Iridient X-Transformer

When I got an X-T3 I lost my ability to import RAF files into Lightroom 5.7. My solution was to use Adobe's free DNG converter and import the DNGs into Lightroom. When I posted here about this, I learned of the Iridient X-Transformer. Since it was only $40, I picked up a copy and replaced Adobe's DNG converter with X-Transformer.

Since then I've been comparing the two raw converters. Adobe gives you no control over the conversation other than file naming. X-Trasformer gives you a lot of control, but much of it is redundant with Lightroom (though they do turn off Lightroom's mods that would have been applied for me). Adobe's converter seems about 24% faster.

I took a few shots and converted them with both utilities. The only difference between the two is a blue element in the histogram moves slightly between the two. The Iridient files blues were a little lighter. I went to the color option in Iridient and changed it from "Iridient V2" to "Adobe CC 2018." This made them identical. The Histograms between the two of them did not move.

Since Adobe is a little faster, I think I will use it. I may play around with the options on Iridient to see if I can make it do something that isn't in the Adobe DNG Converter, but for now my take on this is that Adobe DNG converter is free and faster so I see no advantage in the Iridient X-Transformer.

Comparing histograms isn't the way to evaluate RAW converters. The Iridient converter typically renders fine detail and color with fewer demosaicing errors and artifacts and will usually edit quite a bit easier (especially sharpening).




Look closely, do you see a difference here? IXT (L), Adobe (R)

I believe you. I see a difference in those two files, but I haven't see it in mine, Erik. Additionally, a histogram is the way to observe a change in colors and Iridient does change the colors in it's default. If that change is for the good or bad, I am not certain because I haven't compared enough to have an opinion yet.

Regards,

Sol

Solomon said:

I believe you. I see a difference in those two files, but I haven't see it in mine, Erik. Additionally, a histogram is the way to observe a change in colors and Iridient does change the colors in it's default. If that change is for the good or bad, I am not certain because I haven't compared enough to have an opinion yet.

Regards,

Sol

Click to expand...

Some of this would certainly considered pixel peeping and won't always be obvious when viewed normally, but there can absolutely can be a worthwhile improvement with some well processed images at normal viewing size.

I don't recommend using the Iridient color profile at all, it may prevent you from changing the color profiles later. Also, your settings in Lightroom matter, you may not see much of a difference at default import settings, but they will become more apparent with more optimized settings (make sure there isn't too much Color NR applied - for starters, try 8 instead of the default 25 for Color NR at base ISO.

You won't see a difference in the histogram using the same profile as the the Adobe DNG conversion, but when you look at fine detail, it's there. The general color is basically the same, but the subtle color detail is different. The Adobe conversion often fails to differentiate fine color detail and just smears all the color together (especially at higher ISOs) ....


Note the lost color detail in the foreground on the right - Where's the green grass fringe?


Same here, the subtle purple in the flowers is almost completely absent on the right

Note: I'm not trying to sell you X-Transformer here, lots of people are are happy enough with Adobe's X-Trans processing. I've used X-Transformer since day one with Fuji and it works well for me.

Another note: With the current version of Lightroom you can easily (2 mouse clicks) convert only selected images right from within Lightroom without having to process all of them and then importing - MUCH easier, faster (seconds) and your original RAW files are all still there for when better processing options become available in the future.

Solomon said:

I believe you. I see a difference in those two files, but I haven't see it in mine, Erik. Additionally, a histogram is the way to observe a change in colors and Iridient does change the colors in it's default. If that change is for the good or bad, I am not certain because I haven't compared enough to have an opinion yet.

Regards,

Sol

Click to expand...

The values seen in the histogram and the colors seen visually will depend far more on the initial camera profile and the color processing applied by the RAW processor used than on any color alteration done by X-Transformer during its early RAW processing stages.

Sure some processes like color noise reduction will have some impact on the final color, but for the most part such changes will be very minor and for all intents the color data of the DNG remains virtually identical to that of the original RAF, especially with color NR disabled.

The camera profile used and other aspects of the RAW color pipeline post X-Transformer will have a much bigger impact on final color appearance than any of the processing in X-Transformer.

Every RAW processor may use different default color profiles and color processing routines and a DNG from X-Transformer, just the same as RAF straight out of the camera can show notably different colors and histogram values with different programs and/or profiles, etc.

Final output color for the DNGs from X-Transformer will almost exclusively depend on color processing choices made in the RAW processor used to edit the DNG. Even the camera profile chosen in X-Transformer has no impact on the actual image color data and can typically easily be changed in post. Some applications may ignore the default/embedded color profile in the DNG entirely. For example film style profile use.

Brian Griffith
Iridient Digital

The primary processing X-Transformer does is known as the demosaic or interpolation of the sensor color filter array data (CFA) to full color RGB data. This processing is more involved in the character of the image details though it can impact some aspects of color it is more fine color detail than overall color look. Color edge smearing for example could be due to demosaic. Artifacts and appearance of fine textures will vary depending on demosaic processing. Some demosaic processes may show more edge sharpness or better fine detail extraction. Some may be smoother, but less likely to show objectionable digital artifacts like jagged edges, aliasing, pattern noise, etc.

by default Adobes free DNG Converter does not apply any demosaic processing at all. It just converts the file format and leaves the RAW data in CFA format. As no actual image processing is done it will be very fast and the image will contain only the original CFA color plane and 1/3 of the image data/size.

Adobes free DNG Converter can optionally apply a demosaic processing stage that will take longer and increase image data 3x to full RGB. This is known as a demosaiced or “Linear DNG” and this would the same format as output by X-Transformer, but using Adobe’s demosaic processing rather than Iridient’s.

Brian Griffith

Iridient Digital

Brian Griffith said:

by default Adobes free DNG Converter does not apply any demosaic processing at all. It just converts the file format and leaves the RAW data in CFA format. As no actual image processing is done it will be very fast and the image will contain only the original CFA color plane and 1/3 of the image data/size.

Adobes free DNG Converter can optionally apply a demosaic processing stage that will take longer and increase image data 3x to full RGB. This is known as a demosaiced or “Linear DNG” and this would the same format as output by X-Transformer, but using Adobe’s demosaic processing rather than Iridient’s.

Click to expand...

Where is the option to apply the demosaic stage in DNG Converter?

Erik Baumgartner said:

I don't recommend using the Iridient color profile at all, it may prevent you from changing the color profiles later.

Click to expand...

This is not true. The selected profile in X-Transformer has no impact on use of different profiles later. It is just embedded as metadata and has no impact on the image data. In Lightroom you can change to any other profile regardless of the setting in X-Transformer.

The Iridient color profile however would not be in the standard Adobe profile set and if not embedded in the DNG would need to be separately loaded into Lightroom as a DCP file if you did want to choose the Iridient color profile later.

Brian Griffith

Iridient Digital

Brian Griffith said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

I don't recommend using the Iridient color profile at all, it may prevent you from changing the color profiles later.

Click to expand...

This is not true. The selected profile in X-Transformer has no impact on use of different profiles later. It is just embedded as metadata and has no impact on the image data. In Lightroom you can change to any other profile regardless of the setting in X-Transformer.

The Iridient color profile however would not be in the standard Adobe profile set and if not embedded in the DNG would need to be separately loaded into Lightroom as a DCP file if you did want to choose the Iridient color profile later.

Brian Griffith

Iridient Digital

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I thought, but someone just sent me a linear DNG that had the Iridient profile applied and it wouldn't let me change it to anything else - not sure what was going on there. That's why I wrote that doing so may prevent you from...

Thanks for clarifying.

