Studio Samples with Adobe RAW support

[Terry]

DPReview seems to now have a beta version of ACR with X-Pro1 RAW support.

Here is a link to the studio samples

Fujifilm X-Pro1 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

 

[tom in mpls]

I find it to be a bizzare discussion. Everyone has raved about the XP1 output. Until now. How could it be that overnight it has become a mediocre camera? Absurd. I understand that this is a reaction Adobe's beta RAW converter compared to jpgs. Certainly jpgs can be wonderful with many cameras, but I can't believe that it can be better than a RAW that has been properly processed.

 

[scifitographer]

i'm reserving my opinion on fuji's raw files until i see how it works on my computer. i own the camera and have been using it for a month now. i'm very happy with it. so, worst case scenario, i continue shooting the way i have been and remain very happy with the camera. best case scenario, the raw files end up much better than dpreview's and i start shooting raw exclusively. i'm not going to suddenly decide the camera is mediocre because it's performing in exactly the same way that it was yesterday.

 

[scho]

See this thread comparing output from other raw converters to the ACR beta attempt by DPR. The ACR beta image from the XP1 raw is very soft in comparison to output from the same raw file with RPP and SIlkypix.

Adobe Camera RAW Support Imminent? - Fuji X Forum

Here is a link to the same image that I processed in RPP with default capture sharpening in LR4 and export as full size jpeg:
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/143182093/original.jpg

 

[Brian Mosley]

I do know that the X100 produces much better quality images than the dpr studio comparison would suggest.

Maybe it's a natural light difference?

Anyhow, the camera still has character - the Steve Huff review slamming autofocus speed was far more damaging imho.

Cheers

Brian

 

[Armanius]

It is strange that the JPG's looked sharper than the RAW's at equivalent ISO. And in terms of noise, there really wasn't much of a difference between JPG and RAW. Could Fuji be applying noise reduction to the RAW files, but not sharpening?

I don't think Steve slammed the auto focus speed of the XPro1. He said that it was plenty fast in good light, but in low light, he had trouble locking auto focus. That's more or less a true statement, and also applicable for most cameras anyway.

Carl, your RPP processed sample looks exponentially sharper than the DPR one!!! So either DPR is doing something wrong, or the beta ACR is not quite there yet.

 

[JCT]

Kudos to all who suspected that DPR goofed -- this was just posted there:

"After publication, it was discovered the conversions had been conducted in the AdobeRGB colorspace. This has now been corrected and more appropriate sharpening applied."

That could do it -- things look much better now.

Nothing like Occam's razor....

 

[Sapphie]

Sometimes I think the OOC JPEGs are *too* sharp, LOL!

Waiting patiently for the Adobe release ...

Lee

 

[Diane B]

I haven't looked at it yet but I've used Lightroom since its first beta. The opened file is just the beginning IMO--its a fairly neutral image with Adobe's idea of correct color, etc but wouldn't reflect any filters used with the jpegs. The processing is up to the Lightroom user to finish the file to suit. Would the Fuji film choices on the camera (remember I don't have one, haven't even seen one) contribute a great deal to the pleasing images we have been seeing? Also, they would need sharpening and more as everything does in a raw processor.

A number of years ago someone on the Lightroom team reproduced the Canon presets that a lot of 5D people were using for jpegs and made a lot of people happy as they were good jumping off places. Perhaps it would be good if presets that reproduced those Fuji camera 'film' choices became available and people could use those for places to begin by choice rather than the default opening file.

Or I could be totally off base LOL--but I will admit to being smitten by the X Pro1 jpegs I've been seeing. Off to check out the Dpreview samples.

 

[Ario Arioldi]

I do not know what DPR did and of course I do not have the ACR beta but I have developed the same raw file using RPP at default with zero sharpening and the resulting image is definitely more detailed compared with the DPR sample. I can also see some moirè in certain areas, undetectable in the DPR sample.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

It does look sharper than the DPR one, but on the other hand, there are lots of aliasing(?)/zigzag on straight lines or small letters.

Do you mind doing the same processing on a raw from, say NEX5N or EM-5 for comparison? Thanks.

See this thread comparing output from other raw converters to the ACR beta attempt by DPR. The ACR beta image from the XP1 raw is very soft in comparison to output from the same raw file with RPP and SIlkypix.

Adobe Camera RAW Support Imminent? - Fuji X Forum

Here is a link to the same image that I processed in RPP with default capture sharpening in LR4 and export as full size jpeg:
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/143182093/original.jpg