Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This sort of thing? http://chromasoft.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/lightroom-41-and-fuji-x-pro1-oh-dear.html john ________________________________________ IF they are true RAW files, then the camera isn't doing anything to them - they are simply the data captured by the sensor - no sharpening, no in camera "correction." When they are converted to DNG, they are being converted to a theoretically lossless compressed format, but, again, are unaltered. Then the fun begins. Apparently the Adobe conversion is doing something wrong, because the files end up with a weird pattern - a sort of checkerboard pattern, with little crosses in the checkerboard squares, and dots, that I can see very faintly at 66 percent, and painfully clearly at 100 percent. Typed with big fingers on tiny keys -----Original Message----- From: Richard Taylor <r.s.taylor at comcast.net> Sender: lug-bounces+bd=bdcolenphoto.com at leica-users.org Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:24:29 To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> Subject: Re: [Leica] Using the Fuji X Pro-1 Ed - I don't if the X Pro-1 sharpens RAW files in the camera or not. The out-of-camera RAW files are 16 bits. They're identified as .RAF files. Silky Pix RAW saves 8 bit TIFs and JPGs from these files. The DNG files are 16 bits. Regards, Dick On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Edward Kowaleski wrote: > It suggests that the Fuji conversion is doing some sharpening in the > processing. Is the processing going on in the camera or in the computer > after you take the chip out of the camera? Does the Fuji image produce a > 16 > Bit Fuji proprietary image (or a TIF) or a PSD file? I'd be curious. > > Ed > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+ekowaleski=twmi.rr.com at leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+ekowaleski=twmi.rr.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Richard Taylor > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:36 AM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Using the Fuji X Pro-1 > > Ed - I can't make a comparison to the Nikon RAW processor since I've never > used it. The Fuji RAW processor--at least on the few images I've tried it > with--seems to produce slightly sharper images but they have noticeable > splotchy color noise that I do not see using the Adobe RAW converter. The > splotchy noise isn't at all bad, but it is noticeable and I'd rather not > see > it at all. > > I convert all my RAW files to DNG on import just as you do. > > The camera will be with me when I go to Maine and by then we should know > whether or not it's going to be a useful platform for my neglected Leica > lenses. > > Regards, > > Dick > > > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Edward Kowaleski wrote: > >> Thanks for the update. I'm looking forward to handling it when I see >> you in Bar Harbor. >> >> Do you have an opinion of the quality of images generated from DNG >> files that have been converted from proprietary Fuji or Nikon RAW >> files? I know you find the conversion a little (or lots) longer but >> is there any qualitative difference? >> >> I have been converting all my Panasonic or Nikon RAW images to DNG as >> soon as I take the chip out of the camera. It makes subsequent >> processing and storage simpler (to me) and keeps all my RAW files on >> one platform which I feel confident that Adobe will maintain similar to > their Acrobat PDF files. >> I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. >> >> Ed >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+ekowaleski=twmi.rr.com at leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+ekowaleski=twmi.rr.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf >> Of Richard Taylor >> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:29 AM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: [Leica] Using the Fuji X Pro-1 >> >> I've had my X Pro-1 for two weeks now and in thought you might be >> interested in my impressions of the camera. There are many images on >> line testifying to its excellent image quality at low and high ISO so >> I'm not going to add more--at least for now. What they show is all >> true, though, in my experience. >> >> If you've been following the discussions about the camera, not all of this >> will be new to you. >> >> In a nutshell, it is the most M-like digital camera I've yet run across. >> The aperture dial is on the lens where it belongs, ditto for the >> shutter speed dial and exposure correction dials on the body, and you >> can set the Fn button to bring up ISO settings, so everything you're >> likely to need in routine shooting is right out in the open. The body >> is just a bit smaller than the M9 and weighs about half as much. >> >> With the Fujinon lenses, focus is just like the Leica, except it's >> automatic. Aim the focus rectangle in the OVF at the point you want >> in focus, half press the shutter, watch the frame lines jump into >> place, reframe if necessary and shoot. Perfect! When you're close in >> you've got to use the lower right focus rectangle to correct for >> parallax, but otherwise the procedure is the same. Focus speed is >> more than fast enough, but nowhere near as fast as my Panasonic GX-1. >> >> If you place the focus rectangle correctly, the focus will be spot-on. >> >> OTH, the camera, despite the inclusion of a "Multi-Spot" mode, really >> doesn't have one as far as I've can tell. If you put it in >> Multi-Spot, it will choose the single most contrasty spot in the frame >> to focus on, whether it's your subject's eye or a lightbulb in the far >> corner of the frame. I don't see why this method would work under any >> circumstances, but maybe one of you can enlighten me. >> >> The only way you can shoot from the hip is to lock focus on an >> appropriate middle distance and stop way down, again just as you would do > with an M. >> >> I can see the frames lines and data in the OVF with my regular glasses on. >> If I'm wearing polarizing sunglasses and holding the camera horizontally, >> though, I can't either in the OVF or anything at all in the EVF. With > the >> LCD on the camera back it's the other way around. It's readable with >> the camera horizontal, but not vertical. >> >> Opinions can differ on this of course, but for my purposes LR 4 does a >> better job of processing the RAW files than the Fuji RAW converter does. >> There is less blotchy chroma noise and sharpness is almost as good. >> OTH, converting the RAW files to DNG and importing them into LR seems >> to take forever, maybe 3-4 times as long as it takes to import files from > my D300. >> >> The only thing about the camera that drives me nuts is the power switch. >> Whoever designed it needs to go in for some remedial work on detent > design. >> Even the slightest brush of the hand or the side of a camera bags turns > the >> camera on. Bad, bad, bad. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Dick >> >>