Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 60

Thread: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

  1. #1
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Raw conversion for the X-Pro1 is still a major issue:

    1. Lightroom does not get enough detail
    2. Fuji Raw Converter has better details but can produce nasty halos (e.g. edge between golden hills and blue sky)
    3. DPP: workflow hassle but maybe so far the best detail and nice colors.

    What is your take?
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  2. #2
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    I have tested (almost) everything and for me the best route start with RPP which I use just for the very basic editing, WB and exposure correction if and when it is needed. The ICC profiles are self made and usually I choose K64 as starting point.
    Everything else is done in LR 4 and or CS6.
    Obviously the easiest way would be to use LR only but since this is not at this point good enough for my taste (for this camera), I found that RPP adds the same amount of complication as any other raw converter and gives for me better results.

  3. #3
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    >I have tested (almost) everything and for me the best route start with RPP which I use just for the very basic editing, WB and exposure correction if and when it is needed. The ICC profiles are self made and usually I choose K64 as starting point.
    Everything else is done in LR 4 and or CS6.

    Do the same. Can you share your profile ([email protected]).
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Ditto. I am amused and annoyed by threads in other forums where people that don't see the issue deny it exists or I am talking BS!

    Any links to extra profiles would be appreciated Ario! Though I find the default RPP pretty accurate - I usually start at K64 too, always with WB 'As Shot'.

    Surely, though, this issue will get fixed in time?

    Lee
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Too bad that RPP creates some artifacts like this (shown at 200%):



    The Fuji sensor is a real PITA for raw.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Uwe

    Yes RPP has downsides too but do these artifacts show at normal web/print viewing sizes?

    Lee

  7. #7
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    >print viewing sizes?

    Likely depends on the size of the print. Just don't want to limit the size just due these artifacts.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    Ditto. I am amused and annoyed by threads in other forums where people that don't see the issue deny it exists or I am talking BS!

    Any links to extra profiles would be appreciated Ario! Though I find the default RPP pretty accurate - I usually start at K64 too, always with WB 'As Shot'.

    Surely, though, this issue will get fixed in time?

    Lee
    Lee, it seems to me that sometime certain forums are occupied "manu miltari" by fanboys and this prevents any useful exchange of experiences and opinions.
    The artifacts you have observed I have seen in some of my pictures as well and they tend to show up, to some extent, no matter which raw developer is being used (including the one which produces the OOC jpegs).
    The demosaicing algorithm which can do the magic with this "oddy"raw file seems not to be available yet, but in most cases we can get very good results anyhow.
    If you wish to try my profile you can get it herebelow, I do not think it is better than the one provided by RPP, but it works pretty well with my own camera.

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11389216/FU...%20_cloudy.icc

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    Too bad that RPP creates some artifacts like this (shown at 200%):



    The Fuji sensor is a real PITA for raw.
    Uwe,

    Do you have any idea at what print size this sort of artefact would be visible, or would influence the quality in any way?

    I certainly see issues with foliage, but then I import some files into LR and can see nothing wrong at all. It is a PITA.

    Otherwise I love the camera and hope it gets sorted. Capture One have confirmed they are working to deliver for the Fuji, but who knows when that will happen.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Another technique:

    Frontal Lobbings: Squeezing the maximum out of the FujiFilm X-Pro1.

    I haven't tried this yet ...

    Lee

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    Another technique:

    Frontal Lobbings: Squeezing the maximum out of the FujiFilm X-Pro1.

    I haven't tried this yet ...

    Lee
    I was just reading through that one: found it via X-Pro 1 Scoop. I will try to give it a run through tonight.

    One of the things I find difficult is the inconsistency. I have RAW shots processed through LR that are stunning in their detail and overall quality. Clearly there are differences in subject matter, and maybe some settings too.

    Overall though, I am loving this camera.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelao View Post
    I was just reading through that one: found it via X-Pro 1 Scoop. I will try to give it a run through tonight.

    One of the things I find difficult is the inconsistency. I have RAW shots processed through LR that are stunning in their detail and overall quality. Clearly there are differences in subject matter, and maybe some settings too.

    Overall though, I am loving this camera.
    The demosaicing errors, this is what we are talking about, are definitely depending on the subject, I do not think that settings may have any effect other than hiding some of the artifacts together with details.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Here's more:

    More workaround tips for Lightroom/ACR - Fuji X Forum

    Only problem is I don't have a recent version of Photoshop or any version for my Mac ...

    Lee

  14. #14
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    A lot of workarounds for a problem which does not exist.

  15. #15
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    I am sometimes asking why Fuji did not use the X100 sensor (I think it was Sony). The X100 images looked good and did not have this massive de-bayering problem.

    I experiment a bit with different Lightroom 4 sharpening settings and in the end the results look quite ok.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  16. #16
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    I am sometimes asking why Fuji did not use the X100 sensor (I think it was Sony). The X100 images looked good and did not have this massive de-bayering problem.
    I suspect that was a marketing driven decision, "new" is better and more appealing.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    I suspect that was a marketing driven decision, "new" is better and more appealing.
    Perhaps, but my money is on it being more than that. This is an innovative approach to sensor design. Innovation can cause pain for early adopters. If the RAW processing works over time, we can likely assume Fuji will continue to evolve the sensor. The differentiation was, and remains, a major investment of cash and brainpower.

    Fuji would remain masters of their own sensor destiny, and if they won't have to pay a fee to Sony, or depend on Sony's development timeline.

    I hope it all works out.

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    The raw processing issue with the Fuji sensor is one of the reasons I have no interest whatever in this line of cameras. I saw the same issues with the X10 model too.

    I don't buy equipment based on future hopes. I buy equipment based on what it does now.

  19. #19
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    >This is an innovative approach to sensor design. Innovation can cause pain for early adopters.

    All interpolation like the bayer sensor is a challenge. This pattern requires even more complex interpolation.

    > I buy equipment based on what it does now.

    It is actually quite nice as is. But I agree hoping for the future does not help now.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    I don't buy equipment based on future hopes. I buy equipment based on what it does now.
    Me too. The various issues have not yet impacted what and how I shoot enough to make me move on. Of course everyone will have their own take.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelao View Post
    Me too. The various issues have not yet impacted what and how I shoot enough to make me move on. Of course everyone will have their own take.
    I agree, it's a great camera and system but we who are in search of the best just know it can be better. The software will get there and, soon, I think.

    BTW, just to re-iterate how great this forum is. Some of the 'others', well I wish I could just ignore them ...

    Lee

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    I agree, it's a great camera and system but we who are in search of the best just know it can be better. The software will get there and, soon, I think.

    BTW, just to re-iterate how great this forum is. Some of the 'others', well I wish I could just ignore them ...

    Lee
    Yup.

  23. #23
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    The raw processing issue with the Fuji sensor is one of the reasons I have no interest whatever in this line of cameras. I saw the same issues with the X10 model too.

    I don't buy equipment based on future hopes. I buy equipment based on what it does now.
    I also had my issues with the X10. And then I simply could not get hold of a X Pro 1 and so I finally skipped it. And now I am glad I could not get a chance to buy it.

    Maybe in some years this system will be a leader. But it will take some time ....

    Meanwhile I am happily shooting with some great cameras I already earned trust with - Olympus OMD and Nikon D800E - and soon the Leica M

  24. #24
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    Ditto. I am amused and annoyed by threads in other forums where people that don't see the issue deny it exists or I am talking BS!

    Any links to extra profiles would be appreciated Ario! Though I find the default RPP pretty accurate - I usually start at K64 too, always with WB 'As Shot'.

    Surely, though, this issue will get fixed in time?

    Lee
    I agree totally. I had a bunch of images that were spoiled by the foliage smudging in trees etc whilst taking images with an infrared filter. The XP1 is superb for IR until you hit the RAW smudging problem. Fortunately the JPEG (fine) images were OK.

    I tried all the work-arounds to no avail.

    The good news is that Capture One (my favoured raw converter program) are working on a profile for the XP1. Given the time that they have been working on it, it isn't an easy job!
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  25. #25
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    According to an interview with Fuji, Apple are also working on a raw converter as well - that's good news for a lot of people.
    David Anderson

  26. #26
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    >Apple are also working on a raw converter as well - that's good news for a lot of people.

    Very good news. I think we just need to be a bit patient (not my strength though).
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Hopefully Fuji is providing technical support with the same software team that developed their in-camera JPG engine, they obviously understand how to get a quality image out of the sensor.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    I do hope that Adobe, Apple, Capture One.. will do something better than the Fuji team, the OOC jpeg is not a masterpiece of demosaicing, in my opinion.

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    I suppose 'masterpiece' depends on individual opinion.

  30. #30
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Should have mentioned the source of the info about Apple and others working on the Fuji raw support was http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...-fuji-x-series
    Last edited by Braeside; 27th September 2012 at 13:49. Reason: Hopefully corrected the link
    David Anderson

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Braeside View Post
    Should have mentioned the source of the info about Apple and others working on the Fuji raw support was http://www.imaging-resource.com/...s...-fuji-x-series
    I believe your link may have gotten munged a bit, and if I'm not mistaking here is the link to the article.

    Thanks for pointing it out.

  32. #32
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Thanks Dale
    David Anderson

  33. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Most of the discussions on why one raw converter is worse/better than another for the new Fuji sensor seem a bit naive.

    If one digs a little deeper (as MikeS did below), one can see how much more sophisticated the new Fuji sensor actually is, and how routine application of previous Bayer algorithms will not get the best interpretation from it (and also lead to comments such as how 'conversions of Fuji RAW files have many artifacts').

    To briefly quote MikeS (from post #6, to whet your appetite; please read through the whole thread), the why behind 'why did Fuji design this sensor the way they did' and 'why is Silkypix able to have fewer artifacts', starts to make sense:

    "After dozens of hours and hundreds of pages of reading, I have identified the 'smoking gun' academic paper and the relevant patent!

    "'Frequency selection demosaiking: A review and a look ahead', Alleysson & Chaix de Lavarene, 2008.

    "The conclusions of this article are both profound and prophetic. It states, a 'non periodic arrangement of size 6x6 chromatic samples gives the best visual result (RAW data) reconstruction...also, the signal to noise ratio with the pseudo-random arrangement is not very different than that of Bayer. But the noise in the case of a random arrangement loses its spacial coherence and becomes less visible making the appearance of the image more pleasant.'

    "The paper develops the earlier idea for separation of CFA information into a luminescence image mask, (from the Green cells), and a chrominance mask of combined values for R-G and B-G. Adding these two masks together is identical to adding a traditional tricolor separation."

    Original thread:
    Problems RAW conversion software have with the X-Pro 1 - Fuji X Forum

  34. #34
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    >Most of the discussions on why one raw converter is worse/better than another for the new Fuji sensor seem a bit naive.

    Stating academic papers does not help with real world existing raw converters.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    >Most of the discussions on why one raw converter is worse/better than another for the new Fuji sensor seem a bit naive.

    Stating academic papers does not help with real world existing raw converters.
    Uwe

    To me there is no doubt that, with support from Fuji, Adobe or Phase One has the capability to provide a more desirable Raw Converter (i.e. Capture One or Photoshop) which properly decodes the Fuji sensor. The fact that RPP (which is pretty much a one man operation) can do it speaks volumes.

    I think the issue is that the big boys don't see Fuji as a large enough market force for them to devote the manpower to getting this done.

    The rumor is that Capture One is working as we speak on a true coverter for the X1 Pro (and thus for future generation Fuji products) I hope this rumor is true because I love Capture One and if it is true and comes to market, can Adobe be far behind with Photoshop and Lightroom

    There is no doubt that us early adopters are taking this camera towards where it needs to go by really pushing Fuji to get it right. The new version 2.0 goes a long way towards that goal albeit not solving the converter problem. I suspect we will see more firmware updates to continue to improve this unique camera.

    Just MHO

    Woody
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    +1
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    >Stating academic papers does not help with real world existing raw converters.
    But not understanding how the sensor works will not lead to a solution. It is like complaining 'why can't I fly by flapping my arms?'. Ignorance leads to frustration. A little knowledge will reduce the frustration and stop end-users from going down wrong avenues, and eventually lead to better software.

    By learning the complex situation behind the sensor's development, one can see why Fuji pursued this design, created a hardware solution, gave a reasonable short-term software fix (Silkypix), while getting something quite innovative to market fairly rapidly. They are to be commended for not being another 'me-too'.

    While the existing, and comfortable, software packages may not fully extract the best from this new sensor, it is in their court (Adobe, et al) to develop more robust algorithms. Who knows, perhaps more sophisticated algorithms might even improve Bayer sensor derived data.

  38. #38
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    >it is in their court (Adobe, et al) to develop more robust algorithms.

    Not quite. Fuji sells a camera and has no software business. If they would think only about pleasing their customers (us) they would support all software as much as they can to get the best out of this sensor. Of course I don't know whether they did just that and stumbled on the other software companies ignorance (I kind of doubt). THat Fuji seems to sell well is in our favor because these cameras cannot be anymore ignored that easily.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  39. #39
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    The CFA adopted by Fuji is no secret, there is nothing to understand, the problem is that apparently a demosaicing algorithm capable to render fine details without creating chroma errors has not been found yet and none of the provided compromise is, in my opinion, as good as it should be.
    This is applicable to OOC jpeg, and to some extent to all the raw converters that are known to support the Fuji raw file.
    Sean Reid has published a conpreehensive and well documented analysis on this subject which as been also covered by Sandy Mc Guffog in his blog.
    The author of RPP has given up (so far) using any of his best performing algorithms and has provided VNG or a reduced resolution 2/3 as the only workable options.
    The Author of Dcraw has done something similar, in the sense that whichever option you choose, the algorithm selection defaults back to a basic VNG.
    Others such as Capture One, Apple, Raw Therapee, Iridient Raw Developer, Photivo, Photo Ninja ...have not provided a solution and in some case have explicitly declared they will not do because of the unconventional CFA.
    This is not a very brilliant situation after so many months fron the launch of the Fuji X-Pro1.
    May be soon the situation will change and I will be more than happy to recognize that I have been too pessimistic.
    Having said that I think that, after the FW 2.0 release, the X-Pro 1 is a very nice camera with a huge, partly unexploited, potential.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    The CFA adopted by Fuji is no secret, there is nothing to understand, the problem is that apparently a demosaicing algorithm capable to render fine details without creating chroma errors has not been found yet and none of the provided compromise is, in my opinion, as good as it should be.
    This is applicable to OOC jpeg, and to some extent to all the raw converters that are known to support the Fuji raw file.
    Sean Reid has published a conpreehensive and well documented analysis on this subject which as been also covered by Sandy Mc Guffog in his blog.
    The author of RPP has given up (so far) using any of his best performing algorithms and has provided VNG or a reduced resolution 2/3 as the only workable options.
    The Author of Dcraw has done something similar, in the sense that whichever option you choose, the algorithm selection defaults back to a basic VNG.
    Others such as Capture One, Apple, Raw Therapee, Iridient Raw Developer, Photivo, Photo Ninja ...have not provided a solution and in some case have explicitly declared they will not do because of the unconventional CFA.
    This is not a very brilliant situation after so many months fron the launch of the Fuji X-Pro1.
    May be soon the situation will change and I will be more than happy to recognize that I have been too pessimistic.
    Having said that I think that, after the FW 2.0 release, the X-Pro 1 is a very nice camera with a huge, partly unexploited, potential.
    Are you using the latest version of RPP?

  41. #41
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by woodyspedden View Post
    Are you using the latest version of RPP?
    I am using the build 1603 , I believe is the most recent beta version, made available few day ago.

  42. #42
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    I revisited Sandy M's PhotoRaw on the iPad today with some recent Fuji X-Pro 1 raw shots and I'm really impressed, it is much better than Lightroom. Of course incorporating it in to any sensible workflow is far from ideal. Sandy please a Mac App!
    David Anderson
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    I do not question the problem - however from my limited xpro1 experience with raw converted in LR4 the files dont look bad to me. But maybe I have to check out DPP to find out about the difference.
    How do yo find the in camera jpg?

