Over the past few weeks, support for Fuji's X-Trans sensor, as found in the X-Pro, X-E1 and the new X100s has gone from minimal to quite extensive. Phase One have for the the first time shipped a product with support (Capture One V7.1) and Adobe (with Lightroom 4.4RC and Adobe Camera Raw 7.4) have improved their X-Trans support. In addition, AccuRaw is close to release as a commercial product.
In previous blog posts (here, here, here, here and here) I've compared the then-current raw developer options, and discussed why demosaicing the X-Trans sensor is difficult. On various photo forums, Capture One has had a largely enthusiastic reception, while Adobe's offering has had a more mixed reception, some praising it, but other complaining of softness, blown blue channels and various artifacts.
How do they really stack up? Let's see:
Important Disclaimer: For those that don't know, AccuRaw is my product. So I'm biased.
Lightroom 4.4RC versus X-Trans
The previous blog posts have extensive detail about the older versions of Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw's problems with the X-Trans sensor. Using the same section of the image I used in the previous blog posts, here's LR 4.4RC versus the previous version (all images processed with default settings unless otherwise specified):
The old version: Adobe Camera Raw V7.1 beta, 400% crop
So, an interesting result. Compared to the previous generation, the new Adobe algorithm has much less obvious chroma smearing, so it certainly is much improved. Taking a closer look, where previously the smearing was really bright and intrusive, in the new version the smearing is a lot less bright. However, there's actually more smeared pixels - in effect, the smearing now has a wider radius. In addition, the image is noticeably softer than the previous version.
Another interesting result. Still some smearing, notably inside the letter "A", but not nearly the level seen in the Adobe results. Saturation is good, expect at the tips of the letters - e.g., look at the tips of the "F", and compare to the AccuRaw "maximum resolution" image below. Image sharpness is "interesting"; the way the image looks to me is as if what Phase One have done is to add some extra sharpening on top of an image that probably wasn't too sharp to start with.
Capture One V7.1 versus X-Trans
Phase One's Capture One is a new player on the X-Trans block. Here's what it delivers:
Capture One V7.1, 400% crop
Another interesting result. Still some smearing, notably inside the letter "A", but not nearly the level seen in the Adobe results. Saturation is good, expect at the tips of the letters - e.g., look at the tips of the "F", and compare to the AccuRaw "maximum resolution" image below. Image sharpness is "interesting"; the way the image looks to me is as if what Phase One have done is to add some extra sharpening on top of an image that probably wasn't too sharp to start with.
SILKYPIX versus X-Trans
We saw SILKYPIX in the previous posts:
SILKYPIX conversion, 400% crop
Previously the best of the breed, some chroma smearing, saturation down, resolution appears slightly reduced
AccuRaw versus X-Trans
AccuRaw, now in its Release Candidate form, delivers the following:
AccuRaw RC1: Maximum resolution settings, 400% crop
AccuRaw RC1: 60% luma and chroma artifact suppression,
20% post demosaic filtering, 400% crop
Conclusion - How do they stack up?
Firstly, Adobe's products, even in the new LR 4.4RC/ACR7.4 form, still don't stack up. Although much improved over the previous generation, they still have excessive chroma smearing relative to image resolution. If you were to select a raw processor purely on the basis of getting the maximum out of your X-Trans based camera, Lightroom wouldn't be it.
The other products are much more evenly matched - in my view, technically they're at the same level, just making slightly different choices as to the trade-off between chroma smearing and resolution that the X-Trans sensor brings with it. AccuRaw has the advantage that you can adjust that trade-off to suit yourself and the nature of the image - e.g., for landscapes you can generally use the "maximum resolution" setting because artifacts won't show. However, AccuRaw doesn't have the features that either Capture One or SILKYPIX have.
The other products are much more evenly matched - in my view, technically they're at the same level, just making slightly different choices as to the trade-off between chroma smearing and resolution that the X-Trans sensor brings with it. AccuRaw has the advantage that you can adjust that trade-off to suit yourself and the nature of the image - e.g., for landscapes you can generally use the "maximum resolution" setting because artifacts won't show. However, AccuRaw doesn't have the features that either Capture One or SILKYPIX have.
So really, it's a choice, and that's a big win for users, and a massive step forward from just a few weeks ago. Nine months ago, my comment on the X-Trans was that with a good raw developer, it was almost as good as a conventional sensor. And "almost as good" is actually mostly enough - practically, with the new raw developers, the difference between a conventional sensor and a X-Trans sensor is small enough to get lost in differences in lens performance, etc. There are now enough good raw developers that most users will be able to find one that works for them.
If the users are the winners here, who are the losers? Adobe certainly haven't covered themselves with glory - they have huge reserves of money and probably the best engineering talent in the business, but don't seem to have been able to apply it. Fuji is also a loser. It's ten months since I first blogged about the X-Trans processor, and so far it's delivered nothing to justify the "greater resolution than conventional sensors" hype. Finally, the really big losers are the many camera "reviewers" out there that uncritically repeated Fuji's claims about the X-Trans sensor's greater resolution. To their credit, some reviewers did raise warning flags - Sean Reid and Thom Hogan to mention two, but they were the exceptions. So next time you read a camera review, here's a suggestion - take look at what they wrote about the X-Pro when it was introduced, and judge accordingly.
If the users are the winners here, who are the losers? Adobe certainly haven't covered themselves with glory - they have huge reserves of money and probably the best engineering talent in the business, but don't seem to have been able to apply it. Fuji is also a loser. It's ten months since I first blogged about the X-Trans processor, and so far it's delivered nothing to justify the "greater resolution than conventional sensors" hype. Finally, the really big losers are the many camera "reviewers" out there that uncritically repeated Fuji's claims about the X-Trans sensor's greater resolution. To their credit, some reviewers did raise warning flags - Sean Reid and Thom Hogan to mention two, but they were the exceptions. So next time you read a camera review, here's a suggestion - take look at what they wrote about the X-Pro when it was introduced, and judge accordingly.
View comments