Fuji X-Trans Sensor - Fuji X-E1 Chroma Smearing and Crop Problems with Lightroom 4.4RC

Like others, I found that Lightroom 4.3 caused chroma smearing on my Fuji X-E1 files. I compared 90 shots I did today processed with Fuji SilkyPix RAW converted and LR 4.4RC. It appeared to me that the chroma smearing problem is solved. I did not see the chroma smearing, even at 3:1 zoom. The .tiff files from SilkyPix and the .dng files from LR, appeared practically identical which was not the case with LR 4.3.
There was some discussion of purple fringing with the X-E1 and the Fuji 18-55 on this forum. I did not see this in my backlit shots today. I believe that the problem can be greatly reduced or eliminated by avoiding over exposure in the camera. I have found when faced with very bright skies and darker foregrounds that I get better results by metering the sky, and then over exposing only 1 to 1-1/2 stops. If I cannot do this, I get good results by properly exposing the subject. If both the sky and the subject are over exposed, the fringing appears around the subject.
I was also happy to see that my files are no longer coming into Lightroom cropped.
It looks like I will be able to use Lightroom for my Fuji files with the 4.4RC.

The results of my experiments are different than what is being said, here, and different than I expected.
My DNG Conversion options are as listed, above, and did not include setting Custom with Linear as a conversion option, but merely setting ACR 6.6+ as the compatibility. If there is some way to set Linear along with ACR 6.6 compatibility I’d like to know how.
My guess would be that either Adobe is making a linear DNG in this specialized case of X-Trans, to make things compatible with older ACRs that have no idea how to decode X-Trans--which is the promise of converting to DNG, OR Adobe is modifying the X-Trans data to have it be more like normal Bayer layout of still one-color-per-pixel so not demosaicking, exactly, just re-mosaicking.
Anyone can repeat my experiments:
Here is the DNG Converter 7.3 for Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5519
Here is the DNG Converter 7.4RC for Windows: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw7-4.html
Here is an X-Pro1 ISO 200 RAF file: http://movies.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/fujifilm_xpro1/DSCF2008.RAF.zip

Similar Messages

Chrome and Safari problem with webfont word spacing in Muse CC

I'm designing a website using Typekit web font Open Sans 14pt. in Muse CC. When I preview page in Chrome or Safari (on Windows 7 64bit O.S.) the text doesn't display exactly word per line my Muse file. Words drop down to the next line. Almost like kerning has adjusted, but can't see it with the naked eye. However, using Chrome and Safari on my iPad, the text displays exactly the same as my Muse file - no problem. Using Firefox and Internet Explorer on the PC, no problem - text displays as per the Muse file. Problem only with Chrome and Safari on my PC. Tried playing with encoding etc in settings but no progress.

Hey
Thanks for the reply. This is a live site, so I had to fudge it, which I did by incorporating most of the graphic elements into a layered Photoshop file and using that as the background. Instead of using an embedded video player, I had the video poster image open a new page, with the video embedded there. Finally, I made sure that none of the tooltip windows overlapped.
That seems to have gotten me something I can use, but I'm still curious about making ordering work as it's not always possible to design around the overlapping windows.
Is this not a problem you've seen before?
Overall, I'm very enthusiastic about Muse and using it in conjunction with Catalyst to allow clients to do some updating.
Thanks!

Monitor sensor stopped responding alerts and typing problems with external keyboard.

The past few days I have been getting these alerts. Also, I use my MacBook as a desktop about 60% of the time and like to hook up a full size keyboard. It's worked fine for two years but now I can only type a few words before there is a stall and I can't type anything for 30 seconds. It has happened on both a Kensington keyboard and on a 10-year-old iMac keyboard. They have both worked perfect in the past. Also, both work just fine on an old iBook and on an old iMac slot loader.

