Is Old Fuji Color Better? Or Even Different?

FujiShooterCY wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

But sensors do have different thresholds at which the Red, Green and Blue filters cut off.

The below should be famous by now - it measures the "quantum efficiency" of each color dye on the Canon 5D and 5Dmk2 against different frequencies.

The original 5D was less sensitive to Red and Green (dashed lines). That is - for a given light value, the sensels below those dyes in the CFA "counted" fewer photons.

At any given frequency for the same frequency of light, the 5D and 5Dmk2 will produce different values at each sensel. The differences between Nikon and Canon are more dramatic.

The RAW Converter must be tuned to the sensor if it's to have any hope of producing similar results between two cameras.

Yes, agreed, you are perfectly correct.

One thing I am not sure about is where exactly this adaptation is done in the software. Is it done with some numeric coefficients in the demosaic algorithm? I mean - given two different Bayer sensors, which are both being demosaiced with the same algorithm, is adaptation done at the level of demosaic or at the level of input profile, or both?

Adobe has a white paper that sheds a bit of light on this (no pun intended). What they call "colorimetric interpretation" is likely the step we're interested in.

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

So while it's accurate to say that the OP is comparing RAW Converters. The OP is also necessarily also comparing sensors, because the RAW Converter must first measure the sensor - if it is to have any hope of producing a consistent result between cameras. (RAW values to RGB values.)

But Ok we are comparing the grade of software adaptation to the sensor again, not the sensor itself.

I suspect that camera manufacturers tune their sensors for different goals.

To my eyes Nikon cameras produce more filmic skin tones in natural light - less color variation around the central skin tone. Canon cameras produce more color variation around the central skin tone. Leica cameras produce the most (though I have no hands-on experience with Leica cameras).

I prefer Nikon for natural light and Canon for studio work. The Fuji X-Trans1 sensor is the best all-arounder (see below). Leica is trash at skin tones (yes I said it).

I read somewhere that Canon produces more accurate sky colors than Nikon.

I'm aware that there are software packages that will do RAW conversion without having a deep database of sensors - I have a few installed on my computer.

Very interesting! Can you please share your experience, which convertors are sensor-aware and which aren't? Thanks!

Adobe software refuses to convert any camera they haven't measured, which leads to the odd DP Review "initial hands on preview" statement "We can't evaluate the RAW files because Adobe hasn't released an update for it yet." (which I always thought was odd since it implies that Adobe is the only way to evaluate RAW files...)

According to RAW Therapee they support a wide variety of cameras, but if they haven't measured the camera the colors may look off. Though because it will open RAW files for cameras that are newer than the software, I suspect they have a generic fallback color profile for the camera manufacturer.

https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Supported_Cameras

RawDigger also has a list of supported cameras and a similar disclaimer that it can open other files but they may not look "accurate". Again - I can open files in RawDigger that aren't on the supported list.

https://www.rawdigger.com/usermanual/cameralist

So - maybe "sensor aware" is an oversimplification - they will open files that aren't (yet) on the supported list.

But to say that the Sensor has no opinions about colors (how frequencies get measured, and then therefore turned into RGB values) is an oversimplification.

Hmmm technically you are correct but from the photographic point of view, everything starts from the moment when the image is created, so after demosaic is done. So to my opinion, this oversimplification yes, it do exist on my side, but it doesn't hurt given the discussed purpose

I've done some testing around this - you can read more here:

http://sodium.nyc/blog/2019/12/camera-color-science-does-it-exist-and-if-so-what-to-do-aboutit

http://sodium.nyc/blog/2019/12/camera-calibration-can-it-eliminate-differences-betweencameras

http://sodium.nyc/blog/2020/06/what-is-good-skin-tone-and-how-to-get-it

Camera JPG Color Shootout - where you can look at images from a number of cameras and decide for yourself. Currently the X-Trans1 wins in both natural light & studio skin tone tests.

http://sodium.nyc/blog/2020/05/camera-jpg-portrait