Latest Fuji X-trans vs Bayer, has X-trans lost it already?

Canadianguy wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

I agree that a shift to bayer would mean little one way or another to end results. But Fuji is using x-trans as a product differentiator in an attempt to add some cachet to their higher end models. It would be difficult for them to walk back the marketing talk now. But maybe if they come up with something else, or someway to sell a new implementation (processing) of bayer?

But this is the second time today I've seen people talking about the extra processing power required for x-trans raws? Has anyone actually experienced a difference in system requirements for processing equivalently sized bayer and Fuji raw files? I've never noticed any speed difference between processing 24mb Sony bayer raws and 24mb Fuji x-trans raws. I'm really curious if this is a real thing?

In a way they already have - GFX cameras use Bayer and they are marketed as high end products.

And you keep hearing about the increased processing power statement because its from Fujifilm themselves.

From Toshihisa Iida:

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/6648162116/cp-2017-fujifilm-interview-we-hope-that-the-gfx-will-change-how-people-view-medium-format

"Will X-Trans continue in the next generation of APS-C sensors?

For APS-C, definitely. For the GFX format, we’ll probably continue with the conventional bayer pattern. If you try to put X-Trans into medium format, the processing gets complicated, and the benefit isn’t very big.

How big is the extra processing requirement for X-Trans compared to bayer?

X-Trans is a 6x6 filter arrangement, not 4x4, it’s something like a 20-30% increase in processing requirement."

That's really interesting. Thanks for the link.

I would hope fuji know's what it's talking about but on the surface 6x6 vs 4x4 really says nothing about processing requirements. It sounds like a brush of answer. Maybe assuming the audience doesn't really care to know the details of why it takes more processing.