Re: No longer comparing CFAs
3
The Davinator wrote:
Canadianguy wrote:
The Davinator wrote:
As I’ve been personally involved with dozens of such threads...it is not negative. The XTrans has advantages over Bayer...especially in moire and noise from raw. Sorry, but this is an old argument
If you want to play with raw files - you are no longer comparing just the CFA but the raw developer.
Jim explains it all here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4448022
It would no longer be Bayer vs X-Trans CFA but Adobe vs. Capture One vs. Irdient processing software or whatever developer you want to bring in.
I understand all that...but that isn’t the issue here. If we compare two different cameras in raw in Iridient...then it is a level playing field. Same if both are done in C1 or Lr. If we compare the results with numerous raw converters...and this has been done here many times...we have found that XTrans does have some advantages...mainly in Moire and noise
So you are saying the X-Trans advantage held up across every converters out there? One would think - it didn't hold up for Adobe from all the complaints out there.
If it has all been done before - one would think a table of the results could be compiled.
I would envision a table with every piece of software out there with Bayer vs X-Trans results...
Adobe without enhanced detail - Bayer vs X-Tran
Adobe with enhanced detail - Bayer vs. X-Tran
Capture One - Bayer vs. X-Tran
Irident - Bayer vs. X-Tran
Luminar - Bayer vs X-Tran
Then one could decide for themselves based on the software they are using - which CFA would work best for them or if one has to switch software if one is already stuck on a particular CFA.