Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: X-Trans and Photo Ninja  (Read 18677 times)
Herb19
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« on: October 06, 2013, 05:29:15 AM »
ReplyReply

screendump 100%, left default Photo Ninja, right default Lightroom 5
« Last Edit: October 06, 2013, 06:56:51 AM by Herb19 » Logged
Herb19
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2013, 07:12:58 AM »
ReplyReply

follow up, same as previous post...
« Last Edit: October 06, 2013, 07:22:45 AM by Herb19 » Logged
Herb19
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2013, 07:53:04 AM »
ReplyReply

now left Photo Ninja, right Capture One, again default settings...

first a 100% crop and second a 200% crop screen dump.

3rd set: left Photo Ninja and right Aperture at 100% default.

4th set: left Photo Ninja and right Capture One ate 100% default
« Last Edit: October 06, 2013, 09:19:48 AM by Herb19 » Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2013, 10:13:30 AM »
ReplyReply

and what is the point in default settings, more so when you can create your own default settings ?
Logged
jrp
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2013, 01:36:24 PM »
ReplyReply

What conclusion did you draw from this comparison?
Logged
Herb19
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2013, 02:13:23 PM »
ReplyReply

jrp,

In general I will still say that the best RAW converter is the one you are most familiar with, also with X Trans files.

All raw software developers do different trade off's and one can not say in general that one converter is better than an other, it all depends on the subject
and in fact on every single file.
The latest normal Bayer sensors, for instance the ones from Sony, can withstand a lot of rather aggressive sharpening to bring out a lot of detail.
With the Fuji X trans files I do not see an advantage in detail recovery compared to those. And if you manage to get out a lot of detail it is also with a lot of artefacts mostly.
For my workflow I like Lightroom the most. But for X-Trans landscape work the results are mostly too soft or I start seeing a kind of paint brush effect that I do not like. With Photo Ninja I might get more detail out of the files, and foliage looks more natural. But depending on the image there are also color artefacts popping up that I am not able to repair without degrading the image in another way. Programs like Capture One and Aperture are somewhere in the middle regarding trade off between detail/sharpness and artefacts.
So for myself I would be very happy if Fuji would leave the X-Trans technology because I like using some of their camera's. I would prefer they opt for general Bayer sensors perhaps without anti aliasing filter but with higher pixel density that allow oversampling with a choice of actual pixel output. That is at the present state of sensor development.
 

« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 02:17:19 PM by Herb19 » Logged
David Eckels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1000


Paris sidewalk cafe


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2013, 06:35:00 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW, I was having a similar experience converting NEF in ViewNX 2 or LR5. After a longish discussion with Jeff Schewe, who insisted that RAW is RAW and that different mfrs make different choices for defaults, I went back and did the comparison and found that I could make my LR results the same as the Nikon conversion (or I should say imperceptibly different). This only involved applying a wee bit of extra sharpening and noise reduction in LR. The link to my thread from earlier this year is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78769.0 if you would find it helpful.
Update: I guess the tif images aren't showing (at least in Chrome), but I could click on them to get a peek. The jpegs are fine.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 06:36:56 PM by David Eckels » Logged

robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2013, 10:28:19 AM »
ReplyReply

jrp,

In general I will still say that the best RAW converter is the one you are most familiar with, also with X Trans files.




With all due respect, this is the sort of answer that I hear from those who are invested in a particular raw convertor and don't want to entertain the possibility that there might be something better.  Every comparison that I have seen of Photo Ninja and ACR/LR with X-Trans files shows PN to be far superior.  The same is true with other cameras and sensors.  I have performed countless head-to-head comparisons of PN and ACR with files from a Sony RX1 and a Pentax K-5, and there is nothing that I can do to bring the ACR images up to the level of the PN images.  It's not simply a matter of default settings.  I can work for hours in ACR and not equal what I get from PN with relatively little effort.  Run the comparisons, and see for yourself.  Just take the time to learn how Photo Ninja's defaults and adjustment tools work.

I can understand how one might prefer LR, because of it's workflow and organization, but not because of its IQ.

Rob
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 10:31:22 AM by robgo2 » Logged
pluton
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2013, 12:25:28 AM »
ReplyReply

PN is the best looking initial default XTrans raw conversion between Lightroom, Aperture, Iridient, and PN.  Detail and small shapes look great in PN.
PN also makes a prettier, better looking Nikon raw conversion, btw. At least as far as the color hues...
Didn't check Capture One 'cause I didn't like it when I tried it for Nikon files two years ago.  
I like printing from LR.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 01:00:40 AM by pluton » Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1099


« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2013, 02:43:18 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect, this is the sort of answer that I hear from those who are invested in a particular raw convertor and don't want to entertain the possibility that there might be something better.  Every comparison that I have seen of Photo Ninja and ACR/LR with X-Trans files shows PN to be far superior.  The same is true with other cameras and sensors.  I have performed countless head-to-head comparisons of PN and ACR with files from a Sony RX1 and a Pentax K-5, and there is nothing that I can do to bring the ACR images up to the level of the PN images.  It's not simply a matter of default settings.  I can work for hours in ACR and not equal what I get from PN with relatively little effort.  Run the comparisons, and see for yourself.  Just take the time to learn how Photo Ninja's defaults and adjustment tools work.

I can understand how one might prefer LR, because of it's workflow and organization, but not because of its IQ.

Rob

My conclusion from the above comparison images is quite different. The first image really says it all with the others just confirming it. Photo Ninja uses stronger saturation and strong USM by default. In the first image you see ACR smoothing the background while PN creates artefacts by trying to sharpen it. There are definitely halos visible in the 200% crop of the wine bottle label. The coat of arms at the bottom also has strong over-saturation making it all bleed out relative to the ACR, C1 versions. The text edges definitely look more crisp and readable on the PN vs ACR which looks soft.

I'm not an ACR fanboi, I dont even use it. To me the ACR and C1 look better because I know I can sharpen from that point. PN is clearly a usable product that is quite good for a first version. Didn't the developer create Bibble in the past, so they have years of experience that show? Aperture looks the weakest.

To me strong saturation and sharpening is not better as a default. In most images it looks Disney not realistic.
Logged
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2013, 10:16:24 AM »
ReplyReply

The first image really says it all with the others just confirming it. Photo Ninja uses stronger saturation and strong USM by default.

Yeaaahhh... Except that PN doesn't use USM at all. It uses a species of deconvolution, and it knocks Lr and ACR into the middle of next week as far as detail extraction is concerned...

Quote
Didn't the developer create Bibble in the past, so they have years of experience that show?

Nope - PN comes from the authors of Noise Ninja. AfterShot Pro is the dismal offspring of the dismal Bibble.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 10:18:21 AM by Keith Reeder » Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2013, 11:28:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeaaahhh... Except that PN doesn't use USM at all. It uses a species of deconvolution, and it knocks Lr and ACR into the middle of next week as far as detail extraction is concerned...
and as far as creating false details too, but that is what most PN users are mostly excited about  Grin
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1099


« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2013, 11:52:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeaaahhh... Except that PN doesn't use USM at all. It uses a species of deconvolution, and it knocks Lr and ACR into the middle of next week as far as detail extraction is concerned...

Nope - PN comes from the authors of Noise Ninja. AfterShot Pro is the dismal offspring of the dismal Bibble.

Good to know. In any event their deconvolution method is trying to create some artificial hard pattern from what should be a smooth background in the first image. They should look into when their system engages.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2013, 04:38:15 PM »
ReplyReply

and as far as creating false details too, but that is what most PN users are mostly excited about  Grin


What false details?  Can you provide us with some examples?

Rob
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1099


« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2013, 05:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Note the letter F has the 2 horizontal components converted into a question mark like object. The halos around the lines. The mosquito noise around the lettering. The bleeding blue on the shield.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2013, 02:37:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Note the letter F has the 2 horizontal components converted into a question mark like object. The halos around the lines. The mosquito noise around the lettering. The bleeding blue on the shield.

I use Photo Ninja regularly for raw images from a Sony RX1 and a Pentax K-5II, and I never see artifacts at 100%.  Also, the level of detail easily beats any other raw convertor that I have tried.  Perhaps it is different for Fuji X-Trans sensors.

Rob
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2014, 07:49:11 AM »
ReplyReply

With X-Fuji files I have found that Photo Ninja does a good job on natural subjects.  I tend to back off from sharpening too much in PN instead using Focus Magic to focus the conversions.  I don't like their toolset setup however.

LR is doing better at version 5.3 with greens but still renders other details on rocks strangely to me.  LR toolset is excellent so I tend to lead with it. 

Best result I have gotten is from Iridient raw developer.  But it's MAC only and my workflow is mainly PC based.  But I have the use of one MAC since I use a MacBook Pro with boot camp. 

Paul C


 
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2014, 09:07:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Note the letter F has the 2 horizontal components converted into a question mark like object. The halos around the lines. The mosquito noise around the lettering. The bleeding blue on the shield.

If you see these images at 25-50% onscreen ; i see an F on the Ninja side and something not clear on the other side...
false detail seems to be better detail to me ... in this case.
These images are made for printing; even printed big they are printed at about 25-50% - it is then that you can decide if false detail is false detail.

I am not saying PhotoNinja is always better, but in some cases it is and in others not. I prefer the workflow of ACR best.

Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2014, 09:28:50 AM »
ReplyReply

false detail seems to be better detail to me ... in this case.
that was exactly the route PN selected - to create a lot of false details to create a pleasant visual experience for users like Rogbo2  Grin ... nothing wrong w/ it, on the contrary
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2014, 09:35:58 AM »
ReplyReply

In the first image with the watering can PN seems to render the background ugly.
To me it looks oversharpened.
I think you'd have to carefully select which subject you convert and which type of image.
I'd not see PN or LR as a clear winner here.
Cheers
~Chris
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad