvote
Total comments: 144
12