douglasf13 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I've been unsatisfied using X-trans in the last month or two (finally sold X100s last week,) and I compared results from jpegs, RPP, Accuraw, C1, LR and Aperture. I haven't used the most recent Iridient Developer that stopped using the Apple demoisacing process, but, from what I've seen so far, it still not sure it's enough.
Ultimately, X-trans is still a trade off between the watercolor/smearing that we see from the likes of LR (and C1 to a lesser extent) versus the DCRAW based converters that exhibit other artifacts like zippering. TheSuede has explained several times about the inherent trade offs of the X-Trans design, as well as what it would take in a raw converter to improve the results, which we really haven't seen, yet, because the solution seems to require a lot of development and would be computationally heavy. He has mentioned that, even if the X-trans raw conversion is perfect, it still can only reach 50% of the chroma resolution of Bayer at low ISO.
For me, changing my raw converter is as much as a disruption to my workflow as changing cameras, paper, etc., so I prefer not to be on the raw converter merry go round any more, when regular Bayer sensors do a fine job for me, but YMMV. No big deal. A lot of shooters seem to really seem to love the output of X-trans.
|