Rudegar wrote:...
held down the button on the back the on/off button and closed and started it again and all was well again
try it
Thanks, Rudegar, for the suggestion.
But as I said above, "Mr H, with the magic touch, went to the iMac - opened a new text edit doc and started typing - no problem, opened Google - typed into search field - no problem..." which is to say the problem has solved itself by just regrouping itself after all peripherals were detatched and HDs no longer involved? We'll see if it reproduces itself next time I do this HD-HD copy.
I don't know why it's fixed, but since all is well, the permissions are repaired, and I've put it to sleep and awakened it, and it's still running fine (indeed I'm typing on the iMac now), I am loathe to do anything to solve a problem that seems to no longer exist.
If things go awry I will first try a restart or perhaps just shut down from the Apple menu. As I said I was worried about doing this fearing I'd have to log in and not be able to do it - but the auto login setting works to my advantage here.
Anyone else have any ideas on what went wrong???
Thanks again,
Mrs H

Lightroom support for Fuji X-Trans???

From DP review:
Just came back from D-Clic photo show in Montreal and had the chance to talk with Billy from Fuji Guys. He asked me if I was happy with my X-Pro1 and I said yes, very happy BUT would like Adobe and others to better support it (or at all in the case of Aperture...). I expected him to play it safe but he actually acknowledged the problem right away and told me that they recently signed a non-disclosure agreement with both Adobe and Apple and provided them with specs for supporting the X-Trans sensor !
He said he is also pushing strong with Fuji to add support for TIFF in the camera so that could be another good thing for some.
Lets hope this leads to progress...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286994
Hope this is the real deal…

I had contact with Adobe support on Friday. They are aware of the problem, but could not confirm me that it will be fixed in LR 4.4. We need more pressure!!!

Fuji x-trans RAW in LR and ACR

Will LR and ACR be updating support for the Fuji x-trans sensor anytime soon?
I wouldn't want to change my raw processor...

No one from Adobe will say anything, and no one else knows.

Flawed colors with Lightroom and Fuji XE-1

The Camera Raw support for Fuji XE-1 is heavily flawed. Using Lightroom as a raw converter for these pictures, severe color mismatches can be found in the images. The problem is well known and was frequently reported on in internet blogs (sometimes refered to as "chroma smearing"), and it still persists even with Lightroom 4.3. Fuji tells me that all necessary data was given to Adobe long ago. So here comes my question: Why is the support for Fuji's XE-1 so flawed and when will Adobe guarantee full compatibility?

There is a thread in the Official Adobe forum for the reporting of bugs and feature request about the sub-standard processing of raw files from the Fuji X Pro1 and X E1. They have acknowledged that they are aware of the problem and are working on resolving the issue.
It appears that the Fuji sensor is unique and more of a chalange in creating an acceptable quality profile. I am sure that Abobe is making every effort to resolve the problem, however they will not release an update untill it meets their quality standard. Process engines are different for every third party raw processing software providers who are not able to use the camera manufacturer's proprietory processes and profiles.
Each provider have their own chefs and recipe's are unique.
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/camera_raw_7_1_with_xpro_1_raw_detai l_area_change_to_oil_painting_effect

HT4757 When will Aperture support non-Bayer sensors like the Fuji x-trans and exr sensors?

I understand that Apple have the specs of the Fujifilm x-trans sensors, and they must have had specs of EXR sensor for ages. When can we expect proper raw support for these excellent cameras?

No one here has any more information than you do.

Management of Fuji X-Trans RAW Files

It would be really helpful if Adobe staff who monitor this forum could make a comment on work proceeding to improve the handling of RAW files coming from X-trans sensor cameras. I've recently started shooting a Fuji X-E1 along with my Nikon D3s and, while the jpgs are quite good, the RAW handling by ACR results in significant artifacts which limit the usefulness of Lightroom and Photoshop. While I understand that product development timing is uncertain, it would help the entire Fujifilm user community to know that Adobe was at least "working on it".
Thanks!
Jeff

See an Adobe employee’s response, today, at the end of a long thread about the subject started back at the end of May:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/camera_raw_7_1_with_xpro_1_raw_detai l_area_change_to_oil_painting_effect#reply_10842854
Jeffrey Tranberry (Chief Customer Advocate):
The team is aware of the issue and investigating what can be done but cannot offer an ETA at this time.

Export several Fuji X-Trans Files got "Not Enough Memory" Error

When I tried to export several (say 15) Fuji X-Trans files at the same time, I got a "Not Enough Memory" Error. This problem only occurred after after upgrading to Lightroom 4.4. I can now only export a few (3-5) X-Trans files at the same time. Does anyone encounter this problem and know how to fix it?
I am using Windows 7 32-bit with 4GB memory, SSD System drive, and Radeon 7700 Graphics card. For Virtual memory, I set "no paging file" on C drive and "system managed size" on another SSD drive.
Thanks in advance.
Wilson

One might expect an Export function is single-threaded so the number of files exported wouldn’t matter, but perhaps if you are very close to the limit, memory fragmentation comes into play, where LR is requiring contiguous blocks and there aren’t any big enough. It’s probably time to upgrade to a 64-bit Windows system and start getting used to the Metro interface which isn’t bad as long as your frequently-used programs have tiles on the first screen.
Go to Help / System Info… and see how much memory LR has available. On my 32-bit system with 4GB of RAM installed LR only has 716.8MB available which is typical for 32-bit Windows applications:
Built-in memory: 3327.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 160.5 MB (22.3%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 160.8 MB
Memory cache size: 33.2 MB
You could change your VM settings to allocate a multi-gigabyte minimum pagefile size to see if it makes any difference, in case LR is waiting on the VMM to allocate more and then gives up, but I’d expect LR is requiring actual RAM for processing images, not VM which is much , much slower.

Lightroom 4 and Fujis X-Trans filter, when will there be a solution?

I tried to search the topic before, but I did not find a result, so I started my own question.
Converting a RAF Raw from Fujis X-E1 or X-Pro1 cameras will result in a harsh blurry JPG. The inCamera-Raw-Conversation or the RAW-Converting from Fujis delivered software results are much much better.
I know, even with Canons or Nikons LR4 does sometimes a better or a worse job than the dedicated converters, but with the new Fujifilm Cameras it is unusable.
Adobe may know the problem, because well known camera reviewer like dpreview stated there point on this topic already in their reviews. Also Fujifilm itself told me they reported the issues to Adobe.
My question here is, what is the current status?
The new 7.3 or rather LR 4.3 do not give any improvements on this problem. Which is very disappointing, especially for early X-Pro1 owners.
Thank you! :-)

Just clicked Forum (german adobe-website) in the Lightroom section. Sorry if I chose the wrong board :/
The camera only can shoot RAW. I think even my Canons can't shoot DNG if I'm remembering right.

Fuji FInePIx F31fd colour reproduction problems in Lightroom.

Hi, I have a Canon 400D and Fuji FInePix F31fd. When I import the Fuji pictures into Lightroom (1.1 and 1.3) some of the pictures have pink artefacts on the faces of the subjects. When viewed on the camera, using Canon software of Fuji software, or even Nero or Windows, none of the artefacts are present. In fact, all of the Fuji images look soft and the colour reproductions are poor when viewed with Lightroom or Photoshop.
Has anyone else experienced this? Does anybody have any suggestions for resolving this?
Many thanks.

Not necessarily. The other applications likely don't use the OS's default monitor profile.
As for the 400D shots, it's possible that the tone curves tend more to avoid the troublesome areas of the profile.
If you don't profile your monitor, delete the default from the OS and see if things change. You can always put it back.

Does ACR include all information from X-Trans sensors?

There has been a lot of discussion about how best to convert information from X-Trans sensors. Early conversion algorithms have been criticized in various fora and the algorithms have been improved. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the algorithms will be improved again in the future.
If I store a raw file and then convert it to another form, say, TIFF, using a future conversion algorithm, I will obviously be able to take advantage of that algorithm. What if I store it in DNG form today and then convert it to TIFF in the future? Will I be able to use the future conversion algorithm, or will key information have been lost in converting to DNG?
Here's what I think the situation is:
If I use DNG Converter 8.4 and say that I want conversion that is compatible with ACR 7.1, then the X-Trans information is preserved. Moreover, converting to DNG does lossless compression, so the DNG file that results is likely to be smaller than the original raw file.
If I use DNG Converter 8.4 and say that I want conversion that is compatible with ACR 6.3 or earlier, then DNG converter will do the conversion to RGB pixels. This will result in a DNG file that will probably be larger than the original raw file, and will make it impossible to use future raw conversion algorithms. However, it will also yield a DNG file that can be opened by versions of Photoshop before CS6 and versions of Lightroom before LR5.
I would really appreciate it if someone from Adobe can tell me whether my understanding is correct, and correct it if it is not.

Well, ark, I don't appreciate being called rude and inappropriate, but I'm not here to argue with you.
You still don't get it:
[email protected]
Let me rephrase the question.
Suppose in a couple of years a new version of ACR comes out that does a better job of demosaicing (or whatever) than the current one. Is there any reason to believe that it would be necessary to recreate every DNG file from the corresponding raw file (as it was in going from ACR 6.3 (I think) to ACR 7.1) or is the DNG file from ACR 8.4 contain all of the information in the raw file?
This is a reasonable question about workflow…
No, it's a question about a hypothetical… and it lacks foundation. Yes, we do foresee the probability of future versions of ACR doing a better job of the conversion, that is precisely the point. But for ACR to get to that point, it would require a breakthrough in technology that we cannot now predict. Not knowing what such an advance might entail, the question of whether the DNG wrapper could be affecting the raw data in ways that we cannot currently discern becomes impossible to answer.
Given current technology, we can say today that the raw data is indeed not affected by the DNG conversion, but no one can guarantee you that future technology advances will not force us to revise that view.
That's why it is so unwise not to keep the original raw file in perpetuity, especially when the only drawback is the cost of file storage, which at this point is so ridiculously cheap as to be trivial.
If you want to perceive rudeness and inappropriateness in my point of view, or in my expressing such an opinion, go ahead. There's nothing I can do about it.
You had a question, and I answered it to the best of my ability, that's all. In my considered opinion, your stance is unwise.

DNG Converter 7.4RC - support for X-trans sensor?

Hi, the ACR 7.4 download pages says it "includes a correction to the demosaic algorithms for Fujifilm cameras with the X-Trans sensor". Is that correction also included in the DNG converter 7.4?
Thanks

ssprengel wrote:
An exception to this would be for Linear DNGs that have already have been demosaicked, but still retain the raw property of absolute white-balance and camera calibration adjustments, right?
And Lossy DNGs that are resampled from their original resolution (which requires that the file be a linear DNG).

Camera Raw Chroma Smearing with Fujifilm X Series

I'm using Adobe Photoshop CS6 with an up-to-date Camera Raw version 7.3 to process raw files from my Fujifilm X-E1. As widely reported, ACR introduces obvious chroma smearing into the images that other software (SilkyPix, in-camera processing, iOS PhotoRaw) have no problems with. The workflow for PS CS6 is great, but ACR's buggy demosaicing algorithm continues to be a real problem with the latest version of ACR. Aside from using SilkyPix or other, does anyone know of any near term fixes for this problem until Adobe gets their act together on demosaicing Fuji's X-Trans sensor?
Our eyeballs all have rods and cones that are irregularly spaced and sparse, and we all can see just fine without a Bayer array in our eyeballs, so there's no fundamental reason why Adobe won't be able to fix this issue with X-Trans demosaicing. I just hope they get on the case with a fix for the next version of ACR.
Here's an example that anyone can recreate: ACR's chroma smearing is especially a problem for any text that appears in the image. The numbers on the boats below show chroma smearing when processed using ACR, but not with SilkyPix or other software. It's also possible to see the same problem using dpreview's studio comparison tool. The lens is a 35 mm f1.4 so this smearing at the image center certainly isn't any chromatic abberation from the lens.
Original image (35 mm f1.4):
1:1 crops:
ACR (version 7.3) versus SilkyPix (version shipped with Fuji cameras):

As you say it’s been “widely reported” and Adobe knows about it.

I was having problems with Firefox browsing VERY SLOW, and since Mozilla doesn't have support for Mac users, there was no solution to this problem. I have switched to CHROME and WOW this browser if FAST!.

Lovin' Chrome. Good bye Firefox!

i have the same problem with the above..firefox is running too slow with the games in facebook..but it runs good when browsing my updates, msgs, photos...firefox is totally opposite of IE..IE is faster with the games and slow while browsing..i love to use mozila but when i do games it really pisses me off...hope you could help me..

Fuji X-Trans Sensor - Fuji X-E1 Chroma Smearing and Crop Problems with Lightroom 4.4RC

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for