Answered: How to convert compressed Fuji RAW files to uncompressed?

Hi all

I have a set of 300+ photos shot as compressed RAW with my X-E3. Now the Photos app on Mac OS (Big Sur) does not like that format.

Answer: User Adobe DNG converter (free) that can convert batches (full directories, also recursively if wanted) of compressed Fuji RAW files to DNG files.

Just import the DNG files to Photos app like you would normally - et voilà!

Thanks!

Nicola

Nikee69 wrote:

Hi all

I have a set of 300+ photos shot as compressed RAW with my X-E3. Now the Photos app on Mac OS (Big Sur) does not like that format.

Answer: User Adobe DNG converter (free) that can convert batches (full directories, also recursively if wanted) of compressed Fuji RAW files to DNG files.

Just import the DNG files to Photos app like you would normally - et voilà!

Thanks!

Nicola

Doing so will demosaic the RAFs irreversibly with Adobe's crummy X-Trans processing. If you're going to convert to DNG, you'll get far better results using Iridient X-Transformer ($36) instead.

eric333 wrote:

but... is there a way to decompress a compressed.raf file into an uncompressed .raf file?

Not a .dng, just an unzipped form if itself.

I have to believe a compressed .raf uses some form of rar or zip algorithm. And as it’s lossless there must be a way to unzip it.

Presumably so - but its not the entire file that is compressed - just the CFA raw data within the file - that complicates things a bit

eric333 wrote:

but... is there a way to decompress a compressed.raf file into an uncompressed .raf file?

Not a .dng, just an unzipped form if itself.

I have to believe a compressed .raf uses some form of rar or zip algorithm. And as it’s lossless there must be a way to unzip it.

There must be a way, but I don't know what is. Sorry.

There has been a similar thread about this (or something very much like it), and severe problems one user had:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64910440

I use Iridient X-Transformer to convert my .RAFs to .DNGs, but I never shoot compressed raws, in order to avoid possible compatibility issues. So, I don't know if X-Transformer can deal with compressed raws.

Now I understand that Fuji is also offering a third compression option "compressed raws" in addition to the "lossless compressed" raws I believe are used in X-E3.

X-T4 manual page 106 and (above) X-E4 manual page 104

Tom Schum wrote:

There has been a similar thread about this (or something very much like it), and severe problems one user had:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64910440

I use Iridient X-Transformer to convert my .RAFs to .DNGs, but I never shoot compressed raws, in order to avoid possible compatibility issues. So, I don't know if X-Transformer can deal with compressed raws.

Now I understand that Fuji is also offering a third compression option "compressed raws" in addition to the "lossless compressed" raws I believe are most used.

I only use lossless compressed RAFs and X-Transformer has no problems with them.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

There has been a similar thread about this (or something very much like it), and severe problems one user had:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64910440

I use Iridient X-Transformer to convert my .RAFs to .DNGs, but I never shoot compressed raws, in order to avoid possible compatibility issues. So, I don't know if X-Transformer can deal with compressed raws.

Now I understand that Fuji is also offering a third compression option "compressed raws" in addition to the "lossless compressed" raws I believe are most used.

I only use lossless compressed RAFs and X-Transformer has no problems with them.

Great to know this!

Iridient X-Transformer is not perfect but in my opinion is a good alternative to Adobe.

Nikee69 wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Doing so will demosaic the RAFs irreversibly with Adobe's crummy X-Trans processing. If you're going to convert to DNG, you'll get far better results using Iridient X-Transformer ($36) instead.

You're right. Adobe does not do a good job. Here's an example how it should look (directly from the Fuji X-E3 JPEG engine):

That's what Adobe DNG RAW converter and Iridient X-Transformer (Smooth RAW conversion, medium sharpening, Luminance noise reduction default, Color noise reduction default) do to the image:

Can you tell which is which?

PS: Both are gruesome.

You’ve got some purple fringing there that the jpeg processing cleans up automatically that you will have do manually. You don’t want to use ANY of the built in Iridient NR or sharpening - set all those options to NONE, you will get better results with full control using LR NR and sharpening. “Smoother” is fine.

Nikee69 wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Doing so will demosaic the RAFs irreversibly with Adobe's crummy X-Trans processing. If you're going to convert to DNG, you'll get far better results using Iridient X-Transformer ($36) instead.

You're right. Adobe does not do a good job. Here's an example how it should look (directly from the Fuji X-E3 JPEG engine):

That's what Adobe DNG RAW converter and Iridient X-Transformer (Smooth RAW conversion, medium sharpening, Luminance noise reduction default, Color noise reduction default) do to the image:

Can you tell which is which?

PS: Both are gruesome.

This is an excellent depiction of the glitches!

Offhand I would guess the Iridient version is on the right but maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

I generally do not use Iridient when there are lots of specular highlights in an image.  The JPG from the camera is as you have shown it: flawless in these situations.

Tom Schum wrote:

Nikee69 wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Doing so will demosaic the RAFs irreversibly with Adobe's crummy X-Trans processing. If you're going to convert to DNG, you'll get far better results using Iridient X-Transformer ($36) instead.

You're right. Adobe does not do a good job. Here's an example how it should look (directly from the Fuji X-E3 JPEG engine):

That's what Adobe DNG RAW converter and Iridient X-Transformer (Smooth RAW conversion, medium sharpening, Luminance noise reduction default, Color noise reduction default) do to the image:

Can you tell which is which?

PS: Both are gruesome.

This is an excellent depiction of the glitches!

Offhand I would guess the Iridient version is on the right but maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

I generally do not use Iridient when there are lots of specular highlights in an image. The JPG from the camera is as you have shown it: flawless in these situations.

Those aberrations are easy to clean up in LR. The camera cleans everything up automatically, but it typically does so in a heavy handed way removing all the surrounding color. I use X-Transformer with almost every image and it’s just not an issue.

sluggy_warrior wrote:

eric333 wrote:

Greybeard2017 wrote:

eric333 wrote:

but... is there a way to decompress a compressed.raf file into an uncompressed .raf file?

Not a .dng, just an unzipped form if itself.

I have to believe a compressed .raf uses some form of rar or zip algorithm. And as it’s lossless there must be a way to unzip it.

Presumably so - but its not the entire file that is compressed - just the CFA raw data within the file - that complicates things a bit

That makes sense. The camera writes out the header portion of the file then engages the compression on the cfa data since the compression method is (likely) tweaked to work only with the cfa data anyway.

And I’m thinking the compression can’t be too complicated because the camera has to do this all in real time.

If you're comfortable with coding, all the details are available in the rawspeed library:

https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/blob/f383f62eda0d22f53ea1b09c42348d63b5c915ac/src/librawspeed/decoders/RafDecoder.cpp

https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/blob/f383f62eda0d22f53ea1b09c42348d63b5c915ac/src/librawspeed/decompressors/FujiDecompressor.cpp

However, I think converting from compressed to uncompressed RAF is a wrong direction. If an application doesn't support compressed RAF, update the application, or switch to a different one. Why waste storage with double file size?

Disk space is cheap.  By compressing with an unknown process in which there is no available decompression resources available - then you are buying yourself problems.  I've never found compressed raws worth the time or aggravation to mess with.  It would have been nice if Fuji provided a S/W package to compress and/or uncompress their raws.  But alas - S/W is not Fuji's long suit.