Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: FujiFilm X-trans Sensor - Demosaicing Issues?  (Read 2255 times)
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« on: November 23, 2012, 12:27:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I have an X-pro1 and the 18mm and 35 mm lenses. I've been considering adding an X-e1 body with the 18-55mm zoom.
I've begun to re-consider this based on my use of and commitment to LightRoom.
I'm trying to convince myself that Ken Tanaka's view of shooting jpegs is compelling enough that I can expand my X-pro1 kit.

While LR 4.2 does an ok job with the X-trans sensor RAW files, for some files it is less than ideal and compares unfavorably to the OOC jpegs.
Some have observed that the problems presented by this sensor are not trivial.

I'm inclined to wonder if X-trans sensor demosaicing will ever get much better?   Huh

All this gets even more complex and wonderful as I work my way through Mr. Schewe's  excellent book  The Digital Negative
I really enjoy working with RAW files in LR and have my fingers crossed that X-trans demosaicing can be improved.
-rasterdogs

Oh, if you want to re-experience just how good LR is, try SilkyPix, the raw converter that FujiFilm supports. Some can use it, I won't. I've tried and it is akin to time travel backwards ~ 10 years.   Angry
Logged
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2012, 09:59:29 AM »
ReplyReply

It would also help to send emails and letters to Fuji and Adobe. I know Eric Chan frequents this forum. I have done both, and in forums Adobe is saying to contact Fuji and then Fuji responds when you do, saying that Adobe has everything, contact them. The problem is no one really knows what is going on. I know Adobe does not discuss what they are working on, I truly hope that they are working to resolve the issues as Lightroom and ACR are my preferred tools for RAW. Time will tell I guess.

I do love the camera and the files from it are great and the out of camera jpgs are quite usable but I would like to use the raw files for more control.

Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2012, 10:30:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes I agree that contacting Fuji directly is critical.

In the past I've emailed Fuji North America and received a response with the phone number for NA tech support.
Those guys are helpful and are aware of the issues.  Most recently they explained that the best way to address
firmware enhancements and raw conversion feedback  was to contact Fujifilm Tokyo directly.
They advised using the 'global' link on the FJ www site and to  use the entry form there.
I did that yesterday am entertaining the fond hope that I'll get a response.     Wink  I'm praying
that they don't advise that the solution is to use Silkypix.

I love the camera and lenses and the OOC Jpegs.  The quality of the raw conversions in LR are generally ok for
prints up to 25cm x 30 cm by my criteria.  However ~ 10% of the files have funky watercolor like rendering.
This is most apparent with images that contain lots of fine detail.  There is also the issue of color smearing
that degrades some subset of the converted files.

I'm trying to remain optimistic that the quality of the Adobe Raw conversion will evolve/improve.

Jim
Logged
kim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2012, 07:12:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting article about this on Lloyds blog (http://diglloyd.com/) for 6 December. The results look pretty bad. Fuji need to work with Adobe et al to sort this out.
Logged
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2012, 08:58:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Loyd has never liked the x-trans and his article is basically a reprise of what he said about the X-Pro 1. That being said, all he uses is ACR or Lightroom and that is what he is using as a basis for determining quality and there are known problems with Adobe's raw conversion. Whether or not they will ever deal with them is unknown, at least to what I have been able to determine. There has been no response from Adobe. Fuji has claimed that they have signed a NDA with Adobe and given them the documentation, whether or not that is true waits to be determined. Also there are lots of strong rumors, Capture One will be supporting the sensor soon in a release, and rumor has it it will not have the issues that Adobe raw conversion suffers from, but that all remains to be seen as well.

Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2012, 10:30:32 AM »
ReplyReply

In my experience Lloyd Chambers' position is, to say it kindly, a bit exaggerated.

I've been vocal and critical about X-trans Raw file conversion using Adobe (LR and/or ACR) tools. I've been doing testing (more that I'd like) comparing Raw and OOC jpegs from my X-pro1 all processed in LR4.


The infamous 'watercolor (WC)' effect is not something I can typically discern at 100% in my test files. I've found that properly exposed Jpegs can be post processed to provide tones and color that are equal to and often better than the same image from a Raw file.

I've printed these Jpeg/Raw comparison files at 12"X18" on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk Baryta paper. Even with files that have very apparent WC effect at 200% the characteristic is not discernible in the prints without the use of a loupe. The files (Raw & Jpeg) are acceptable for my purposes. If I were inclined to make larger prints I would choose different tools.

The X-pro1 is the most fun I've had with a camera since my initial involvement with digtial tools starting with a Canon D30 ~12 years ago. I have a fond hope that the X-trans sensor conversion challenges will be improved. Until I see movement in that direction I'll not add to my X-pro1 kit.

In my view Fuji have created a dilemma for themselves and their customers. The X-trans sensor offers excellent benefits. To fully realize the benefits of X-trans technology, the files need to be supported by the pervasively used Raw converters. If the benefits of the technology require the use of 3rd party niche converters it seems likely that the X-trans technology will be a path that doesn't prosper in digital imaging.


Logged
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2012, 04:40:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I get this vision in my head that Eric Chan has been locked in his laboratory by Jeff Schewe & Thomas Knoll and will not be allowed to emerge until he has a workable solution. And then he will be only allowed out to take test pictures in Greater Boston...  Wink

...But seriously folks, I can only imagine that the folks at Adobe are working on this. The Xtrans sensor holds a lot of promise. I just received my EX-1/18-55mm kit and I am enjoying it immensely. Once I figure out how to actually use it, I am positive it will be my goto camera for day to day general photography. BTW the Jpegs are not bad. I have been processing raws in LR4 and for the most part I am happy with the results. Printing up to 11x17 has resulted in some nice images thus far. I do think I will also wait before adding any lenses to the kit. By the time things get sorted out, perhaps the Zeiss lenses will be out.
Logged

Warren
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad