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 synthetically shrink the other? You've got a dilemma here, but the only fair thing to do is let the larger image have its advantage.

, 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.

You still haven't addressed the processing issues.

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.

We're comforted.