X-trans RAW conversion blog post

Started Nov 7, 2012 | Discussions
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
X-trans RAW conversion blog post
Nov 7, 2012

http://www.dmcgaughey.com/2012/11/07/fuji-x-trans-raw-conversion/

Yes, I wrote this.

I discuss and compare Fuji's JPEG versus Adobe Camera Raw, Silkypix, and Raw Photo Processor converted RAW files in dealing with the "watercolor" effect.

I also have a comparison where you can see how the Fuji Provia JPEG compares to the three RAW converters.

I thought it'd be useful to have a comparison where all of the settings are explicitly described. If anyone's confused about what I did, let me know and I'll make it more clear.

boinkphoto
Contributing MemberPosts: 935Gear list
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 7, 2012

Seems a good write up. Should note that DxO also doesn't support the X-Trans and supposedly, though I haven't tried it, Helicon Filter 5 does.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Adamant
Regular MemberPosts: 471
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 7, 2012

Great post and very helpful.  Have you tried converting in SilkyPix and importing the TIFF into LR for additional processing?  Several people have suggested this as the current "best practice" for dealing with problematic images.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
baobob
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,071Gear list
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 7, 2012

Thx David for this contribution

I have excatly the same result I don't use RPP but Helicon with rather similar results

As you stated, it makes the WF not so simple

Your shots cleraly demonstrate the weaknessse of the Adibe products (LR, ACR, PS)

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony RX100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Randy Benter
Senior MemberPosts: 2,093Gear list
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to boinkphoto, Nov 7, 2012

boinkphoto wrote:

Seems a good write up. Should note that DxO also doesn't support the X-Trans and supposedly, though I haven't tried it, Helicon Filter 5 does.

-- hide signature --

To be clear....

Helicon Filter 5 does not natively support X-Trans raw files.

Helicon Filter 5 uses Adobe DNG converter to convert X-Trans raw files, then processes the DNG.

You could convert your X-Trans file to DNG using Adobe's converter, then open that DNG in any software for the same level of support offered by Helicon Filter 5.

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Leica X2 Fujifilm X100S Leica X Vario Leica M Typ 240 Fujifilm X-E2 +27 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
baobob
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,071Gear list
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to Randy Benter, Nov 7, 2012

To be clear....

Helicon Filter 5 does not natively support X-Trans raw files.

Helicon Filter 5 uses Adobe DNG converter to convert X-Trans raw files, then processes the DNG.

You could convert your X-Trans file to DNG using Adobe's converter, then open that DNG in any software for the same level of support offered by Helicon Filter 5.

Not excatly: you get the choice between DNG and DCRAW

Using DCRAW gives much better results than DNG

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony RX100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
abelits
Contributing MemberPosts: 677Gear list
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to baobob, Nov 8, 2012

baobob wrote:


To be clear....

Helicon Filter 5 does not natively support X-Trans raw files.

Helicon Filter 5 uses Adobe DNG converter to convert X-Trans raw files, then processes the DNG.

You could convert your X-Trans file to DNG using Adobe's converter, then open that DNG in any software for the same level of support offered by Helicon Filter 5.

Not excatly: you get the choice between DNG and DCRAW

Using DCRAW gives much better results than DNG

But what is the point of that? If you have to use two pieces of software, why not just use Silkypix with "proper" conversion algorithm instead of DCRaw with its "zipper" artifact that then the rest of software is trying to filter out?

I understand that for some images DCRaw produces better results (very sharp image), and I guess, some may like to combine DCRaw-converted imaged with OOC or Silkypix JPEGs, but those have to be exceptional situations, not the rule.

Maybe it's all specific to the images that are scaled down to 1/3 or lower resolution?

 abelits's gear list:abelits's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Epson Stylus Photo R3000 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
framus
Contributing MemberPosts: 847Gear list
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 8, 2012

Thanks this is very good.  

For myself I'm praying that Adobe improves their RAW converter.

I'm encountering the WC effect only rarely and don't want to complicate my workflow.

I'm shooting RAW & jpeg and having a fine old time.

-Framus

 framus's gear list:framus's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,113Gear list
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 8, 2012

David - why would you believe that the default and totally generic settings in ACR would be suitable for converting an X-Pro1 RAF file?

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
Your way is only a little better
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Nov 8, 2012

Chris Dodkin wrote:

David - why would you believe that the default and totally generic settings in ACR would be suitable for converting an X-Pro1 RAF file?

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

Your approach (53 amount / 1.7 radius, right?) is only slightly better. ACR just can't handle detailed greens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
Re: X-trans RAW conversion blog post
In reply to Adamant, Nov 8, 2012

Adamant wrote:

Great post and very helpful. Have you tried converting in SilkyPix and importing the TIFF into LR for additional processing? Several people have suggested this as the current "best practice" for dealing with problematic images.

I wrote (nearly) exactly that in the blog post. Just substitute "Photoshop" for "LR"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
Added some info to the post
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 8, 2012

David McGaughey wrote:

Chris Dodkin wrote:

David - why would you believe that the default and totally generic settings in ACR would be suitable for converting an X-Pro1 RAF file?

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

Your approach (53 amount / 1.7 radius, right?) is only slightly better. ACR just can't handle detailed greens.

I forgot to put the settings in for the last conversion. I tried to optimize the "sharpness" for each workflow. I actually used a wider radius for the ACR image, which I think is one of the things you recommend.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,113Gear list
Like?
Re: Added some info to the post
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 8, 2012

That's a start, but you also need to adjust other components such as black levels and especially clarity in order to get the most from the X-Pro1 raw files.

It's a complex subject, and there's no preset at this time, other than in-camera

The lack of a preset workflow for X-Pro1 raw files is a major component of peoples 'issues' with the file post processing

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
We disagree
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Nov 8, 2012

Chris Dodkin wrote:

That's a start, but you also need to adjust other components such as black levels and especially clarity in order to get the most from the X-Pro1 raw files.

It's a complex subject, and there's no preset at this time, other than in-camera

The lack of a preset workflow for X-Pro1 raw files is a major component of peoples 'issues' with the file post processing

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

ACR sucks for detailed green subjects. You can see in the samples I used - it's almost as if ACR is blurring the color information. Leaves and needles become monotone. Tweaking black point and clarity won't help that.

I believe the WC issue is overblown, but you aren't helping the "cause" by claiming it doesn't exist and posting down-sized images (though beautiful) of non-foliage scenes as proof.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,113Gear list
Like?
Re: We disagree
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 8, 2012

David, you illustrated my point perfectly in your blog - you posted a blurred image from ACR, and led people to believe that the issue was purely to do with X-Trans conversion. Even though you'd only done the conversion using the generic ACR settings...

I have never said that the issue doesn't exist - again, you're over simplifying the situation in order to try and make a point.

I have clearly said that this has been a non issue for me, and that I believe that many people have not learned to get the most out of the myriad PP options in ACR.

Your jibe about down sized images is rather lame - but I understand that it's more of an emotional response, based on your posts here.


-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
abelits
Contributing MemberPosts: 677Gear list
Like?
Re: We disagree
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Nov 8, 2012

Chris Dodkin wrote:

Your jibe about down sized images is rather lame - but I understand that it's more of an emotional response, based on your posts here.

Actually it's very much valid, because if you scale X-Trans sensor to 1/3 of its size, it becomes an equivalent of Bayer with extra subpixels.

 abelits's gear list:abelits's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Epson Stylus Photo R3000 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
ANNOUNCING THE RAF PROCESSING CHALLENGE
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 8, 2012

I've posted the two RAF files on the blog. If you think you can do better (Mr. Dodkin?) take a crack and send me the full-sized JPEG. I'll do a follow-up blog post if there's any interest.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
I disagree
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Nov 8, 2012

Chris Dodkin wrote:

David, you illustrated my point perfectly in your blog - you posted a blurred image from ACR, and led people to believe that the issue was purely to do with X-Trans conversion. Even though you'd only done the conversion using the generic ACR settings...

I said over and over that ACR blows and that the Fuji in-camera conversion as well as two different RAW converters did a fine job. How could you construe that as blaming X-Trans for being "blurry?"

Anyways, since you are implying I can't use ACR (which may be true), check out my "RAF Processing Challenge" in the post. It's your chance to show everyone what a chump I am.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,113Gear list
Like?
Re: I disagree
In reply to David McGaughey, Nov 8, 2012

David McGaughey wrote:

Chris Dodkin wrote:

David, you illustrated my point perfectly in your blog - you posted a blurred image from ACR, and led people to believe that the issue was purely to do with X-Trans conversion. Even though you'd only done the conversion using the generic ACR settings...

I said over and over that ACR blows and that the Fuji in-camera conversion as well as two different RAW converters did a fine job. How could you construe that as blaming X-Trans for being "blurry?"

Anyways, since you are implying I can't use ACR (which may be true), check out my "RAF Processing Challenge" in the post. It's your chance to show everyone what a chump I am.

X-Trans conversion - that's a conversion from X-Trans, not just the X-Trans

You're jumping down my throat having mis-read the post

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
Re: I disagree
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Nov 8, 2012

Yep. Egg on my face (not being sarcastic).

I do believe that I'm fairly demonstrating how ACR works.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads