X-Trans demosaic algorithms differences

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 12,610
Re: X-Trans demosaic algorithms differences
3

sluggy_warrior wrote:

57even wrote:

You have an agenda, which makes everything you say suspect.

I don't give a darn what software people use as long as they like it and it works for them. I am quite happy working in C1 and Silkypix, and they work fine. I would never tell someone to change if what they were using could do the job.

But I get heartily sick of people spreading false information and backing it up with pseudo-science, because they have an agenda. Lot's of people use Adobe already, and are being told that you can't get good images from Xtrans using it. This is not only unhelpful to them, but patently wrong.

It really doesn't help Fuji either, given that so many people already use Adobe. It is simply engaging in an act of self-harm.

The same people then go on to tell everyone what software they SHOULD be using, which is just as unhelpful.

I always provide a list of alternatives but I never promote one or the other. You can check my posting history. Sure, if someone is using out of date LR stand-alone, then I would advise them to either upgrade, or if they don't want CC, find an alternative, of which there are several.

If they are already using CC, there is NO REASON for them to worry. I have posted many images processed in CC to compare with others, and explained how to do it.

If they still want to buy different software, or download some freeware, I don't care one way or the other.

Errm, maybe you've mistaken me for someone else? JayPhizzt maybe, s/he kept saying RawTherapee is the best and everyone should use it?

My memory is degrading, would appreciate if you could point out just one single post where I said darktable is better, or suggest that someone should use it (wait, I did say MS Paint is the best, but that wouldn't count, right?)

When I promote software freedom, I also promote user freedom, including the freedom of choice. Thus, I'd never suggest one software over another. Earlier in this thread, BryceM mentioned "LightRoom is much more polished and intuitive", and I didn't even argue to that as I've never used LR. I've also never bashed LR or PS neither.

I don't think this is even pseudo-science. It was just mostly observation and trial-and-error. I don't even know what's happening behind the scene with all these algorithms and settings. I'm just glad that those who have access to other software helped me see a bigger picture.

I'm sorry if this is hurting Fuji somehow. I thought showing the potential of their cameras/sensors, how good their photos can be would be a positive thing. What's wrong with learning and mastering the strengths and weaknesses of your tools, right? With Kaizen philosophy, any new finding/leaning that can help Fuji improve their products would be a good thing, both for them and for us, wouldn't it?

If you compare a shot processed in LR that you picked at random with a shot processed in Darktable, or RawTherapee, etc, then it doesn't prove anything.

Here is one of the shots from you samples above processed in LR and PS. I don't think it shows any of the issues you identified in your initial LR samples.

When this shot was first posted there were a lot of the colour bleed issues on the blue Chinese shop sign, which as you can see do not exist on the latest versions of CC.

Nor does this image have excessive aliasing or noise, which some of the RT and DT shots seem to exhibit. Of course, I could sharpen it more, but why bother? It was quite blurred to start with.

My point is that if you want to make comparisons, you have to do so based on a premise that is reliable. Using an old version of LR does not tell us anything, nor does it support your assumption that Adobe use the same demosaicing as the JPEGs in the camera. Perhaps they do, but maybe not. In my experience, there is more detail in RAW.

So, this implies that the issue is not so much demosaicing, but the demosaicing sharpening that is applied. This has always been a slight weakness with LR, though it is not as bad as it used to be. Even so, I usually sharpen in Photoshop.

And I see LOTs of JPEG artefacts in just about every OOC JPEG, Bayer or Xtrans. Can't say one is better or worse than the other.

Now, if you want to compare like with like, and since you don't have LR, I would be quite happy to process the LR shots and compare them with DT or RT shots processed by others. Add Silkypix, OnOne and C1 too if you like. Level playing field, best efforts, current software versions.

Just link to the RAW images you would like to compare.

-- hide signature --

Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow