Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P
  
 
Almass
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


C1P has just annouced camera support for Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1 in the 7.02 release.

Now we're talking

I am off to buy me an XE-1 and let the good times roll.....



Jan 14, 2013 at 03:10 PM
Dave McGaughey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


It's better than ACR certainly......but it's certainly not a huge improvement over the in-camera JPEGs.

I did a comparison between most of the available RAW converters - JPEG/ACR/SilkyPix/RPP/AccuRaw/CaptureOne. I tried to roughly match exposure, contrast, and sharpening.

http://www.dmcgaughey.com/2013/01/14/raw-roundup-continues-captureone-7-02-and-the-fuji-x-trans-format/



Jan 14, 2013 at 04:28 PM
alba63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


Dave McGaughey wrote:
but it's certainly not a huge improvement over the in-camera JPEGs.


If any at all.... Compared to what was possible with RAW in the older Fuji DSLRs like S3pro and S5pro, this is miserable. The JPEGs in those older dSLRs were also very good, but RAWs were just better...

Fuji needs to put their in- camera algorithms (with the exact film simulations) into a proprietary RAW converter. Like the old Hyper Utilites. It was slow, sluggish, but gave the best results of the whole bunch.

Bernie



Jan 14, 2013 at 04:59 PM
aleksanderpolo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


Does the express 6 support the Xtrans? C1 7 is $300 you know...

EDIT: dpreview has it tested:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1887029702/capture-one-fujifilm-x-trans-raw-support-tested

Edited on Jan 14, 2013 at 06:03 PM · View previous versions



Jan 14, 2013 at 04:59 PM
edge100
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


alba63 wrote:
If any at all.... Compared to what was possible with RAW in the older Fuji DSLRs like S3pro and S5pro, this is miserable. The JPEGs in those older dSLRs were also very good, but RAWs were just better...

Fuji needs to put their in- camera algorithms (with the exact film simulations) into a proprietary RAW converter. Like the old Hyper Utilites. It was slow, sluggish, but gave the best results of the whole bunch.

Bernie


But this is really the 'fault' of Fuji, who made their SOOC JPEGs so darn good.

Even if the Raw files could be processed to look identical to the JPEGs, this is really only half the story. The JPEGs are great IF you've got a perfect image in camera and IF Fuji's in-cam conversion suits your needs. The Raw still offers post-shoot WB control, highlight headroom, etc, etc. So assuming a good conversion can be had (which C1P proves is possible), I'd much rather have the Raws than the SOOC JPEGs.



Jan 14, 2013 at 05:15 PM
corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


I just downloaded it - I am very pleased.



Jan 14, 2013 at 05:49 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ceder
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


Hear hear!

Fuji needs to make their own Raw converter! At least if they keep their lips so darn tight!

AccuRaw almost resolves as good as the JPGs, whereas Capture One struggles with false details and artefacts, artefacts, artefacts. C1 has nice colors and controls though, but, yeah, a far cry from the JPGs. Guess they gave up after a while - lets just release it!! Clearly Fuji did not work closely with them to allow them to make a good converter. Fuji, what are you doing If you want this sensor to have a long term success, you have to allow a professional work flow. Else people will give up...

alba63 wrote:
If any at all.... Compared to what was possible with RAW in the older Fuji DSLRs like S3pro and S5pro, this is miserable. The JPEGs in those older dSLRs were also very good, but RAWs were just better...

Fuji needs to put their in- camera algorithms (with the exact film simulations) into a proprietary RAW converter. Like the old Hyper Utilites. It was slow, sluggish, but gave the best results of the whole bunch.

Bernie




Jan 14, 2013 at 06:02 PM
Jochenb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


edge100 wrote:
But this is really the 'fault' of Fuji, who made their SOOC JPEGs so darn good.

Even if the Raw files could be processed to look identical to the JPEGs, this is really only half the story. The JPEGs are great IF you've got a perfect image in camera and IF Fuji's in-cam conversion suits your needs. The Raw still offers post-shoot WB control, highlight headroom, etc, etc. So assuming a good conversion can be had (which C1P proves is possible), I'd much rather have the Raws than the SOOC JPEGs.


+1



Jan 14, 2013 at 06:04 PM
corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


According to Capture Integration (PhaseOne dealer in the US), the conversion algorithm for the Fuji files is "preliminary."


Jan 14, 2013 at 06:59 PM
Brody LeBlanc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


edge100 wrote:
Even if the Raw files could be processed to look identical to the JPEGs, this is really only half the story. The JPEGs are great IF you've got a perfect image in camera and IF Fuji's in-cam conversion suits your needs. The Raw still offers post-shoot WB control, highlight headroom, etc, etc. So assuming a good conversion can be had (which C1P proves is possible), I'd much rather have the Raws than the SOOC JPEGs.


Exactly! I don't understand why people are so obsessed with comparing RAWs to JPGs when it comes to Fuji.
Yes, they did a great job on the in-camera JPG processor. No, it's not the same as editing a RAW file via 3rd party software.
To be honest, I have no clue how decent any of my previous camera's JPGs were because I never have or will shoot SOOC JPG.
The Reason? Flexibility. Isn't this the main reason for RAWs in the first place?
If JPGs were capable of doing what I need, then I would never think twice about shooting them, but they don't.
The reality is, when you're shooting fast moving, interactive work, the last thing I want to think about is my white balance.
The less I have to think about technical setting, the more I can focus on composition, lighting, and capturing that one perfect image.
C1's conversion of X-Trans RAWs is a huge improvement over anything else I've used to date and will support them until other companies are wiling to put quality first, and connivence second.
Sure it might be a hassle for programmers to figure out, but we live in an era of unheard of technological progression on almost all fronts.
I'm pretty confident the X-Trans sensor isn't some sort of uncrackable enigma, it's just gonna take more work and time.



Jan 14, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Dave McGaughey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


Brody LeBlanc wrote:
Exactly! I don't understand why people are so obsessed with comparing RAWs to JPGs when it comes to Fuji.
Yes, they did a great job on the in-camera JPG processor. No, it's not the same as editing a RAW file via 3rd party software.



It's simple. The JPEGs (ignoring white-balance and dynamic range*) have been better, overall, than any RAW converter until recently.

* Which is why everyone cares about the RAW conversion software. Do people really not get this?



Jan 14, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Brody LeBlanc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · Fujifilm X-Pro 1, XE-1 & XF1= C1P


Dave McGaughey wrote:
It's simple. The JPEGs (ignoring white-balance and dynamic range*) have been better, overall, than any RAW converter until recently.

* Which is why everyone cares about the RAW conversion software. Do people really not get this?


Okay, I can agree with that but I guess what I'm saying is it's not like JPG (as good as they might be) is an option for me or many professionals either way. So yes, SOOC JPG might be the golden standard for all RAW converters to be compared to, but it doesn't make JPG's a viable option.



Jan 14, 2013 at 11:02 PM





FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password