![]() These settings are to do with applying Iridient’s own sharpening or noise reduction algorithms to the demosaiced output. ![]() There are two options here: Smoother or More Detailed. This is the only option which affects the demosaicing algorithm. I’m using the evaluation version of X-Transformer (version 1.1.1) for these tests, which watermarks the image. You run Enhance Details on a RAF file after importing it into Lightroom and, like X-Transformer, it also generates a DNG file containing demosaiced sensor data. I’ll compare both of these options to the Lightroom default rendering. Adobe also recently released a feature for Lightroom called “Enhance Details”, which people say could potentially replace X-Transformer in their workflow. The most common workaround for the problem is using a program called Iridient X-Transformer, which converts the Fuji RAF file into a DNG file with the sensor data already demosaiced using Iridient's own algorithm. As I don't yet own a Fuji camera, I used a selection of publicly available RAW files from the Fuji X-T3, trying to chose a set with enough variety to expose any demosaicing issues. Starting from a position of scepticism that Lightroom could be as bad as people say with X-Trans, I decided to investigate for myself. Adobe, on the other hand, said that many people are perfectly happy with their rendering, while acknowledging that things aren’t perfect. The short version of this controversy is that some people aren’t happy, calling Lightroom’s demosaicing of X-Trans files waxy or like an oil painting, and citing artefacts such as “worms” or "bacteria". That in turn led me to the controversy surrounding Lightroom’s demosaicing of Fuji’s X-Trans RAW files. I’ve recently been considering getting a smaller camera system, which naturally led me to look at Fujifilm’s smaller bodies like the recently announced X-T30.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |