Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans

Started Oct 20, 2012 | Discussions
Maxster New Member • Posts: 19
Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
27

Just came back from D-Clic photo show in Montreal and had the chance to talk with Billy from Fuji Guys. He asked me if I was happy with my X-Pro1 and I said yes, very happy BUT would like Adobe and others to better support it (or at all in the case of Aperture...). I expected him to play it safe but he actually acknowledged the problem right away and told me that they recently signed a non-disclosure agreement with both Adobe and Apple and provided them with specs for supporting the X-Trans sensor !

He said he is also pushing strong with Fuji to add support for TIFF in the camera so that could be another good thing for some.

Lets hope this leads to progress...

Tack007 New Member • Posts: 23
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
2

Hej, if this is true, I will buy bottle of Champain and celebrate

CYF Junior Member • Posts: 47
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
2

+1!

awelch100
awelch100 Regular Member • Posts: 409
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
3

I will be overjoyed if this is true

-- hide signature --

Canon 5D MkII, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, etc, etc...

 awelch100's gear list:awelch100's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D750 Sony a7R II Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +2 more
Greg999 Forum Member • Posts: 98
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
4

LZW compressed 16 bit TIFF would be really nice.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,348
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
3

I certainly hope that this is the case and look forward to Apple support soon!

Providing TIFF output from the camera from day one would at least have given us a big file with plenty of latitude to adjust whilst we waited for RAW to catch up.

steven_k Contributing Member • Posts: 501
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
4

When Adobe or Apple supports the X-Trans correctly I will buy a XE1 right away.

miniTO Regular Member • Posts: 239
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
1

Wow, if that is true that is great!

I may hold off my purchase of Silkypix DP5 for as long as possible.  Despite the fact that I am starting to get used to it

JasperD
JasperD Senior Member • Posts: 2,662
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
1

I sure hope this to be true, although I´m only a few weeks from switching from Aperture to LR: X-Trans was just a drop too much in a bucket already full with Foveon stuff because of a DP2x used as street camera.

With the X-Pro1 now taking about half of my pictures, I kind of had it with Apple here.

Maurizio De Cecco New Member • Posts: 16
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
1

JasperD wrote:

I sure hope this to be true,  [ ... ]

I think they collectively have no choice; it will maybe take some time, but they will get there, together ("they" being Fuij, Apple and Adobe).

Sometimes people call this "market forces" ...

Maurizio

 Maurizio De Cecco's gear list:Maurizio De Cecco's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,957
Great news!
1

Thanks for letting us know!

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
Brian Davies
Brian Davies Regular Member • Posts: 243
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans

I hope that Phase One get wind of this and jump in too with C1

-- hide signature --
 Brian Davies's gear list:Brian Davies's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +4 more
MikeS2012 Junior Member • Posts: 36
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans

This is good news! I have read a professional opinion that TIFF would have been the preferred standard format over JPEG, had not the (earlier, perceived) limitation of file size not made JPEG so attractive.

==m==

 MikeS2012's gear list:MikeS2012's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1
MatW Senior Member • Posts: 1,470
Great!
1

That would be great. Lightroom's support for X-Pro1 and X-E1 *really* leaves to be desired at the moment, some images look like they have been painted...

 MatW's gear list:MatW's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
justinwonnacott Contributing Member • Posts: 934
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans
2

I really do not see any advantage of tiff being stored on the card in camera.

- slower write speeds

- uses a lot of card space

- results in a processed file (even as 16 bit) that does not contain all the RAW data

I would be very happy  to see improved handling of xtrans RAW files in LR though.

 justinwonnacott's gear list:justinwonnacott's gear list
Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM
CraigArnold Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: Great!
1

The default ACR settings are not optimal. With proper processing these problems are dramatically reduced, to the point where results are already extremely good.

Over time I expet ACR to produce stunning results from X-tans, but posting ineptly processed examples overstates the problem hugely and only spreads FUD.

-- hide signature --

Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

 CraigArnold's gear list:CraigArnold's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Sony a7R Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +2 more
MatW Senior Member • Posts: 1,470
Re: Great!
1

CraigArnold wrote:

The default ACR settings are not optimal. With proper processing these problems are dramatically reduced, to the point where results are already extremely good.

Over time I expet ACR to produce stunning results from X-tans, but posting ineptly processed examples overstates the problem hugely and only spreads FUD.

It is what people see when they load their RAW files into ACR/Lightroom, as simple as that.

I am sure you agree that it is not quite as easy as changing a couple of default settings like sharpening, you can tweak sharpening in Lightroom as much as you want, it will not help if the de-mosaicing algorithm is sub par. The branches on the first 100% crop should not be yellow, for example.

 MatW's gear list:MatW's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
awelch100
awelch100 Regular Member • Posts: 409
Re: Updated Third Party RAW of X-Trans

I think a good temporary fix would be for Fuji to share their lens correction settings with Adobe. This would allow for  1:1 pixel matching between jpegs and raw files in Photoshop. Any artifacts found in the raw conversion could simply be masked and replaced with the data from the jpeg layer.

Perfect? No, but it would befiery useful.

-- hide signature --

Canon 5D MkII, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, etc, etc...

 awelch100's gear list:awelch100's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D750 Sony a7R II Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +2 more
CraigArnold Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: Great!
5

MatW wrote:

CraigArnold wrote:

The default ACR settings are not optimal. With proper processing these problems are dramatically reduced, to the point where results are already extremely good.

Over time I expet ACR to produce stunning results from X-tans, but posting ineptly processed examples overstates the problem hugely and only spreads FUD.

It is what people see when they load their RAW files into ACR/Lightroom, as simple as that.

I am sure you agree that it is not quite as easy as changing a couple of default settings like sharpening, you can tweak sharpening in Lightroom as much as you want, it will not help if the de-mosaicing algorithm is sub par. The branches on the first 100% crop should not be yellow, for example.

People are applying the techniques and settings that have worked with their other cameras, but these don't work well with the X-trans.

On your image above try this:

Contrast: 30

Clarity: 30

Color & luminance NR: 0-10 (way down from the default of 30)

Sharpness:20

Radius: 0.7

Detail: 50

If there are still any overly smooth areas add grain of around 10, 20, 20.

Now compare that print to a 20Mp file from a 5D2/3, D600, Sony A900 or similar.

I'm NOT saying that ACR can't or won't or shouldn't get better, just that a lot of people are botching the conversion and blaming it all on Fuji/Adobe because they assume they have nothing to learn.

-- hide signature --

Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

 CraigArnold's gear list:CraigArnold's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Sony a7R Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +2 more
baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 13,812
Re: Great!
1

In the thread the foliage issue I suggested for foliage to use either Silkypix that comes with the camera or Helicon filter 5 They prevent bleeding and smearing eventhough fine adjustment is not as good as in Adobe

I usually adjust light andd contarst, the record Tif 16 bits that I read with ACR for good c olor, contratsd etc... mastering

It is not the easiest workflow but with it I get all details and excellent results

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Panasonic ZS200 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T3 +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads