Reading a thread on DPReview, for certain camera settings or shooting conditions, the camera may be creating the half-sized RAW so that is all the data Adobe has to work with:
See the third paragraph from the fourth reply in this thread:
Quite true ... with one caveat: Fuji's EXR sensor not only has the rotated matrix common to all SCCDs (now SCMOS I suppose), but it also has paired pixels of the same color that allow for binning and blending half resolution images for noise reduction and dynamic range extension respectively; also full resolution images that use all pixels.
So even if Fuji wrote all that into a DNG package, Adobe would have had to do a lot of work to support it. Which is why we all thought that Adobe skipped the S200EXR, which has been out for a long time.
When I first contact Adobe and Fuji on ACR and DNG respectively (about 6 months ago), I was convinced that the RAW images were that complex. But since receiving the F550EXR, it has become apparent that Fuji writes half resolution RAW files whenever dynamic range is set at 200 or 400 (split sensor with blend of two exposures) or SN mode (binned sensor.) Which is to say that Fuji is already doing the processing of the split sensor modes and creating a single SCMOS matrix that Adobe can process much like the SCCD matrix in the S100fs, which it has supported for a long time.
Unfortunately this is for RAW images shot in L size without using the DR200/DR400 features. In other words full resolution 12 Megapixel images. The Fuji X10 writes 'half-resolution' RAW files whenever the camera is set to RAW+JPG and is in M Size mode (6Mp) and/or one of the EXR modes. It is obvious when this occurs because the RAW file is only about 9MB in size, where as the full resolution RAW files I'm referring to are appx 19MB in size.
I do not believe that in this situation that applies, because there is measurable more detail in the 12Mp OOC JPG images than I can ever extract through ACR or LR (using the 19MB full-res RAW file) regardless of settings (and I've spent countless hours trying to do so)...
Like you, I have spent countless hours since the X10 ACR support was first released attempting to equal the 12MP OOC JPEG results with my X10 in terms of sharpness and detail. I know the camera is capable of more since the JPEGs it creates either at the time of capture or afterwards using the in camera RAW processing feature produce sharper more detailed results than the RAW files I process with Lightroom. This should not be the case. It would appear that there is something definitely lacking in how the ACR suppport handles the files particulalry in the areas of sharpening and noise reduction. All the usual sharpening/noise reduction techniques that I use for processing RAW files from other cameras do not work well with X10 files resulting instead in clumpy/granular results.
In the Sharpening pane of the Develop Module in Lightroom decreasing the "detail" slider to no more than 3-5, decreasing the "radius" slider to .5 and increasing the "amount" slider to a level around 100 or more I am seeing slightly better results, but image files are still not matching the OOC JPEGs. Some blue sky noise can be further minimized by judicious use of the Sharpening pane's "masking" slider. On the noise reduction end of things, I have found that Luminance NR must be kept very low, usually under 10 to preserve details, and the "color" slider also needs to be set quite low in the 5-9 range or less to avoid decreased color saturation especially in images taken at higher ISO settings.
Hopefully, your thread, and others will get the attention of someone at Adobe. After all, isn't this the very kind of example why we as Adobe customers continue to purchase their software and perform the upgrades as they become available? If the upgrades and software do not perform as they should then we are forced to look elsewhere.
I certainly applaud the attempt on Adobe's part to get the RAW support for the X10 camera into the latest update of Lightroom and Photoshop so quickly, it just appears that it is somewhat incomplete. Hopefully, this can and will be addressed quickly.
I agree that I am very happy to see 'any' form of RAW support on Adobe's part, I am thankful as well.
I will try out your settings, thanks again!
I feel that one of two outcomes are possible from this situation and my post:
Either Adobe indicates the X10 support is truly limited and that it is not fully utilizing all of the available data, and that we can expect additional enhanced support in the future -OR- that Adobe indicates it has maximized its ability to support the X10 RAW format (whether by choice or by technicality) and that we can expect no significant future rendering improvement.
In either case, the answer will affect how I use the camera, how often, and in what situations.
I think you are right about possible outcomes from Adobe. I hope they recognize the growing and potentially large userbase of EXR sensor cameras (assuming other EXR models either will or do exhibit this issue) and decide to support the Fuji RAW files more effectively. For Adobe users such as myself, I like a "one stop solution" for processing image files. Lightroom does that for the moment, but if additional third party support comes out which offers better X10 RAW processing support then I will definitely have to consider it. Apple's Aperture, DXO Labs, Capture One, are a few that come to mind. I am not keen on what little I have used SilkyPix so I do not see it as a viable option for me.
It seems that if Fuji's own internal camera processing can take the image data from the X10 RAW files and produce nice and sharp and detailed 12 MP files with minimal noise then some clever software engineer should be able to figure out what kind of processing is going on in the camera and build it into the RAW develpoment software. And for those who might ask something like, "well if the JPEGs straight from the camera are so good just shoot JPEGs", I would say that perfectly exposed and white balanced JPEGs are one thing. But many photos can be improved, especially in selective areas, when working with a RAW file containing maximum information, and thus headroom, in bright and dark areas of the image. As well as a host of other reasons why most professional and enthusiast photographers opt to shoot RAW files in the first place. I believe a comprehensive, full-functioning RAW processor (preferably well thought out and easy to use like Lightroom) is necessary to get the absolute best out of the X10, or any digital camera RAW file.
Otherwise, yes, this will certainly limit how and when the camera is used and/or force X10 users to look somewhere other than Adobe for the best RAW file processing needs.
1 person found this helpful
We're investigating, thanks for the feedback.
Many of us Fuji X10 RAW shooters and Lightroom/CS5 users look forward to any light that you can shed on this situation.
Thank you for the acknowledgement and investigation.
I did do more work last night and I now have different suspicions/theories:
1. I do believe that ACR is using/producing the full 12Mp of resolution. I am able to at least match the level of detail of a 12Mp (L Size) OOC JPG shot at base ISO (and DR100) using RAW processed in ACR/LR.
2. I am unable to match the level of detail of a 12Mp OOC JPG shot at high ISOs (and particularly challenging low light conditions). I believe this is due to my initial complaint regarding how ACR/LR is handling Noise Reduction and Sharpening. If I use settings along what Tom mentions above I can get very close to the OOC JPG, but I either loose some fine detail to the Luminance NR or I have to accept considerably more visable noise to see the same detail. This is the first occurance I've had where the 'next-gen' noise reduction of ACR/LR cannot meet or exceed the NR/detail ratio of an OOC JPG image.
If the X10 .RAF file truly contains 'two' data sets that must be combined in some way, I suspect that the NR and/or Sharpening processing could still be occuring at the pre-combined state. I have quite a few 10-12Mp RAW samples from other cameras and the NR/Sharpening does not behave similar in any way compared to the X10, the NR and sharpening appear to operate at a 'finer' level. Out of curiousity I compared a few high ISO images I took with a 6Mp Nikon D40 and I've found the NR and Sharpening impact the pixel level on a much more similar basis (when the image is then upscaled to 12M and compared at 100% to the X10 RAW images) - further leading me to believe there is something quirky going on.
Thanks again Tom for those settings, I've found that I must absolutely shoot DR100 if using RAW as the DR200 and DR400 in full RAW are roughly 1/2ev and 1.3ev stop under-exposures with shadows 'boosted' to the massive detriment of detail and color fidelity in low light/high iso situations. I prefer to just dial-in some negative EC in high DR situations to maximize highlight detail and make my own adjustments with a little 'Fill Light' during RAW conversion.
You are welcome, Adam. It is encouraging that this is being investigated.
Like you, I tend to prefer to keep control of my cameras when I am shooting and fine tune the RAW files after the fact for the best possible image quality. Which is why it's been somewhat puzzling that this has not really been possible with X10 files thus far with the new ACR support comparing them to in-camera JPEGs or camera-processed RAW files. Primarily in the areas of maximizing details and keeping noise in check. It seems the X10 has some really wonderful potential, I'd just like to be able to realize it through Lightroom.
Hi Adobe, just wondering if there is to be any development on this issue?
It appears that LR4b PV2012 also handles the X10 data's sharpening/NR the same way (as I explain in post #8 above).
Hi folks - is there any progress on this? The problem with handling X10 raw files in Lightroom is real - they are unusable, basically. Either my X10 or Lightroom will have to be retired unless Adobe can find an answer to this problem, which is much more significant (for me) than the notorious orbs that afflict the X10.
Half resolution may be a bit of an overstatement, but I just had a very close look at an Adobe Camera Raw conversion vs. an out-of-camera JPEG, both of which I downloaded from the imaging-resource.com site. I can definitely see the issue - the JPEG conversion in that camera is phenomenally good!
It looks to me like the lens correction feature of Camera Raw isn't completely neutral, as the Camera raw conversion is distorted slightly as compared to the Fuji output... While the overall image dimensions are the same as the Fuji's, the Camera Raw subject positions inside the image are a little shorter, top-to-bottom, and a little wider, left-to-right, than the Fuji's. Several pixels at least. I've noticed that when there are any lens corrections dialed-in with my Canon the result has significantly less detail than when not - probably because of the resampling.
Another factor seems to be that the Fuji JPEG processor does a better job of ridding the image of noise.
If you Adobe folks are looking for a reason, I suggest re-evaluating the Fuji conversion's pixel alignment first, then maybe looking at the noise reduction logic next.
Something you Fuji shooters can try in the interim to work around this issue is this: Convert to the largest size Camera Raw can put out, 6144 x 4096 pixels. That might help you reclaim a little detail. I'm still not sure you'll get it better than the JPEG though.
As an example of what I was able to accomplish:
Crop from a JPEG:
Crop from an ACR conversion to upsampled resolution, sharpening, then downsampling to same resolution as JPEG:
As I've commented before, the Fuji X10 in-camera JPEG lens correction feature is (mistakenly) changing the aspect ratio so that the resulting image width is about 90 to 95% the size of the vertical. So, if you photograph squares at short focal lengths, you'll get rectangles in your images.
Or old-fashioned clocks on buildings won’t look round.
It's not that different - the subject positioning is only off by a few pixels between the JPEG and Camera Raw conversion. I'm just reporting what I see.
If you Adobe guys can't equal the sharpness and cleanness of lines in the X10 JPEGs, you should really try to figure out what they're doing because the result is pretty different; quite pleasing to the eye.
I bought LR4 and waited for 4.1 to be released. Still no improvement on X10 raw processing.
The problem is just plain wierd, it's almost like your demosaicing to a 6Mp image, applying sharpening, then upscaling to 12Mp before applying noise reduction. The sharpening is super harsh especially on visible noise in the image, as mentioned I have to use a setting of 100, radius 0.5, detail 5, and Mask around 60 in order to prevent massively sharpened noise artifacts (yet every other camera I have I use something like 80, 1.2, 30, 30 for the sharpening settings). Noise Reduction isles effective, changing the Luminance slider makes minimal impact, again because it seems like the noise is too big for the NR to work as effectively.
Change output size to 6Mp if that's what it takes to fix this, just, help