Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji Digital General Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Fuji shooters, grab Iridient X-Transformer now!
Old 01-06-2017   #1
Registered User
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,121
Fuji shooters, grab Iridient X-Transformer now!

Found out about this on FredMiranda this morning.
Basically you buy and install this program and convert your Fuji RAF files to DNG before importing and processing them into Lightroom or whichever photo editing program you use.
I can see a big improvement on how LR renders the converted DNG file vs RAF.

For comparison here are 2 snapshots I took of DNG(left) vs RAF(right)
DNGvsRAF by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
DNGvsRAF2 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #2
Registered User
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,121
bump, here are comparisons between DNG and JPG (I tried to match the PP that Acros Y did, didnt apply any sharpness)

DNGvsJPG by Earl Dieta, on Flickr

DNGvsJPG2 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #3
Registered User
krötenblender's Avatar
krötenblender is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 971
There is currently a similar thread on a German forum and for both, there and here, I fail to see a very big difference. For your DNG vs. RAF this may be because of the small format of the images (1:1 crops of the problematic areas may help).

In the second comparison I clearly prefer the jpgs out of camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #4
Registered User
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,121
All print screens I posted were 1:1 crops except the 2nd one which was a 1:2 crop
For the JPG, is it the tonality of the B&W that you prefer or the sharpness?
As for me, I definitely find the DNG versus the RAF and SOOC JPG to be sharper.

note, the JPG comparisons also weren't on the center of the image but on the side/corner.
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #5
User deletion pending
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
In you first post the snow photo looks a bit better with Iridient, more details in the snow. To me the coast photo is unusable in both version because of the blurry green trees. No Iridient can rescue this mess.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #6
Registered User
willie_901's Avatar
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
... didnt apply any sharpness)
Capture sharpening's purpose is to compensate for the fact that demosaiking algorithms are not able to precisely represent a continuous phenomenon using incomplete (i.e. discrete) data. Capture sharpening is a form of spatial mathematical filtering.

So if these two demosaiking algorithms use fundamentally different mathematical models, why wouldn't their optimum sharpening parameters be different? The need for post-rendering sharpening does not necessarily mean a demosaiking algorithm is inferior, similar or superior to one that does not.

Do we know if Iridient applies some form of 'sharpening' during the DNG transformation? Data filtering is typically part of the Demosaiking process.[1].

It is difficult to rigorously compare two completely different rendering platforms. There are numerous variables that affect our perception of images rendered by different platforms. It is likely the parameters that affect these variables behave differently when the demosaiking algorithms are different.

[1]Technical Link (sharpening section starts at slide #24)
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #7
Registered User
kai.zorki is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cologne
Posts: 74
You can turn that all off, the process is very customisable. I find that it gives slightly better results, but it is still a beta and my testing wasn't extensive, so it should improve even further.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #8
Registered User
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,369
v3 of the beta just came out and this also includes a MacOS version. If you have a current Iridient Developer license you can get Iridient Transformer for 40% off. I just bought a copy and with the discount it is $19.11.

Already has support for x100f, XT20 and GFX 50S.

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-12-2017   #9
Registered User
MaxElmar's Avatar
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 589
Unfortunately, the already large RAF files get even larger as DNG! I guess if you are dedicated to using LR and X-Trans it's ok. Still evaluating. They do look good. X-Trans 2 (16mp) RAF files go from ~34mb to ~46mb with lossless compression. Compression off they jump to ~86mb. Iridient Developer can output compressed TIFFS ~76mb. These figures are all 16 bits per channel files. You can chop off bits for smaller files, too - there is a 10 bit option for DNG - this gives you ~30mb files. I have not yet evaluated the impact of loosing those 6 bits.... my Mac does NOT like the 10 bit DNGs...

The main advantage seems to be in the everyday file handling - everything seems to render much faster as DNG than RAF. (Like 2.5s vs. 9sec in preview!)
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool

  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 16:48.

vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.