Post your Iridient raw converter findings here

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by carlb, Jul 19, 2013.

  1. carlb

    carlb FujiXspot Veteran

    Feb 6, 2013
    twin cities, minnesota
    OK, here's where I hope folks can post their findings on the Iridient raw converter, specifically for the X-Trans sensor raw files.

    I don't (and perhaps won't) have a final write-up. But here are my initial thoughts (from file comparisons last night) as to how it compares the the raw conversion in my favorite post processor "Tiffen Dfx." (For me, Tiffen Dfx raw conversion compares about the same as "Silky Pics" raw converter that comes with Fuji cameras.)

    1) Iridient recovers "blown skies" better, both default and "tweeked." Smoother sky color transitions (versus harder color "bands") than Tiffen's. More of the cloud details made available. When tweeking, the "clipping recover" (or whatever that's called) works much more effectively on Iridient - does not reduce contrast nearly as much as Tiffen's (or Silky Pic's) slider does.
    2) Iridient seems to handle chroma noise better for default, although I'll need to normalize relative color saturation to be sure. Nothing obviously different for over-all color saturation, however.
    3) For far-field foliage, Iridient's default seems to have a bit less contrast than does Tiffen's. But the shots I was working on (blown skies) likely influenced how Iridient handled the conversion. On close inspection, Iridient perhaps has more "believable" detail than does the Tiffen converter. I'll need to investigate this further with other image conditions.

    That's it for me now. Observations made just upon a pair of conversions on "skewed" images. So, very initial. So far, I much like this converter better than Tiffen's (and hence Silky Pic's) however. It does a better job at "default" from what I'm seeing so far, and at least the "Recovery" slider works better when tweaking.

    Again, I hope others will post their findings as well.
  2. Kuau

    Kuau New to FujiXspot

    Jul 15, 2013
    To follow up on your post, I sold all my m43 system and purchased an X-E1 because of the new version of Iridient Developer.
    IMHO this new release of software now makes the Fuji X-Trans cameras and shooting raw a reality.
  3. carlb

    carlb FujiXspot Veteran

    Feb 6, 2013
    twin cities, minnesota
    That was a gutsy move, Kuau! m43 has such such a variety of great lenses for it. I sold the E-M5 (just wasn't using it), but I'll likely get the Panny GX7 when it comes out.

    Well I just tried Irridient's converter on X20 files. It's conversions are definitely better than Silkypix' (Tiffen doesn't convert X20 files yet).

    Better detail, less 'blotchiness' in the foliage. If I had to put a subjective "percent better," I'd say about 20%. Even when sharpened and contrast increased a bit, the Silkypix conversions don't look quite as good to my eye. The Irridient conversions don't need much sharpening (if at all), and hold up well to the little that you might want to apply.
  4. Tdp

    Tdp Guest

    Carlb what is your workflow with iridient? Are you doing RAW to finished image with just that s/w?
  5. Dacalac

    Dacalac FujiXspot Veteran

    May 1, 2013
    Los Angeles, CA
    how does it stack up against the RAW converter in LR?
  6. carlb

    carlb FujiXspot Veteran

    Feb 6, 2013
    twin cities, minnesota
    Tdp, I'll do the basic conversion with Iridient. It does have adjustments for brightness, contrast, sharpness, smoothing, most if not all of the basic manipulations you'd need. But it does not have masking, something I find very useful for just working on a sky or other region while not affecting everything else. For most post, I personally work in Tiffen Dfx.

    Mike, I don't have LR, but from what I've read most consider Irridient conversions better.
  7. Tdp

    Tdp Guest

    I just downloaded the demo of 2.1.1 and gave it a spin with a RAW image from yesterday (XE1, XF14mm), and did the same with CaptureOne Pro 7.1.2 and Lightroom 4.4. For a basic test I did simple in and outs (72 dpi and sRGB), then for each s/w option I did edits and a single export. A Flickr set with all 6 results can be found here:

    A few kudos for Iridient: it is very fast on my 2 year old MBP laptop (8GB RAM, SSD HD), inexpensive, small footprint and it is simple to use.
  8. Gary

    Gary FujiXspot Top Veteran

    Feb 15, 2013
    You're not running Aperture on a MBP?

    Can anybody compare Iridient to Aperture?

  9. Tdp

    Tdp Guest

    Sorry Gary I've never even tried Aperture.
  10. Hyubie

    Hyubie FujiXspot Veteran

    Feb 4, 2013
    Weymouth, MA
    Would be very interested in images from Adobe vs Iridient. However, I did read that a better workflow is to export a relatively flat tiff file from Iridient, and do your processing on Lightroom/Photoshop/what-have-you. I think I'll try that sometime - I just need to find the time (!!).
  11. carlb

    carlb FujiXspot Veteran

    Feb 6, 2013
    twin cities, minnesota
    Photoshop definitely has the better post-conversion tools. Irident is fine for rudimentary contrast, brightness, color temp, sharpening, smoothing. If I get a bit of time, I'll try Photoshop's conversion to compare.. I'm trying it out for a month.
  12. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Rico Pfirstinger
    V. 2.2 is out, offering X-M1 support and many fixes and improvements for X-Trans sensor users.

  13. entropic remnants

    entropic remnants Solving for X

    Jul 28, 2013
    It's a nice discussion but it's all so subjective. Where the heck are the 100% crops, guys, lol?!

    Let's see side-by-sides of the different converters!

    To paraphrase Steve Martin: Talking about RAW conversion is like dancing about architecture.
  14. khollister

    khollister FujiXspot Rookie

    Nov 20, 2013
    My problem with Iridient is noise. While I like the color and detail, the noise level is quite a bit higher at default settings than LR even with NR=0. I tried fooling with the NR settings in Iridient, but I couldn't get the noise down to LR-like levels without killing the detail (making it worse than LR 5.3).