The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Why did Fuji not use the X100 Sensor?
- Thread starter ustein
- Start date
I imagine that Fuji's engineers are planning for the future so the X-PRO1 imaging sensor is part of a new design that will be improved-on with new cameras. I know that Canon's 6D is doing that. Cannon recommends buying the 6D instead of the 5D mark 3 because it will have a new sensor design. I do not know why the X-PRO1 was released without a good RAW developer. Olympus did that for a few years and lost many customers because of it.
ustein
Contributing Editor
>I do not know why the X-PRO1 was released without a good RAW developer.
The problem that it is hard to do. The blue and red patches are wide spread out.
Actually my question is more what can the X-Pro1 sensor do that the X100 could not. Fuji claims to fight moire but the X-P1 images show more moire than other cameras I used.
The problem that it is hard to do. The blue and red patches are wide spread out.
Actually my question is more what can the X-Pro1 sensor do that the X100 could not. Fuji claims to fight moire but the X-P1 images show more moire than other cameras I used.
I don't think there would be anything wrong with using the X100 sensor. I suspect though that as clark mentioned, Fuji have an eye on the future. They are not a big player, but are moving into a very large market segment. They need differentiation. Ideally of course, they need differentiation that works. So they have taken some risks. Good design, very good lenses, careful marketing. A great number of people are happy with the camera and its output. There are risks with innovation, and risks with early adoption.
I wonder too how the rabid and widely read 'expert' reviewers would have reacted to only 12mp.
I am optimistic that some of the PP frustrations will be cleared up. I also balance that with the knowledge that I am getting some of the best results I have seen in a while from a versatile camera that is a joy to use.
douglasf13
New member
Man, I wish the X100 sensor, or maybe a newer 16mp or 24mp version of it, was in the X-Pro1 or X-E1. That's one of the main things keeping me away from those cameras.
The kind of algorithms that it takes to optimize X-Trans are very processor intensive, and I'm not even sure that the architecture of current raw converters are ready for it. Either way, even if raw conversion was ideal, X-trans can't achieve the same chroma resolution as Bayer in good light. It's a trade off, with X-trans being better at high ISO performance.
For now, I'll stick with my X100 and supplement it with my NEX-7, but, if Fuji goes away from X-trans (which isn't happening,) I'd probably trade my NEX-7.
The kind of algorithms that it takes to optimize X-Trans are very processor intensive, and I'm not even sure that the architecture of current raw converters are ready for it. Either way, even if raw conversion was ideal, X-trans can't achieve the same chroma resolution as Bayer in good light. It's a trade off, with X-trans being better at high ISO performance.
For now, I'll stick with my X100 and supplement it with my NEX-7, but, if Fuji goes away from X-trans (which isn't happening,) I'd probably trade my NEX-7.
ustein
Contributing Editor
>The kind of algorithms that it takes to optimize X-Trans are very processor intensive,
Fine with me if it can be done, but don't know
>I'm not even sure that the architecture of current raw converters are ready for it.
For sure not.
> Either way, even if raw conversion was ideal, X-trans can't achieve the same chroma resolution as Bayer in good light.
I think the next 6 months will show how far we can get. To be honest the current RCs are not that bad if I don't PP.
Fine with me if it can be done, but don't know
>I'm not even sure that the architecture of current raw converters are ready for it.
For sure not.
> Either way, even if raw conversion was ideal, X-trans can't achieve the same chroma resolution as Bayer in good light.
I think the next 6 months will show how far we can get. To be honest the current RCs are not that bad if I don't PP.
douglasf13
New member
Uwe, the chroma resolution is an inherent property of the cfa layout. According to Joakim on another forum, who works in the industry:
"The [X-Pro1] images have low noise, due to two main reasons:
1) the "green" raw channel has more coverage but less positional symmetry than in a Bayer sensor - and it's fairly well balanced against CIE Y.
1a) as a biproduct, you get less high-frequency luma "miscalculations" in the interpolation, giving lower added raw converter noise
2) the fairly large B-B and R-R interdistances necessitates a fairly large chroma smoothing radius, unless you go to algorithms like POCS and such - which are very computationally heavy.
The camera doesn't "add" croma smoothing, it's there in the principle.
I would however think that the samples seen here exaggerates the bad parts of the effect, much better results would be possible with an algorithm like POCS or anything else better adapted to uneven channel coverage.
The Fujifilm principle will in any case never get better than 50% of the Bayer chroma resolution, an inherent property of the scheme. At higher ISOs this turns into an advantage instead of a disadvantage. "
This reminds me a little bit of what Canon did in weakening the CFA of the 5Dii so that it allowed more light through, trading color for better high ISO performance, which few seemed to mind.
I've converted X-Pro1 raws in RPP, and, while the watercoloring is less of an issue, color moire and artifacts are worse than other converters, so it seems a trade off.
"The [X-Pro1] images have low noise, due to two main reasons:
1) the "green" raw channel has more coverage but less positional symmetry than in a Bayer sensor - and it's fairly well balanced against CIE Y.
1a) as a biproduct, you get less high-frequency luma "miscalculations" in the interpolation, giving lower added raw converter noise
2) the fairly large B-B and R-R interdistances necessitates a fairly large chroma smoothing radius, unless you go to algorithms like POCS and such - which are very computationally heavy.
The camera doesn't "add" croma smoothing, it's there in the principle.
I would however think that the samples seen here exaggerates the bad parts of the effect, much better results would be possible with an algorithm like POCS or anything else better adapted to uneven channel coverage.
The Fujifilm principle will in any case never get better than 50% of the Bayer chroma resolution, an inherent property of the scheme. At higher ISOs this turns into an advantage instead of a disadvantage. "
This reminds me a little bit of what Canon did in weakening the CFA of the 5Dii so that it allowed more light through, trading color for better high ISO performance, which few seemed to mind.
I've converted X-Pro1 raws in RPP, and, while the watercoloring is less of an issue, color moire and artifacts are worse than other converters, so it seems a trade off.
Jolly
Member
I will simply put it ...
it is just crazy that Fuji and Adobe didn't find a solution for a decent raw converter.
It seems that Fuji has a different speed in facing the firmware or hardware problems of its cameras.
Maybe they were quite in a hurry to sell their product before they could become obsolete ?
Don't know but this raw thing of the Xpro1 is simply crazy.
It is partially compensated by the Xpro1 JPGS that are really great.
it is just crazy that Fuji and Adobe didn't find a solution for a decent raw converter.
It seems that Fuji has a different speed in facing the firmware or hardware problems of its cameras.
Maybe they were quite in a hurry to sell their product before they could become obsolete ?
Don't know but this raw thing of the Xpro1 is simply crazy.
It is partially compensated by the Xpro1 JPGS that are really great.
While I am not familiar with what Canon is recommending and what you say may be true, I still find it difficult to believe that Canon is recommending the 6D over 5D Mark 3 because it has a newer sensor design.
Show Performance
Member
I believe what Fuji is trying to say in relation to moire is that the pattern of color sensors on the the X-Tran sensor allows them to ditch the low pass filters while maintaining a resistance to moire similar to what a low pass filter would provide on a traditional Bayer sensor (minus the resolution penalty).
So, less moire compared to a camera that has no low pass filter and probably similar moire performance to cameras that have filters, but with greater detail.
And I'm not challenging your comment about moire levels as I haven't had enough time behind the wheel of my X-Pro but so far I haven't seen any. Yesterday I took a photo of the window screen in my office and it looked great - admittedly it was a JPEG.
Best,
Chad
