X-Pro1 raw files converter

I finally came up with a solution to manage my raw files until Adobe will make it compatible.

In the cd included in the package, you can install RAW CAMERA CONVERTER developed by Silkypix. It is not very convenient but you can create tif files easily.
You need to install the version on the cd and not the one from Fuji web site.

I am running with OS Lion 10.7.3

I hope some people will find this useful.

SilkyPix damages raw especially on high ISO. Much much better is using Raw converter build in camera. Every X100 owner it know.

Thanks, this is good news and contradicts the OS 'compatibility' table on the Fuji http://www site.
I've tried Silkypix and will only use it until LR4 support is completed.
-Framus
...and yes I've reconsidered and will keep my pre-order in place.
I don't care what experts have to say I'm calling the Xpro-1 a rangefinder.

Elinas said:

I finally came up with a solution to manage my raw files until Adobe will make it compatible.

In the cd included in the package, you can install RAW CAMERA CONVERTER developed by Silkypix. It is not very convenient but you can create tif files easily.
You need to install the version on the cd and not the one from Fuji web site.

I am running with OS Lion 10.7.3

I hope some people will find this useful.

Click to expand...

Another way is to shoot RAW+JPEG. Import both to your computer but use only the JPEGs for now. When Adobe and Apple eventually release their RAW converters you are all set.

I have tried the silkypix software on RAF files and besides being clumsy and slow it seems to make a real mess of the files no matter how I have used it, the exported tiff files that I have made are definitely inferior - especially in sharpness - from the corresponding JPG files.

It is more or less useless - and I have played with it a lot.

If someone has good instructions or "taste" settings for this that work well for x pro1 files I would love to see them.

Most RAW converters are fairly straightforward but not this one and it does not seem to be able to export a DNG file either - a big pain.

justinwonnacott said:

I have tried the silkypix software on RAF files and besides being clumsy and slow it seems to make a real mess of the files no matter how I have used it, the exported tiff files that I have made are definitely inferior - especially in sharpness - from the corresponding JPG files.

It is more or less useless - and I have played with it a lot.

If someone has good instructions or "taste" settings for this that work well for x pro1 files I would love to see them.

Most RAW converters are fairly straightforward but not this one and it does not seem to be able to export a DNG file either - a big pain.

Click to expand...

My friend it looks like you know better than fuji themselves.......If silkypix was as half bad as you proclaim then Fuji wouldn't have supplied the software with x-pro1.Does that make sense? watch some tutorials on how to use silkypix to realise that its simply as good as lightroom if not better.

paul said:

SilkyPix damages raw especially on high ISO. Much much better is using Raw converter build in camera. Every X100 owner it know.

Click to expand...

What a nonsense!! Did you smoke something? If the above is true then fuji needs to be informed,would you do that?

My solution will be to shoot RAW + Fine and work with the OOC jpgs until ACR or LR 4 gets updated.

Now if I could just get my hands on a camera, I could go use it rather than talkng about it.

BTW, my X100 is still getting its 20-100 images a day use. Even my LX5 is getting some more use as Spring hits Southern California.

Hi Ben:

If you have experience with this software and are getting good results, could you please pass on specific advice or suggestions ?

I am not meaning to be arrogant or to suggest in any way that I know more than the manufacturer but I have been unable to achieve a satisfactory result from the raw samples I have downloaded with the Silkypix software - even when I compare the processed raw file to out of camera jpg files of the same shot.

I have looked at tutorials but maybe not spent enough time with them. Your help would be appreciated.

However, the software is slow, prone to crashing on Windows 7 and is clumsy to use.

Maybe fuji has supplied this software because is not interested in developing their own software, or maybe it is just cheaper for them? I actually don't care, but if I purchased silkypix I would want my money back. (I am using the demo/trial version which should be good advertising for the product they are trying to sell)

bensherman said:

justinwonnacott said:

I have tried the silkypix software on RAF files and besides being clumsy and slow it seems to make a real mess of the files no matter how I have used it, the exported tiff files that I have made are definitely inferior - especially in sharpness - from the corresponding JPG files.

It is more or less useless - and I have played with it a lot.

If someone has good instructions or "taste" settings for this that work well for x pro1 files I would love to see them.

Most RAW converters are fairly straightforward but not this one and it does not seem to be able to export a DNG file either - a big pain.

Click to expand...

My friend it looks like you know better than fuji themselves.......If silkypix was as half bad as you proclaim then Fuji wouldn't have supplied the software with x-pro1.Does that make sense? watch some tutorials on how to use silkypix to realise that its simply as good as lightroom if not better.

Click to expand...

…that Silkypix is almost useless. I quote from their sensor test (against Canon 5DII and Nikon D3x), for which they used only jpegs from X-Pro1, as seen at

http://www.dslrmagazine.com/digital/camaras-de-telemetro-y-especiales/fujifilm-x-pro1-la-prueba-captor-y-rendimiento.html

“Paradójicamente frente a este JPG imbatible, el mejor de los tres con creces en nitidez, ausencia de ruido, correcciones de artefactos... si optamos por procesar los RAF con el revelador incluido en el paquete comercial de Fujifilm, el RAW File Converter EX (subsidiario de Silkypix), tal como ya pasaba con la X100, el archivo que obtenemos no es ni la sombra de lo que conseguiremos, bien con el JPG de cámara o mejor aún, con el RAF original en cuanto Lightroom u otro revelador convencional, publique sus actualizaciones.

No asustarse: si procesamos cualquier otra cámara de las testeadas con Silkypix, nos dará igualmente una versión del RAW excesivamente baja de calidad, no contractual con lo que tal o cual equipo pueden extraer con un revelador competente, esto es especialmente notorio con cualquier cosa que no sea una pauta de Bayer convencional, lo que incluye y justifica los bajos resultados de la conversión de archivos con esta Fujifilm X-Pro1.

De hecho nos sentimos en la obligación de insistir en que en nuestra opinión, muchas de las prueba "X-Pro1 Vs Full Frame" que rondan la web en estos momentos, desde nuestro punto de vista son un tanto maniqueas, algunas de las realizadas con Silkypix como revelador son especialmente problemáticas, de hecho son muchos los usuarios de Canon o Nikon que indicaban en foros como su "formato completo" da mucho más que lo que estaba viendo en pantalla... por favor, criterio y paciencia, ambas son las herramientas fundamentales de este oficio, sin ellas, estamos todos perdidos.

Desde luego esto no le quita ni un punto de valía a la Fujifilm X-Pro1, ni a su excelentes ópticas, simplemente, habrá que esperar a un revelador mejor para establecer un criterio más justo y coherente: de momento igualar la calidad en detalle / ruido con un formato 24x36 es ya un logro increíble.”

…says that:

“Address this paradoxically JPG unbeatable, the best of the three by far in sharpness, no noise, artifact corrections ... if we choose to process the RAF with the developer included in the commercial package Fujifilm RAW File Converter EX (SILKYPIX subsidiary), as has happened with the X100, the file you get is not even a shadow of what we get, well with the camera JPG or better yet, with the original in Lightroom RAF or other conventional developer, post your updates.

Do not panic: If you process any other camera of SILKYPIX tested with, we also give a version of the RAW too low quality, no contract with this or that team can be extracted with a developer responsible, this is especially true with anything that not a conventional Bayer pattern, which includes and justifies the poor results of the conversion of files with this Fujifilm X-Pro1.

In fact we are compelled to insist that in our opinion, many of the test "X-Pro1 vs Full Frame" which roam the web right now, from our point of view are somewhat Manichean, some of those made with SILKYPIX developer are especially problematic as, in fact many users of Canon or Nikon forums indicating his "full format" gives much more than what I was seeing on screen ... Please judgment and patience, both are the fundamental tools of this trade, without them, we are all lost.

Of course this does not detract any points of value to the Fujifilm X-Pro1, or its excellent optics simply have to wait for a better developer to establish a more fair and consistent: so far match the quality in detail / noise with a 24x36 format is already an incredible achievement.”

Hi Justin,

I can understand when you say its slow,JUST A BIT SLOW,but not prone to crushing on windows 7.At least not Windows 7 64 bit because I have Silkypix DSP 5 running stable on it ever since I bought it.Liking or not liking a program is a very subjective matter but calling something useless just because you cant get good result would be rather wrong imho.What I would suggest is to experiment with different settings.Silkypix is well known to give far better skin tones than lightroom but again this can be subjective.Below is a link of a russian pro who exclusively uses silkypix for his work.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=40857680&q=ilyav&qf=m

Thanks

justinwonnacott said:

If you have experience with this software and are getting good results, could you please pass on specific advice or suggestions ?

I am not meaning to be arrogant or to suggest in any way that I know more than the manufacturer but I have been unable to achieve a satisfactory result from the raw samples I have downloaded with the Silkypix software - even when I compare the processed raw file to out of camera jpg files of the same shot.

I have looked at tutorials but maybe not spent enough time with them. Your help would be appreciated.

However, the software is slow, prone to crashing on Windows 7 and is clumsy to use.

Maybe fuji has supplied this software because is not interested in developing their own software, or maybe it is just cheaper for them? I actually don't care, but if I purchased silkypix I would want my money back. (I am using the demo/trial version which should be good advertising for the product they are trying to sell)

bensherman said:

justinwonnacott said:

I have tried the silkypix software on RAF files and besides being clumsy and slow it seems to make a real mess of the files no matter how I have used it, the exported tiff files that I have made are definitely inferior - especially in sharpness - from the corresponding JPG files.

It is more or less useless - and I have played with it a lot.

If someone has good instructions or "taste" settings for this that work well for x pro1 files I would love to see them.

Most RAW converters are fairly straightforward but not this one and it does not seem to be able to export a DNG file either - a big pain.

Click to expand...

My friend it looks like you know better than fuji themselves.......If silkypix was as half bad as you proclaim then Fuji wouldn't have supplied the software with x-pro1.Does that make sense? watch some tutorials on how to use silkypix to realise that its simply as good as lightroom if not better.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bensherman said:

paul said:

SilkyPix damages raw especially on high ISO. Much much better is using Raw converter build in camera. Every X100 owner it know.

Click to expand...

What a nonsense!! Did you smoke something? If the above is true then fuji needs to be informed,would you do that?

Click to expand...

Just try not else. Take a photo in Raw on ISO 1600 and made JPG in camera raw converter. Next use this raw file in Silky Pix, and compare two pictures. I tired silky pix for long time.

Silky Pix in more professional program than Fuji CCD-RAW for S2/S3...S5 which was used like Plug-in in FinePix Viewer, but Fuji CCD-RAW has the same algorithm like converter in camera. SilkyPix has different algorithm - you can forget about velvia/astia/provia and good sharpness and quality on high ISO.

Are you using a basic version? I use Silkypix DSP 5 and your claim is totally unfounded.Where do you get this kind of misleading information?

paul said:

bensherman said:

paul said:

SilkyPix damages raw especially on high ISO. Much much better is using Raw converter build in camera. Every X100 owner it know.

Click to expand...

What a nonsense!! Did you smoke something? If the above is true then fuji needs to be informed,would you do that?

Click to expand...

Just try not else. Take a photo in Raw on ISO 1600 and made JPG in camera raw converter. Next use this raw file in Silky Pix, and compare two pictures. I tired silky pix for long time.

Silky Pix in more professional program than Fuji CCD-RAW for S2/S3...S5 which was used like Plug-in in FinePix Viewer, but Fuji CCD-RAW has the same algorithm like converter in camera. SilkyPix has different algorithm - you can forget about velvia/astia/provia and good sharpness and quality on high ISO.

Click to expand...

Silkyrock is solid stable on Win 7. I've also got it running on Server 2008 with no issues on either platform.

Silkypix works fine, just in a weird way. If you take time to learn how to use it then the results are great. The free bundled version is old software but does the job well. The current purchased version is excellent.

In my first message, I specified that I use the version from the CD, which is the 3.2.8.0 because the version you can download from Fuji's website is not able to read X-Pro1 rat files.

Damaging the file? Well I don't think so and the setting to work on your raw are not bad at all. As soon as Adobe has updated Camera raw, I will go back to it but for now, I am glad I can work on my raw files and the software is ok.

So for now, I am using this software to convert my files to TIF files and as far as I can tell, the files are fine.