Raw support coming to C1 Pro soon

[jonoslack]

In C1 you can create and store in the db as many variants as you whish of the same image without any need to create and save a rendered jpeg, or Tiff. Same as in LR and Aperture. There are other limitations but not this one.

HI Ario
It's changed - and the new Catalog model in C1 version 7 is also a help. I was getting along good trying it out . . . . but now it crashes every time I load it (on 2 computers, and my patience wore out!

all the best

 

[Ario Arioldi]

HI Ario
It's changed - and the new Catalog model in C1 version 7 is also a help. I was getting along good trying it out . . . . but now it crashes every time I load it (on 2 computers, and my patience wore out!

all the best

Hi Jono, I'm sorry for that. I really had stability/crashes problems only when running two different versions of CO at the same time, but I also see that others in various forums are reporting problems with the catalogs.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, I'm sorry for that. I really had stability/crashes problems only when running two different versions of CO at the same time, but I also see that others in various forums are reporting problems with the catalogs.

Well, I'll leave it for a month or so and try again - you can spend so much time with this stuff!

 

[archiM44]

Well, I'll leave it for a month or so and try again - you can spend so much time with this stuff!

I had the same problem with the catalog function in C1-7
This was due I think because the shoot folder included RAW files from as yet unsupported cameras.
I have gone back to using sessions, and avoiding files from unsupported cameras.

 

[jonoslack]

I had the same problem with the catalog function in C1-7
This was due I think because the shoot folder included RAW files from as yet unsupported cameras.
I have gone back to using sessions, and avoiding files from unsupported cameras.

Thank you - That might easily have been the problem . . . but there isn't currently an easy solution for me . . . So I'll go back to using Aperture! (which at least behaves gracefully for unsupported cameras).

 

[ustein]

etermes helped me to get two raws converted. This is clearly a step into the right direction. Can't wait.

 

[Puma Cat]

Hi Guys,
I've been testing the 7.02 beta for two days now, and have to say I am very, very impressed with the results. It's still a beta, but I am really like the results so far.

 

[Braeside]

Hi David,

I can´t comment about the issues on this beta or share the beta software,
if you are interested about the beta program you can contact Lionel from PhaseOne:

Phase One and Leaf - Mamiya Official User to User Forum • View topic - Support for Fujifilm x-pro 1


I think I can share my own RAW file:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1oq6q1qh7ie1bww/_DSF0005.RAF

and four jpg versions (OOC jpg, Silkipix DSP 5, Lightroom 4.3 and C1 7.02):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0iti0gxe5titlru/RAF files.rar

For another comparison here is the same raw file processed in AccuRaw beta:

Link to fullsize JPG in sRGB

 

[etermes]

Still I prefer the C1 7.02 beta version of my pic:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdf5utl7m6vo5aj/c1_702.jpg

less color artifacts and more clarity

 

[sandymc]

Both renderings are pretty good. Everybody needs to make their own decisions, and I'm obviously a bit biased .

But if I may point out, take a look at the blue thread where it runs across the area of orange threads. In the AccuRaw rendering, the thread stays blue. In the other rendering - not.

Sandy

 

[etermes]

Both renderings are pretty good. Everybody needs to make their own decisions, and I'm obviously a bit biased .

But if I may point out, take a look at the blue thread where it runs across the area of orange threads. In the AccuRaw rendering, the thread stays blue. In the other rendering - not.

Sandy

Good point,

but AccuRAW is plenty of colour artifacts, you can see them in the milk glass, I think all the carton of oat milk
more coloured patterns in the green rectangle with stars inside (upper right), take a look at the distorted cob(bottle label) and so on

yes, C1 7.02 beta show something of those, of course

See the processed jpg out of camera:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ggoyakdwyepv4vl/XE1_jpg_OOC.jpg

We are used to get better results from the RAW files,
but at this moment...

I wonder why Fuji isn´t sharing knowledge to implement a better processing of RAW files

 

[Vivek]

Pardon me for asking this again, why would one bother with these if the bundled SilkyPix works?

I can understand developers playing with these but why would an user put up with these nearly there softwares? Especially when they are not free or inexpensive.

 

[etermes]

Pardon me for asking this again, why would one bother with these if the bundled SilkyPix works?

I can understand developers playing with these but why would an user put up with these nearly there softwares? Especially when they are not free or inexpensive.

Because Silkypix is far from perfection:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2rnvpf9i9ts4rr/silkypix.jpg

if you prefer download the original RAF file here and try it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1oq6q1qh7ie1bww/_DSF0005.RAF

 

[Vivek]

Well, in that case (if true), I would only conclude that the camera is seriously flawed and is of very limited use.

 

[Braeside]

Pardon me for asking this again, why would one bother with these if the bundled SilkyPix works?

I can understand developers playing with these but why would an user put up with these nearly there softwares? Especially when they are not free or inexpensive.

Hi Vivek,

1. Silkypix is far from ideal, and is not in many people's normal work flow. It doesn't get the maximum out of the raw files. Do most people with Canon use the Canon supplied software? - No - thought not.

2. 'Playing' is perhaps not what these developers are doing, they are adding X-trans sensor camera support for their software, and it is to be welcomed. They are not necessarily all expensive either, especially if you already have invested in their software.

3. The Fuji is of limited use, I find I use it mainly for taking photographs, but seriously, it take superb photos and the out of camera JPGs are great for almost every use, but having a good raw processor available is nice as a bonus.

 

[Vivek]

Hi David,

Thanks for your reply.

I understand fully well that SilkyPix (work flow) is not everyone's cup of tea (though I have no problems using it).

However, if there is no RAW developer out there that can not get the "maximum" out of Fuji X-Trans RAW files, how would we know what the "maximum" is and if it ever can be achieved.

Please understand that I am not just typing these out for fun and I ask these questions in all seriousness.

 

[Sapphie]

Good point,

but AccuRAW is plenty of colour artifacts, you can see them in the milk glass, I think all the carton of oat milk
more coloured patterns in the green rectangle with stars inside (upper right), take a look at the distorted cob(bottle label) and so on

yes, C1 7.02 beta show something of those, of course

Hi

Thanks for sharing these files, including the RAW. I too have copies of beta C1 and AccuRaw. I would prefer not to comment on the C1 results as beta testers are supposed to be adhering to a NDA. As regards the AccuRaw on this image, try moving the demosiac sliders. I moved chroma suppression all the way to the right, luma one notch to the right and post-mosaic one notch to the right - and I do not really know what I am doing with these!

Looks a lot better to me than the default.

Lee

 

[Braeside]

Hi Vivek, I see your point of view entirely. Your question is getting into the philosophical.

When we are dealing with demosaicing there appears to be no absolute right way to do it, as it always is based on approximations and there are compromises between resolution of fine detail and artefacts, though Fuji certainly seem to have made a good attempt at getting the in camera conversions to work very well.

One thing is for sure, Adobe aren't doing the raw files justice.

We are of course discussing results from beta software, and it isn't perhaps fair to pixel peep at this stage, though having the opportunity to do so and give feedback to the developers is exciting and no doubt helpful to them.

I have not expressed a preference for one over the other publicly, apart from to berate Adobe who have deservedly had plenty of bad press over this and done nothing to help themselves or their users. Apple, well I wonder if they are interested?

 

[Braeside]

Lee, I should have added that the AccuRaw version was with no chroma, luma or post correction. It can be tweaked quite a bit to taste as you have found, and sharpened. Nice to have the choice at least.

 

[woodyspedden]

Sandy

I am impressed with your beta version of Accuraw.

Could I be a beta tester? I currently shoot with both the Fuji X1Pro and the Leica M9P

Woody Spedden