image courtesy: chromasoft
Fuji X-photographers finally have more software options to process their X-Trans RAW files. That’s great. Now the question is, which one is the best option for your needs?
Sandy (chromasoft) compared ACR7.4/LR 4.4 RC, Silkypix, C1 and AccuRaw (you may know that AccuRaw is Sandy’s product). As other reviews already pointed out, he says that Adobe considerably improved its products. On his site you can see comparison images with the old version of Adobe Camera Raw. Here just a some PROS and CONS of ACR7.4/LR 4.4 RC:
“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.”
And what about Capture One, Silkypix and AccuRaw? Read the whole comparison here!
From the conclusions:
“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. […] 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.
At the end of the post you can read also his thoughts about the X-Trans technology. While many praise the new Fuji-sensor (technology of the year according to imaging resource), here is Sandy’s point of view:
“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.”
In response to chromasofts article, read the one at soundimageplus here.
“Well there may be be some reviews out there like that and I’ll take the writer at his word, but I certainly haven’t seen any. I’ve talked about how good I think the X-Trans image quality is, seen as a whole package including ISO performance, clean results etc., but I’m not sure resolution is part of this.”