Recently, I purchased the Fuji X-T1 camera to act as my second body as well as my walkaround. It wasn’t until recently that it all changed for me, and now my X-T1 is my camera of choice, over my full frame Nikon D600. To me, that is a big call to make, considering that the D600′s IQ is known for producing beautiful dynamic range and details (aside from the D800 of course). The reason for that is that I’ve found the image quality of the Fuji’s X-Trans sensor to be outstanding, and for my style of shooting, it easily keeps up with what my full frame has to offer. This is not a camera review however, so I won’t go down that rabbit’s hole. There has been a lot of talk on forums about the X-Trans sensor producing RAW files with smudged details. Hence a lot of Fuji photographers have been shooting mainly in JPG, using the straight out of camera images instead. The problem stems from how Lightroom handles those RAW files and not the X-Tran files themselves……..
See on fstoplounge.com
In a previous post, I has mentioned the existence of a “new product”. Well, AccuRaw is now in a closed beta. AccuRaw isn’t of course aimed at the X-Pro specifically. AccuRaw is, as its name suggests, intended to deliver technically accurate raw conversion rather than the “Hollywood colors” conversions that most current raw developers deliver by default. But one part of what AccuRaw does to to give very fined grained control over the internal operation of the demosaic process. Specifically, it has sliders that control artifact suppression in luminance and chrominance, and post-demosaic chroma filtration. So you can tune the demosaic to suit your camera, the nature of the subject, etc, rather than have the one-size-fits-all of the mainstream raw developers.
Of course, this makes AccuRaw potentially useful to owners of camera with X-Trans sensors. So here’s a quick comparison showing AccuRaw vs the other guys….
See full article on chromasoft.blogspot.de
Ich habe schon seit einiger Zeit meine Fuji x-pro1 und bin nach wie vor sehr begeistert von dieser Kamera. Ganz besonders interessant finde ich die kamerainterne jpg Engine. Ich bin mit meiner anderen Kamera (Canon 5D MkII) eigentlich ein absoluter RAW Shooter. Bei der x-pro1 allerdings habe ich aber aus zwei Gründen diese Angewohnheit abgelegt. Zum einen, weil die OOC jpgs so gut sind, dass sie so gut wie kaum eine Korrektur benötigen und man die tollen Fujifarben hat. Zum anderen, da es nur sehr wenige RAW Konverter gibt, welche mit den x-pro1/x-e1 RAW‘s umgehen können. Mir sind im Grunde nur drei bekannt: Lightroom 4, Raw Photo Processor (RPP) und Silkypix. Letzterer ist der x-pro1 im Lieferumfang in Version 3 mit beigefügt.
RPP habe ich einmal zum Testen geöffnet, aber ich finde es sehr kompliziert oder besser sehr benutzerunfreundlich, und das Ergebnis, das ich herausbekam, war hässlich. Muss freilich nicht für jeden gelten, ich für meinen Teil habe den aber wieder von der Festplatte geschmissen.
Lightroom ist ein alter und sehr guter Bekannter von mir. Ich bin absolut überzeugter Lightroom Benutzer. Auch wenn ich Lightroom schätze, so kann man nicht von der Hand weisen, dass Lightroom die x-pro RAW‘s beim Schärfen nicht sauber verarbeitet. Es kommt zu aquarellartigen Konturen. Bei Silkypix ist dies nicht so. Silkypix schärft sauber ohne aquarellartigen Konturen. Das war einer der Hauptgründe für mich, warum ich mir diesen RAW-Konverter denn genauer anschauen wollte. Silkypix Pro 5 gibt es für Mac und Windows Rechner und es lässt sich eine 30 Tage Testversion auf der Homepage des Herstellers herunterladen. Die Version 5 kommt etwas benutzerfreundlicher und mit mehr Einstellmöglichkeiten als die der Kamera beiliegende Version daher. Im Gegensatz zu Lightroom benötigt Silkypix aber zwingend eine längere Einarbeitungsphase. Viele Entwicklungsfunktionen sind nicht gleich offensichtlich. Es gibt ferner eine Vielzahl von (Vor-)Einstellungen, um Silkypix seinem gewohnten/gewünschtem Workflow anzupassen. Hier bin ich noch am rumexperimentieren…..
Google Translater (ENG):
See on www.qimago.de
Just a small follow up on all the RAW experimentation I’ve been doing with the FujiFilm X-Pro1 RAF files. Here’s an interactive mouseover table to see the differences. Areas too look for are in the wood grain (you’ll see a lot of colour or chroma noise in the different examples), Smearing of details (look at the texture of the walls to see how it gets smeared and creates the water colour effect), Aliasing issues (look on hard contrast edges to see a zipper aliasing effect), and lastly loss of details (in the red brick you’ll see the various levels of details in the pores of the brick).
Some quick comments:
DCRAW 9.16: Gives the highest details, however has aliasing artifacts. Some chroma noise (even after filtering). Command line prompt only. Requires some technical know how. I use VNG interpolation and 15 pass median filtering.
1/2 Median: Is the filtering I apply to DCRAW to combat the aliasing artifacts. Requires a program that has Median filtering, and very process intensive.
Raw Photo Processor (RPP 4.7): Utilizes DCRAW and acts as front end. Works very well for details, but aliasing and chroma noise is high. My technique of 15 passes of median averaging in DCRAW clears up more chroma noise than what is produced by this program.
Graphic Converter (Patched): Patched with DCRAW 9.16 gives very similar results to RPP however this program is much friendlier to use than RPP and has some real nice post processing options. Could almost be used as an all in one solution.
In Camera JPG: The default standard. Still exhibits some detail smearing compared to something like DCRAW output, but has no aliasing or chroma noise artifacts.
SilkPix Developer Pro 5: The software that is part of Fuji’s RAW processing uses an older SilkyPix engine. This current version is very clean however does show some chroma smearing (look at the green colour that appears under the window ledge and the loss of other colours). Shows very little chroma noise and no real aliasing errors. Very clean output and slightly softer than raw DCRAW output, but lot less aliasing even over the 1/2 Pixel Median filter. I would highly recommend this option if it weren’t for the fact that the cost of the software is pretty high.
FujiFilm Raw File Converter: This software bundled with the camera uses an older SilkyPix engine. It does a pretty good job, but the interface is very difficult to use and understand. Compared to the latests version of SilkPix it exhibits chroma noise and some detail smearing.
Lightroom 4.3: Has low amounts of chroma noise, but very heavy detail smearing. Loss of details but no aliasing artifacts. Even at 100% it’s hard to see the ‘Watercolour’ effect if you don’t know what to look for. I suspect a very heavy pre-demosaic median filter and bicubic interpolation algorithm is the cause of the issues. However it’s still one of the easiest to use, and if you can handle some of the image quality loss, most likely won’t notice the detail loss.
See full article on frontallobbings.blogspot.de
Well, I wasn’t expecting to come back to the topic of Fuji, the X-Pro1 and its X-Trans sensor. However, I have been putting a lot of work into the suppression of artifacts when demosaicing. A lot more work than I had intended to, but that’s another story. This is for a new product that I hope to release in a few weeks time (several months later than I’d hoped). But I did stumble into a better understanding of the nature of the chroma smearing (or watercolor effect, as it has also become known). The previous posts about Demosaicing the Fuji X-Pro1 are here, here and here. In previous posts, I compared renderings from Adobe Camera Raw, SILKYPIX and Fuji’s in-camera JPEG processing, as well as DCRAW and RPP. Finally, I compared those renderings to renderings from PhotoRaw, both in its “retail” configuration, and in modified form with post demosiac filtering. Practically, DCRAW and RPP were pretty much outclassed — they use VNG algorithms that generate substantial zipper effects. In post three, I hypothesized that the chroma smearing effect that you see very visibly in the ACR conversion, and to a lesser extent in the SILKYPIX conversion, was due to filtering, possibly mean filtering post demosaic. I now think that I was probably wrong, or at least partially wrong – the effect is due to filtering, but not mean filtering post demosaic. Rather, it’s as a result of filtering during the demosaic process itself…..
See more on chromasoft.blogspot.fr
See on Scoop.it – Fuji X-Pro1
Fuji has a history of unusual sensor design. While the big sensor designers and manufacturers like Canon and Sony focused on boring stuff like making tinier pixels, reducing on-board circuitry, and improving read-out speeds, Fuji was doing wacky stuff like non-square pixels, tiny helper dynamic-range boosting pixels, and 45 degree rotated pixels. Fuji abandoned their SuperCCD approach around 2010 and for 2012 we have another new tech: X-Trans. Will Fuji abandon this effort in a few years, suffering from mediocre sales and 3rd-party support? We’ll see. What is X-trans? Well, it’s basically a new way to filter color onto the sensor. Image sensors only detect the number of photons striking the sensor. To be capable of creating a color photograph,a color filter is applied over the sensor. Each pixels gets either a green, red, or blue filter. It’s arranged in a 4 pixels pattern: two greens, a red, and a blue. To create a human-pleasing image from this, a demosaicing algorithm is used to give each pixel intensity information for all three colors. This requires a bit of interpretation and guesswork using the adjacent pixels. Because virtually every digital camera ever made uses this filter pattern there is excellent support, from both the manufacturers and third parties for converting this information into a photograph. Bayer isn’t perfect though. How could it be? Each pixel on knows about one color. When resolving very fine detail the demosaicing algorithm can get confused and product strange patterns and colors – moire. This is dealt with by, believe-it-or-not, placing a filter in front of the sensor to prevent certain frequencies of light from passing through. Which blurs the image….
See on www.dmcgaughey.com
So after playing with this for weeks, I believe this is probably the maximum that we can get out of the Fuji RAF files until the other developers come up with better understanding of the unique X-Trans CMOS sensor. Now this is still not the most ideal workflow for most people. Pixel Peeping aside, the Fuji X files are fantastic, even in Adobe Lightroom. My goal in this was to get a better understanding of what is going on. I wish I knew how to program, because I’d love to create a simpler way to do this. If there’s anyone out there that is interested in taking what I’ve done and turning into a nice little drag and drop application, I think you’d get a lot of fans.
- Using command line DCRAW: dcraw -a -H 0 -o 4 -q 2 -f -m 15 -g 2.4 12.9 -6 -T
- Convert TIFF file to LAB file in Photoshop
- Resize image 200% with Bicubic Smoother
- Select Lightness Channel under channel panel.
- Select Median filter under Noise in Filter. Select 1 pixel
- Resize image 50% with Bicubic Sharper (Nearest Neighbour is actually a more subtle effect which I kind of prefer)
SilkyPix and RPP both process very similar files and although I know for certain that RPP uses DCRAW, SilkyPix I believe is a proprietary RAW engine. What I do speculate is the chroma smearing is a result of interpolation errors. Much of it can be suppressed with chroma noise reduction without loss of image quality. However one of the big nagging issues was this ‘zipper’ aliasing that was happening. After analyzing the files, it seems specifically the red sub-pixels are causing much of this zipper effect, but also part of the interpolation issues. I was able to get rid of a good portion of the chroma smearing by doing 3×3 multi-pass median filtering through DCRAW…..
Full article on following Website:
See on www.flickr.com
Before purchasing the X-Pro1 I read about the RAW conversion woes reported by many other people. I saw their examples posted to their websites, read the forums, and read the rumor sites. I work exclusively with RAW due to the wide latitude the files provide. I try to expose to the right of the histogram, without blowing highlights, but I have always preferred the flexibility afforded by RAW output. Besides, Canon’s out-of-camera JPG’s were awful. So, if I knew the issues surrounding RAW files on the X-Pro1, why did I take the plunge anyway? Quite simply, the RAW converter in camera. You see, as we sit today, the best RAW converter for X-Pro1 images is the camera itself. The camera allows one to do quite a bit of in-camera processing of a RAW file, make multiple JPG files from a RAW, and generally make out-of-camera JPG files something to actually consider rather than abhor. Besides, high-quality JPG’s from the camera provides some flexibility that I had not considered with my Canon. Now, if I don’t feel like processing a RAW file, I can often use the JPG straight out of the camera and have an excellent image. What about the times when I need to process a RAW file outside of the camera? Well, I use Adobe’s Lightroom for almost all of my image processing and cataloging and Lightroom’s RAW processor for X-Pro1 files isn’t too great yet. Colors are generally there but sharpness is questionable, especially with foliage, where it is left looking like a watercolor painting. Just how bad is it? Check out these examples of a 100% crop from a recent image. The first one is the output after processing in Lightroom 4.2, while the second one is the output of an out-of-camera JPG utilizing the Velvia film simulation…..
See on www.codyhatch.com
I’m not a PixelPeeper. seriously not. But even I noticed the amount of “watercolouring” in some X-Pro shots containing very fine details, when processing them in Lightroom 4. I achieved the best results in terms of details and sharpness with the SilkyPix software that came with the X-Pro, but wasn’t satisfied with a “2-app-workflow” consisting of SilkyPix (->16bit Tiff->) and Lightroom. This becomes a pain in the arse as soon as you have to edit more than 3 images per session. So like most of us X-Trans users, I was waiting/hoping for Adobe to improve the support for our beloved .RAF files in LR 4.2…
Officially, there was nothing changed in the updated demosaicing/processing engine. They just added the new Fujifilm X-E1 to the list of supported cameras. so actually, I was expecting to see the “same shit” even on new RAWs in the latest version of Lightroom. But I gave it another try, and took a shot of my sleeping pug and his very fine detailed coat for a single PixelPeeping-session. Even though they changed nothing (or at least claimed they haven’t), I’m quite happy right now with the results I get out of LR 4.2 when processing and handling X-Pro.RAFs just like “normal” RAW files.
See on patrickbraun.net
Was geht in Sachen RAW Entwicklung im November 2012, und hat sich mit dem Release der Lightroom Version 4.2 in der “Wasserfarben Effekt Affäre ” was getan? Das erfahrt ihr auf sachlicher Ebene, und ohne Vernachlässigung wesentlicher künstlerischer Aspekte im folgenden Artikel! Grundlegend, dreht sich dieser Post um die RAW-Entwicklung von X-Trans Sensor basierten Kameras, wie der Fuji X-Pro 1 bzw. XE(die Bilder sind mit der X-Pro 1 und dem Fujinon 35/f1.4 enstanden) und lässt sich deshalb nicht auf Kameras mit einer klassischen Bayer-Matrix übertragen. Ein gewisses Grundwissen setze ich mal vorraus, wenn etwas unklar sein sollte fragt ruhig via Kommentarfunktion. Berücksichtigt wird hierbei das finale Ergebnis, das in diesem Fall in Sachen Colorit, Dynamik, Gradation, Korn und Schärfe(auch Bokeh) möglichst nah an eine beliebige Filmcharakteristik(z.B. Velvia, Provia, Portra 160 NC) angepasst werden soll. Dabei zeige ich einfach mal verschiedene Varianten, und wie man zum gewünschten Ergebnis kommen kann.
Google Translater (ENG)
See on www.janfervers.com