  44. #44
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    I do not question the problem - however from my limited xpro1 experience with raw converted in LR4 the files dont look bad to me. But maybe I have to check out DPP to find out about the difference.
    How do yo find the in camera jpg?
    The in camera JPGs are quite nice, but do not have the absolute detail available from the raw files. LR4 does OK on some subjects but has a problem with fine details in foliage for example, they end up like a water painting. Other raw converters show more detail but have odd colour artefacts at times. It depends on how big a print you may want to make, or how much you pixel peep.

    My biggest request is for Apple Aperture support of Fuji raw files, as Aperture is my preferred workflow.
    David Anderson

  45. #45
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    And of course the jpeg are much less robust if you need to make WB and/or exposure adjustment.

    David, did you try to export directly from PhotoRaw to Photoshop (I have CS6)?
    The colors in PhotoRaw as seen on the New Ipad are perfect but opened in PS I see a dramatic change, too bright and reddish.
    I have not found any setting to change this.

  46. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    I do not question the problem - however from my limited xpro1 experience with raw converted in LR4 the files dont look bad to me. But maybe I have to check out DPP to find out about the difference.
    How do yo find the in camera jpg?
    My experience is a bit more nuanced than Braeside's. I find that LR4 is more often than not able to do an excellent job.

    What is your final output?

    For some subjects, the jpegs are very very good, and may well be good enough for your final output.

    In my experience LR4 does a very good job for most subjects with the RAW file. This camera and the Fuju lenses are capable of excellent detail, and easily match some of the FF gear I use, for some subjects. Large prints are impressive.

    The issue with foliage etc. certainly does exist, but in my experience it is not always present.

  47. #47
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    And of course the jpeg are much less robust if you need to make WB and/or exposure adjustment.

    David, did you try to export directly from PhotoRaw to Photoshop (I have CS6)?
    The colors in PhotoRaw as seen on the New Ipad are perfect but opened in PS I see a dramatic change, too bright and reddish.
    I have not found any setting to change this.
    No Ario, I don't have a version of CS that runs on my Mac any more, so cannot try that experiment. I was intrigued by how that export to Photoshop worked myself, what format of file does it use? I do like the colours on the new iPad, the Photoraw output looks really great.
    David Anderson

  48. #48
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelao View Post
    My experience is a bit more nuanced than Braeside's. I find that LR4 is more often than not able to do an excellent job.

    What is your final output?

    For some subjects, the jpegs are very very good, and may well be good enough for your final output.

    In my experience LR4 does a very good job for most subjects with the RAW file. This camera and the Fuju lenses are capable of excellent detail, and easily match some of the FF gear I use, for some subjects. Large prints are impressive.

    The issue with foliage etc. certainly does exist, but in my experience it is not always present.
    My final output often as not is my Mac screen. I rarely print, though I do have a 24" printer, I just don't have gallery space to hang large prints.

    My reference for detail in raw is the Ricoh GXR A12M which despite being only 12M pixels, has more detail than the 16M of the Fuji, though can have moire problems. This is pixel peeping as I said, but never the less is a bit of a disappointment.

    I seem to have a knack for finding subjects that do show the water colour effects with the Fuji and moire with the Ricoh ( and on my previous Leica M8).

    If all I ever did was view Fuji photos at normal fullscreen size on my 27" screen or iPad I would be perfectly happy even with the OOC JPG.
    David Anderson

  49. #49
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Quote Originally Posted by Braeside View Post
    No Ario, I don't have a version of CS that runs on my Mac any more, so cannot try that experiment. I was intrigued by how that export to Photoshop worked myself, what format of file does it use? I do like the colours on the new iPad, the Photoraw output looks really great.
    Sorry David,
    it was my fault, I had messed up the soft proof last time I used CS6. Now everything is fine and the colors are as good as they should be.
    The export to PS works perfectly even if it is a bit slow, the export format is a full size (or reduced size if you wish) jpeg, sRGB.

  50. #50
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Raw conversion for X-Pro1

    Thanks for clarifying that Ario. I have just been using Dropbox or Photostream to export the JPGs from the iPad back to my iMac here.
    David Anderson

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •