X-Trans 2 vs 3 vs 4 in raw

FujiShooterCY wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

RAW files can, in theory, be pushed but there is an inherent character to them, and it's my opinion that the relatively few calibration points offered by a color checker or similar don't QUITE make up for the character of the sensor such that you can simply calibrate to a color checker and expect the same results.

As I mentioned in some earlier comment, you need an IT 8.7/1, IT 8.7/2 (ISO 12641) target to get a trusted result, and a profile-cooking software, too.

Now THAT looks like a decent color profiling piece of kit.

There are also the shadow / highlight characteristics of each that can't quite be simulated.

Also if you prefer the camera colors - why would you want to use a color checker to reduce them?

Excellent point, in fact.

The older X-Trans sensors seemed to have a different goal from the newer ones.

As far as colors - the older sensors seemed to aim for more of a balance between warm and cool. Newer sensors seemed more warm

I disagree. The sensor itself (and the RAF file, consequently) are color agnostic.

RAF file don't contain any mention of any "image" at all, until developed.

So what you are saying is neither about the sensor nor about the RAF file. You are speaking about the default settings of particular RAW development software.

I agree that RAW files don't contain an image per-se and that the RAW converter is what produces an RGB image. You could take it one step further and say that color doesn't exist in nature - frequencies of what we humans call visible light - exists in nature. Color is created in the brain.

To that end - a camera sensor's job is to capture and detect different frequencies of light in a way that can be turned into an RGB image that the human brain interprets as a color image. (Phew that was pedantic).

The way most cameras detect different frequencies of light is through the color filter array (CFA).

Camera makers specify the dyes in the CFA and those dyes have different characteristics.

For example Nikon cameras pick up  more "Red" in frequency ranges that also trigger the blue sensels than Canon camears. With each sensel getting a different input from any given frequency of light, translating those into full color images means ... some complex math that's beyond my understanding, but to do it in a way that produces either consistent results (Adobe Color attempts to reduce the difference between say Nikon and Canon) or results in line with the camera manufacturer's in-camera JPG engine, requires profiling the characteristics of each camera (and the in-camera JPG output).

Which is to say, the camera manufacturer made decisions about the CFA that influence the final RGB image. In which case I would argue that this is evidence that the RAW file is not "color agnostic" - though fancy profiling techniques can attempt to reduce these (purposefully introduced) differences.

https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/6/8/79/htm

And newer cameras seem to have a different demosiacing

Actually we have no clue about which exact algorithm and and at what exact settings does Fuji use in their in-camera firmware.

and sharpening algorithm

Fuji doesn't sharpen RAFs (unlike SONY).

Good to know. I meant the sharpening that happens after demosaicing in the RAW converter (in camera, Fuji software, Adobe, Darktable, Raw Therapee etc.). To my eye X-Trans files have a different look from Bayer files that is akin to surface blur which I attribute to the sharpening algorithms that are used on RAF files.

PS - check the Camera JPG Portrait Shootout link in my sig - I've compared numerous cameras and the original X-Trans wins hands down for skin tones, at least in SOOC camera JPGs. Both in studio lighting and natural lighting tests.

Wow. This is quite interesting observation. Thanks for pointing this out. Maybe someday I'll chase some X-Trans 1 camera for the price of a beer and look at it deeper.

I sometimes eye a used X-Pro1 but they're still around $600 USD and can't justify the cost.

PPS - I still shoot with all of the above cameras and for turning over video or finished files to clients where autofocus is a factor - the newer Fuji cameras win out. But for my personal shooting - it's the original X-Trans all the way.