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!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

HELP! Adobe DNG converter and Fuji X10 RAF files

jonoslack

Active member
I have a problem.
Aperture doesn't yet support the X10, so I was going to use my normal strategy and convert the .RAF files to DNG files.
however - the Adobe DNG converter . . . and also Lightroom 4 . . are converting the .RAF files to 2816 × 2116 sized files.
If I shoot RAW+jpg - the jpgs are 4000x3000.

so
1. am I doing something stupid
2. does the DNG converter always convert .RAF files to half sized .DNG files?

any help gratefully received!

all the best
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
That was the case with the S3 and S5 files (6MP instead of 12), but it made more sense with those cameras. I was told that there was a way around it, but I never figured out how.

That wasn't much help, was it? :loco:
 

pophoto

New member
Jono: Honestly I don't know, my X10 is away from my for a couple of weeks, however, did you right click or did you use the EXPORT button and go through the pull downs?
I'm asking in case you left the presets at half-size. Worth a check no!
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
Just exported a RAF to DNG (Camera Raw 5.4 or newer) and it opened as 4000x3000.

Post your settings you use in LR4 export.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Took a Fuji X10 .RAF file from Lightroom 4 and exported as DNG. Opened it in Photoshop CS5 with Camera Raw v6.6 ... it's 3000x4000 pixels. Aperture 3 opened it too, also 3000x4000 pixels.

G
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thanks guys. I was using COPY AS DNG on the import. I'll try exporting as DNG later on. I'll report back!
 

jonoslack

Active member
Okay - still no go
Perhaps you could have a look
Here is a link to my dropbox folder
I've included:
1. the RAF file
2. a full size jpg export from Lightroom (4000 x 3000)
3. a DNG exported from lightroom (2916 x whatever)

I've tried:
1. importing to DNG
2. using Adobe DNG converter (version 6.7 beta)
3. Exporting from Lightroom 4

In each case the DNG file has the smaller resolution.

I think I might be going mad!

Please tell me where I'm going wrong!
 

Gio

New member
there seems to be an error in dcraw-based converter - draw, rpp, RawTherapee, ufraw convert with wrong dimensions.
exiftool also reads the wrong dimensions.

Raw Developer 1.9.4 from Iridient Digital (Iridient Digital) does it right.

From the release notes for 1.9.4:
Fixed issues with some EXR (DR) modes and file resolutions of the Fuji X10 which could result in incorrect default image size or tinted highlights and incorrect exposure levels.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Interesting problem, Jono. You're not seeing things and things are not what they appear.

I took your files and generated a -test DNG myself. Then I took an original .RAF/.JPG pair from the X10 of my own and generated a test DNG. Next, I imported both RAF files into Lr4 and exported original resolution JPEGs (the -2 files) from both. Next I imported the .dngs into Aperture 3 and exported original resolution JPEGs (the -3 files) from both. Then I imported the .dngs into Lr4 and exported original resolution JPEGs (the -4 files) from both. After that, I used EXIFtool to extract the image size dimensions from each.

What I find is that Adobe's support of the X10 includes the intepolation intended by Fuji to accommodate their unusual sensor's layout to derive the 3000x4000 pixel image dimensions as advertised. There are other bits in the EXIF metadata (both the RAF and DNG forms) which indicate this scaling factor. However, the raw image sizings are NOT 3000x4000, they're are somewhat less as you see in the data.

Apple's raw converter, used by Aperture, iPhoto and Preview, doesn't support the Fuji X10 and so does not interpret the scaling factors—even in the DNG files. As a result, you get the smaller sizing as seen in the outputs from EXIFtool, it's not doing any of the scaling and other processing that the Fuji X10 image files need to hit the published marks in pixel dimensions.

Data:

Output below from current version EXIFtool using command line:

Terminal> exiftool -RawImageFullSize -RawImageWidth -RawImageHeight -ImageSize -ImageWidth -ImageHeight {filename} > exif.txt

Annotation added afterwards

======== 111231-1020.raf :: GDG original
Raw Image Full Size : 2944x2144
Raw Image Width : 2944
Raw Image Height : 2144
Image Size : 2048x1536
Image Width : 2048
Image Height : 1536
======== 111231-1020.dng :: generated by DNG Converter v6.6
Raw Image Full Size : 2944x2144
Raw Image Width : 2848
Raw Image Height : 2144
Image Size : 2848x2144
Image Width : 2848
Image Height : 2144
======== 111231-1020.jpg :: GDG original
Image Size : 4000x3000
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000
======== 111231-1020-2.jpg :: generated by Lr4 from .RAF
Image Size : 4000x3000
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000
======== 111231-1020-3.jpg :: generated by Ap3 from .dng
Image Size : 2816x2116
Image Width : 2816
Image Height : 2116
======== 111231-1020-4.jpg :: generated by Lr4 from .dng
Image Size : 4000x3000
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000



======== DSCF1257.RAF :: JONO original
Raw Image Full Size : 2944x2144
Raw Image Width : 2944
Raw Image Height : 2144
Image Size : 2048x1536
Image Width : 2048
Image Height : 1536
======== DSCF1257.dng :: JONO supplied
Raw Image Full Size : 2944x2144
Raw Image Width : 2848
Raw Image Height : 2144
Image Size : 2848x2144
Image Width : 2848
Image Height : 2144
======== DSCF1257-test.dng :: generated by DNG Converter v6.6
Raw Image Full Size : 2944x2144
Raw Image Width : 2848
Raw Image Height : 2144
Image Size : 2848x2144
Image Width : 2848
Image Height : 2144
======== DSCF1257.jpg :: JONO original
Image Size : 4000x3000
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000
======== DSCF1257-2.jpg :: generated by Lr4 from .RAF
Image Size : 4000x3000
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000
======== DSCF1257-3.jpg :: generated by Ap3 from .dng
Image Size : 2816x2116
Image Width : 2816
Image Height : 2116
======== DSCF1257-4.jpg :: generated by Lr4 from .dng
Image Size : 4000x3000
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000


When I was evaluating the X10, I didn't like the way the processed RAF files or JPEGs out of the camera looked for some reason but I couldn't put my finger on it. I had also noticed that the original JPEGs and the output from Lightroom had slightly different feel ... one felt slightly stretched in the horizontal dimension compared to the other. I now suspect that it's this interpolated scaling business, from the complex sensor that Fuji has created, that my eye was being sensitive to.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
there seems to be an error in dcraw-based converter - draw, rpp, RawTherapee, ufraw convert with wrong dimensions.
exiftool also reads the wrong dimensions.

Raw Developer 1.9.4 from Iridient Digital (Iridient Digital) does it right.

From the release notes for 1.9.4:
Fixed issues with some EXR (DR) modes and file resolutions of the Fuji X10 which could result in incorrect default image size or tinted highlights and incorrect exposure levels.
If I may interpret:
Iridient honors the scaling factors properly and supports the intended pixel resolution that Fuji designed the sensor to produce. The raw pixel dimensions produced by EXIFtool are actually correct: if you dig into the full .RAF metadata there are scaling/sampling factors that dcraw and others are simply ignoring.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thank you Godfrey
I think I understand . .
The upshot would seem to be twofold:

1. that If I want to use RAW files from the Fuji, then I have to use Lightroom until Aperture supports it
2. Converting to DNG using Adobe Raw converter or Lightroom (3 or 4) produces a 6Mb DNG file and not a 12mb.

(is that right?)

all the best
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thank you Godfrey
I think I understand . .
The upshot would seem to be twofold:

1. that If I want to use RAW files from the Fuji, then I have to use Lightroom until Aperture supports it
2. Converting to DNG using Adobe Raw converter or Lightroom (3 or 4) produces a 6Mb DNG file and not a 12mb.

(is that right?)

all the best
Your #1 is right. Or some other raw processor like Iridient's which has been revised to support this sensor technology.

#2 is a little off, that's simply the practical result of an incomplete processing operation.

Recalling the design spec of the EXR sensor, Fuji's sensor packs two photo sites closely-aligned at each location on the Cartesian grid of six million sites, offset at an angle to one another, one hi range and one lo range. They interpolate the values between near neighbors and output a twelve million pixel Cartesian array as the result to get their dynamic range. The instructions on how to do this are contained in the raw metadata, so it is encoded correctly in the DNG but Aperture doesn't honor all the information and extracts only the primary photo site matrix.

I could be wrong, but that's the way the data seems to read. I haven't sat down and decomposed the sensor data into components to check on it.
 
Last edited:

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
I think this kind of thing maybe the reason I am finding I do more film work theses days than ever . . . . :watch:

Better living with chemistry, rather than digits

Keith
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I think this kind of thing maybe the reason I am finding I do more film work theses days than ever . . . .
Better living with chemistry, rather than digits
I make photographs with film because I like how it renders, but I prefer working with numbers. Remember that my college studies ended up with a Mathematics degree.

;-)
 

jonoslack

Active member
I think this kind of thing maybe the reason I am finding I do more film work theses days than ever . . . . :watch:

Better living with chemistry, rather than digits

Keith
My head hurts. I need to load some film.
Your #1 is right. Or some other raw processor like Iridient's which has been revised to support this sensor technology.

#2 is a little off, that's simply the practical result of an incomplete processing operation.

Recalling the design spec of the EXR sensor, Fuji's sensor packs two photo sites closely-aligned at each location on the Cartesian grid of six million sites, offset at an angle to one another, one hi range and one lo range. They interpolate the values between near neighbors and output a twelve million pixel Cartesian array as the result to get their dynamic range. The instructions on how to do this are contained in the raw metadata, so it is encoded correctly in the DNG but Aperture doesn't honor all the information and extracts only the primary photo site matrix.

I could be wrong, but that's the way the data seems to read. I haven't sat down and decomposed the sensor data into components to check on it.
Many thanks Godfrey - you've been very helpful . . . the words 'too clever by half' spring to mind! (not you of course, but Fuji)

I make photographs with film because I like how it renders, but I prefer working with numbers. Remember that my college studies ended up with a Mathematics degree.

;-)
Well, I'm going to answer all of you at once. First of all, Godfrey - I completely understand now - My point 2 was wrong - there isn't anything wrong with the DNG files created by LR4 or Adobe digital converter . . . . . beyond the fact that, of my applications, they are the only ones which will read the full resolution.

Of course, I could succumb to film, as Robert and Keith suggest - but I've already tried that.

I could also succumb, and just move over to LR and photoshop and abandon Aperture.

On the other hand, I could just stick to Aperture, because it has the better organisation, the better printing and the better clone tool. I'm perfectly happy to use Lightroom as a DNG interim when Apple are too slow to support cameras. But in this case, despite appearances, it doesn't work. I can't really figure out whether it's Adobe's DNGs, or Apple's DNG support (and many other applications I might say), or Fuji's RAW format which is the culprit, and unlike Godfrey I don't have a maths degree.

There was no warning about this problem - but perhaps it's too much to expect there to be a warning - It might be interesting to go back to the X100 RAW files and see if there is the same issue . . . or go forward to the X1 pro RAW files and see if there is an issue there. I wonder how many people are gaily processing RAW files from the X10 without realising that they're only 6mp.

But I'm off to China next week, and I want a camera where I don't have to get into terrible complications to shoot RAW files.

So, I think this is the shortest love affair in my camera history - assuming my lovely dealer will take it back, then that's what I'll do - if not it'll be on ebay next weel :poke::banghead::salute::deadhorse:
 

cam

New member
Jono -- it's too late now, but i'll check this out on the X100 as you've piqued my interest...

(FYI: i process the RAW files in LR but export as TIFFs as i still prefer to tweak in CS3.)
 
Top