Fujifilm X RAW Studio - WOW!

[Charles2]

... working on a JPEG instead of working non-destructively with a RAW file.

Fuji X cameras output JPGs with loss of image quality. FastStone, for example, reports them to be at 98% JPG quality. That is perfectly good for many uses, not so good in some situations - for example, a detailed landscape that you want to print large, or a shot you want to crop severely then display at typical dimensions.

 

[eric333]

Aren’t all jpg files a loss of quality by definition?

(compared to raw)

 

[Squirrel7]

Aren’t all jpg files a loss of quality by definition?

(compared to raw)

Not by definition, but by consequence.

JPEG is a lossy compression protocol, which means that some data is irrecoverably lost in the process. The idea, is to discard the data that is least likely to be noticed by the viewer, and jpeg is pretty good at it.

So it would be more accurate to say that jpg files have by definition less data. Whether or not this also leads to less quality is subjective and depends how much data was discarded.

But yes, a jpg is missing data compared to raw, and you can never get it back.

 

[valsan]

Are their any infos if the X-T20 and the X-E3 will be supported via a firmware upgrade? I find it quite strange that the X100F is supported, while the only recently released X-E3 is not...

I would like to know this too

 

[CAcreeks]

Interesting that Fuji implemented this first on Mac OS X. On this forum, it does seem like more posters use OS X than Windows.

From the download instructions at
http://fujifilm-x.com/cn/x-stories/fujifilm-x-raw-studio-features-users-guide/

Click the Convert button to convert them into JPEG or TIFF files (RAW files taken by FUJIFILM GFX 50S support conversion into TIFF format).

I'm not sure whether this means only the GFX 50S supports TIFF, or all models.

 

[stevo23]

Amazing! Simply amazing!

I have always loved working with RAW (RAF and NEF) but hated the delay to see effects on images

Silkypix is very slow, but not LR, Iridient or most anything else in comparison. Next slowest is this X-Studio.

Now today, just by chance, I was browsing to see what people are currently using for RAF conversion and I come upon this article announcing FUJI has release a software package that allows us to use our camera's processor to do the raw conversion rather than the PC. It is like a dream come true. Pretty much instant conversion, and perfectly faithful 100% authentic Fuji algorithms. The dedicated processor in the camera is probably hundreds of times faster than even the fastest PC, so it makes so much sense to offer this.

NOT FASTER. I can't argue with results - if they're pleasing to you, that's what matters. But in no universe is the camera faster than modern, up to date computer. I've used it and it's okay, it works. But not faster. Definitely not faster. My MB Pro will make a bunch of changes all at once and create a full sized tiff file in a split second. This app? quite a lag.

Also, Silkypix is WAY more capable and has much more latitude for adjustment and highlight recovery etc. This is NOT a replacement for Silky. It would be like taking away Aperture and giving us Photos.

Is this as remarkable as I think it is?

Not remarkable. Actually silly if you ask me - making us tether our camera to process images when we have a processor that can take on the design of whole buildings in 3D? I'm not sure why they did it this way - perhaps not wanting to let their color formulas out into the wild? Keeping everything in the ecosystem? Most likely, they didn't want to re-invent the wheel and felt it better to do this instead of commissioning the development of a new Siklypix or similar and having to deal with all the patent booby traps inherent in doing that.

Who knows, but it's a bizarre one to me.

But again, if it makes you happy, Fuji's onto something.

I don't see much discussion about this online yet. Probably because it seems to be released only for mac at this point (Windows to be released next month). Also it may only work with 4 camera models so far. Fortunately one of them is the X100F, which I have.

Maybe no one is giving it a second look? I used it for a couple of hours and wasn't liking it very much. If you're going to give me something on my PC, don't restrict the output to jpeg! Pretty lame.

Lots more testing to go, but at this point I have to say I am very impressed. I would not be surprised if other manufactures begin to offer this amazing technology in the future (perhaps they already do. I've been out of the loop for a while).

If they would come out with more parameters instead of the minimal ones in camera, maybe. But nothing to crow about if you ask me. Actually, Photos is better.

 

[Ambulater]

Interesting that Fuji implemented this first on Mac OS X. On this forum, it does seem like more posters use OS X than Windows.

From the download instructions at
http://fujifilm-x.com/cn/x-stories/fujifilm-x-raw-studio-features-users-guide/

Click the Convert button to convert them into JPEG or TIFF files (RAW files taken by FUJIFILM GFX 50S support conversion into TIFF format).

I'm not sure whether this means only the GFX 50S supports TIFF, or all models.

Yes, only the GFX supports TIFF.

 

[Vic Chapman]

Are their any infos if the X-T20 and the X-E3 will be supported via a firmware upgrade? I find it quite strange that the X100F is supported, while the only recently released X-E3 is not...

I would like to know this too

I read that Fuji said the processors of the X100F, XP2 and XT2 are the only ones powerful enough to run the software.

Currently only XP2 users with Mac computers can use Raw Studio. The XT2 and Windows users get it in the new year.

Vic

 

[Charles2]

Aren’t all jpg files a loss of quality by definition?

(compared to raw)

Compared to raw, yes. There is also a scale of JPG quality, and 98 is less than 100. A 16-bit .tif file output would be great: the demosaic of the camera processor while you can manipulate the output a lot more if you wish. Apparently Fuji gives you a .tif when you have the processing power of a Fuji GFX camera.

 

[nostromos]

I tested X-Raw Studio vs. Lightroom with Iridient X-Transformer Plugin. For my Fuji X-T2 the Lightroom - X-Transformer Combo is by far the best Raw Converter for this 24MP Sensor with a great workflow. I'm always blown away by the fine details this sensor brings out.

 

[Squirrel7]

NOT FASTER. I can't argue with results - if they're pleasing to you, that's what matters. But in no universe is the camera faster than modern, up to date computer.

Why so negative on all this stevo?

There is no home computer even close to the speed of a modern camera's built in hardware processor. That hardware does one and only one thing, and it does it much faster than a programmable device like a computer that operates by fetching and executing a sequence of instructions in code. This may seem hard to believe given the cost of a top of the line MBP, but that tiny FPGA or ASIC in the camera is orders of magnitude faster at this task. In fact, it is pretty much instant. That's how they process multiple raw frames per second. The only delay is in sending the data over the UBS link. That is the weakness here.

EDIT: As I've been using this the past hour the slowness of the USB transfer seems to be a seriously limiting factor when it comes to batch processing. Also, it has crashed a few times. Oh well, might not be ready for prime time yet

In my opinion, tethering to the camera to leverage it's superior processing power and algorithmic fidelity is one of the smartest moves I've seen lately. Can't understand why you'd call it silly. If Fuji/Nikon/etc would give us their proprietary algorithms, then sure we could build them into LR, and that would be great, but these manufacturers seem reluctant to ever release this information. So being able to round-trip my edits over to my camera and back is a nice alternative.

I love Silkypix too, but in my opinion, the renderings, while excellent, are never quite as good as the in-camera processing if I look closely. For example, I can see a superior balance of sharpening and noise reduction in the camera renderings. So I use DSP8 for its flexibility and the creativity it unleashes, not for it's fidelity.

 

[Vic Chapman]

I assume we can't save a tiff file - how about a raw copy for further work in other software where the raw can be recognised along with the alterations. I usually wish to use Photoshop or Nik filters for some work including sharpening.

Vic

 

[Squirrel7]

I tested X-Raw Studio vs. Lightroom with Iridient X-Transformer Plugin. For my Fuji X-T2 the Lightroom - X-Transformer Combo is by far the best Raw Converter for this 24MP Sensor with a great workflow. I'm always blown away by the fine details this sensor brings out.

Cool! I'll have to try the plug-in. I have a lot of respect for Iridient. They've made amazing progress. Still, I believe there will always be a crowd who will remain reluctant to give up the genuine Fuji film simulations for the clones that are available by third parties, even if they are really close. It's still "Generic film that looks like Fuji" so to speak.

 

[Ysarex]

I assume we can't save a tiff file - how about a raw copy for further work in other software where the raw can be recognised along with the alterations.

Nope -- JPEG only unless you have a GFX and then the TIFF output is restricted to an 8 bit TIFF. Put the RAF into any other converter and you're at square one.

I usually wish to use Photoshop or Nik filters for some work including sharpening.

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

 

[CAcreeks]

I assume we can't save a tiff file - how about a raw copy for further work in other software where the raw can be recognised along with the alterations.

Nope -- JPEG only unless you have a GFX and then the TIFF output is restricted to an 8 bit TIFF. Put the RAF into any other converter and you're at square one.

Oh well.

The new Darktable version 2.4.0 (on Linux) is extremely fast with an OpenCL capable GPU. After clicking lens profile and Denoise (profiled) you can get TIFFy in jiffy.

 

[stevo23]

NOT FASTER. I can't argue with results - if they're pleasing to you, that's what matters. But in no universe is the camera faster than modern, up to date computer.

Why so negative on all this stevo?

I guess I would ask why you're so positive? I can't see how anyone likes this thing. It's just a bizarre idea and very clunky and very limited. Can't do much - doesn't do much. Doesn't create better results, doesn't make cleaner results. All this is is the camera doing the work exactly as it does already, nothing new, nothing added. You just happen to have the menus on your computer and get the results on your computer. Give me something more than the camera can do! Highlight recovery? Clarity? Curves? Nik? More control over sharpening and noise reduction? etc. etc.

There is no home computer even close to the speed of a modern camera's built in hardware processor.

I'm not sure where you get that from. But I'm just saying that in my experience, on my MBP with a Core7 processor and max RAM, X-Studio has lag and takes more time to do less than what is happening in Lightroom etc.

That hardware does one and only one thing, and it does it much faster than a programmable device like a computer that operates by fetching and executing a sequence of instructions in code. This may seem hard to believe given the cost of a top of the line MBP, but that tiny FPGA or ASIC in the camera is orders of magnitude faster at this task.

I've been skeptical of that since they announced this idea. It makes no sense.

In fact, it is pretty much instant. That's how they process multiple raw frames per second. The only delay is in sending the data over the UBS link. That is the weakness here.

USB isn't the only thing slowing it down - processing is the problem. But even so, it doesn't matter where the slow point is, it's slower.

But you can't really tell who has more power because x-studio is only dealing with a very small set of simple commands with extremely course adjustment. Lightroom et. al is paying attention to a much greater number of parameters and having to deal with those in it's result in addition to conversion - highlight recovery, various tonal curves etc. etc. Do the conversion from RAF to jpeg on your camera. How long does it take? Is it faster on your camera? Not on mine.

In my opinion, tethering to the camera to leverage it's superior processing power and algorithmic fidelity is one of the smartest moves I've seen lately. Can't understand why you'd call it silly. If Fuji/Nikon/etc would give us their proprietary algorithms, then sure we could build them into LR, and that would be great, but these manufacturers seem reluctant to ever release this information. So being able to round-trip my edits over to my camera and back is a nice alternative.

I love Silkypix too, but in my opinion, the renderings, while excellent, are never quite as good as the in-camera processing if I look closely.

It's not great, but neither is the in-camera. There's no substitute for RAW on a computer in your favorite processing app. And if you want the best results for large display or print, Tiff. Do your files a favor and go beyond what the camera is doing to those jpegs.

For example, I can see a superior balance of sharpening and noise reduction in the camera renderings. So I use DSP8 for its flexibility and the creativity it unleashes, not for it's fidelity.

Not even close to superior. The camera renderings aren't all that great, I never use them as they're never as good as I can produce myself. This could have been much better.

 

[stevo23]

I tested X-Raw Studio vs. Lightroom with Iridient X-Transformer Plugin. For my Fuji X-T2 the Lightroom - X-Transformer Combo is by far the best Raw Converter for this 24MP Sensor with a great workflow. I'm always blown away by the fine details this sensor brings out.

Cool! I'll have to try the plug-in. I have a lot of respect for Iridient. They've made amazing progress. Still, I believe there will always be a crowd who will remain reluctant to give up the genuine Fuji film simulations for the clones that are available by third parties, even if they are really close. It's still "Generic film that looks like Fuji" so to speak.

But those Fuji film simulations don't look much like the original films themselves. So in the end, what are they?

I will say, they Fuji film simulations profiles are a much better set than what you get with Sony or Nikon or Canon. But, I'm really liking the ones in LR even though Fuji probably didn't write them. I like them as well as the ones in-camera.

 

[stevo23]

Interesting that Fuji implemented this first on Mac OS X. On this forum, it does seem like more posters use OS X than Windows.

From the download instructions at
http://fujifilm-x.com/cn/x-stories/fujifilm-x-raw-studio-features-users-guide/

Click the Convert button to convert them into JPEG or TIFF files (RAW files taken by FUJIFILM GFX 50S support conversion into TIFF format).

I'm not sure whether this means only the GFX 50S supports TIFF, or all models.

It's only doing what the camera can do - this is the camera doing conversion. So if you can't make tiff files in your camera, you can't make them with this. All this thing does is put the control over the conversion parameters to your computer and with a larger screen. The camera does all the work.

 

[Ysarex]

I think the value of this is driven by how much you dislike other options. I've had a play this morning - firstly with tethered shooting from the X-pro2 (great) and now with x raw studio.

The jpgs produced are nice - but the workflow is clunky and you need the camera plugged in and you have to change the menu setting from tether to raw-process (which means remembering to change it back too). Normally if I have a raw image that LR is stuggling with I try Iridient - x-raw studio gives me another, potentially better option. But if (as is true in 99% of cases) I can get what I need from LR - there's no need for x-raw studio.

Time and experience will tell...

I tend to agree. If you are happy with the results from LR or Irridient (and many people are) than you don't need Fugi's raw processing or any or their film emulations, so this new feature would not add anything.

But wouldn't it be nice if Fuji went one step further and allowed their in-camera processing to be used as a raw converter plug-in that we could access from within LR? Then you'd be able to have the fabulous GUI and library of LR without having to revert to 3rd party raw converters and approximations of film simulations. You would have the option to use the real deal.

Yes! That would be very nice indeed. I have played around in X-Raw Studio, but don’t see myself using it very much because it simply kicks out a JPEG with some basic tweaks. So then you have to reimport that JPEG into LR to keep it in your library and to do additional more refined editing. But now your working on a JPEG instead of working non-destructively with a RAW file.

 

[Squirrel7]

NOT FASTER. I can't argue with results - if they're pleasing to you, that's what matters. But in no universe is the camera faster than modern, up to date computer.

Why so negative on all this stevo?

I guess I would ask why you're so positive? I can't see how anyone likes this thing. It's just a bizarre idea and very clunky and very limited. Can't do much - doesn't do much. Doesn't create better results, doesn't make cleaner results. All this is is the camera doing the work exactly as it does already, nothing new, nothing added. You just happen to have the menus on your computer and get the results on your computer. Give me something more than the camera can do! Highlight recovery? Clarity? Curves? Nik? More control over sharpening and noise reduction? etc. etc.

There is no home computer even close to the speed of a modern camera's built in hardware processor.

I'm not sure where you get that from. But I'm just saying that in my experience, on my MBP with a Core7 processor and max RAM, X-Studio has lag and takes more time to do less than what is happening in Lightroom etc.

That hardware does one and only one thing, and it does it much faster than a programmable device like a computer that operates by fetching and executing a sequence of instructions in code. This may seem hard to believe given the cost of a top of the line MBP, but that tiny FPGA or ASIC in the camera is orders of magnitude faster at this task.

I've been skeptical of that since they announced this idea. It makes no sense.

In fact, it is pretty much instant. That's how they process multiple raw frames per second. The only delay is in sending the data over the UBS link. That is the weakness here.

USB isn't the only thing slowing it down - processing is the problem. But even so, it doesn't matter where the slow point is, it's slower.

But you can't really tell who has more power because x-studio is only dealing with a very small set of simple commands with extremely course adjustment. Lightroom et. al is paying attention to a much greater number of parameters and having to deal with those in it's result in addition to conversion - highlight recovery, various tonal curves etc. etc. Do the conversion from RAF to jpeg on your camera. How long does it take? Is it faster on your camera? Not on mine.

In my opinion, tethering to the camera to leverage it's superior processing power and algorithmic fidelity is one of the smartest moves I've seen lately. Can't understand why you'd call it silly. If Fuji/Nikon/etc would give us their proprietary algorithms, then sure we could build them into LR, and that would be great, but these manufacturers seem reluctant to ever release this information. So being able to round-trip my edits over to my camera and back is a nice alternative.

I love Silkypix too, but in my opinion, the renderings, while excellent, are never quite as good as the in-camera processing if I look closely.

It's not great, but neither is the in-camera. There's no substitute for RAW on a computer in your favorite processing app. And if you want the best results for large display or print, Tiff. Do your files a favor and go beyond what the camera is doing to those jpegs.

For example, I can see a superior balance of sharpening and noise reduction in the camera renderings. So I use DSP8 for its flexibility and the creativity it unleashes, not for it's fidelity.

Not even close to superior. The camera renderings aren't all that great, I never use them as they're never as good as I can produce myself. This could have been much better.

Well I guess it's fair to say we have very different opinions about what is valuable and what looks best. Let's just leave it at that. I don't want to argue. There is no right or wrong here. Glad you are happy with your workflow. Peace.