Ask Adobe for better X-trans convertions

Started Nov 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sal Baker Forum Pro • Posts: 10,498
Re: Surprise! Adobe actually has got the same OOC JPEG X-trans conversion

a l b e r t wrote:

Al Valentino wrote:

I just signed the petition for adobe to to do a better job on X-trans. You need to add a little personal info but if you own adobe products they already have this anyway. The people that sign this the better the chance of something happening.

http://www.change.org/petitions/please-cooperate-to-provide-your-common-customers-with-better-x-trans-raw-files-support

I've been playing with 4 RAW converters for X-Trans files: ACR, C1 Pro 7, ID and PN. Yes, ID and PN do produce sharper pictures but when presented with a pattern that can cause moire, both did pretty badly. Where as ACR and C1 Pro 7 have moire controlled pretty well by default.

Now, when I looked at the OOC JPEG that causes the moire, the surprising find is that the residual moire observed on the OOC JPEG is *IDENTICAL* to the ACR output. No so with the other 3 RAW converters. So I started to investigate using more RAF files. Files after files, I found ACR doing pretty much identical demosaic algorithm as the in camera algorithm, down to particular artifacts observed on OOC JPEG vs the output of ACR. I'm using ACR Beta 8.3. I think there is a good chance Adobe has now licensed the exact Fuji X-Trans demosaic algorithm.

In terms of X-Trans artifacts, C1 Pro 7 has the most when viewed at the pixel level (despite having much less moire to ID and PN). ID and PN are pretty close with a slight edge to ID. These two tend to produce sharper images than the rest. ACR has identical rendering artifacts compared to OOC JPEG.

Out of the 4 RAW converters, PN is able to produce the best result when lifting the shadow and improving the highlight. Followed by ACR, C1 Pro 7 and ID. PN produces very pleasing skin tones with the Portrait profile. I want to emphasize that pleasing does not necessary equal to natural or realistic. It just has more pop in it. For wedding photographers, this can be a godsend. ID produces the most natural skin tone that looks nearly identical to OOC JPEGs. C1 Pro 7 also produces natural skin tone similar to ID, but is more contrasty. ACR produces skin tone that may require more tweaking. Mostly I found ACR has a lesser overall saturation when dealing with X-Trans files. It would require a small (10-ish) boost in saturation.

In terms of luminous noise, PN's luminous noise reduction is like a one click magic. If completely noise free image is what you after. But I found with X-Trans at ISO 800 or above, I need to push ID's Adaptive Early Stage v2 noise reduction towards the max (i.e.: a value of 16 over a max of 20). Otherwise, the output tend to look too noisy. This means, avoid DR400 for daytime pictures, if you use ID as your RAW converter.

So in summary, I'd say Adobe's latest RAW conversion is looking pretty good.

Aperture has done an excellent job at rendering X-E1 RAW files.  It will be interesting to see how it does with the X-E2.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow