Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
Maxster
New MemberPosts: 8
Like?
Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
8 months ago

Just came back from D-Clic photo show in Montreal and had the chance to talk with Billy from Fuji Guys. He asked me if I was happy with my X-Pro1 and I said yes, very happy BUT would like Adobe and others to better support it (or at all in the case of Aperture...). I expected him to play it safe but he actually acknowledged the problem right away and told me that they recently signed a non-disclosure agreement with both Adobe and Apple and provided them with specs for supporting the X-Trans sensor !

He said he is also pushing strong with Fuji to add support for TIFF in the camera so that could be another good thing for some.

Lets hope this leads to progress...

TAGGED WITH:
Tack007
New MemberPosts: 12
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

Hej, if this is true, I will buy bottle of Champain and celebrate

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CYF
CYF
Junior MemberPosts: 29
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Tack007, 8 months ago

+1!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
awelch100
Regular MemberPosts: 194
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

I will be overjoyed if this is true

--
Canon 5D MkII, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, etc, etc...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greg999
Forum MemberPosts: 98
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

LZW compressed 16 bit TIFF would be really nice.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MPA1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,513
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

I certainly hope that this is the case and look forward to Apple support soon!

Providing TIFF output from the camera from day one would at least have given us a big file with plenty of latitude to adjust whilst we waited for RAW to catch up.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
steven_k
Regular MemberPosts: 404
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to MPA1, 8 months ago

When Adobe or Apple supports the X-Trans correctly I will buy a XE1 right away.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
miniTO
Regular MemberPosts: 177
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

Wow, if that is true that is great!

I may hold off my purchase of Silkypix DP5 for as long as possible.  Despite the fact that I am starting to get used to it

Edited 8 months ago by miniTO
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JasperD
Senior MemberPosts: 2,602
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

I sure hope this to be true, although I´m only a few weeks from switching from Aperture to LR: X-Trans was just a drop too much in a bucket already full with Foveon stuff because of a DP2x used as street camera.

With the X-Pro1 now taking about half of my pictures, I kind of had it with Apple here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Maurizio De Cecco
New MemberPosts: 14
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to JasperD, 8 months ago

JasperD wrote:

I sure hope this to be true,  [ ... ]

I think they collectively have no choice; it will maybe take some time, but they will get there, together ("they" being Fuij, Apple and Adobe).

Sometimes people call this "market forces" ...

Maurizio

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57even
Senior MemberPosts: 2,352
Like?
Great news!
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

Thanks for letting us know!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Davies
Forum MemberPosts: 93
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

I hope that Phase One get wind of this and jump in too with C1

--
Best wishes
Brian
http://www.rafikiphoto.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeS2012
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

This is good news! I have read a professional opinion that TIFF would have been the preferred standard format over JPEG, had not the (earlier, perceived) limitation of file size not made JPEG so attractive.

==m==

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MatW
Senior MemberPosts: 1,338
Like?
Great!
In reply to Maxster, 8 months ago

That would be great. Lightroom's support for X-Pro1 and X-E1 *really* leaves to be desired at the moment, some images look like they have been painted...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
justinwonnacott
Regular MemberPosts: 331
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to MikeS2012, 8 months ago

I really do not see any advantage of tiff being stored on the card in camera.

- slower write speeds

- uses a lot of card space

- results in a processed file (even as 16 bit) that does not contain all the RAW data

I would be very happy  to see improved handling of xtrans RAW files in LR though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CraigArnold
Regular MemberPosts: 299
Like?
Re: Great!
In reply to MatW, 8 months ago

The default ACR settings are not optimal. With proper processing these problems are dramatically reduced, to the point where results are already extremely good.

Over time I expet ACR to produce stunning results from X-tans, but posting ineptly processed examples overstates the problem hugely and only spreads FUD.

--
Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MatW
Senior MemberPosts: 1,338
Like?
Re: Great!
In reply to CraigArnold, 8 months ago

CraigArnold wrote:

The default ACR settings are not optimal. With proper processing these problems are dramatically reduced, to the point where results are already extremely good.

Over time I expet ACR to produce stunning results from X-tans, but posting ineptly processed examples overstates the problem hugely and only spreads FUD.

--
Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

It is what people see when they load their RAW files into ACR/Lightroom, as simple as that.

I am sure you agree that it is not quite as easy as changing a couple of default settings like sharpening, you can tweak sharpening in Lightroom as much as you want, it will not help if the de-mosaicing algorithm is sub par. The branches on the first 100% crop should not be yellow, for example.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
awelch100
Regular MemberPosts: 194
Like?
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
In reply to MikeS2012, 8 months ago

I think a good temporary fix would be for Fuji to share their lens correction settings with Adobe. This would allow for  1:1 pixel matching between jpegs and raw files in Photoshop. Any artifacts found in the raw conversion could simply be masked and replaced with the data from the jpeg layer.

Perfect? No, but it would befiery useful.

--
Canon 5D MkII, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, etc, etc...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CraigArnold
Regular MemberPosts: 299
Like?
Re: Great!
In reply to MatW, 8 months ago

MatW wrote:

CraigArnold wrote:

The default ACR settings are not optimal. With proper processing these problems are dramatically reduced, to the point where results are already extremely good.

Over time I expet ACR to produce stunning results from X-tans, but posting ineptly processed examples overstates the problem hugely and only spreads FUD.

--
Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

It is what people see when they load their RAW files into ACR/Lightroom, as simple as that.

I am sure you agree that it is not quite as easy as changing a couple of default settings like sharpening, you can tweak sharpening in Lightroom as much as you want, it will not help if the de-mosaicing algorithm is sub par. The branches on the first 100% crop should not be yellow, for example.

People are applying the techniques and settings that have worked with their other cameras, but these don't work well with the X-trans.

On your image above try this:

Contrast: 30

Clarity: 30

Color & luminance NR: 0-10 (way down from the default of 30)

Sharpness:20

Radius: 0.7

Detail: 50

If there are still any overly smooth areas add grain of around 10, 20, 20.

Now compare that print to a 20Mp file from a 5D2/3, D600, Sony A900 or similar.

I'm NOT saying that ACR can't or won't or shouldn't get better, just that a lot of people are botching the conversion and blaming it all on Fuji/Adobe because they assume they have nothing to learn.

--
Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
baobob
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,054
Like?
Re: Great!
In reply to MatW, 8 months ago

In the thread the foliage issue I suggested for foliage to use either Silkypix that comes with the camera or Helicon filter 5 They prevent bleeding and smearing eventhough fine adjustment is not as good as in Adobe

I usually adjust light andd contarst, the record Tif 16 bits that I read with ACR for good c olor, contratsd etc... mastering

It is not the easiest workflow but with it I get all details and excellent results

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads