Brody LeBlanc wrote:
This is an excellent comparison. Geez, no wonder people were so unhappy with 4.3. That's hideous.
+1 Excellent comparison! I have a found a bug though with the LR 4.4 RC, in that the adjustments will not scroll through, by clicking on the button. I sure there will be a quick fix here soon. I duplicated the problem on two separate computers!
"Demosaic algorithms for Fujifilm cameras with the X-Trans sensor have also been corrected."
If the above statement is from the Adobe, then it is a false advertising.
The main problem persists and, as I wrote earlier, it will either be fixed by Fuji or not.
The complete s/w solution to this problem doesn't exist. This is related to the h/w problem.
The artifacts looks awful and the 200% blow up isn't necessary to see.
Lan11 wrote:
"Demosaic algorithms for Fujifilm cameras with the X-Trans sensor have also been corrected."
If the above statement is from the Adobe, then it is a false advertising.
The main problem persists and, as I wrote earlier, it will either be fixed by Fuji or not.
The complete s/w solution to this problem doesn't exist. This is related to the h/w problem.
The artifacts looks awful and the 200% blow up isn't necessary to see.
Lan11,
You are like a bad penny. You keep appearing in all discussions of the X-Trans cameras and the RAW processing software. Please bow out of this discussion. There is no question that LR 4.4RC and the new Camera RAW 7.4 as well as Capture One 7, and Silkpix 5 are providing substantially improved results for these cameras. Hopefully additional improvements will be coming.
@Lan11, as a potential Fuji-X system buyer I am fairly interested in these threads about the X-trans sensor and I feel that your contributions generally tend to disrupt these otherwise useful and informative threads. I am sure all potential and current Fuji users are already well aware of the unique challenges posed by the Fuji sensor and are more interested in finding out about actual user experiences and results rather than constant reminders about how it is a doomed sensor technology. I think you have already made your point quite a few times in many threads so why not give it a rest and let those who are actually interested in the Fuji cameras keep discussing.
For the past three months, Lan11's posts-- and there are only 80 in total-- have been almost purely dedicated to attacking Fuji, XTrans, and anyone who doesn't entirely agree with him that the X-cameras are the biggest fraud ever hoisted on a photographic community.
Yes, we get it, there's something in the hardware/software that induces this particularly type of artifact in specific situations-- often to a minor degree. That's not an issue for many of us. It may be for others. Yes, we'd be thrilled if it goes away entirely. But anyone with any kind of perspective will realize that all current systems on the market-- yes, even Bayer-based-- induce artifacts/eccentricities of some kind. Photographs are representations of the real world-- not 3 dimensional carbon copies that we can touch. They cannot be a dead match-- ever!-- for the actual world. Swallow this pill, and then approach photography as maximizing those aspects YOU need to focus on. Ignoring those that don't matter. And avoiding those that bother you.
We all shoot different things, for different purposes, with different gear. That's cool.
There are a lot of happy photographers-- and outstanding images-- made with X-cameras in the image thread dedicated to that on this very forum. These images, and their uses beyond the forum, speak far louder about what this camera can produce than a single, suspiciously/pathologically focused poster, with a limited history here, who seems to get his/her rocks off by saying the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over again in a seeming attempt to disrupt each and every thread on the topic.
Joseph Marney wrote:
Here is a compare at 200% that shows the difference pretty well.
On my Fuji X-E1, I've just been depending on the SOOC JPEG from the camera. I didn't know the Adobe conversions were that bad from the pre 4.4 versions. Thanks for the comparison it clearly shows the difference.
I agree totally.
I will soon have an X-E1, and, specifically for the X-Trans sensor.
I hope it continues to improve and prosper.
I like having different choices.
Same for the Foveon also.
curious80 wrote:
@Lan11, as a potential Fuji-X system buyer I am fairly interested in these threads about the X-trans sensor and I feel that your contributions generally tend to disrupt these otherwise useful and informative threads. I am sure all potential and current Fuji users are already well aware of the unique challenges posed by the Fuji sensor and are more interested in finding out about actual user experiences and results rather than constant reminders about how it is a doomed sensor technology. I think you have already made your point quite a few times in many threads so why not give it a rest and let those who are actually interested in the Fuji cameras keep discussing....Show more →
