Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions
Kali108 Regular Member • Posts: 420
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !
1

Beat Traveller wrote:

It's fairly trivial to achieve the same look in Lightroom by increasing clarity and sharpness ever so slightly.

It is however, not a simple matter to catalog and process a couple of hundred files after a day of shooting with Iridient, particularly given that on my machine it takes an average of 5-10 seconds to update file previews as you make changes (whereas Lightroom is near instantaneous), and that Iridient's tools for extending dynamic range and controlling moire are much more difficult to achieve pleasing results with than Lightroom's.

I have to ask...if it's so "trivial" then why is it that I and several online bloggers have failed to accomplish it after HOURS of trying? I've seen postings claiming this, yet the images shared prove the opposite with smearing, parquet effect and all kind of ACR "nastiness". LR sharpening is infamously horrible with X trans files. I would add the OP's shared images in the tradition of proving ID's clear superiority with X trans files.

I find nothing about LR5 "near instantaneous". I use the 15" rMBP with 16GB RAM, SSD and external thunderbolt drive. I've been a LR user since it's first beta. I'm generally a "fan", but less so in recent years as I feel it has fallen behind alternatives a bit. The X trans is truly a different beast, that Adobe has yet to tame imo.

Kind of blows my mind how radically different user experiences can be.

Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !
2

Kali108 wrote:

Beat Traveller wrote:

It's fairly trivial to achieve the same look in Lightroom by increasing clarity and sharpness ever so slightly.

It is however, not a simple matter to catalog and process a couple of hundred files after a day of shooting with Iridient, particularly given that on my machine it takes an average of 5-10 seconds to update file previews as you make changes (whereas Lightroom is near instantaneous), and that Iridient's tools for extending dynamic range and controlling moire are much more difficult to achieve pleasing results with than Lightroom's.

I have to ask...if it's so "trivial" then why is it that I and several online bloggers have failed to accomplish it after HOURS of trying? I've seen postings claiming this, yet the images shared prove the opposite with smearing, parquet effect and all kind of ACR "nastiness". LR sharpening is infamously horrible with X trans files. I would add the OP's shared images in the tradition of proving ID's clear superiority with X trans files.

I find nothing about LR5 "near instantaneous". I use the 15" rMBP with 16GB RAM, SSD and external thunderbolt drive. I've been a LR user since it's first beta. I'm generally a "fan", but less so in recent years as I feel it has fallen behind alternatives a bit. The X trans is truly a different beast, that Adobe has yet to tame imo.

Kind of blows my mind how radically different user experiences can be.

Your last statement is absolutely correct. Just because my experience is different doesn't mean yours is untrue, or vice versa. Photography is more subjective than a lot of people think.

I've probably read every blog you're talking about regarding comparisons, and just from the images they share it certainly looks like Iridient (or C1, for that matter) have the better output. But here's the thing: these are almost universally comparisons at default settings, and of generic landscape photos that were problematic for Adobe with its smearing issues.

Because the 'watercolour' issue was a high profile issue surrounding the cameras (similar to the 'white orbs' of the X10) and Adobe haven't completely eliminated all smearing, most of these comparisons are aimed at showing whether the other converters solve this problem, which most of them do. What they don't consider is that there are other problems with RAF files that Adobe doesn't exhibit. I've taken files that I converted without any issue in Adobe and run them through Aperture, C1 and Iridient (Silkypix too, leave no stone unturned!), and suddenly I found myself struggling to eliminate moire, hot pixels, colour noise and other artifacts that simply were not present in the Adobe files.

So to come back to my original point, photography is very subjective. What is a dealbreaker for you (smearing and sharpening artifacts) is acceptable for me, while for me colour artifacts are too ugly to put up with. That's why Lightroom is my preferred option.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Johnny in L.A. Contributing Member • Posts: 651
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Hi skygkar, is there a way I could download the original 0774 RAW file so I could see what I could do with it in LR5?  Your example is without post-processing and I'm curious whether I could improve it to a satisfactory (for me) level in LR.

 Johnny in L.A.'s gear list:Johnny in L.A.'s gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
skygkar
OP skygkar Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

You should be able to download the file through the link below. Tell me if this works or not.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ewrj21khd6hgv5o/DSCF0774.RAF

Laurent

 skygkar's gear list:skygkar's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Apple iPhone 4 +1 more
Johnny in L.A. Contributing Member • Posts: 651
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

skygkar wrote:

You should be able to download the file through the link below. Tell me if this works or not.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ewrj21khd6hgv5o/DSCF0774.RAF

Laurent

 Johnny in L.A.'s gear list:Johnny in L.A.'s gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Johnny in L.A. Contributing Member • Posts: 651
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Here's my LR5-processed version of your first photo. I couldn't get the particular combination of sharpness/contrast and smoothness that Iridient did. To my eye, the Iridient version of this photo is just a little too sharp - it has great impact but I would enjoy it more if it were just a bit smoother. But I still couldn't get that same impact with LR5 without oversharpening--and I think my version is also oversharpened, more than yours; I did that to get the window screens to be similar, at the expense of too much sharpening overall.

Additional notes: I'm an amateur. Also, I couldn't get mine as large as yours without going over 1:1. Anyway, here it is.

skygkar's photo post-processed by me in LR5

 Johnny in L.A.'s gear list:Johnny in L.A.'s gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Johnny in L.A. Contributing Member • Posts: 651
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Or maybe it's not sharpness that I would edge down just a bit in the Iridient photo, but contrast.  I'm having trouble describing what I'm looking at.  :/

 Johnny in L.A.'s gear list:Johnny in L.A.'s gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
skygkar
OP skygkar Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

A side by side of your version and the ID version.

Not a perfect fit as I compare the full image to a crop, but close enough I think.

I can see your point regarding the "over-sharpness" of ID. I doesn't bother me though, and still this is a raw development from ID with no sharpness applied (enable sharpening = off).

I will play with the settings in ID, to see if I can produce a camera setting with less sharpness while retaining the quality of the picture. Like you, I can't produce something satisfying (for my taste) in LR : sharpening restore the structure of the window somehow but produces unpleasant effects on the whole picture.

Laurent

 skygkar's gear list:skygkar's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Apple iPhone 4 +1 more
Johnny in L.A. Contributing Member • Posts: 651
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

When put next to each other, I like the Iridient version better.  It has something going on.  It has a lot more pop without having too much of anything.  I couldn't get LR5 to do the same thing.

I'm surprised there can be things one RAW developer can do that another can't.  Thanks for starting this thread, Laurent.

 Johnny in L.A.'s gear list:Johnny in L.A.'s gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Asylum Photo
Asylum Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,277
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Beat Traveller wrote:

Brian Griffith wrote:

Beat Traveller wrote:

It's fairly trivial to achieve the same look in Lightroom by increasing clarity and sharpness ever so slightly.

It is however, not a simple matter to catalog and process a couple of hundred files after a day of shooting with Iridient, particularly given that on my machine it takes an average of 5-10 seconds to update file previews as you make changes (whereas Lightroom is near instantaneous), and that Iridient's tools for extending dynamic range and controlling moire are much more difficult to achieve pleasing results with than Lightroom's.

Wow, definitely shouldn't take anywhere close to seconds to update the preview when making changes... something definitely seems off there, what Mac model and system are you using?

Preview updates should be essentially "real time" or close to it. I generally get 30+fps updates on recent Macs from the last couple of years, but even old Core 2 Duo Intel systems should still show much, much faster preview updates than 5-10 secs.

Iridient Developer is not meant to be an asset management program like Lightroom, Aperture, etc. It should however integrate very easily into virtually any asset management program you like to use from Lightroom to Aperture to iPhoto to PhotoMechanic to Bridge, etc. With Lightroom simply drag and drop images from the thumbnail browser in Lightroom onto the Iridient Developer icon in the dock to open them. Some people like to use plug-ins like Open Directly for the export step, but it's not necessary and I prefer simple drag and drop myself. Setup an Auto Import in Lightroom to automatically add the processed files from Iridient Developer back into your catalog. The X-Trans RAF images are certainly slower than most Bayer cameras due to more complex processing needed for the unique sensor pattern, but in most cases on a reasonably fast system full round trip from Lightroom to Iridient and back takes just seconds.

