Fuji Raw converter that finally does the X sensor justice?

I am perfectly happy with the lens support provided by C1. They use the embedded lens correction metadata and provide a means to seamlessly apply corrections for distortion and vignetting. It's actually the most flexible implementation I know, even better than in Iridient. However, regarding Fuji color support, C1 is a failure. They basically expect you to make your own profiles, and a few users did just that, but the results are mixed at best. Ironically, those C1 pofiles were the basis for Iridient's Fuji film simulation support.

Ah, so....Rico, I take it you're talking about the C1 Fuji film simulation profiles.
 
I have some (for the X-E1 / X-Pro1) in my C1 presets menu, so I guess I must have downloaded them from some forum once.
 
Clearly, each converter also has its pros and cons besides "detail sharpness" (which appears to be a holy grail or fetish among some photo forists).

But what about color reproduction, moiré, lens distortion correction etc. (aka things that you can see at much smaller sizes, sometimes even in thumbnails)?

https://www.flickr.com/gp/25805910@N05/UL3J87/

This is showing the same image processed with 8 different converters using (mostly) default settings.
Have a look at the various Siemens stars (each color presents a different challenge to the demosaicing algo).
Have a look at lens distortion correction (or non-correction).
Have a look at the vast variation of default colors. They are all over the place.
Have a look at the different brightness levels.

Obviously, different RAW converter makers can't agree on a common ISO brightness handling.
They can't agree on color rendering.
They can't agree on distortion correction.
They can't agree on basic sharpening.
They can't agree on anything.
Not even the sensor's resolution, as the results go from 15.2 via 16.0 to 16.3 megapixels.

And each converters appears to have issues with different parts of the image.
Some struggle with green Siemens starts.
Another struggles with the magenta one.
Some turn white into light blue.
Another does quite the opposite.

People think that the camera makes the image.
It doesn't. It's the RAW converter.
So choose yours wisely.
 
I ditched Iridient for photo Ninja. A bit of a learning curve bust so was Iridient. I found Photo Ninja to give much better results and sharper images. Iridient could produce some sharp images but I found some areas would get great looking and others would start to get a bit rough. Almost like a Fuji over sharpened jpg.

Funny thing is I did not seriously consider Photo Ninja early on because of the name.
 
I ditched Iridient for photo Ninja. A bit of a learning curve bust so was Iridient. I found Photo Ninja to give much better results and sharper images. Iridient could produce some sharp images but I found some areas would get great looking and others would start to get a bit rough. Almost like a Fuji over sharpened jpg.

Funny thing is I did not seriously consider Photo Ninja early on because of the name.

I'm sticking with Iridient; I'm very happy with the conversions I get from it. It's important to remember that you can tweak a number of sharpening algorithms to get the results to you want. Capture One Pro is also excellent, at least for X-Pro1, X100T or X-T1 files.
 
It looks like interest on this topic ended in 2014. We are a month away from 2017 now. What changes/improvements have we discovered since then? Other than Silky, what programs are able to convert compressed RAF's?
 
Clearly, each converter also has its pros and cons besides "detail sharpness" (which appears to be a holy grail or fetish among some photo forists) . . . So choose yours wisely.
Are there any disadvantages to using the in-camera RAW converters as opposed to converting with an external editor? Much of the time I just use the jpeg, but I've found even the X30 can produce nice images with the in-camera converter. (And I'm one who thinks sharpness is just one of several factors to consider in IQ).
 
I use the in-camera converters all the time. Well, I use SOOC jpgs 90% of the time and the built in raw converter for 10% of the time. Thing is, I use it primarily to flip film mode from Acros to Chrome, or vice versa. I actually don't remember the last time I had to rely on the raw file to "rescue" an image, let alone make the most of it.
 
Capture One Pro 10 is out. So far it looks to be really good improvements over 9. Still no support for compressed raw Fuji files though.

I have the OnOne raw pre release. It could be really good, but we won't be able to tell for certain until the full release is out in December.
 
Capture One Pro 10 is out. So far it looks to be really good improvements over 9. Still no support for compressed raw Fuji files though.

I have the OnOne raw pre release. It could be really good, but we won't be able to tell for certain until the full release is out in December.

Bobby, make sure you give us a report on how OnOne Raw works out.
 
That was the plan. But I wanted to wait until the full release is out. Cropping isn't enabled yet, nor is support for compressed Fuji files. And there are some other issues. But to OnOne's credit, they are releasing updates already.
 
Not looking to start any forum war here, but I often wonder if the X-trans idea has had its day. It was conceived to allow Moire-free images without the need for a AA filter. But it seems that most Bayer cameras now don't have AA filters either and Moire never seems to get mentioned. Meanwhile, Fuji raws still present problems for most of the common raw file converters. I'm sure the allure of Fuji would still persist if they switched back to a regular CFA and Fuji owners could start using LR, Capture One etc with impunity.
 
Not looking to start any forum war here, but I often wonder if the X-trans idea has had its day. It was conceived to allow Moire-free images without the need for a AA filter. But it seems that most Bayer cameras now don't have AA filters either and Moire never seems to get mentioned. Meanwhile, Fuji raws still present problems for most of the common raw file converters. I'm sure the allure of Fuji would still persist if they switched back to a regular CFA and Fuji owners could start using LR, Capture One etc with impunity.
No.
 
Ditto. The x-trans sensor is one of the USPs of the brand. It's not just about moiré, it's about filmic "grain". Look at what they have done with the Acros simulation; Fuji makes the most of it's film heritage and x-trans is a capability that is part of that.
 
Ditto. The x-trans sensor is one of the USPs of the brand. It's not just about moiré, it's about filmic "grain". Look at what they have done with the Acros simulation; Fuji makes the most of it's film heritage and x-trans is a capability that is part of that.
I don't understand that. Surely the image undergoes de-mosaicing (and tone curves etc) before the film simulations are added?
 
Capture One, etc. can be used without impunity now. Images from X-trans sensors look great with LR, C1, PS, OnOne, and so on. With the latest sensors, Fuji has proven that the X-trans sensor is far from had it's day.

With that said, the files look better out of Capture One in my opinion. Even just loading in the previews. The color, contrast, and sharpness look better than in LR. And with the advancements in Capture One 10, it is even faster than an already slow LR.
 
Back
Top