Reading mode: Light Dark

Fuji xT-2 interesting digital pattern noise with backlit photo

Go to last post
J

James54

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
Hi everyone, I have recently bought a couple of XT-2's for weddings, coming from Canon & Sony.

This afternoon I was testing with the 56mm f1.2 with some lovely back lighting and found some interesting pattern noise. Processed with iridient so I could get you guys to check it out to see if it is unique to this body. Haven't tested it on the second body because the sun has gone down.

Please let me know if you have experienced this at all.

Thanks for your help

James



0edd628760404bea8e18ace03891cd78.jpg
 
Known issue, but no real response from Fuji yet.

Avoidable though... just position so you don't see purple and you won't get the extra pattern noise.
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is that I love photographing into sunlight (especially did with the X100* lens with ND filter enabled and fill flash), and I almost never encountered such pattern. Might have seen it once or twice out of thousands of photos taken. Seems like a specialized conditions effect.
 
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
What's interesting is that I love photographing into sunlight (especially did with the X100* lens with ND filter enabled and fill flash), and I almost never encountered such pattern. Might have seen it once or twice out of thousands of photos taken. Seems like a specialized conditions effect.
Click to expand...
Indications are that this is basically an issue with the new (24 mpix) X-Trans III sensor. It's only been reported as "a problem" on X-Pro2 and X-T2.

My personal and totally uninformed guess is that it's some kind of IR contamination, possibly due to a less effective hot-mirror and IR filter on the sensor. If so, putting a hot-mirror filter on the lens might prevent it -- Leica did that for its M8 -- but, alas, that would probably introduce more problems than it fixes.
 
Thanks for the response everyone, interesting I didn't read anything about it when researching the xt-2. A number of other professional wedding photographers I know about are using the xt-2, I guess the problem happens on rare occasions as you guys said.

We love shooting with back light so I think we will hold off buying any more until we do a lot more testing. My Daughter and Wife shoot weddings as well so we were planning on getting another 4, I am glad this problem showed itself in time.

Cheers

James
 
James54 said:
We love shooting with back light so I think we will hold off buying any more until we do a lot more testing.
Click to expand...
The purple glare will be visible in the viewfinder (or on the LCD if that's what you're using). So as long as you know what to look for, you can deal with it before you release the shutter.

Obviously, if it shows up a lot, or you have trouble finding a good alternative angle, that could still be a big problem.
 
Thanks Doug, and thanks for the links you posted, they were very helpful especially the blog from Digiloyd.

This morning I had a look at the 100 or so shots I took yesterday afternoon and the problem only showed up in around 5-6 images. The angle to the back light you shoot at makes a big difference.

Cheers

James

http://www.artographyweddings.com.au
 
James54 said:
Thanks Doug, and thanks for the links you posted, they were very helpful especially the blog from Digiloyd.

This morning I had a look at the 100 or so shots I took yesterday afternoon and the problem only showed up in around 5-6 images. The angle to the back light you shoot at makes a big difference.

Cheers

James
Click to expand...
One of the linked articles mentions that the problem exists with JPG images developed in camera from RAW, or RAW files processed by ACR.

Do SOOC JPGs or RAW files processed by other than ACR also show this phenomenon?
 
Doug Pardee said:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
What's interesting is that I love photographing into sunlight (especially did with the X100* lens with ND filter enabled and fill flash), and I almost never encountered such pattern. Might have seen it once or twice out of thousands of photos taken. Seems like a specialized conditions effect.
Click to expand...
Indications are that this is basically an issue with the new (24 mpix) X-Trans III sensor. It's only been reported as "a problem" on X-Pro2 and X-T2.

My personal and totally uninformed guess is that it's some kind of IR contamination, possibly due to a less effective hot-mirror and IR filter on the sensor. If so, putting a hot-mirror filter on the lens might prevent it -- Leica did that for its M8 -- but, alas, that would probably introduce more problems than it fixes.
Click to expand...
 
The image I posted was a raw processed with Iridient, so it's there no matter how the image is captured and processed.

It definitely seems to be a hardware issue.
 
James54 said:
The image I posted was a raw processed with Iridient, so it's there no matter how the image is captured and processed.

It definitely seems to be a hardware issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Is it also present OOC JPGS?

I suppose you would only know that if you shot RAW+JPG.
 
Peter Jonas said:
James54 said:
The image I posted was a raw processed with Iridient, so it's there no matter how the image is captured and processed.

It definitely seems to be a hardware issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Is it also present OOC JPGS?

I suppose you would only know that if you shot RAW+JPG.
Click to expand...
 
Yake said:
Doug Pardee said:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
What's interesting is that I love photographing into sunlight (especially did with the X100* lens with ND filter enabled and fill flash), and I almost never encountered such pattern. Might have seen it once or twice out of thousands of photos taken. Seems like a specialized conditions effect.
Click to expand...
Indications are that this is basically an issue with the new (24 mpix) X-Trans III sensor. It's only been reported as "a problem" on X-Pro2 and X-T2.

My personal and totally uninformed guess is that it's some kind of IR contamination, possibly due to a less effective hot-mirror and IR filter on the sensor. If so, putting a hot-mirror filter on the lens might prevent it -- Leica did that for its M8 -- but, alas, that would probably introduce more problems than it fixes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
Peter Jonas said:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
Peter Jonas said:
James54 said:
The image I posted was a raw processed with Iridient, so it's there no matter how the image is captured and processed.

It definitely seems to be a hardware issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Is it also present OOC JPGS?

I suppose you would only know that if you shot RAW+JPG.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas
Click to expand...
It can still be turned into a JPEG in-camera by putting the RAW back onto the SD card and processing in camera to taste.
Click to expand...
Yes, however, this process is known to result in the issue being discussed.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas
Click to expand...
I don't see how there's any difference between original JPEG conversion and subsequent JPEG conversion that would create this pattern when using the same camera body and the same RAW file. It's the same JPEG engine, the same processing. If it was originally visible, it will be visible again, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, that's not an unreasonable assumption.

However, what initially raised my interest was why one of the linked articles states that "The issue occurs with in-camera JPEGs from raw or when processing raw RAF files in ACR as shown in this example with both in-camera JPEG and from raw conversions in ACR"

Maybe I am just reading that sentence the wrong way, but at least the first part of the sentence seems to suggest to me that SOOC JPGs are not affected the same way as are JPGs developed in camera from RAW. Although, in the latter part it just talks about "in-camera JPEG".

That's why I was interested in actual examples of what it is, rather than opinions as to what it might be.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute all the same.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas
 
Last edited:
I think it's just saying that both the JPEG engine and 3rd party RAW converters show the artifacts using the same Fuji RAW data. Otherwise it would be clarified that initial conversion is not affected by this artifacting. Furthermore, the guess about the source of the problem is that it's due to physics and engineering, not the software:

"I do not believe a firmware update can solve a problem which I think is hardware related. On the other hand the the problem seems to be very rare and might have no real practical implications for the day to day use of the camera."

Thus RAW converters should have no effect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top