If you are using Lightroom 5 I recommend PNG format for 16 bit/ch images as they will be much smaller than TIFF format and use completely lossless compression. Unfortunately Lightroom 4 does not support PNG format. I believe all versions of Aperture have supported PNG.

For extending dynamic range in most cases it should be in most cases a simple one slider adjustment of Highlight Recovery, maybe with some shifting of exposure and/or shadows.

Best regards,

Brian Griffith (author Iridient Developer)

Iridient Digital

I'm using a 2010 Macbook Pro with 10.8.3 and 8gb ram. It's quite possible my Mac is just outside your testing range.

Anyway, I appreciate that the program isn't meant to replace LR as an asset management tool, but it takes much longer to build previews on my machine, and sending files to it just slows my workflow down. You've done a very good job of getting the best default settings, but my main problem with the demosaicing is that I frequently get hot pixels and chroma noise which is very difficult to eliminate with Iridient's built in tools.

I recall your posts in one of the earlier threads comparing raw converters where you noted that one has to make a trade-off between detail and reduced colour noise in the demosaicing process. My preference is definitely for minimal colour noise, which is why I prefer LR's output.

FWIW, you can always export from Iridient to a tiff with noise reduction minimized, then use LR/ACR's NR sliders on the resulting tiff with pretty good success. Certainly adds to the processing time, so you'll need to decided if the particular picture is worth the time (this is the process I do on certain images where I want to maximize difficult detail).

-- hide signature --
 Asylum Photo's gear list:Asylum Photo's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
dark13star
dark13star Senior Member • Posts: 1,700
I prefer ID for people too
1

I've recently purchased Iridient Developer and did some testing the other night. It is the first RAW developer for Fuji where I like the results better than the JPEG from the camera.

This photo of my friend and his son needed a bit of shadow and highlight correction. Other than that, I left everything default in LR and ID. I like the ID version much better. The detail in the hair is excellent, but the skin is much better in the ID version. Look at the glare on the man's forehead in the LR version. The highlight recovery fixed the blown highlights on the car, but left the skin not so nice.

Iridium Developer

Lightroom

This developer is excellent, but storing my finals as 16-bit TIFFs will lead to a bigger hard drive soon

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +12 more
Brian Griffith Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

skygkar wrote:

I will play with the settings in ID, to see if I can produce a camera setting with less sharpness while retaining the quality of the picture. Like you, I can't produce something satisfying (for my taste) in LR : sharpening restore the structure of the window somehow but produces unpleasant effects on the whole picture.

Laurent

Hi Laurent,

Here are a couple smoother renderings from Iridient Developer 2.2. Minor changes from standard defaults for X100S to soften the image up:

1) Enable "Soft Look" checkbox on Detail pane. This enables a smoother demosaic process. Just checking this box may be enough extra smoothness for those that prefer a smoother, softer, less detailed look from the X-trans files in Iridient Developer...

2) I also bumped up the Anti-Moire slider on Detail pane to 6 from the default of 3 this pretty much clears up all moire in the screen, could probably go even higher, the tradeoff is a little loss of overall color saturation at very high levels.

3) To take a bit of edge off the screen pattern I added a bit of Luminance Smoothing (value of 2 from default of 0) again on the Detail pane. To smooth the overall look even more can adjust this slider to taste.

4) I did 2 versions, one with no sharpening (enable sharpening checkbox off) and one with a little light RL Deconvolution (settings of radius 0.35 and 2 iterations). I prefer a little sharpening always. RL Deconvolution can avoid some of the edge artifacts like halos that can show up with more traditional edge sharpening techniques, especially at low levels. The Fuji X sensor and lenses are very sharp so the radius setting can be very low (less than 0.5).

Here is the lightly sharpened version:

and here is the no sharpening option:

Thanks for posting the RAW for playing with!

Brian Griffith (author of Iridient Developer)

Iridient Digital

dark13star
dark13star Senior Member • Posts: 1,700
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Brian,

It's great that you are here on the forum helping us with your excellent software. Quick question. Are there any learning resources other than the Help file? I'd like to have the proficiency to do what you just did. Perhaps I just need to read through the entire help.

Thanks
Rich

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +12 more
Brian Griffith Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

dark13star wrote:

Brian,

It's great that you are here on the forum helping us with your excellent software. Quick question. Are there any learning resources other than the Help file? I'd like to have the proficiency to do what you just did. Perhaps I just need to read through the entire help.

Thanks
Rich

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

I do have to be careful and not spend too much time on forums... slippery slope and there is still lots of "real" work to do on Iridient Developer

The documentation is available by choosing "Iridient Developer Help" from the Help menu while running the program. Beyond that officially I haven't put out much in the way of tips or video tutorials, but they're on my list.

However, just about any online article, book or magazine regarding image processing with other popular editing programs like Photoshop is generally applicable. Core adjustments like exposure, contrast, saturation, brightness, white balance are pretty much shared across most all image editors. The exact values of the adjustments may vary from program to program, but the concepts are very, very much the same.

For example tone curves in Iridient Developer are virtually identical to those in Photoshop (can even load Photoshop curves into Iridient) so just about any article on tone curves (LAB and/or RGB) is completely applicable to working with curves in Iridient Developer.

Two critical RAW adjustments to fine tune the RAW rendering (look) to suit your own personal tastes tend to be sharpening and noise reduction. These controls tend to vary a bit more in options and values from RAW processor to RAW processor and some of the default "sharpness" or "detail" or "film look" is going to depend on the core demosaic (or interpolation) processing used for RAW images.

However, even with sharpening and noise reduction the basic concepts are much the same regardless of editing program. If you prefer a smoother, less noisy look use more noise reduction (almost always higher number values or adjusting sliders to the right) and less sharpening. Vice versa if you love detail and sharpness and don't mind a little grain or noise use more sharpening and less noise reduction.

Completely disabling sharpening and/or noise reduction at the RAW processing stage in most cases is simply handicapping the RAW processor. I think you'll generally get a better final result with using at least a little bit of both with most RAW processors these days even if you intend to do later sharpening or noise reduction using plug-ins or other image editors later in your workflow.

Defaults are just defaults so some experimentation is absolutely necessary with any new RAW processor to figure out what works best. There just no way myself or the folks at Adobe or Fujifilm or Capture One, etc can magically know the perfect starting settings to please everyone all the time Personal preferences vary widely on these options and for that matter even the subject, lighting, lens used, final output (screen, web, small print, large print) can alter the "perfect" adjustment options with literally every image.

Most RAW processors allow you to overwrite the generic defaults with your own personal starting point which can really speed workflow if you are always making major changes from the initial settings. In Iridient Developer you can do this by adjusting settings to taste and then choosing "Make Settings Camera Default" from the File menu. To go back to the generic defaults choose "Reset Camera Default".

Best regards,

Brian Griffith

Iridient Digital

dark13star
dark13star Senior Member • Posts: 1,700
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Thanks Brian.

I'm proficient in Photoshop and Lightroom and am most interested in the settings that affect the main RAW conversion. I will experiment with noise reduction and sharpening a bit to find my preferred starting points. I like to get exposure (including highlights and shadows) correct in the RAW development and if I think the photo needs any advanced work, I'd still be likely to pass the TIFF to Photoshop for advanced editing.

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +12 more
skygkar
OP skygkar Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Thanks for the tips, Brian, I will definitively give those settings a try !

Laurent

 skygkar's gear list:skygkar's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Apple iPhone 4 +1 more
Keit ll Veteran Member • Posts: 4,179
Lr Version

Here is my version using Lightroom.

Lightroom 4.3

-- hide signature --

Keith C

skygkar
OP skygkar Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: I prefer ID for people too

If you have LR5, you can export from ID as 16-bits PNG instead of TIFF and still be able to apply modifications in LR. Will not work in LR4 though. PNG is roughly 20% smaller than TIFF.

Laurent

 skygkar's gear list:skygkar's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Apple iPhone 4 +1 more
dark13star
dark13star Senior Member • Posts: 1,700
Re: I prefer ID for people too

Thanks. I'm experimenting with that option, but haven't taken the plunge of certainty yet.

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +12 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads