X-trans is a winner

Started Jan 27, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
TThorne Senior Member • Posts: 3,026
Re: X-trans is a winner

vivanchenko wrote:

TThorne wrote:

vivanchenko wrote:

Nobody is speaking about magic. There is nothing magical about X-Trans. Readily admit this. It is different. The differences are subtle. Many people like it better than Bayer. Many don't even pay attention to those differences. Saying that X-Trans is a gimmick is as wrong as wrong can be.

It actually is not wrong, much less "as wrong as wrong can be". Fuji introduced the X Trans as a solution for moire on an AA-less sensor. Call it inventive, creative, valiant, or anything of the sort, and I am likely to agree, but a solution to moire it was not. I do think it leaves it's personal print on images, and for some people it is good, while for others it isn't.

The truth is that for every positive thing you might be able to say about the use of this color array, there is a negative side too. In arguing over this CFA, however, I find that people lose sight of a few things.

1. Fuji colors, even in the digital age, have been "special", long before the X Trans.

2. Lenses are a huge factor in image quality, and Fuji does a great job in this department.

3. Processing and NR that take place in camera manipulate a lot of what you are seeing.

My conclusion is that Fuji did a great job choosing Sony for these sensors, and did an even better job with their lenses, colors, and for the most part, overall image processing. Like the X100, these cameras and lenses would have had their own unique footprint, being pleasing to the eye, regardless of the CFA, and with a lot less processing headaches, especially for the more discerning among us.

The CFA was an inconsequential part of the equation, overcomplicating things and without good reason. Technical image quality comes from the sensor, the lenses, and the processing much more than the CFA, making this idea, novel as it might be, worthy of the term, "gimmick".

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

Fighting tyranny one IT guy at a time!

I haven't seen any evidence of any noise reduction going on at low (RAW) level in Fuji cameras. This is just an assumption with no proof to support it. For instance, why not to assume that better noise performance is a consequence of getting rid of OLPF?

a. I am not sure why you picked NR to harp on here as it is only listed in my post as a processing factor which effects image outcome. However, pretty much all camera manufacturers partake in in-camera-NR of some point and at some level. Without knowing Fuji's algorithms from an engineering standpoint, you and I can not say one way or another as it specifically relates to Fuji, but NR traces can be seen throughout various levels of the ISO range. It is my belief that marketing sees noise as a tangible factor which, if reduced, causes people to gawk at ISO performance, despite occurrence of less desirable effects such as detail smudging. Personally, noise doesn't bother me as there is sometimes character to it, but smudging is a bit unattractive. Of course, your opinion may vary.

b. Maybe it is in the way you worded it but "low level" = "(RAW)". was not sure what you were saying there.

c. If better noise performance was a consequence of omitting of the OLPF, then it has nothing to do with anything proprietary of Fuji, be it CFA or processing, and then the noise performance of the Fuji really is no advantage when compared to other cameras with no OLPF. But this isn't the case is it? Certainly not when you pull up the test charts. Fuji clearly has done a good job eliminating noise, however, they have sacrificed detail in doing so, the exact same way you would with the slider in Lightroom. I am not saying that Fuji does not produce great detail, which is the go to straw man argument followed by a photo example in this forum. On the contrary, Fuji produces great detail, but not as much as if they backed off the NR. Anyhow, such effects/artifacts, come from processing.

A1 and M1 are identical Fuji cameras, identical everything except for color filter technology and they show a considerable difference in color reproduction. Which also simply makes sens.

Identical, that is a large assumption to make, but if you are comfortable making it, than good on you. I am not drinking that koolaid.

But seriously, this argument with people putting all this voodoo into a CFA is quite silly, especially as it causes them to ignore the other factors which truly make a difference in image quality. But, the argument also indicates success on Fuji's part in marketing. The term "X Trans" now indicates some magic Harry Potter-esque fairy dust technology able to do things photographically that nobody has ever done before... BWAHAHAHAHA...

Stop the presses, Stop the presses... Sony, you need to quit it with all this sensor tech mumbo jumbo! Leica, shut down those glass grinders! Software engineers, put away your keyboards!

Didn't you all know? The magic sauce and the ONLY important component in a digital camera is the CFA!

And that is a Sheldon Cooper bazinga for you!

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill
Fighting tyranny one IT guy at a time!

 TThorne's gear list:TThorne's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +19 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow