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.