-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Bibble for Fuji RAW Released!
- Thread starter Jeff Simpson
- Start date
ResIpsaLoquitur
Senior Member
Another RAW converter? I have only just got used to Qimage's version 
Still, great to have the choice. I'd be very interested in anyone elses comparative experience. I'll post here after I try the 14 day trial version.
Q
Still, great to have the choice. I'd be very interested in anyone elses comparative experience. I'll post here after I try the 14 day trial version.
Q
Mike Russell
Senior Member
I have been testing out Bibble for a few days now for the S2 RAW support. I really did not get as much time into it as I had hoped (60+ hours of work over three days) but my intial look is that it looks good.
I still need to learn and understand the interface a little bit I think to get the optimum output, but the interface is easy and straight forward. I will update my RAW comparsion page in a day or two.
Qimage
Bibble
Fuji EX
Fuji LE
SharpRaw
(the order I would rank them currently)
Mike
I still need to learn and understand the interface a little bit I think to get the optimum output, but the interface is easy and straight forward. I will update my RAW comparsion page in a day or two.
Qimage
Bibble
Fuji EX
Fuji LE
SharpRaw
(the order I would rank them currently)
Mike
Jeff Simpson
Forum Enthusiast
Mike,
I just tested a couple of images. One of the things that strikes me is that, compared to Bibble or QImage, the Fuji EX convertor does a much better job on interpolating the data in terms of sharpness, lack of color fringing and artifacts.
The overall color rendition in QImage and Bibble is, of course, much better. However, in my images the fine details are much better from Fuji EX.
In Bibble, for example, I find aliasing and some color fringing in highlights that are not in the Fuji TIFF. It doesn't matter whether I turn sharpening on or off in Bibble, the results from Fuji EX are sharper (even with no sharpening during conversion).
I would rank Fuji EX first for image detail, sharpness ("cleanliness") and
Qmage/Bibble first for color, with Bibble ahead on the interface.
Fuji really seems to be able to pull more detail out of the image.
I really would like the sharpness of Fuji, with Bibble/QImage color.
Cheers,
Jeff
I just tested a couple of images. One of the things that strikes me is that, compared to Bibble or QImage, the Fuji EX convertor does a much better job on interpolating the data in terms of sharpness, lack of color fringing and artifacts.
The overall color rendition in QImage and Bibble is, of course, much better. However, in my images the fine details are much better from Fuji EX.
In Bibble, for example, I find aliasing and some color fringing in highlights that are not in the Fuji TIFF. It doesn't matter whether I turn sharpening on or off in Bibble, the results from Fuji EX are sharper (even with no sharpening during conversion).
I would rank Fuji EX first for image detail, sharpness ("cleanliness") and
Qmage/Bibble first for color, with Bibble ahead on the interface.
Fuji really seems to be able to pull more detail out of the image.
I really would like the sharpness of Fuji, with Bibble/QImage color.
Cheers,
Jeff
bossnas
Leading Member
i'd like to hear from MAC users that have tried this out - and if anyone else posts their findings please would you note which OS/CPU config you're using.
cheers
cheers
ResIpsaLoquitur
Senior Member
Mike,
I have not tried Fuji EX, but I have now tried the others, and would rank them in the same order.
With the newly released Bibble, I see a lot of promise, but some odd artifacts at present at 100% magnification, mainly blocks of coloured pixels.
This, of course, is great news, as I already own Qimage
Q
I have not tried Fuji EX, but I have now tried the others, and would rank them in the same order.
With the newly released Bibble, I see a lot of promise, but some odd artifacts at present at 100% magnification, mainly blocks of coloured pixels.
This, of course, is great news, as I already own Qimage
Q
One simple thing: there ain't no version of MacBibble that supports Fuji's RAW format (yet) :-(
cheers,
Bernd
Q,
Do you know if there is an easy way to batch convert a bunch of S2 RAW files in Qimage, say using the same set of conversion parameters?
Nate
Do you know if there is an easy way to batch convert a bunch of S2 RAW files in Qimage, say using the same set of conversion parameters?
Nate
I have not tried Fuji EX, but I have now tried the others, and
would rank them in the same order.
With the newly released Bibble, I see a lot of promise, but some
odd artifacts at present at 100% magnification, mainly blocks of
coloured pixels.
This, of course, is great news, as I already own Qimage
Q
Paul F Caldwell
Leading Member
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 0
Hello Jeff,
Always interesting what other people see.
In my images, I see just the opposite, i.e. the EX is by far the worse in detail resolution, even with the hard sharpness setting. I also found that my images received more aliasing and noise with the hard setting in the EX converter.
I have found that Qimage with the usm set to 2 150 or 125 depending on the image produces a much better image in the conversion. Qimage also has much better color IMO.
With either conversion, I will still require futher sharpening, in PS, using Nik. This is to produce a A3 or Super A3 print.
I prefer the speed of the EX converter to Qimage, Qimage is currently a much slower process if you do any image work with the batch filter. Also another strong contender is now Sharp Raw, as Duane now has a very powerful tool and is only using the low res interpolater currently. He has some problems with interpolaiton aliasing, but I hope to see that fixed in a later version.
Paul Caldwell
Always interesting what other people see.
In my images, I see just the opposite, i.e. the EX is by far the worse in detail resolution, even with the hard sharpness setting. I also found that my images received more aliasing and noise with the hard setting in the EX converter.
I have found that Qimage with the usm set to 2 150 or 125 depending on the image produces a much better image in the conversion. Qimage also has much better color IMO.
With either conversion, I will still require futher sharpening, in PS, using Nik. This is to produce a A3 or Super A3 print.
I prefer the speed of the EX converter to Qimage, Qimage is currently a much slower process if you do any image work with the batch filter. Also another strong contender is now Sharp Raw, as Duane now has a very powerful tool and is only using the low res interpolater currently. He has some problems with interpolaiton aliasing, but I hope to see that fixed in a later version.
Paul Caldwell
ResIpsaLoquitur
Senior Member
Yes, its easy.
Just add all the images to be converted to the queue, hit convert, and go and have a coffee while the program runs.
Q
Just add all the images to be converted to the queue, hit convert, and go and have a coffee while the program runs.
Q
Do you know if there is an easy way to batch convert a bunch of S2
RAW files in Qimage, say using the same set of conversion
parameters?
Nate
I have not tried Fuji EX, but I have now tried the others, and
would rank them in the same order.
With the newly released Bibble, I see a lot of promise, but some
odd artifacts at present at 100% magnification, mainly blocks of
coloured pixels.
This, of course, is great news, as I already own Qimage
Q
Jeff Simpson
Forum Enthusiast
Paul,
It's strange that we would get different results, although the image content itself is obviously the determining factor here.
I tried with sharpening on and off. What I get are color artifacts on a white stucco wall (sidelighting) where the texture should be.
I have posted 100% detail extracts so you can see my results.
http://www.pbase.com/jsmpsn/conversion
No sharpening was applied to either conversion and I did an "Auto Contrast" in PS 7 on both to make the details more visible (JPEG 90%).
You will also notice that the details (the grouting and text) in the tiles are much clearer in the Fuji sample (no aliasing).
I fully agree with you about the color - QImage and Bibble are generally much better.
When trying out QImage, I also noticed that it is a 16-bit program and when I exit, it tends to bog down Windows XP (there are a number of Windows tasks for running 16-bit programs that remain open even after the program has closed).
Do you find that sharpening during conversion is necessary? I normally do all of mine at the end in PS with NIK.
Cheers,
Jeff
It's strange that we would get different results, although the image content itself is obviously the determining factor here.
I tried with sharpening on and off. What I get are color artifacts on a white stucco wall (sidelighting) where the texture should be.
I have posted 100% detail extracts so you can see my results.
http://www.pbase.com/jsmpsn/conversion
No sharpening was applied to either conversion and I did an "Auto Contrast" in PS 7 on both to make the details more visible (JPEG 90%).
You will also notice that the details (the grouting and text) in the tiles are much clearer in the Fuji sample (no aliasing).
I fully agree with you about the color - QImage and Bibble are generally much better.
When trying out QImage, I also noticed that it is a 16-bit program and when I exit, it tends to bog down Windows XP (there are a number of Windows tasks for running 16-bit programs that remain open even after the program has closed).
Do you find that sharpening during conversion is necessary? I normally do all of mine at the end in PS with NIK.
Cheers,
Jeff
M
MattTheHat©
Guest
The Qimage results are a bit reddish on the files I've been comparing. Bibble is dead on.
-Matthew
-Matthew
R
Rinus Borgsteede
Guest
I never use "hard" I use "Std", hard is too much for basic conversion.
Qimage gives color fringes in B/W fine areas, EX does not.
I prefer my own sharpening after the original fairly clean conversions.
I disagree with that. The EX software allows color settings that help a lot in keeping the files clean and not blown out. The colors are accurate in EX. I compared a yellow tool that was converted in all three programs and the EX was closest. Qimage certainly brightened up my colors on the McBeth chart but that was all it could do, no variances or previews.
Nik is nice but confusing and not always what I had in mind when sharpening. As for sharpness, I cannot see much difference as all three use different sharpening in the conversion. I am sure I can match all three with a little work in Photoshop. I would prefer if it was sharp in the conversion without help from any tools. A vanilla setting so to speak.
The jaggies are really bad in SharpRaw.
ResIpsaLoquitur
Senior Member
Re my earlier reply, I have found one slight issue with qimage that you might want to investigate.
I had a problem with blown out highlights on a couple of images. I turned off all auto levels etc. I just assumed that the data was not there.
However, in Bibble, there was detail in those "blown" hightlights. I suspect, therefore, a problem with the Qimage input profile.
So at the moment, I prefer qimage rendering of detail, but Bibble clearly revelas more highlight detail than I thought was in the Raw file.
Pity about the odd loking "artifacts" in Bibble at 200% scaling.
Q
I had a problem with blown out highlights on a couple of images. I turned off all auto levels etc. I just assumed that the data was not there.
However, in Bibble, there was detail in those "blown" hightlights. I suspect, therefore, a problem with the Qimage input profile.
So at the moment, I prefer qimage rendering of detail, but Bibble clearly revelas more highlight detail than I thought was in the Raw file.
Pity about the odd loking "artifacts" in Bibble at 200% scaling.
Q
Eric28757
Senior Member
bossnas
Leading Member
hey eric,
any news on a MAC version of a fuji RAW converter? OSX please
cheers
any news on a MAC version of a fuji RAW converter? OSX please
cheers
Eric28757
Senior Member
The next Mac version will also include S2 Support.hey eric,
any news on a MAC version of a fuji RAW converter? OSX please
cheers
Eric
Doug Ritchie
Active member
Jeff:
I downloaded 3.04 Bibble but I do NOT see any Fuji support. Where to get it? It supports Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Kodak. Where is the Fuji specific support?
Doug Ritchie
I downloaded 3.04 Bibble but I do NOT see any Fuji support. Where to get it? It supports Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Kodak. Where is the Fuji specific support?
Doug Ritchie
Eric28757
Senior Member
Built in. There are no fuji specific options at this time, but it will display convert and function compeltey with .raf files.
Over time, I will add specific options for the S2 as the need arises.
Eric
Over time, I will add specific options for the S2 as the need arises.
Eric
Doug Ritchie
Active member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum