X-trans vs Xtrans 2 raw files

Discussion in 'Coffee with Rico Pfirstinger, Fuji X-Pert' started by Henry, Mar 30, 2016.

  1. Henry

    Henry FujiXspot Rookie

    13
    Feb 13, 2013
    Dear sir,

    Some fuji users praise the first generation X-trans cameras jpeg output with its beautiful rendition, more organic and film like than the X-trans 2 jpegs.

    What about the raw files? Is there a difference between the X-trans 1 and 2?

    For black and white film shooter (Ilford delta, Tri-x), which raw software do you suggest that can work best with X trans raw files?

    Thank you,
    Henry
     
  2. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn FujiXspot Veteran

    323
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    Yes there's a difference :)

    Technically, it's 12bit vs 14bit, but SOME find the first gen raw files more gritty and organic!

    I am one of those people!

    I've blogged about it here,

    The X-Pro1 “Look”

    And here

    X-Pro1 – Comparing the Fuji Look to the Fuji Look

    But it is of course subjective

    Best raw convertor? That's a huge matter of debate, complicated by the fact that one of the front runners (Iridient developer) is currently Mac only...

    Personally, I like capture one
     
  3. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    The IQ difference in the RAW is more DR in X-Trans 2 thanks to 14 bits vs. 12 bits, and also more pixel interpolation in order to compensate for the PDAF pixels (which may or may not be visible).
     
  4. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    In my RAW workshops, we compare a difficult studio sample on at least 8 different converters and also different converter versions (like Silkypix 6 vs. 7, or Lightroom 5.7 vs. LR 6.4) and detect various problems/improvements. Obviously, there is no "single best" converter.

    Personally, I mostly use Adobe Lightroom CC and Iridient Developer. There aren't that many "real" options, as most converters do not full support Fujifilm metadata (lens corrections, DR settings, film simulations etc.), which is a deal breaker for me and many knowledgeable users who think "support" means much more than mere demosaicing.
     
  5. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn FujiXspot Veteran

    323
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    Is "more interpolation" not a bad thing?! Does this mean that X-Trans II has too ""guess"" more of the image data, than it's predecessor (because of the PDAF pixels)

    And if so...

    Would it be fair to say that X-Trans III (or X-Trans Pro, or is that just the nomenclature of the processor) employs more interpolation than X-Trans II?

    Thanks in advance!

    Edit: Also, do you know what algorithm Fuji uses for interpolation? I would assume adaptive....
     
  6. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    Sure, if you can see the difference. I can't. But if you or someone can else show me studio samples that illustrate any interpolation errors of X-Trans II compared with X-Trans I, that would be very interesting.

    X-Trans III has more PDAF pixels, so more interpolation. But since the resolution is also higher, it's of course still better.
     
  7. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn FujiXspot Veteran

    323
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    Thanks Rico, I agree (!!) real world goodness, beats theoretical badness every time!
     
  8. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    One could even argue that Fujifilm limits the PDAF area to the center because it's more difficult to interpolate PDAF pixels that are closer to the edges.

    It's the same with IBIS: Fuji argues that X-mount isn't fit for IBIS because IQ would suffer. However, Sony is happily employing IBIS in a mount that is unfit for both full-frame and IBIS (and is electronically compensating for both, and customers do not complain, or do they?).

    Or let's look at the 16-55mm lens. Fuji says that OIS would have had a negative IQ impact, and yet Samsung offered a very similar lens with OIS that was even brighter (f/2-2.8) and still managed to get great reviews.

    This seems to be pretty fuzzy area. It's really hard to distinguish between the actual truth, marketing blah and plain incompetence...
     
  9. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn FujiXspot Veteran

    323
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    I think (said the forum user humbly to the Fuji author) that there's so many little variables at play with all this stuff, that it all only becomes relevant in very particular circumstances (your recent post RE OIS, the fast shutter speed and the helicopter for example) that don't have an effect on every shot.

    I also think that PERHAPS Sony were a little caught off guard by the success of their FF MILCs, ergo if had they to do it all again, they'd have bitten the bullet and designed a bespoke mount.... Ymmv


    On the subject of re-using APSC mounts, it seems that Leica PERHAPS always wanted to keep the T mount wide enough for FF, so they had their eye on the future... I doubt that Sony were thinking that far ahead when the Nex range first landed...

    Anyways.... FWIW, my HUNCH is that anything that makes your sensor and/or internal lens elements 'wobble' about a bit, can only be a good idea in quite a narrow range of circumstances... But please note the word hunch

    Of course, for users to holistically understand their image stabilisation options AND 100% understand when to/too not deploy them is a bit of a mine field... (As you've previously said iirc)

    IMO by not using such devices (give or take some lenses) Fuji have made the IQ figuratively and literally in the hands of the user. This I think is a good thing... Easier for me to remember when I might need a tripod, rather than calculate focal length/shutter speed combinations and decide whether to flick on the OIS switch or not!
     
  10. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    Well, you can ALWAYS switch them off when you aren't sure and you don't want to overthink the situation.

    The issue is: What happens when IBIS is off? Is it still affecting IQ sometimes? The same could be argued about OIS, because even when it's off, the magnets are still working to keep the lens elements in place. And of course, PDAF pixels are always active, even in MF mode with adapted lenses.

    It's not at all trivial, so experimenting is a good thing. Luckily, we haven't (so far) found any negative OIS impact when the feature is disabled.
     
  11. Henry

    Henry FujiXspot Rookie

    13
    Feb 13, 2013
    Thank you Rico, Adam, for the input. Adam, I read a four of articles of yours. Very interesting.

    I actually bought a new X-E2 and, after a photo shoot of a musician in the dark lighten with spots, I was amazed of the level of detail I retrieved in the shadows with DR400. This, in Adobe Raw. I tried Iridient Developer. I am still learning to make a nice black and white digital image.

    Thanks for the info about «pixel interpolation». Something I didn't know about.

    I have an E-m5, and I never used it for a serious project, as much I liked the camera and used it a lot, I ended scanning my film negatives. I kept my E-m5 for possible video work but I am intrigued by the old generation of Fuji cameras. In the stores, here in Canada, all the X-pro1 and X-e1 were sold. I didn't have a chance of handling one. I want to sell my e-m5 to try the X-pro1 but this means I sacrifice video work.

    I really like the X-E2 but I am really intrigued if the the X-pro1 or X-E1 will give more of the organic look that Adam is talking about and if It will win me over the X-E2. I kind of saw that in the many samples of images produced by the Fuji cameras on the internet.

    By the way, I really enjoyed browsing and looking at the at the pony and horse's pictures in the field.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn FujiXspot Veteran

    323
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    Thanks very much Henry, glad you enjoyed them!

    Re X-Trans I v II, sincerely, IMO it's win some lose some, I REALLY like the classic chrome sim on my XT1, but there's some subjects that I wouldn't use it for

    And likewise, with old vs new Fuji, there are times when I like the grittier/organic X-Trans I look and I think it suits the image. But there's other times, when the cleaner, crisper look of X-Trans II is preferable and I'm glad of that extra DR. Personally I feel that X-Trans II has an advantage at high (>3200) ISO for example. But for some of my street art (graffiti by any other name) shots and B&W conversions, that X-Trans I look delivers what I want...

    It's all very personal at the end of the day.

    I would suggest that the same is true with the raw convertors too... Sure people love posting 400% crops to prove that blah, blah, blah (and fair play, whatever floats your boat) but IMO the best raw convertor is the one with the tools that you know how to use the best and feel the most comfortable with, because that's the one you'll actually use!

    By all means solicit the advice of strangers RE workflow, but (again IMO) it's an area that you definately want to carve your own path.

    If video is important, be wary of trading away the Oly.... Just my $0.02..
     
  13. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    You mean highlights.
     
  14. rbelyell

    rbelyell FujiXspot Regular

    118
    May 14, 2013
    for those who yearn for a truly organic look, i suggest trying fujis first generation bayer-sensored offerings. imo, truly wonderful non digital looking color images, perhaps the best b&w of any digital next to leica, and zero, zip, nada post processing hassles.
     
  15. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn FujiXspot Veteran

    323
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    What a shame that one must forsake either interchangeable lenses or a viewfinder to enjoy this sensor
     
  16. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    The X100 is indeed pretty good, mostly because Lightroom works great with old AA filter rendered Bayer files. After all, LR's engine is pretty antiquated, too. A perfect match.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Henry

    Henry FujiXspot Rookie

    13
    Feb 13, 2013
    Dear friends, just a little update to this thread. It has been more than a month I own the X-E2 and I can tell you I am happy using the camera for black and white clichés. I am shooting Raw + JPG and using in camera Raw Conversion most of the time. I completely forgot about the Raw softwares.

    The 18-55mm is giving incredible results.

    I tried color, Fuji's color film simulation has painting like quality, there is a lot of options and workarounds.

    I have to admit I found the video image quality in monochrome+Y for example to be really good if you put aside, Fuji's video shortcomings and work around it. But I didn't sell my E-m5, I am keeping it as a backup for things that Fuji won't handle in video of course.

    Lastly, I still have an eye for the X Pro1, now that I got used to the X-E2, I would like to see myself how much different it is from X-pro1 in terms of in black and white clichés. But being happy with the results that the X-E2 , I am in no rush of acquiring a X-pro 1.

    Henry
     
  18. rbelyell

    rbelyell FujiXspot Regular

    118
    May 14, 2013
    my 2¢ is i dont understand how 'computer interpolation' morphs into 'organic' for an entire market segment. i fully understand that when shooting digital RAW there is always some amount of in camera manipulation. but doesnt the 'organic' quality of the output logically decrease as this manipulation increases? seems to me that xtrans is forced to manipulate more than fujis original bayer sensor found pre xp1. and now, as this xtrans tech further 'developes', even more manipulation is called for. imo, xtrans never looked 'organic'. neither does sony, and some of the comments in this thread help illuminate why. one can like the fuji xtrans look or not, both opinions are valid. but by definition, increased computer manipulation cannot lead us to a more 'organic' look.
     
  19. Henry

    Henry FujiXspot Rookie

    13
    Feb 13, 2013
    What I understand by organic, applied here, is the ability of Fujifilm Xtrans to render images close to what traditional film stock produces, which gives, in black and white images, for example, rich tonality and gray scales. But I understand what you mean, in reality, it is more a computer interpolation or digital processing.
     
  20. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    The only bayer sensor system cameras from Fujifilm are the X-A2 and X-A1. Everybody can compare their output with Fuji's 16 MP X-Trans cameras (12 bit and 14 bit models, X-Trans I and X-Trans II), so there aren't any secrets and there should be very little room for myths and speculation. The truth is out there. Then again, such comparisons are very rare (probably because they involve work and take time). On the other hand, myths and speculation spread like wildfires.