X-Trans 2 vs 3 vs 4 in raw

FujiShooterCY wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

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.

This tech is known for many years though it's too seriously professional to be widely known, not to mention widely adopted. But it is here, at your arm distance, to your pleasure.

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.

It seems like you are inviting us to dive into a pretty deep rabbit hole now...

I'm continuing the conversation with you.... So... Not sure who invited whom?

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.

Yes, this is perfectly correct but I think it's a tad deeper dive inside this rabbit hole than OP was intended to do initially

My answer will be short. If you want to dive THAT deep, use linear input profile and linear tone function (not a curve but a straight line) and apply these to all your RAW breeds, than (given identical demosaicing) you will compare RAWs directly.

But I doubt it would be interesting to someone who just want to make a visual comparison with his own eyes, because the resulting images will be too bland and dull to look at them, so no meaningful subjective, qualitative (not measurable and quantitative) comparison could be done on these.

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.).

At least for darktable and RawTherapee I am pretty sure they won't apply any sharpening if you don't want it to be applied. Same with denoising.

Yes correct, I was referring more to Fuji and Adobe than Darktable or Raw Therapee.

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.

I can't parse what are you speaking about; what "sharpening after demosaic" in darktable did you ever observe, given you didn't used it explicitly with your own hands?

https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry/x-trans-vs-foveon-a-mostly-monochrome-photowalk-1a931f8fb277

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

I'll wait until someone will give me X-T1 or X-T10 just for a few beers or a dinner with wine