DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

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

Started Jan 23, 2020 | Discussions thread
HatWearingFool
HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,758
Re: Latest Fuji X-trans vs Bayer, has X-trans lost it already?

sluggy_warrior wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

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?

You made me curious, so I ran "darktable -d perf" and exported two ISO6400 RAWs of X-T20 and X-T100 (from dpreview studio). They have identical history stack, except the X-T20 uses Markesteijn 3-pass and the X-T100 uses AMaZE.

LOL, the Markesteijn took half the time of AMaZE. I actually had to run it again two more times to confirm that I didn't make a mistake.

This is what I would have thought based on the 6x6 vs 4x4 answer from Fuji. It's hard to say without knowing all of the math but at first thought 6x6 could easily make it faster than 4x4. Just like when choosing between compression algorithms.

-- hide signature --
 HatWearingFool's gear list:HatWearingFool's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM1 Fujifilm X-T20 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
JNR
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow