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!
If it were an issue with grain, tonality, etc., I'd agree, but my X-Trans camera's files issues and general look, particularly in my usual converter choice of LR or Aperture, are my least favorite looking files that I've had since getting into digital.Jono,
I am using the Exif Editor workaround, with X-E2 as the Camera.
Having used Capture One since my first digital camera (Olympus E-1) and subsequently M8 and M9 I find the program very easy to use.
I catalog in LR and take a first look there but do the developing in Capture One or occasionally Irridientand send the result back to LR catalog and sometimes do some work in Phootoshop CC.
With the X-Trans sensor I find Capture One is the best compromise, detail miles better than Lightroom/ACR, slightly less sharpness than Irridient but also less to zero of the artifacts.
The (technical) quality of what I was able to produce in the darkroom on slides and B&W
from 1954 until 2006 using mostly Leica's from M3 to MP and enlarging on Cibachrome for color compared to what the "worst"programs can make of the X-Trans files are reason for me to put things into their proper perspective.
Hi DouglasIf it were an issue with grain, tonality, etc., I'd agree, but my X-Trans camera's files issues and general look, particularly in my usual converter choice of LR or Aperture, are my least favorite looking files that I've had since getting into digital.
I've been shooting the X100 over the RX1 these days, so I'm not clamoring for the best IQ, since just about any digital is good enough these days, but the "weirdness" of certain X-Trans files was enough for me to loose money by going back to the X100 from the X100s. Of course, YMMV.
I certainly hope you're not bothered by any IQ weirdness, because it really seems that the XT-1 and lens lineup is about is good as it gets in a mirroless camera system these days.Hi Douglas
Like you I'm not clamouring for the best IQ; I'm trying to decide which to keep out of an A7, an E-M1 and the X-T1, but now I'll be on my toes, looking for weirdness!
I've tested C1, LR, Accuraw, Aperture, Iridient and the camera jpegs, and I wasn't really thrilled with any of it (Accuraw seemed best, since the conversion process is adjustable.) C1 doesn't have the artifact issues of Aperture, but there also isn't as much detail. It seems somewhere between LR and Aperture. Besides, like Jono, I didn't really want to change my workflow, and I'm pretty married to LR at this point, anyways.Hi Douglas,
I'm wondering if you might have saved any of the files that caused the strange colors that you could share. It would be interesting to try them in the latest version of C1 or others to see if any improvements have been made to the algorithms.
Glen
We still need Adobe to get raw working for Lightroom and also Capture One and others. If this camera is as popular as we hear, what is taking so long???
I would really like to know where is this idea that Xtrans can't yield more than half the chroma resolution of a Bayer sensor. That seems rather odd to me even after taking into account the less red, less blue, more green of Xtrans over a Bayer.Outside of the weird IQ things that pop up, even perfect raw conversion with X-trans can never yield more than half of the chroma resolution of Bayer, so, while luminance resolution is high in X-trans (like with test charts,) color just looks oddly smooth to me. I'm just not a fan of the look of the files, and LR is particularly bad to me.
These posts by Joakim "theSuede" sum things up nicely. He works in the industry and is probably among the most knowledgeable tech guys on just about any camera forum, so he's a good guy to ask. You could probably send him your questions directly.One more thing for Douglas- on first pass it seems there isn't much detail with Capture One 7. I discovered proper tweaking with "Structure" slider and the usual iteration of sharpness and luminance noise reduction can get you some very sharp files.
- Ricardo
I would probably ask about the 50% chroma resolution, but I think that's about tit.These posts by Joakim "theSuede" sum things up nicely. He works in the industry and is probably among the most knowledgeable tech guys on just about any camera forum, so he's a good guy to ask. You could probably send him your questions directly.
X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo - FM Forums
My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums
My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums
I am only seeing LR 4.x there. I am vouching for Capture One 7.While I'm at it, here is a pretty interesting recent thread comparing Bayer to X-trans, and, even with some of the more highly thought of raw converters for X-trans, like Photo Ninja, there is a difference in "look" with X-trans files in some scenes. My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums
Sorry, I linked the wrong link for the recent thread comparing Bayer and X-trans: Fujifilm X-Trans Infinity Scene RAW Processing Comparison - FM ForumsI would probably ask about the 50% chroma resolution, but I think that's about tit.
He can be pretty knowledgeable but so can the people at Capture One, and I am not going to take one man's explanation over what I am seeing myself as output from Capture One. Theory is nice, but doesn't mean he's infallible, and a lot of the talk I am seeing here does not reflect the reality of the output I am getting.
Do note the does mention that there are other more computationally heavy options to get more detail as he sees it (which could very well be what Capture one 7 is doing).
I still stand by what I said- I see picking on Xtrans artifacts, which it has, without looking at AA Bayer which has its own set of issues, or AA less bayer which introduces other issues.
Finally keep in mind some of the links you are quoting are pretty old by now.
I am only seeing LR 4.x there. I am vouching for Capture One 7.
If you can point to where they are using Iridient or Capture One 7 in that thread, I would appreciate it.
- Ricardo
That's fine, if that's his opinion- he's more than entitled to it. My point is that since then progress has been made in raw conversions. Keep in mind again, he does mention that more computer intensive algorithms can do a better job than what he was showing.Sorry, I linked the wrong link for the recent thread comparing Bayer and X-trans: Fujifilm X-Trans Infinity Scene RAW Processing Comparison - FM Forums
FWIW, Joakim's opinion about X-trans hasn't changed since those threads, and his statements about the cfa arrangement won't change, anyways.
That's cool. In either case, I have from my view posted evidence that the so called mush in green is a non issue with proper converter use. I can also post a couple of shots with greenery I have that show the point. But I don't mean to convince you of otherwise. I just mention it in the general terms of the discussion because I have seen several issues pointed out that have a solution.I'm happy that you're satisfied with C1's output and X-trans. I certainly wish I was, but, like some others, I've tested it along with many other converters, and I wasn't happy with X-trans, so I went back to the Bayer in my lowly pair of X100 cameras. To be honest, among the converters I've tried with X-trans, I found C1 to be middling.