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

il_alexk wrote:

CAcreeks 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.

The out-of-camera X-A5 JPEG is better in all cases, though a bit redder. As I've said before, it is very difficult to beat high ISO Fuji o-o-c JPEG with Raw processing. This is why DxO Prime noise reduction would be nice to have.

I would not have posted, except for a question:

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

Your attention to details is quite impressive.
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.

So you chose to throw away detail and not disclose it.  That's what I thought.  In other words, nothing to see here.