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

il_alexk wrote:

Thanks for posting the comparison. Wow, you still have Adobe Flash? (I thought Flash was required for gallery additions, but perhaps they fixed this.)

I use the latest version of Chrome and if it decides to use Flash over HTML5, then be it.

It seems that DPreview re-implemented the gallery to not require Adobe Flash. That reminds me, I should delete my gallery photos, which have become obsolete.

The out-of-camera X-A5 JPEG is better in all cases...

Why are your X-Pro3 conversions only 6000x4000 pixel size? They should be 6240x4160.

To make it apples-to-apples. It feels counter-intuitive to me to compare images of different size, especially synthetically expanded images ones vs native resolution, so I exported images to be in the same original size. Another option would be to export X-A5 to 6240x4160, but then again we might end up with a debate of the visual perception of details in images that with synthetically increased pixel count.

Anyway, I can assure you that there is no difference in the amount of details in X-Pro3 images whether they are exported in native or Iridient resolution. After all, it's only 240 more pixels out of 6000 in horizontal direction.

There might be differences due to downsampling, but with a good algorithm (which I assume Iridient uses) virtually all differences should be an improvement. And yet the Bayer image is still better, though taken at slightly smaller pixel size.

X-Trans still has less moire, for what it's worth, but what has been most eye opening is how Fuji removes it from Bayer results. Thanks again!