Moire: JPEG versus processed RAW (comparision pics)

It has been done before, but I did it today with a shot that had difficult detail, a distant metallic structure close to resolution limit.

I converted the file with Silkypix (as delivered with the camera), that can produce some nice looking files. Then I discovered the artefacts, false colour and moiré, and thought "well that's the way it is", despite the X-Trans blabla sensor. Only later I rechecked the in camera JPEG made at the same time to find out that the internal processing is so much superior to the RAW converter Fujifilm ships with the cameras, calling it "RAW file converter EX", just like with the old DSLRs S3/S5pro. To me it seems that Silky did not receive the necessary infos to implement a clean conversion of the X-Trans, or they did not bother to spend much time optimizing it. A shame.

Here are the 2 files. Look how little artefacts (in comparision) the JPEG out of the camera shows, and how much Silkypix messed up the file. Sad. Every user who loves the camera should personally write to Fuji and ask them to release a proprietary software converter that brings the algorithms of the camera to the computer, plus all the parameters, including the film profiles that are to be found in the camera.

No additional processing or sharpening on the camera JPEG, the converted file has default sharpening as applied by Silkypix.

You have to click on the files in order to see them in original 100% resolution (roughly 1000px wide)

--
'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

I've got several examples where the JPEG has no moire, but C1/AccuRaw/SilkyPix 5/RFC/RPP produce lots of moire.

--
http://www.dmcgaughey.com
http://frameandfire.tumblr.com/

Would you have the original RAW available, please?

You can always do an in-camera RAW to JPEG conversion and adjust many parameters as you do so.

--
Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Yes Silkypix is a VERY sad excuse for a program.  Clearly it is deficient compared to Fujifilm's own JPEG engine.  Why Fujifilm spent so much resources developing a camera and sensor technology and then just let crapware like SilkyPix ruin it is inexplicable.

Hyper Utility, the software that shipped with the S3 and S5 pro was woeful in its own way (usability and speed), but not the output.  The output from that software was absolutely of the highest grade.  Only a SilkyPix shill would make such a claim about SilkyPix.

Yep, an updated, seriously updated version of Hyper Utility is what is needed for the X Trans sensor.  Not bloated crapware like SilkyPix.

--
DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Bernie, could you please post RAF file somewhere like Dropbox? Thanks

--
http://vkphotoblog.blogspot.ca/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vk-photo/

I do not have Capture 1 (demo expired), but I have RPP on my Mac, generally a very good converter, but it showed some real weaknesses here. Funny enough the frid structure is preserved better than in the other versions, but the false colour is the worst!

I deleted the RAW file on my internal harddisk after converting, because the photo was not very good, I can check on my external backup HD tomorrow, maybe it's still there, it is too late now. Have to get some sleep...

Bernie

--
'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

Great post!  I'll keep shooting JPGs!

--
Tom Schum

X Trans users pretty much have to forego all the benefits of shooting RAW.

--
DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Ridiculous statement. Xtrans users may choose to forgo raw processing because the OOC jpegs are great; however, there are now several good options available for processing raw files.

I believe all jpegs are in camera conversions, that is what a jpeg is, so pick your settings carefully, or Faust PP like a RAW shot.

Are you trying to be funny?

All recent Fujis from the X10 up have the means to convert a RAW into a JPEG, but with the added bonus of being able to change many exposure components as you do so. Maybe some of the other models do, too.

Why would they include the facility if it wasn't going to do something different? Foolish question in a way, but you seem ignorant of this ability.

Anyway, it works well if you have a scene which gets "stuck" with after-market RAW converters.

In fact, you can probably improve on any OOC JPEG by using the RAW to JPEG in-camera conversion.

--
Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

I wonder if you read the above posts and viewed the images.

I read all the posts. Just because this particular file has moire when processed through Silkypix and RPP doesn't mean raw processing is useless for all Xtrans files.

Briny - you are so right !  Of the several hundred shots I have happily and with excellent results processed with Silky I have exactly two exhibiting moire with the Xpro.  I question just how much use other commentators are making of Silkypix.

Regards

jim partlo

I'd rather Lightroom worked.

P.S. there is moire in the DPReview JPEG samples for X-Pro1.

False color is horrible here but the detail preserved is amazing!

I just did a quick test with Capture One to see if it could get rid of the moire in the DPReview sample image. I used a mask on the affected areas and cranked up the moire slider, leaving all other settings at default. It worked pretty well:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4437533481/photos/2419961/dpr-test-c1-moire-1

To be fair, the moire in the JPEGs are low no matter what standards you use. Moire is always going to exist to some degree, even with anti-aliasing it can show up.

Are you talking about the little wheel to the left of the bottle underneath the + sign? If so, that looks quite horrible, to be honest. What's the deal?

No, I was referring to the colour moire on the money.