Capture One Fujifilm X-Trans Raw support tested

Capture One v7.0.2, the latest version of Phase One's image management and Raw conversion software, includes support for Fujifilm's X-Trans cameras. Given the trouble this non-Bayer design has caused for third-party Raw converters (it remains to be seen how many will ever offer support), this has caused a lot of excitement in the Fujifilm community. So, just how well does Capture One do, and how significant is the problem , in the first place?

To provide some context, the vast majority of digital cameras ever made perceive color using what's known as a Bayer Color Filter Array, named after the late Kodak engineer Bryce Bayer. For its recent cameras, Fujifilm has developed its own color filter array pattern, which it calls X-Trans. 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.

The disadvantage of creating a non-standard color filter array (especially one that took two years to develop the demosaicing algorithm for), is that third-party software makers have to do a lot more work to provide Raw support.

Adobe Camera Raw support

Adobe was one of the first third-party software makers to provide Raw support for the Fujifilm X-Pro1, but the results have not always lived up to the standard set by the camera's JPEG engine, when it comes to rendering fine detail.

ACR vs Camera JPEG

Adobe Camera Raw - Default settings Camera JPEG - default settings
100% Crop 100% Crop
100% Crop 100% Crop

In the ACR-converted files, the foliage files takes on something of a 'watercolor' appearance, and the white text of the sign is 'filled-in' green. However the differences in detail rendition aren't pronounced, even at 100%. They become more apparent at even greater levels of magnification but the degree to which this is relevant is arguable. It's interesting to note that this brushstroke effect is exaggerated by applying more luminance noise reduction to files in ACR.

Adobe Camera Raw - Default settings  Camera JPEG - default settings
100% Crop 100% Crop
100% Crop 100% Crop

Capture One v7.0.2 - default settings vs Camera JPEG

As you can see, Capture One's color response is much closer to the camera's results than Adobe's default profile. The default results are also substantially more sharpened than the JPEGs are. In comparison with the camera JPEGs, there are hints of the same brushstroke effect that Adobe Camera Raw produces, though not to the same degree and mitigated, perhaps, by the better color response.

Capture One 7.0.2 beta - default settings Camera JPEG - default settings
100% Crop 100% Crop
100% Crop  

It's noticeable that Capture One is less prone to color errors than Adobe Camera Raw, but struggles with the moiré that Adobe appears to be trying to avoid.

 Capture One 7.0.2 beta - default settings  Camera JPEG - default settings
100% Crop 100% Crop
100% Crop 100% Crop

You can download the original Raw files below to try your own processing settings. We've found some improvement can be had by reducing the sharpening but we'd be interested to hear the settings you find give you the best results.

Download Tram Raw File

Download Test Scene Raw File

Comments

Total comments: 211
12
ralphdaily
By ralphdaily (Jan 21, 2013)

I downloaded the free RFC/Silkypix 3 from Fuji's website and it does a completely acceptable raw conversion for these two sample files. Much better than the examples above. Of course actually using Silkypix for more than 30 minutes at a time will drive a person insane and you will plunge off the nearest ledge to your doom.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 21, 2013)

Well that's only sort of true, the Fuji Raw Converter (by Silkypix) is good at lower ISOs, but not at high ISOs, that's where ACR is much better, and ACR is better than CaptureOne with high ISO Xtrans RAF files.

0 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (Jan 26, 2013)

With the X-Pro1 RAF's, I'm in most of the cases not able to let ACR generate reliable results, with a truly acceptable IQ. C1 is a lot more competent, at least you can use the result, but it isn't perfect yet either, Silkypix feels to me still a bit better. Both are far better than ACR but that's not difficult to do. Shame on you, Adobe, for this type of support.

0 upvotes
kforever
By kforever (10 months ago)

have you all tried Silkypix Developer Pro 5?? Can be download 30 day trial in their website (not Fuji)
It is closest enough to camera jpeg even in Low or High ISO

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 20, 2013)

Hi, could somebody please make a 18mm or 60mm raw available to me to refine this method further. I only have a 35mm lens . . .

If possible with mixture of sharp edges and fine detail.

Many thanks in advance,

Cheers, Mark

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 19, 2013)

I have had a first attempt with the Test Scene Raw File using the same method (below) RPP raw conversion + ooc camera jpeg to tame the hard edge artifacts. The final result has considerably more detail than any of the above files. Check the textile next to standard head crop above, the dust on the baileys . . .

http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/DSCF2008_color.jpg

I for one am now very satisfied that I have a very workable solution for the Xtrans raw files.

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 20, 2013)

Here a better version of this test:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50699578
+ local adjust:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50699694

0 upvotes
vkphoto
By vkphoto (Jan 20, 2013)

Mark, excellent results. I have sent you request for PS actions. Thanks!

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 20, 2013)

here the PS actions:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12602526/RPP_ACTIONS.atn

and here the ACR settings used for the RPP Lab tiff import into PS:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12602526/RPP_ACR_SETTING.xmp

Let me know if there is a problem . . .

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 21, 2013)

I've been testing RPP, and it does a really good job with Fuji RAF files from the X-Pro1. The only problem is RPP is reducing the size of all images to 1820 pixels wide. Yikes. Does anybody have any experience with RPP who can tell me what is wrong and why it's automatically resizing RAWs to such a small size? Thanks.

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 21, 2013)

Hi, there are 3 settings in RPP: vng, 2/3 and half. Half merges 4 pixels into 1 = half height and half width. Simply choose vng to solve problem.

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 19, 2013)

. . . . and as one final attempt . . . here is an "inverse find edge masked jpeg" used to suppress the hard edge RPP/Xtrans artifacts (!). The final combination is as much information as I can extract from the file. [ Thought of this at 3am this morning ;-) ] . . .

sRGB: http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/DSCF0215_double.jpg

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 19, 2013)

. . . and using the same method a slight blue/yellow x bw:

http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/DSCF0215_a25bw.jpg

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 18, 2013)

For comparison I have had a go at an RPP extraction of the Tram raw (RPP Film mode: A100F) export as Lab16bit, in ACR6 lightly sharpened and finally in PS converted to AdobeRGB/8bit:

http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/DSCF0215_a100f.jpeg

RPP appears to shows much more detail and to my eye the foliage looks much better, the disadvantage is that it can be easily over sharpened - The "Washington St." sign shows the tell-tale RPP edge artifacts at 100%

0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 18, 2013)

Here a more open rendition not in film mode:

http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/DSCF0215_color.jpg

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 17, 2013)

As noted by many below, this test is flawed and doesn't give the best idea of the results one can achieve in Capture 1 (or ACR/LR for that matter). I've posted my own comparisons of OOC Jpeg, Capture 1 and ACR/LR here:

http://wp.me/p2wMAg-ly

The results pretty conclusively show more detail in the Capture 1 conversions with none of the artefacts or moire suggested by the above. I suggest that those dismissing Capture 1 take a quick look... I've also included my own conversions of the shot of the tram in C1 and LR.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 17, 2013)

As I’ve written elsewhere in these comments, I get much better results extracting the DPReview test set up with ACR than the ACR results that DPReview posted here.

Now when I extract the trolley car picture with ACR, my results are similar to what DPReview posted. Doing the extraction with CaptureOne improves things a bit, no bleed on the sign, but the trees are still problematic, like when extracting with ACR.

Looking at other Xtrans RAFs, I think that ACR is a good bit better than CaptureOne, particularly at higher ISO skin tones. No matter the noise setting, CaptureOne leaves all sorts of artifacts in faces that ACR doesn’t.

I don’t have any of my own Xtrans RAFs shot outdoors in green scenery, so I can’t test my hypothesis that greenery seems to be a problem for these Xtrans filters, more when extracting with ACR than CaptureOne--and green is of course terrible with Silkypix 5.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 17, 2013)

That's "Caucasian skin tones", before someone accuses me of being really narrow minded.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 18, 2013)

HowaboutRAW - I don't agree at all that C1 has the same issues as ACR. Look at the tram pictures on my blog (processed in LR and C1) at 100% and tell me the same thing!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 18, 2013)

sgoldswo:

Your CaptureOne extraction of the DPReview streetcar picture is good. But I think that the oversharpening hides some of the same problems in the palm trees that ACR has. Though C1 does not have these problems to the extent ACR does.

You should try the Raw File Converter (powered by Silkypix), free from the Fujifilm website. It's much much better than Silkypix 5 particularly at lowish ISOs.

0 upvotes
Trevor G
By Trevor G (Jan 16, 2013)

The fact is that the current version of RFC /Silklypix (bundled software) that I am using is even better than the OOC JPEGs. It's 3.2.13.0

No green bleed onto the white sign lettering, for instance, in the tram shot. However, the current version of DSP5 (full version) does not do as well, so it looks as if the bundled version does actually have extra work done in it.

That's a major accomplishment, but it looks as if dpreview testers are not even aware of this, since they don't show a decent version from RFC/Silkypix 3 in the review. Or is it that age-old bias against ISL showing up again?

Here is a link or two to comparison images in the Fuji X forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3368317?page=2#forum-post-50677954

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3368317

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 16, 2013)

Silkypix 5 is horrid with these files, perhaps someone somewhere could sort of call the RAFs shot at ISO 200 and extracted with Silkypix 5 sort of usable.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 17, 2013)

Trevor G:

Any speculation as to why Fuji or Silkypix wouldn't then make what you take to be an acceptable version of Silkypix for Xtrans RAF files available as a download freely available to anyone?

Fuji could engender lots of good will by doing so if what you say is true and SPix 3.2.12 is good with these files. And Silkypix would prove to the world that they can do raw extraction software by releasing this Fuji only version for free.

How well does Silkypix 3.2.12 Fuji handle the trees in the streetcar (tram) RAF? It's a big weak point with ACR, and still a problem with CaptureOne.

I tried Silkypix 5 yet again, about 6 hours ago, and it's still horrible with these Xtrans filter RAFs.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 18, 2013)

Trevor G:

I downloaded the RAF Converter v3.2.13 (powered by Silkypix) from the Fujifilm website. The software appears to be free and does not appear to expire.

Yes it is much better with RAF extractions than the horrid Silkypix5. It is also much much faster than Silkypix 5.

It's not as good as ACR at high ISO RAFs, but it is a vast improvement over Silkypix 5 at higher ISOs, and Silkypix 5 is horrid with many raw file types at high ISOs.

Specifically: Fuji's RAF Coverter v3.2.13 (powered by Silkypix) appears to render the palm trees in the streetcar picture that DPReview posted better than CaptureOne and much better than ACR.

All of this raises the question: Why on earth is Silkypix selling version 5 and claiming it's usable with Fuji Xtrans RAFs? And then also if Fuji can get a variation of Silkypix to work that much better, why can't Fuji do the same with ACR or C1?

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Jan 16, 2013)

To my eyes, ACR starts looking natural at 6MP. That's fairly radical.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (Jan 16, 2013)

Any of these raw converter rendering useless to me as you show it. I prefer stick to what Fuji incamera does looks cleaner to me. Until the raw software sort it out problem with those raw converter.

0 upvotes
thedips
By thedips (Jan 16, 2013)

wow not impressed at all by the raw conversions. hopefully it gets worked out a little more

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 16, 2013)

Try doing the extractions yourself in ACR or C1.

Skip Silkypix.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 16, 2013)

C1 doesn't seem to produce the same "watercolor" effect on the OOF areas like leaves of the trees in the background. My experience is that SilkyPix does the best job with RAFs, but it's the least user friendly software package.

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 17, 2013)

Try looking at my link above

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Jan 16, 2013)

As long as Fuji does not reveal the algorythms to adobe and others to rework those files in a correct way, it is for me out of question to buy any of their cameras. I still have my S5 and it makes huge shots, so, I see no needs to upgrade to a camera& system where no correct raw sotware can handle the files in a satisfactory way.

3 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Jan 16, 2013)

Fuji are pathologically unfriendly, manipulative and customer disloyal. I very much doubt they will give up this info.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 16, 2013)

I believe there's a lot of misconception out there about the 'proper algorithms'.

The problem isn't so much having what FujiFilm is doing, but more about how to make it work with existing RAW processing software. Conventional processors need to be retooled to work with the X-trans files, and aside from completely re-engineering their software, everyone is employing current techniques to decode and work with the files.

Even if FujiFilm did give the decoding algorithm they are using for their in camera JPG images, the issue is still how to incorporate that into the software that has worked on traditional bayer demosaic formulas.

1 upvote
3systermuser
By 3systermuser (Jan 16, 2013)

agree with itsastickup here, Fuji is very dishonest and not caring its customers and their respective workflow.
for me , it does not matter how good the sensor might be when processed with C1 , I do only care about how well it fits into "my " workflow and thus, Fuji must give Adobe some right info.
I guess I keep my Sony NEX6 and sell this crap.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 16, 2013)

My experience with Fuji USA is that they couldn't have been more helpful in supporting the three Fuji cameras I have owned. I don't know anything about Fuji Japan so I don't think it's appropriate or particularly fair to criticize them regarding their customer or product support.

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Jan 16, 2013)

Customer service is not the same as being open and helpful with your technology. They are very much a closed shop looking to make as much money out of you as they can the hard-ball way.

0 upvotes
briny
By briny (Jan 17, 2013)

Fuji has in fact provided the necessary information to Adobe, it's Adobe that hasn't done anything with it.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 17, 2013)

@briny Of course they have, but some just want to blame Fuji for everything under the sun and give them zero credit for producing one great camera after the next.

@itsastickup How on earth does Fuji make money from users by not sharing their proprietary conversion algorithms from other software vendors?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
miniTO
By miniTO (Jan 17, 2013)

@isastickup... lol, wow... seems like you have a bit of a grudge...

In any case Fuji actually has a very good track record of listening to customers and from my experience very good customer service...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
opticaloptimum
By opticaloptimum (Jan 15, 2013)

Capture One is much better here than ACR. Look at the area in the test scene at the bottom of the Martini bottle between the battery cells and the paper clips. In ACR there is a lot of smearing of the red 'A' (in 'Produce of ItAly') into its triangle, and from the red background into the white letters of Fujitsu on the cells. Both of these are negligable in Capture One.

Further, the mottling in the gold background to the 'Produce of italy' text is much clearer in Capture One.

All of the conversions show a little moire in the lady's face.

Capture One re-wrote their interpolation algorithms especially for the 6x6 cell of Fuji's X-Trans sensor so it is not surprising that Capture One is so much better than Adobe.

A definite win for Capture One in my opinion.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
TomUW
By TomUW (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanks DPReview for opening up this subject with some initial tests.
I wondered what issues would emerge with RAW conversions on this non-Beyer layout when the sensor was announced. Having a workflow that produces fairly consistent images WRT moire/color independent of the image is a great time saver. I personally do not want to go back to the bad old days where I had to assess an image with several RAW processors to figure out which gave me optimum, or sometimes even acceptable, results. Nor do I want to spend time tweaking settings on images to correct artifacts when it is something that could be more effectively done by sensor aware software.

5 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 15, 2013)

I take your point, but I have to suggest printing these files or downsizing them to the size you use them before worrying about this too much.

Personally this isn't a big enough issue to stop me being very excited about the X100S.

11 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Jan 15, 2013)

Great reporting guys as always!

Now how bout that RX1 Review please.

0 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (Jan 15, 2013)

Maybe this piece is more about amazon getting too much heat from Canikon. There was a lot of excitement when the X100 launched which is being repeated with Xtrans and the new models. Seems like a desperate attempt to focus attention on an apparent negative.

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Jan 15, 2013)

For that conspiracy theory to work a lot of very improbable scenarios would have to occur.

8 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 15, 2013)

Another way of looking at it is: there's been a lot of concern (possibly more than is deserved), about this issue. We've reported the latest update to the situation. Are you suggesting we should have just said 'Capture One supports X-Trans, everything fine'?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
9 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Jan 15, 2013)

Richard, you are right. You sould never have suggested something like that.

Even if I do not own one single share of Adobe and even if I have never got one single cent from Adobe (to the contrary, I have an extremely poor relationship with and opinion about the product manager of PSE): it is my impression (the possibly wrong impression of a non-expert) that Adobe ACR and Lr are problably the most widespread Photo Editing Software for RAW images and that it is important that ACR and Lr support well cameras that I too find very attractive (the X20 is probably my next compact Camera).

Thank You for your technical honesty and for your technical excellence.

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Jan 15, 2013)

@Robert Eckerlin - All Phase One employees I've met are very passionate about their work. I think that's how they manage to meet or exceed Adobe's technical performance in so many areas.

1 upvote
bcalkins
By bcalkins (Jan 15, 2013)

Well, I'm glad I downloaded the RAW and took a look. I can't see any problems with the LR 4.2 processing of the Fuji file - compared to the MFT camera I'm familiar with I'd say the files out of the Fuji look great, though the difference is not huge. The samples above really don't do the Fuji or ACR justice... Posting default ACR is an OK starting point for a comparison, but it certainly doesn't come close to showing the capabilities of that combination. I'd get the impression you are better off with jpgs and should avoid ACR from these samples above, which is not close to the reality. Not impressed with this article - using defaults gives you some ground to claim you don't have a bias, but misses the whole point of what cameras can do photographically. Is C1 better just because the defaults suit this camera better than ACR? Hardly...

2 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Jan 15, 2013)

Bcalkins,

What You write is probably correct from the point of view of an expert.

But there are others (who like me are not experts) but neverteless sometimes try to develop/edit the RAW copy of a photo, when they are not happy with the jpeg Version of the Photo.

For somebody like me, it is important that the default setting of Lr and RAW result in something reasonable.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Jan 15, 2013)

Yes, you're correct that the products need to be judged largely on the final result they can produce. But out of the box results count for A LOT. If I have a large number of photos to convert, I want to know that I can get very good results without making any adjustments. Then I can adjust any critical photos if I have time.

C1 doesn't "just happen" to have defaults that better suit this camera. Phase One makes a specific, targeted effort to produce quality camera profiles and good defaults for all the cameras they support. And why not? Their engine (especially the new one in v7) is very impressive, so why not let everyone take advantage of it with their own camera?

Although the LR4/CS6 engine is much improved, Adobe still seems to have the attitude that "we'll let the end-user do all the work."

1 upvote
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Jan 15, 2013)

Dstudio,

I believe what you honestly wrote.

But it is nevertheless important that the X-Trans sensor of Fuji Film get well supported ny Lr and by ACR.

Edited: My apologies - I posted my answer to what Dstudio wrote me in the wrong thread.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Jan 15, 2013)

@Robert Eckerlin - I too believe it's very important that LR and CS6 give good support of the X-Trans sensor. It's just that I have little confidence they will actually put the effort in.

According to the other posts here it appears that both Apple and Adobe have shown a great deal of apathy toward this sensor. It's as if Adobe engineers only wanted to make it good enough for their supervisor to allow them to check it off their checklist.

People who are excited about photography understand how great this sensor is, and they want to get the most out of it.

0 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (Jan 15, 2013)

Good points - I guess I see value in both, a comparison of the defaults, and then some results after tweaking with a display of those results and settings. I personally use Lightroom and spend some time tweaking and then make that a preset for importing, so I'm not going to live with the defaults for long - but it does make it hard to evaluate the software's capabilities given that you need some time invested to really understand the differences. But that goes for just about everything you would ever buy!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 16, 2013)

DStudio:

CS6 does Xtrans RAF extraction really well, much better than what DPReview posted here, and much better than Silkypix.

I'm holding off on commenting on extraction with C1, until I can get the trialware to export.

0 upvotes
arqomx
By arqomx (Jan 15, 2013)

I read from DxO's website, it is said that their Optics Pro 8 now also support X100. Given that X100 also utilize X-Trans sensor, anyone here can comment about the performance?

0 upvotes
Alessandro63
By Alessandro63 (Jan 15, 2013)

sorry, the x100 does not use the x-trans. that's the new x100s, still to hit the market.

3 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Jan 15, 2013)

Excellent article!

Perhaps playing with the internal jpeg engine in the X-Trans cameras themselves might see a greatly improved result - from that presented above it appears the inbuilt camera processing capability is very powerful.

Even further, Fuji might well consider adding a tether capability between camera and pc to enable software to directly access the raw to jpeg internal camera processing engine as an initial raw converter - certainly looks powerful enough here.

Again many thanks for posting this review. :-D

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
veroman
By veroman (Jan 15, 2013)

This is great news. I downloaded the latest version of C1 and did a string of test shots with my Fuji X10 set to raw. Before this, I'd only shot JPEG with the Fuji (for obvious reasons) and was more than pleased with the X10's JPEG output. But raw via C1 is better ... much better, in fact. D/R is at least half a stop better than the in-camera conversion. Color gradations are noticeably wider. Noise is a non-issue. C1 is my processor and converter of choice for all of my work. Best out there as far as I'm concerned. I use Lightroom for sorting.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

The Fuji X10 uses a sensor with a XTrans filter?

So far, of shipped Fuji cameras, I thought only the XPro1 and XE1 use the Xtrans filter.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
veroman
By veroman (Jan 15, 2013)

I didn't mean to imply that the X10 uses the same sensor array as the Pro1 and XE1. But it does use a sensor array (EXR) whose raw output is not generally supported or, if supported, not supported well. I assumed that C1's latest version would support EXR at least as well as it supports X-Trans, and it does.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 15, 2013)

The Fuji X10 does not use an X-Trans sensor, but the new X20 uses a 2/3" CMOS X-Trans sensor with no OLPF and on-sensor PDAF. Should be a heck of a camera.

And yes, the X10 ORF files are not that straightforward to process. RAW to JPEG produces visibly worse conversion results than both in-camera and LR4 processing. I'm hoping this is not a big issue with the X20, but then I hope for a lot of things that don't always come to pass.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (Jan 15, 2013)

Finally.

0 upvotes
cristof974
By cristof974 (Jan 15, 2013)

SO ! Adobe and Capture One are all two very bad with FUJI's !
Fuji must give us a "Fuji DNG converter" !!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

And when I extract, to jpeg, the DPReview test shot scene it ACR, I get vastly better results than DPReview posted here, and that's just using the basic settings in ACR.

In other words, ACR does a very good job with Fuji RAF files, and I have other RAFs extracted to tiff that back up this point.

Have you tried this new CaptureOne? It sure looks promising. And I wouldn't go making judgements based on one or two jpegs DPReview posts online.

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 15, 2013)

Not really. DPR is just bad at testing RAW converters. C1 is excellent with Fuji RAWs

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

sgoldswo:

That looks to be the case, because when I extract that DPReview test scene to jpeg in ACR I get much better results than what DPReview posted.

And I've never had any particular problem with Fuji RAF extractions to tiff on other occasions with my own RAF files.

As a counter example: My extraction of RAF files with SilkyPix5 was a disaster, no matter what I did. (And I was familiar with Silkypix before attempting extraction of Fuji RAF files.)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (Jan 15, 2013)

DNG would not help one bit - the problem is not reading the RAF format but creating a processing chain that handles the unusual arrangement of color filters. Putting the same arrangement in DNG format doesn't magically make new algorithms appear in old converters.

4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 15, 2013)

sgoldswo - rather than making blanket criticisms, why not suggest a combination of settings that give the excellent results you're seeing?

We provided the Raw files and asked for better settings because we didn't have an infinite amount of time to find the optimal settings. We couldn't significantly improve on the ones chosen by the writers of the software, in the time available, so we published those and asked for suggestions.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jan 15, 2013)

But how it compare against the Fuji RAW converter or the in camera conversion ?

2 upvotes
cristof974
By cristof974 (Jan 15, 2013)

Exactly ! That is THE question !

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

spidermoon:

There is no Fuji RAW converter; it's Silkypix5, and it's awful.

In my experience with the extraction of RAF files, ACR does a better job than in-camera jpegs which are very good.

Of course, my jpeg ACR extraction of that DPReview RAF of the test set up, looks a lot better than what DPReview posted here.

1 upvote
nixda
By nixda (Jan 15, 2013)

I beg to differ. RFC is an excellent piece of software. The results are anything but awful.

1 upvote
limlh
By limlh (Jan 15, 2013)

I would like to see the comparison with the Fuji Raw converter EX supplied free with the camera, or in-camera raw conversion.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

limlh:

There is no Fuji converter it's Silkypix and it's still terrible.

2 upvotes
limlh
By limlh (Jan 15, 2013)

The supplied Raw Converter EX is far from terrible.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

limlh:

The supplied converter is a tweaked version of Silkypix. I'm familiar with how terrible Silkypix is, and I've tried it with XPro1 RAF files, and it was terrible with them too.

Assertions to the contrary don't convince me.

Silkypix is particularly terrible at high ISO conversion, whereas ACR in PS CS6 does a very nice job with RAF file shot at ISO 6400.

Generally colour aint good with Silkypix either.

nixda:

Then you haven't used good raw extraction software.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 16, 2013)

limlh:

Just tried Silkypix 5 again, and it's still horrid. It sort of produces something usable extracting RAFs shot at about ISO 200.

But even at that low ISO there's noise and artifacts, removing them just increases the blotchiness, and these problems just increase with the ISO number.

While ACR delivers excellent results even on the ISO 4000 RAF that Silkypix just sucked at extracting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 18, 2013)

limlh:

I think we may be talking about different things, now I've tried the Fuji supplied RAF Converter v3.2.13, by Silkypix, and it is indeed much better at extracting low ISO Xtrans RAFs than the not free Silkypix 5.

However, Fuji's raw converter v3.2.13 can't match ACR for higher ISO performance.

This does raise some questions: Why is the Fuji/Silkypix software that is free for anyone to download and use so much better than Silkypix 5 which costs hundreds of dollars? And if Fuji can help Silkypix get it sort of right, why can't the same information also help Adobe with the greenery problems evident in the streetcar photo extracted in ACR?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 15, 2013)

This comparison is daft on its face because (as others have pointed out) different settings are employed by the default camera settings, ACR and C1.

The point about C1 support is that it's actually pretty easy to achieve something FAR more aesthetically pleasing than the jpegs in no time at all. People can use their standard RAW processing techniques.

As to the water colour effect, I just don't agree that its any kind of issue with C1!

Take a look here - I don't claim this is anything other that an imperfect comparison either, but you get the idea: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50665001

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 15, 2013)

Every sensor arranged on a grid is going to suffer moire effects. That's endemic to the design. I get the idea behind this design, but what seemed obvious to me even before seeing the stamp is that there will still be moire effects, but they will be at a lower frequency.

I suspect that Adobe has progressively worked in things that combat moire while preserving detail with each new version. ACR process versions seems to illustrate this to my eye. This could only be targeted at the Bayer pattern.

I suspect we will never see a fix from Adobe, since it's not their fault for designing this weird sensor, and I don't imagine Fuji will share their demosaic-ing maths.

In retrospect, I worry that the same may be true for the foveon sensor. And in case you're wondering, yes, the X3 design suffers moire, just not color moire.

1 upvote
Collie Camp
By Collie Camp (Jan 15, 2013)

Acually Fuji DID share their demoisaicing math with Apple and Adobe a while ago as they are highly interested to see a good Apple Aperture and Lightroom support.

The Fujiguys on Twitter recently started a public feedback for Adobe and Apple to support the sensor better, as "they have all the docs nessary".

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Jan 15, 2013)

Micahmedia, on the subject of:
“ I suspect we will never see a fix from Adobe, since it's not their fault for designing this weird sensor, and I don't imagine Fuji will share their demosaicing maths”.

Perhaps, you might be interested in the following that Auke Nauta wrote in anther thread:

"There *is* a good solution:
If FUJIFILM would supply an option of saving linear RAW files (either normal and/or lossy), demosaicing could be done by them in high quality (same quality as their JPEG's). These DNG files could then easily be read by LR or PS.
A very big advantage of lossy DNG files is their low size and -still- high quality. Also, speed-wise, saving a lossy DNG will most likely be faster than saving raw RAF files. The technology to save lossy DNG is already in the camera (demosaicing and jpeg compression)...

Greetings, Auke Nauta"

See thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3366888#forum-post-50654221

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 15, 2013)

Writing demosaiced RAW files / Robert
Indeed, this seems a very straight forward way. I like the idea of lossy DNG to give you the speed advantage of JPEG with the headroom of RAW. For Adobe their would be no new algorithm and for Fuji not much to do. The user is awarded with another optino of file format with a nice balance between JPEG and RAW and getting LR support. Compliments to Robert and Co. Lets hope somebody at Fuji is reading too.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Jan 15, 2013)

Hubert, I have to put it straight.... All compliments must go to Auke Nauta. It is Auke who sketched the solution. Myself (a non-expert who one day ago had never heard about demosaicing) had just asked a question.

Lets hope now, that Fuji developers and Adobe developers are reading what is being written in dpreview and come to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of their companisw to providee a good solution. Perhaps one or another respected dpreview member can encourage/motivate Adobe and Fuji to providee a good solution.

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Jan 15, 2013)

is everybody kidding? it still looks like it was painted by a 3 year old!! what the hell is going on with the queen face crop? thats point and shoot quality. This is why nobody will pay me more than 700$ for the x pro 1

5 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 15, 2013)

I find these comparisons not useful at all. It is very clearly that ACR uses more saturation and less local contrast than the JPEG settings and that Capture One uses more local contrast and more saturation than the JPEG. All this can be adjusted in sliders in both RAW software and will be done by the user anyways. What is in discussion here is the extracted detail. And this I can not judge in your side by side comparison as saturation and local contrast are so different. It is the same as when comparing quality of two Stereo Systems. The listener will always choose the louder one, even if it is the inferior one. Only if both systems are the same loudness, then the better quality one will stick out. That is what we want to see: Adjust local contrast ( unsharp mask) and Saturation that visually the images look the same, then compare for noise, detail resolution, lack of correction of lens aberrations, etc.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Jan 15, 2013)

I've been thinking of switching from lightroom to C1 for a while. With all the lag I've been experiencing in Lightroom 4+, the great rendering of images in C1, and better fuji raw support, hell, I think it's time.

2 upvotes
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Jan 15, 2013)

WOW
first time to be impressed with CaptureONe !

0 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 15, 2013)

Shocking! That old lady rendering makes my eyes bleed. I could probably redraw it myself in the time it takes to try all these different converters and twiddle their settings!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

Get the file and extract it yourself in ACR, it's much much better when I do the extraction from RAF to jpeg in ACR. The Adobe jpeg is as good as the crops DPReview posted of the test setup jpeg made with this new CaptureOne.

And I did no special tweaks, nothing, I used ACR 7 in PhotoShop CS6.

3 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 15, 2013)

I was referring to the Capture One rendering. It's just as bad as the ACR version. One has false color and smudging while the other has false color and crazy paving.

I've tested the X-Tran RAFs quite a lot. The technique needs to be varied on an image by image basis, based on which type of artefacts are causing the problem. Suppressing one type seems to exaggerate another.

Even the excellent OOC JPEGs still have some artefacts if you look for them, but not to a degree that is likely to impact your day to day photography. It might put one off using it for reprographics, but for 99% percent of 'capture beautiful images' type use, the JPEGs seem excellent and the images themselves quite beautiful.

And that's the frustration, if it can be done in camera with a tiny processor, why is it such a struggle for powerful computers with sophisticated raw processing software. Something smells. Something is not right with this picture. Perhaps one day it will surface and all make sense.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

Najinsky:

And the rendering of the old lady etching is excellent when I do the RAF to jpeg extraction in ACR; vastly better than what DPReview posted. I tweaked no ACR settings prior to extraction.

I used ACR in Photoshop CS6.

Last, extracting RAF to tiff in ACR provides much better results than those admittedly good Fuji in-camera jpegs.

No, I have not tested this new CaptureOne yet.

I repeat: With ACR I get vastly better results than DPReview's extraction of Fuji RAF files. I have no problems with the RAF extractions I've done with shots I've taken with a XPro1.

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 15, 2013)

Najinsky. This test is flawed. I get very good results indeed processing through Capture 1. I can easily achieve a better rendering of the old lady by adjusting the picture. Saying these results are terrible is equivalent to saying all X100 shots taken with DR expansion are too dark (and ignoring the fact that if you adjust the exposure slider the image is fine).

0 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 16, 2013)

@ HowaboutRAW/sgoldswo

How about making your TIFFs available for download. I don't doubt you can find some settings that help render specific parts of the test scene better, but there are multiple rendering issues with X-Trans, and from discussions with various raw software developers, it seems their problem is having to create multi-pass algorithms that deal with the various artefacts, while avoiding creating new ones.

If you believe both ACR and C1 have cracked it, please post your results.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

I assume that the DPReview test setup shot from this comparison started as the ISO 200 RAF file from last year’s XPro1 review.

Instead of extracting that file to jpg, I extracted it to tiff with PhotoShop CS6, and it sure looks better than the ACR jpgs in this comparison to the new CaptureOne.

The ACR tiff of the etched woman’s face looks just as good as the CaptureOne jpg.

And when the CaptureOne servers cooperate, I’ll get that trialware and test it by doing extractions to tiff. I’ll also make sure to do high ISO tests with CaptureOne; because from what I remember the last time I tried CaptureOne it couldn’t hold a candle to ACR for high ISO noise control.

That DigiKam freeware looks good for these Xtrans files, but it will take a few more releases. It could view RAF files from the XE1, but crashed at extraction time, then could not view RAF files from the XPro1. Managed to extract Samsung raws well enough, but created an odd 2 file tiff. (Running v2.9 on Windows 7.)

0 upvotes
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Jan 15, 2013)

Perhaps this sensor is not suited to jpegs.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

IrishhAndy:

Well CaptureOne does a pretty good jpeg, and the in-camera jpegs are very good. These camera jpegs are not up to tiffs done with ACR.

I'd like to test this new CaptureOne trialware, but the servers were not cooperating tonight. Judging from these limited DPReview provided jpgs, CaptureOne is better at jpegs from RAF files than ACR, however why would anyone who cares about image quality extract raws into jpegs?

And yes turning that ACR created tiff into a jpeg results in a much better jpeg than the DPReview example of the jpeg converted directly from a RAF file with ACR.

Also I'm getting better results with ACR than DPReview when I extract and then save directly into jpeg and skip the tiff step.

I'm not clear if DPReview is using ACR 7 in Lightroom 4, or ACR 7 in PhotoShop CS6. Perhaps ACR 7 in CS6 is a good bit better than ACR 7 in Lightroom 4?

Again I would need the trailware of this new CaptureOne, and I don't have a Fuji Xtrans camera to try in the field.

0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm inclined to believe that the fundamental issue is *where* in the processing pipeline the various adjustments are carried out. If your process is based on modifying the data *prior* to demosaicking (at least for things like overall colour balance and major gamma corrections) then it's likely that the process can only be optimized easily for one mosaic pattern (Bayer by default for most RAW processors, since that represents the vast preponderance of cameras); the same maths won't work for a different filter matrix. To create a "universal translator" you'd either need to duplicate the functionality for each matrix OR demosaic first (which would likely have a not-insignificant impact on the range of available adjustment without using a floating-point colour space).

tl;dr: This stuff ain't easy.

0 upvotes
Stephen Scharf
By Stephen Scharf (Jan 15, 2013)

Howaboutraw:
I did a comparison of ACR 7.3 on .RAF and going into TIFF files compared to Capture One 7.02beta, and IMHO, the C1 conversion is still better. I'll post some examples in the Capture 1 image thread.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

Stephen Scharf:

That's certainly possible particularly if the CaptureOne extractions are done to tiff. I never disputed that CaptureOne was quite likely doing a good job; I just don't see any big problem with the ACR extracted files and my extraction of the DPReview test shot was a lot better with ACR than what DPReview posted.

Will you be posting extracted RAFs shot at high ISOs?

Right now I'm struggling to get the trialware of CaptureOne to export, it may be limited. Some of the files look good, and some don't.

0 upvotes
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Jan 15, 2013)

Moiré & False Color !

2 upvotes
miniTO
By miniTO (Jan 15, 2013)

Its probably important to keep in mind the release notes:

"Preliminary Support"

Given that I have to say that I am very happy with the results of Capture One...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

The CaptureOne servers sure are slow--at least tonight.

Just downloaded the Digikam Windows installer, nearly the same size, and that download took say 3 minutes, while the CaptureOne download was going nowhere, so it aint the connection on my end.

Perhaps later in the week it will be possible to try this CaptureOne trialware with my RAF files.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 15, 2013)

I just downloaded the CaptureOne trial and it tool minutes here in NY.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 15, 2013)

marike6:

When did you do the download? I tried at about 7:40PM eastern US and the CaptureOne servers would have none of it, and because of the other big download I did at the same time over the same connection the problem has to be with how CaptureOne's end of the connection was functioning.

Tried for CaptureOne more than once too.

I'll get it later in the week.

As I suspected: Extracting to tiff in ACR (PS CS6) easily matches the CaptureOne jpgs. And from my memory ACR is much better at high ISO noise control than CaptureOne. But DPReview didn't post CaptureOne jpeg extractions of high ISO RAF files.

Do you own a XPro1 or XE1 body?

0 upvotes
Gary H
By Gary H (Jan 14, 2013)

Given that people that use RAW do so in order to obtain the best that they can from a file makes it so very strange that you didn't demand the best that C1 could produce, but rather used canned settings. Show us the best that you can produce with C1. I appreciate that you asked for settings that others found useful, but from my perspective you should be showing what C1 can do. The canned settings people mostly use JPG.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 15, 2013)

Please explain what 'the best C1 can produce' is.

How do you propose we find 'the best?' There are too many combinations and too much of it comes down to taste for their to be a perfect answer. Here we've used the settings Phase One feel most people will be happiest with, most of the time. We investigated some settings but, had we published those we'd still be criticised for not matching someone else's ideal.

At which point, all we can do is solicit suggestions of alternatives.

1 upvote
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

While testing this the past couple of weeks, I found one specific setting that helped reduce some of the aggressiveness of Capture One 7.0.2 which is found in the Noise Reduction Advanced section. Turn the Detail slider down to 0 and it helps reduce much of the artifacts that are seen in the examples above. You can compensate some of this back by upping the Sharpness a touch.

As in all processors, you should never rely on the default settings, but with a few tweaks, it's very easy to resolve most of these issues.

3 upvotes
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (Jan 14, 2013)

Capture1 looks way too harsh where Adobe is smudgy and bleedy.
Somewhere in between would be good : do Fuji not ship a converter that does the exact same job as their Jpeg in-camera engine?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 14, 2013)

No. They ship a variant of SilkyPix which we also had trouble with when we reviewed the X-Pro1

0 upvotes
mutatron
By mutatron (Jan 14, 2013)

Capture One has various controls for sharpness, detail, noise reduction, moire reduction, etc. By tweaking these controls you can get the same look as Fuji OOC jpegs.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 15, 2013)

We played around with sharpening quite a bit but haven't had time to rigourously try every possible permutation.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 15, 2013)

I've found SilkyPix does a decent job converting X-Pro1 raws, probably as close to the in camera conversion as you will find. It's just not a very user friendly interface as compared to Lightroom 4 nor is it particularly speedy.

0 upvotes
miniTO
By miniTO (Jan 15, 2013)

@R Butler

You should really try Silkypix DP5 with the RAF files... I would agree with marike6 it has very good results...

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 15, 2013)

Richard, if you play around with both noise reduction variables you'll find that the issues you illustrate above disappear.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 15, 2013)

That hasn't been my experience.

0 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Jan 14, 2013)

If Fuji jpeg is good why not show the algorithm to the public? Everyone will happy.

7 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Jan 14, 2013)

they really need to do this. at least full disclosure to adobe. its really pathetic that you cannot get good raw conversions with industry standard software and that is keeping the x-"pro" from getting into a lot of pro hands. Jpeg isn't good enough for us. This camera already has a successor coming and you still can't convert raw? Pathetic. I looked at the x-pro and was intrigued, but if I can't fit it into my established work flow it has no place for me unfortunately. Seems like just the kind of camera I'm looking for too. Fuji's foot dragging on this matter is not encouraging.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 14, 2013)

Try using PhotoShop CS6 instead of Lightroom and extract to tiff instead of jpeg.

The tiffs are excellent. Now at say ISO 6400 they are not as good as tiffs shot with a Nikon D4 or D600 at ISO 6400 with a Zeiss lens, but almost nothing is. But the ISO 6400 Fuji tiffs (extracted from raw) are still very good, way better than say something from a Sony A77, even with a good lens on the Sony.

So some part of this "ACR doesn't extract Fuji X camera raws well" tail isn't being told.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 14, 2013)

We cannot know how much information Fujifilm has disclosed to Adobe. It could be that Adobe doesn't have the time or inclination to re-engineer its software to suit (currently) two fairly niche cameras. Quite simply, it's not known, so it doesn't make sense to make accusations.

4 upvotes
mutatron
By mutatron (Jan 14, 2013)

Fuji are trying to get Adobe to play, but so far they haven't had the clout. The algorithm is not rocket science, it's just a slightly different arrangement of the color filters in front of the sensor, and Fuji have made that arrangement known to all since before day one. From a programmer's point of view, actually making an algorithm for this is just a matter of simple mathematics, the most difficult part is shoe horning the new algorithm into the existing Adobe framework.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 15, 2013)

Frankly as a long time Adobe user, Richard's point re: Adobe and Fuji's market share makes me more than a little angry, and perhaps Fuji users should stop giving their hard earned money for Adobe products. My feeling is either you support a camera properly, or not at all. Picking and choosing whether or not to fully implement a proper conversion algorithm based on some arbitrary estimation of market success of a given camera is just lame. Adobe is a huge company with more than enough engineers to go around. I have the impression that the communication and collaborative effort between Fuji and Adobe is not as good as it needs to be. But perhaps this is stating the obvious.

Fuji X is not so niche as to prevent lens makers like Zeiss and Samyang from getting onboard, and new lens adapters like the one from Metabones from being released. Clearly the X System is expanding (see the X100s and X20) so to simply write it off as some minor system with modest interest is a mistake.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 15, 2013)

@ Richart Butler: Thanks discouraging accusations based on assumptions

@ Adobe: The best way to loose market domination is to let competitors perform better in niche markets. Once they are stronger there, it is easier for them to attack ACR core markets.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 15, 2013)

Marike6 - I'm only suggesting a /possible/ rationale. Merely pointing out that, /if/ it would take a significant amount of work, then someone, somewhere is likely to have to make a cost/benefit analysis.

HubertChen - I didn't mean to make an accusation - just highlight that we can't know, so shouldn't start blaming anyone. I realise I could have phrased it better.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 15, 2013)

yikes, my edit timed out, so here goes:

@ Richart Butler: Thanks discouraging accusations based on assumptions

@ Adobe: Look from the point of view of photographers: Fuji X is clearly cutting edge in image quality and image engineering. So which cutting edge Software to use with the cutting edge camera? Capture ! There goes your cutting edge reputation.

@ Potential buyers dropping Fuji due to lack of RAW support @ Adobe
I shoot a JPEG workflow with Lightroom. Reason is that shooting JPEG makes my camera more responsive increasing my number of keepers. I shoot 6 MP and I print A4 and viewers use 12 inch / 30 cm viewing distance and can't tell the difference between JPEG and RAW. That scales to 12 MP and print A3 aka 13 x 19". So dropping Fuji due to lack of RAW support is a pixel peeper / academic attitude and not based on practical real world use.

1 upvote
_sem_
By _sem_ (Jan 15, 2013)

" at least full disclosure to adobe. its really pathetic that you cannot get good raw conversions with industry standard software and that is keeping the x-"pro" from getting into a lot of pro hands."

AFAIK, C1 is considered a serious raw converter (unlike SP). It is up to Fuji and Adobe to decide how much they are going to work on this. And there is a bunch of other raw converters, none of which does this well.
However, personally I don't think I'm buying a Fuji camera before there is decent support for it in LR or at least DxO, because I don't believe in any serious advantages of X-Trans and I don't feel like switching converters all the time.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 15, 2013)

@Richard Butler None of what I wrote was directed at you, but was a reaction to the speculation regarding Adobe's motives to half-heartedly supporting the X System.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jan 15, 2013)

Why Fuji has to disclose their intellectual property to a shady American company who has almost unlimited software development resources.

Are you a spy from Adobe?

0 upvotes
FR3DRIK
By FR3DRIK (Jan 14, 2013)

When opening the provided RAF files (above) in Fujifilm's RAW file converter, saving to 16-bit TIF and opening up in Lightroom, they look awesome and pretty much like the JPEGs above.

Fujifilm's RAW file converter:
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/#converter

Converted 16-bit TIF files:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1126419/X-Trans/DSCF0215_silkypix.tif
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1126419/X-Trans/DSCF2008_silkypix.tif

It would make sense for Fuji to help automate this process regarding the circumstances... – either by supporting commandline batch operations with the RAW converter or creating an ACR plug-in.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
mark-vdi
By mark-vdi (Jan 14, 2013)

I can recommend looking at RPP Raw Photo Processor 64 in combination with ACR. RPP (VNG) is used to set exposure, white balance, contrast (several excellent film modes). Saved as Lab 16 bit TIFF then opened in ACR, remove chromatic aberration (critical!)/defringe and sharpen at rad. 0.6 (with some color noise removal) - No further manipulation in PS. The following three photos (high contrast images @1600 iso with neg exp. comp.) original ooc + some sharpening in ACR vs RPP/ACR combo: http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/1-RPP.jpg ; http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/1-ORIG.jpg ; http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/2-RPP.jpg ; http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/2-ORIG.jpg ; http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/3-RPP.jpg ; http://www.blauvista.com/jpeg/3-ORIG.jpg ; of note is the shadow detail RPP was able to pull and how badly the ooc jpegs render the bark/fine detail - NB.: did not try to reproduce wb of ooc jpeg, I have used film profiles not available in xpro1 (exploration) + RPP pictures sRGB/8bit for web.

2 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (Jan 15, 2013)

Good show!

0 upvotes
liquid stereo
By liquid stereo (Jan 14, 2013)

This is not good. Check out the faces. Capture one is introducing some sort of bi-linear biased artifact. Yikes.

fail.

2 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Jan 15, 2013)

Spend 2 seconds adjusting the noise reduction sliders and its fine.

1 upvote
Matt Random
By Matt Random (Jan 14, 2013)

I have been debating getting an additional camera and the EX-1 is on my short list. However, at this point in time I think that there are too many problems that remain to be for this (promising) sensor technology. The OOC JPEGs aren't bad, but I don't want to spend this much money on a camera only to lose the ability to do RAW or to hope that I'll eventually be able to do RAW in the tools of my choosing.

Also, just the RAW conversion. All the other algorithms in PS, LR, Aperture, DxO, etc that we have come to rely on have been tuned over the years to work with existing images - i.e. those generated by Bayer filters. I suspect that these algorithms may not be best suited to the nuances of the images produced by the X-trans filter. I suspect that is why strange and sometimes unpredictable artifacts start to appear when pushing the sliders. It takes a very long time to tune an algorithm and it is often very difficult to produce an algorithm that covers all cases equally well.

0 upvotes
Matt Random
By Matt Random (Jan 14, 2013)

I'll take another look at this technology in a few years when I get the bug for a new camera. At that point I suspect that either the problems will all be solved or the technology will have been abandoned.

0 upvotes
drent
By drent (Jan 14, 2013)

moire settings (in this particular photo):
amount 80
pattern 65

clarity setting:
structure 25

see the improvement! cannot upload, because C1 gives an error: could not process file (during the betatest I've let Phase One know, but problem is still there). At least on my computer.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 14, 2013)

We'll give those a try, thank you.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Jan 14, 2013)

If you are on a Mac, delete the C1 preference file and try again.

0 upvotes
Pictus
By Pictus (Jan 14, 2013)

Does not fix the maze artifacts...
Need a better/tweaked demosaicing algorithm for that.

0 upvotes
drent
By drent (Jan 15, 2013)

I forgot to say that I also adjusted other things. It is a ISO 200 picture, so I set all NR settings to 0 and played around with other settings. I hardly see artifacts. I hardly see the color bleeding (it is equal to the jpeg). I think everybody tries his own settings. Eventually I get better results than with the OOC jpegs.

0 upvotes
drent
By drent (Jan 15, 2013)

The deletion of the preference files did not help. Very odd, sometimes I can export, but only to jpeg, never to DNG.

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Jan 14, 2013)

Could you guys produce OOC JPEG samples with -2 NR and +1 Sharpening. It'd be interesting to see what happens then.

0 upvotes
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Jan 14, 2013)

They have mote detail but suffer from colour noise. I think that is why they use so much noise reduction leading to smearing.

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Jan 14, 2013)

I haven't experienced the color noise you have, apparently. Though, I will say, I process my files (RAW and JPEG) with ACR/LR, and that has pretty good color NR control.

In this case, I'd like to see the above samples processed in camera with the above settings to see what the effect is on the file and how they stack up to ACR/C1.

2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Jan 14, 2013)

Fuji please, put the option of DNG in your cameras. ;)

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Jan 14, 2013)

Wouldn't change anything. DNG is just a file container.

5 upvotes
Slyv
By Slyv (Jan 14, 2013)

Not if Fuji provide a pre-processed DNG file. Apparently they deal well with there JPEG so one can imagine a DNG file demosaiced from a x-Trans to a normal Bayer CMOS like sensor to allow other third party to use the file correctly without having to re-invent the wheel.
At least if they do not want to bring that inside the camera, Fujy can propose a software to do it on computer.

1 upvote
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Jan 14, 2013)

Indeed. Just have a .dng with a compressed 16-bit .tif embedded. I bet they can get file sizes down to 20mb or so a file. Do it! Do it now Fuji!!!

0 upvotes
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Jan 14, 2013)

In my experience silkypix gives the most detail but is a pain to use. I found the fuji jpegs lacked detaill and had a lot of colour noise. It would seem that this sensor is almost impossible to proxess for optimum results.

5 upvotes
wy2lam
By wy2lam (Jan 14, 2013)

I've heard about your bad experience but it seems many users and reputable reviews disagree with your one-person-opinion regarding the jpeg here Mr. IA.

8 upvotes
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Jan 14, 2013)

I wanted to like the jpegs but they were amongst the worst I have encountered. It is baffling as the raws have zero noise.

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Jan 14, 2013)

Yet everyone else says they are some of the best JPEGs they have encountered. What's your play?

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 14, 2013)

The worse you've encountered? Nonsense. The Fuji JPEGs from the X-Pro1 and X-E1 are about the nicest of any camera system, period. Rich colors, great detail and minimal JPEG artifacts and heavy-handed NR like the subpar OM-D JPEGS. We used to hear about "Oly JPEGs" all the time. Now, not so much.

I don't shoot JPEG, but I have shot RAW + JPEG, and Fujis are excellent, which is why many users of X cameras don't even bother shooting RAW.

8 upvotes
brudy
By brudy (Jan 14, 2013)

He's got some axe to grind and seems to have gone off the deep end lately. He's on my ignore list in the forums.

6 upvotes
brudy
By brudy (Jan 14, 2013)

And despite the "worst jpgs ever", an image from the XP1 won the National Geographic contest. http://harryfisch.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/how-to-win-and-loose-2012-national.html

1 upvote
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Jan 15, 2013)

Look here ! My cameras are not the ones being debated to death because of issues. If you are happy with the weird fuji jpegs then that is fine by me.

If you are telling me that they have no colour noise, and don't suffer from colour smearing and lack of detail then be my guest. My eyes tell me different.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 15, 2013)

@IrishAndy
Don't know why I'm feeding your trolling, but it's obvious you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. It's the RAW files that are the issue, not the JPEGs.

I'll put Fuji X JPEGs up against the crappy, heavy NR, artifact filled Olympus OMD JPEGS any day. There is absolutely no comparison. The Fuji X JPEGs are totally useable as is, the OMD is a RAW-only camera because the JPEGs are so incredibly poor.

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Jan 14, 2013)

Aye, to my eyes, silkypix still does the best job with raw files. Suggestion to Fuji/Silypix: Why not overhaul/update the bundled raw converter to current standards-look at Canon's DPP, it does a fantastic job and is free.

6 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Jan 14, 2013)

I also think Silkypix is still the best choice -
could be improved, that would be nice -
otherwise - I like to use Silkypix

0 upvotes
miniTO
By miniTO (Jan 15, 2013)

Silkypix DP5 is a lot nicer to use IMO then the bundled version with great results! IMO

0 upvotes
ralphdaily
By ralphdaily (Jan 14, 2013)

This is pretty discouraging for RAW shooters. I have the X100S on preorder but might just keep my X100 if Adobe RAW support doesn't improve. Those samples are bad.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 14, 2013)

May have to get a copy along with the new X20. One reason I'm reluctant to plunk down for a new X100s is I don't want to go through the same RAW conversions issues I did with my X-Pro1, now long gone. I love properly processed X-Trans images, but the X100 was such a fantastic camera as it had superb IQ with a simple no-nonsense workflow in LR.

3 upvotes
Nperjesi
By Nperjesi (Jan 14, 2013)

Not to impressed I must say. But still better than Adobe. I wonder if anyone ever can make a raw converter that works for the Fuji. And no fun being a photographer these days, with cameras that do not work with software...My new Canon 1 dx not working with my pocket wizards, and the list goes on. And all because of technical challenges or is it legal problems with patents delaying everything?

0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

It's improved in many ways. I've been working with it for several weeks now and found great things but also troubling issues. The moire/detail smearing is still happening, however at a much smaller scale than the Adobe Camera RAW examples. Net results are still significantly better than the ACR samples.

ACR smears a much lower resolution version (on the scale of 3:1) compared to the Capture One versions. The resulting issues is still partially to do with the interpolation algorithms that are used to average neighbouring pixels. Because in the traditional bayer mosaic pattern, the neighbours are easy to predict vs the X-Trans sensor which is different because it's based on the 6x6 array rather than the 2x2 array.

This creates a lot of issues when trying to interpolate the information. Although the Capture One Beta is promising, it reflects much of my own experiments in this with other decoding methods, but it's much further along than Adobe's own implementation.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 211
12