Jump to content

voodooless

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    79

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by voodooless

  1. voodooless
    Except for Adobe, which ignores DR if set to AUTO (or they must have fixed it by now.. Don't know disabled.. AUTO-DR because of that). Of course there is a difference: the ISO, shutter speed and Aperture are not the same, and therefore your image will not be the same. You should have underexposed your RAW without DR by two stops, and then equalise the image exposure in post to match the DR version. They should be the same.
  2. voodooless
    The only thing that is quick and does decent decoding is Pictorial. It's a shame that it is not feature complete otherwise it would be superb. The best decoder, Iridient is also slow, and worse, you don't see that it is busy, so you never know if it is really done.. But agreed, Adobe is one of the slow ones...
  3. voodooless
    Sending in a camera because you did not read the manual? That seems like a very excessive measure..
  4. voodooless
    I thought this was about Steve loosing it? Well that actually happend a very long time ago already according to http://huffparanormal.com/ . Stopped reading his stuff after I discovered this.. And yes, the A9 is an impressive camera, but does that mean it invalidates the X-T2? I think not..
  5. voodooless
    Owner manual page 228..
  6. voodooless
    Really, is that the way to end discussions nowadays? Adobe: bad Pictorial: good Iridient: good Apple preview (Apple RAW): good FastRawViewer (Libraw): good Photo Ninja: good Silkypix: good In camera: good See the pattern? I'd really still like a good argument why this would be a camera problem?
  7. voodooless
    It is NOT a camera problem. Several other converters work just fine, proving that the camera was working as it is supposed to. It would not be the first Adobe x-trans bug anyway (auto-DR anyone?). And I don't know why you don't actually read the topic... the camera: it was a rental, so even if there would be a problem with the camera the OP would probably never know.
  8. voodooless
    Well, it is probably the quickest converter by far. Opening a file is near instant, and the files look fairly good, I did not try a big selection of files yet. Also the sliders are very quickly. Apparently it makes good use of the GPU. It does still need some work though: the noise reduction is quite useless, sharpening is a little better.
  9. voodooless
    Well, seems to me, with still little testing, that the 2.00 firmware improved things. At least the dof scale is not erratic anymore. I hope to do some more testing this weekend.
  10. voodooless
    Just loaded the file in Iridient.. Seems fine to me.. I don't see any purple cast.. Adobe RAW does show it however. Seems to me as though there is nothing wrong with the camera, it's a bug in the converters.. Iridient on the left, Adobe on the right, both default settings
  11. voodooless
    The underexposure is not random! It's because LR does not apply auto DR settings correctly. Don't use auto DR, and you're fine. As for the purple color, can can you fix it with white balance adjustments?
  12. voodooless
    I have seen this over on the German forum. There is was with a time lapse. Turned out that the camera (or lens) dit not recognize the focal length as stable, meaning that the LMO did different compensations on various frames (even if disabled). Looks like this is the exact same thing. I bet there is no problem when the lens is completely zoomed in or out?
  13. voodooless
    Same issue here and it does not only apply to trees. Quite frankly I think insisting that a "real" landscape photographer should use manual focus is insulting to the camera If fuji claims fast and accurate focus, then it should be fast and accurate. I've seem the focus being completely off, so much so that it was clearly visible in the EVF. The latest firmware does seem to fix this to an extend, but I still don't fully trust the AF, at least not when using a zoom lens.
  14. voodooless
    ON1 can still have strange artifacts, and there is no automatic lens and aberration correction. I think they need a few more iterations before being really useful. At least they make progress, the others aren't doing that much.
  15. voodooless
    Sounds good! Does that mean the current verzuim does niet have automatic lens correction?
  16. voodooless
    What about performance, specially opening a file? Lightroom is just agonizingly slow even of fast hardware.
  17. voodooless
    Apparently the next verion will support compressed files. Here a preview: http://joelwolfson.com/on1-photo-raw-2017-2-now-great-fuji-raw-processor/
  18. voodooless
    No compression = no deal! At least for now. Are there any objectieve things to say in favor of ON1? Only telling us that it is better is hardly something to discuss about.. please give us a more expansive overview of it's merits! One things they claim is performance. How fast is it at loading files? Lightroom is agonizingly slow when loading, Iridient is also not fast, and there is no way to see it "thinking" which is kind of anoying.
  19. voodooless
    Well, your eye has about 20 stops of dynamic range, your camera a fair bit less. So what you see is not what you can capture. For things like this it is best to use spot metering, or underexpose a bit (look at the histogram). If the highlights are not blown you could try lowering the exposure in Lightroom (you are using the RAW I hope), and then raise the shadows back.
  20. voodooless
    Really.. How many other features that could easily be implemented in firmware are still not implemented? 1/focal length for minimum shutter speed (auto ISO) for example.
  21. voodooless
    Please make test shots with same focal length, from the same location, same aperture, same ISO, same shutter speed, same film simulation settings.. and then compare.
  22. voodooless
    So you did not tweak the noise and sharpening settings? The defaults are not very optimal and have a huge influence on these kinds of images. Yes Iridient will do better, but Lightroom can do better as well. There are a number of free file uploading services.. try one and give us the link.
  23. voodooless
    I surely think lots of things will be hardcoded in hardware, for instance (parts of) the JPEG and RAF engines. You would however think that they would not make new silicon just for the X-T10. But who knows. The CPU's could easily run a full linux system with libraw and libtiff.. That could do all you would need.. so, yes the hardware is definitely capable. The reason Fuji will not make these features is because the hardware is far form efficient in doing these things. The user experience would just not be acceptable (and no, they will obviously not install Linux). AF was crappy ones, then they spend some time on it, and suddenly it was pretty good. These things are hardly ever a yes/no things. Things might progress over time. Things though to be impossible now, might be possible later, even on the same hardware. Fuji never said it could not be done. They say that the physics of the mount are so that there would be to many compromises in image quality or image circle. They just think it is not acceptable. And they are probably right. I think I just did in my previous post.
  24. voodooless
    What were all the settings? Could you share the RAW so we can all have a go?
  25. voodooless
    No, they don't. The CPU is more than powerful enough to handle what I described, same goes for memory requirements. It just a shitload of work because I suspect it's quite a hack to implement. Even for the 16-Bit TIFF I doubt that. You could just stream out the pixel data to a TIFF file pixel by pixel.. It is not rocket science. There is some complexity when you wan't to compress the TIFF. The most common schemes are based on ancient FAX technology.. again, hardly a complex task CPU and memory wise. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them for not implementing these features. I'm fine with not having either of them. I think it's just not correct to think that it cannot be done on the hardware available, even if someone from Fuji tells you otherwise. I even think it's bit ignorant of Fuji to tell you this, but I guess it's easier to say it cannot be done than telling you that they won't do it.. Would be fun though to brainstorm with an actual Fuji engineer on how to get it done
×
×
  • Create New...