Greybeard2017 said:

Brian Griffith said:

by default Adobes free DNG Converter does not apply any demosaic processing at all. It just converts the file format and leaves the RAW data in CFA format. As no actual image processing is done it will be very fast and the image will contain only the original CFA color plane and 1/3 of the image data/size.

Adobes free DNG Converter can optionally apply a demosaic processing stage that will take longer and increase image data 3x to full RGB. This is known as a demosaiced or “Linear DNG” and this would the same format as output by X-Transformer, but using Adobe’s demosaic processing rather than Iridient’s.

Click to expand...

Where is the option to apply the demosaic stage in DNG Converter?

Click to expand...

It's kind of buried... Click the "Change Preferences" button on the main screen and then in the compatibility popup menu choose "Custom...". In the custom dialog enable the "Linear (demosaiced)" option and click "OK".

Brian Griffith

Iridient Digital

Brian Griffith said:

Greybeard2017 said:

Brian Griffith said:

by default Adobes free DNG Converter does not apply any demosaic processing at all. It just converts the file format and leaves the RAW data in CFA format. As no actual image processing is done it will be very fast and the image will contain only the original CFA color plane and 1/3 of the image data/size.

Adobes free DNG Converter can optionally apply a demosaic processing stage that will take longer and increase image data 3x to full RGB. This is known as a demosaiced or “Linear DNG” and this would the same format as output by X-Transformer, but using Adobe’s demosaic processing rather than Iridient’s.

Click to expand...

Where is the option to apply the demosaic stage in DNG Converter?

Click to expand...

It's kind of buried... Click the "Change Preferences" button on the main screen and then in the compatibility popup menu choose "Custom...". In the custom dialog enable the "Linear (demosaiced)" option and click "OK".

Brian Griffith

Iridient Digital

Click to expand...

Thanks - it is well hidden

I have heard people say, "It is better to not do sharpening or noise reduction during conversion. Better to save these for the final pass during export." What is your opinion on this, Brian?

I also have PureRAW by DxO. They have 3 main choices during conversion: HQ, Prime (which doesn't appear to work with Fuji files yet) and Deep Prime. Am I right in assuming that HQ, like Adobe DC does not apply any demosaic processing?

Thank you,

Sol

I don't know if this will help but, I took one photo and converted it using the 3 converters that I have: 1. Adobe DC, 2. Iridient and 3. PureRAW-HQ. (On the Adobe DC I set it up to Demosaic as per Brian). Two observations on this: Adobe was dull and lifeless in appearance. It also had the least amount of information in it's histogram. Iridient and PureRAW both looked better and both had more information in their histograms with PureRAW having the most. Here are the images. I got the histograms when I brought them into Lightroom. I assembled them in Photoshop.

Solomon said:

I don't know if this will help but, I took one photo and converted it using the 3 converters that I have: 1. Adobe DC, 2. Iridient and 3. PureRAW-HQ. (On the Adobe DC I set it up to Demosaic as per Brian). Two observations on this: Adobe was dull and lifeless in appearance. It also had the least amount of information in it's histogram. Iridient and PureRAW both looked better and both had more information in their histograms with PureRAW having the most. Here are the images. I got the histograms when I brought them into Lightroom. I assembled them in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

You clearly aren't using the same color profile for each example as the color and saturation is different for each one - this has everything to do with how they are are being individually processed in Lightroom and not the demosaicing being applied by the three different conversion methods. You will likely have to do some sharpening/NR fine-tuning for each one for a proper comparison as well as they will likely be different from each converter out of the gate as well (the DxO version also has significantly different lens corrections applied). The histograms should all look the about same.

Erik Baumgartner said:

You clearly aren't using the same color profile for each example as the color and saturation is different for each one - this has everything to do with how they are are being individually processed in Lightroom and not the demosaicing being applied by the three different conversion methods. You will likely have to do some sharpening/NR fine-tuning for each one for a proper comparison as well as they will likely be different from each converter out of the gate as well (the DxO version also has significantly different lens corrections applied). The histograms should all look the about same.

Click to expand...

Hi Erik. All 3 are the default "color profile." Iridient is the only one of the 3 that allows you to alter what you call the "color profile" they call it the "Default Camera Profile" and they allow you to choose between 4 options. See below.

Solomon said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

You clearly aren't using the same color profile for each example as the color and saturation is different for each one - this has everything to do with how they are are being individually processed in Lightroom and not the demosaicing being applied by the three different conversion methods. You will likely have to do some sharpening/NR fine-tuning for each one for a proper comparison as well as they will likely be different from each converter out of the gate as well (the DxO version also has significantly different lens corrections applied). The histograms should all look the about same.

Click to expand...

Hi Erik. All 3 are the default "color profile." Iridient is the only one of the 3 that allows you to alter what you call the "color profile" they call it the "Default Camera Profile" and they allow you to choose between 4 options. See below.

Click to expand...

No, you must apply the same profile in Lightroom to all three examples - Adobe Standard being the logical choice as your old version doesn't have Adobe Color (and another very good reason to update it). You should probably select that here as well.

Erik, re your comment on the samples I posted having different "color profiles" I checked and I have Lightroom 5.7 set to make NO changes to incoming DNGs. So Lightroom isn't what is making them have 3 different histograms.

I think the converters must treat color in the DNGs they build differently. Perhaps Brian from Iridient can fill us in.

Regards,

Sol

Solomon said:

Erik, re your comment on the samples I posted having different "color profiles" I checked and I have Lightroom 5.7 set to make NO changes to incoming DNGs. So Lightroom isn't what is making them have 3 different histograms.
I think the converters must treat color in the DNGs they build differently. Perhaps Brian from Iridient can fill us in.

Regards,

Sol

Click to expand...

If they're coming in with different profiles, you must change them to match or you can't really compare them properly. Like I wrote earlier, you will likely have to optimize the sharpening and NR in Lightroom for each one as well.

Erik Baumgartner said:

If they're coming in with different profiles, you must change them to match or you can't really compare them properly. Like I wrote earlier, you will likely have to optimize the sharpening and NR in Lightroom for each one as well.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but I thought the goal was to compare how good a job each converter was doing by itself. With that goal in mind, shouldn't we look at their product unaltered? Give me a minute with each and I can make them all look good, but what would that tell us?

I know that I'm missing something. Perhaps that is because I'm not a landscape photographer, I shoot mostly people and still life. Perhaps landscape photographers see artifacts and smearing that are more rare in the types of things that I shoot.

Thanks for your help, Erik

Regards,

Sol

Solomon said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

If they're coming in with different profiles, you must change them to match or you can't really compare them properly. Like I wrote earlier, you will likely have to optimize the sharpening and NR in Lightroom for each one as well.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but I thought the goal was to compare how good a job each converter was doing by itself.

Click to expand...

No, they aren't intended to be used by themselves.

Solomon said:

With that goal in mind, shouldn't we look at their product unaltered? Give me a minute with each and I can make them all look good, but what would that tell us?

Click to expand...

They all need to have the same profile applied or you can't properly compare them. They can all be made to look better, but if they aren't on a level playing field to begin with, how can you compare them? Some converters may produce a sharper initial result - not because they did a better job of demosaicing, but because they've added some pre-sharpening of their own. The point is, which converter is going to produce the best end result in conjunction with Lightroom, not which necessarily looks best at converter specific default settings. if you're comparing examples with different color, contrast, and sharpness what's that going to tell you? Demosaicing is about assembling an image from the RAW data with as few errors as possible, both in fine color and structural detail - that's what you should be comparing, not histograms.

Solomon said:

I know that I'm missing something. Perhaps that is because I'm not a landscape photographer, I shoot mostly people and still life. Perhaps landscape photographers see artifacts and smearing that are more rare in the types of things that I shoot.
Thanks for your help, Erik

Regards,

Sol

Click to expand...