Is anyone editing X-T1 rafs in Lightroom?

[fuji_phil_e]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

 

[lewiedude2]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

I have a T2, not a T1, and I would say that it has to have improved - absolutely. I have a task set up to revisit some older RAFs and see how much more leeway the raws provide. Please excuse that it isn’t a direct answer, but what’s your trepidation? Are thinking of getting into or back into Adobe? I never left and have even let my Neatimage license lapse with the noise handling capabilities all of the Adobe products provide. At times, I do add a bit of texture to my imagery and I really miss working in the darkroom with color transparencies. Good luck and hopefully someone with specifically topical experience can chime in.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

Lightroom's standard X-Trans processing hasn't changed much over the years, but the Enhanced processing options are a significant improvement, especially with low light/high ISO images.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

Not sure why you ask about a specific camera as Lr treats any X-Trans sensor exactly the same as far as the actual demosaicing is concerned. The only real differences are how it handles things like lens profile corrections and of course film simulations which will depend on both the camera and when it was added to Adobe's databases.

So yes, Lr handling of X-Trans has improved - whether for an X-T1 or any other X-Trans camera.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

Not sure why you ask about a specific camera as Lr treats any X-Trans sensor exactly the same as far as the actual demosaicing is concerned.

Not really true, Lightroom’s less that stellar standard X-Trans demosaicing is far more likely to make interpolation errors (“worms” and artifacts etc.) with the relatively low pixel density 16MP X-T1 sensor than with a high density 40MP X-T5 sensor - more image data = less guesswork.

The only real differences are how it handles things like lens profile corrections and of course film simulations which will depend on both the camera and when it was added to Adobe's databases.

So yes, Lr handling of X-Trans has improved - whether for an X-T1 or any other X-Trans camera.

--
John Bean [GMT+1]

 

[fuji_phil_e]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

Not sure why you ask about a specific camera as Lr treats any X-Trans sensor exactly the same as far as the actual demosaicing is concerned.

Not really true, Lightroom’s less that stellar standard X-Trans demosaicing is far more likely to make interpolation errors (“worms” and artifacts etc.) with the relatively low pixel density 16MP X-T1 sensor than with a high density 40MP X-T5 sensor - more image data = less guesswork.

The only real differences are how it handles things like lens profile corrections and of course film simulations which will depend on both the camera and when it was added to Adobe's databases.

So yes, Lr handling of X-Trans has improved - whether for an X-T1 or any other X-Trans camera.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

Not sure why you ask about a specific camera as Lr treats any X-Trans sensor exactly the same as far as the actual demosaicing is concerned.

Not really true, Lightroom’s less that stellar standard X-Trans demosaicing is far more likely to make interpolation errors (“worms” and artifacts etc.) with the relatively low pixel density 16MP X-T1 sensor than with a high density 40MP X-T5 sensor - more image data = less guesswork.

The only real differences are how it handles things like lens profile corrections and of course film simulations which will depend on both the camera and when it was added to Adobe's databases.

So yes, Lr handling of X-Trans has improved - whether for an X-T1 or any other X-Trans camera.

That was my worry. Used to hate the worms. I still run LR and I find it pretty reasonable with the X-T3. I am potentially picking up an X-T1 purely for using vintage lenses on, as the pixel density may hide some issues higher megapixel sensors might show. I think I'm barking up the right tree.

The lower pixel density will actually render the softer detail with more demosaicing errors and artifacts. If you want a smoother analog-like rendering with fewer artifacts, you’re actually better off with a 40MP sensor.

 

[fuji_phil_e]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

Not sure why you ask about a specific camera as Lr treats any X-Trans sensor exactly the same as far as the actual demosaicing is concerned.

Not really true, Lightroom’s less that stellar standard X-Trans demosaicing is far more likely to make interpolation errors (“worms” and artifacts etc.) with the relatively low pixel density 16MP X-T1 sensor than with a high density 40MP X-T5 sensor - more image data = less guesswork.

The only real differences are how it handles things like lens profile corrections and of course film simulations which will depend on both the camera and when it was added to Adobe's databases.

So yes, Lr handling of X-Trans has improved - whether for an X-T1 or any other X-Trans camera.

That was my worry. Used to hate the worms. I still run LR and I find it pretty reasonable with the X-T3. I am potentially picking up an X-T1 purely for using vintage lenses on, as the pixel density may hide some issues higher megapixel sensors might show. I think I'm barking up the right tree.

The lower pixel density will actually render the softer detail with more demosaicing errors and artifacts. If you want a smoother analog-like rendering with fewer artifacts, you’re actually better off with a 40MP sensor.

But won't the weaknesses of the lenses show up more readily? I thought the 40mp sensor was unforgiving.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

If so, has the demosaicing improved from back in the day?

Not sure why you ask about a specific camera as Lr treats any X-Trans sensor exactly the same as far as the actual demosaicing is concerned.

Not really true, Lightroom’s less that stellar standard X-Trans demosaicing is far more likely to make interpolation errors (“worms” and artifacts etc.) with the relatively low pixel density 16MP X-T1 sensor than with a high density 40MP X-T5 sensor - more image data = less guesswork.

The only real differences are how it handles things like lens profile corrections and of course film simulations which will depend on both the camera and when it was added to Adobe's databases.

So yes, Lr handling of X-Trans has improved - whether for an X-T1 or any other X-Trans camera.

That was my worry. Used to hate the worms. I still run LR and I find it pretty reasonable with the X-T3. I am potentially picking up an X-T1 purely for using vintage lenses on, as the pixel density may hide some issues higher megapixel sensors might show. I think I'm barking up the right tree.

The lower pixel density will actually render the softer detail with more demosaicing errors and artifacts. If you want a smoother analog-like rendering with fewer artifacts, you’re actually better off with a 40MP sensor.

But won't the weaknesses of the lenses show up more readily? I thought the 40mp sensor was unforgiving.

No, whatever detail is there will be be rendered more faithfully (better) with a higher resolution sensor. An old crappy lens will look more crappy with poorly rendered detail, It's just that at 40MP you're going to be looking at it more closely at 100%. With the 40MP file downscaled to 16MP, the 40MP file will look better (when viewed at the same size, the 40MP files will never look worse, and there will less moire too.

Here is the 40MP X-T5 file downsized to 16MB to match the X-T1's resolution, and then both viewed at 200% to exaggerate any rendering errors.




Look at how much better the X-T5's higher pixel density sensor renders the text, especially. And this after throwing away inherent resolution advantage. The only possible advantage of the 16MB sensor is the detail errors will be so small that you won't notice them, but viewed at the same size, the 40MP sensor will always look better,