I'm not a demosaicing or sharpening expert. When Iridient or other software are able to produce great results why do you think it is demosaicing that enables that rather than sharpening routines that are better than Adobe's? I'm just trying to understand. What is missing is that Fuji hasn't released publicly how it demosaiced X-Trans. Obviously Fuji assisted SilkyPix, Adobe and others. It is not in Fuji's best interest to not help RAW converters to achieve good demosaicing. I don't think demosaicing RAF files is a complete secret although it might be difficult since it's the only non-Bayer sensor widely available but since Fuji can do in-camera RAW conversion to JPG it's not impossible. I do not have links to those statements though. In 2016 Adobe and Fuji both released statements that processing of RAF files were improved in ACR and Lr and that Fuji continues to work with Adobe. Photo Ninja and Iridient do an excellent job of revealing the detail in rafs.Īll of the above are strong indicators that demosaicing is the issue. Pete Bridgewood) do not solve the problem with Adobe's conversion of rafs.ĭcraw based convertors do not seem to generate such discussions. The fact that this topic remains current shows that the sharpening suggestions that have been made over the years (e.g. In collaboration with Fujifilm, we are still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition." Here is what Adobe said in 2015 "Reduced “color blur” artifacts when processing Fujifilm X-Trans raw images. There is quite a lot of discussion around the demosaicing problems with X-Trans e.g. This is widely acknowledged to be difficult to demoniac. The big difference with rafs is the X-Trans array.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |