Capture One Fujifilm X-Trans Raw support tested

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

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 . . .

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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?

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.

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.

@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.

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!

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.

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.)

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

The supplied Raw Converter EX is far from terrible.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@ 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.

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.

@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.

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

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

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.

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

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.