X-Trans 2 vs 3 vs 4 in raw

saltydogstudios wrote:

FujiShooterCY wrote:

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?

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.

Adobe is well-known for doing strange things to X-Trans RAFs by applying some hidden unmanageable defaults like dumb sharpening - at least in some versions of the software. Also I doubt that Adobe uses the best X-Trans demosaicing algorithm available, and at its best settings (does anyone at all know for sure, what they are using?)

So for X-Trans RAF I use darktable exclusively, and the best demosaicing algorithm with its best settings (Markesteijn 3-pass + VNG). Works surprisingly well; I found the results to be of significantly better IQ compared to OOC JPEG. Probably the limited capabilities of in-camera CPU and limited battery capacity do not allow to implement a better, but more CPU-intensive algorithm? (or maybe Fuji uses some kind of demosaicing processor, a single-purpose one dedicated for demosaicing only? implemented in hardware? I don't know).

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

Thank you for sharing, this is informative.

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