RadBadTad

Are there cameras out there that DON'T have this warning? Is there a camera that won't stop recording when the battery dies?

I believe there is an option to bring in the file using your lightroom adjustments, but I'm not positive. I tend to do the conversion first thing, so I don't have to deal with Lightroom struggling to read the RAF file. The resulting file pops back into lightroom for me, but doesn't stack, it merely sits next to the original. Again, I'm not sure if that's the only way to do it, I haven't tried anything else because that behavior doesn't bother me, I'm sorry that I can't help there!

Lightroom creates a TIFF and hands it to X-Transformer, but X-Transformer ignores it, and goes hunting for the original RAW file to use instead.

There are certain things that simply can't be achieved in Lightroom, no matter how you use your sliders and settings. The level of fine detail you can get is one of them. Also, I'm pretty sure Adobe said they were going to fix that problem around 2014, and it's only gotten worse. I've been participating in a couple of threads over with Adobe and some engineers for a couple of months now, where tons of people are talking about the poor performance they get with Lightroom, and Adobe reps are still trying to figure out if there's a problem at all, and are nowhere near to solving it. Lightroom

I'm sorry to say I haven't experienced this, so I'm not able to help, unfortunately. I would probably uninstall and re-install, and if that didn't work, I would reach out to Iridient to see if they would be able to help. I've heard that they are responsive to their users.

Yes I have it selected. I left all of that tab alone with the defaults actually, and lossless compression was checked automatically. I unchecked it, and ran a 2nd conversion. Original File (Raw not compressed) - 48MB Conversion 1 (Lossless compression) - 68.3MB Conversion 2 (No compression) - 122MB (!!) Wow. That's a big difference. I'm pushing and pulling the file, and adding and removing sharpening, trying to tell the difference between the compressed and uncompressed output from X-Transormer, and can't discover a difference in the two, so I'm going to keep compression turned on!

The RAF file is 49MB. The converted Tif is usually around 63MB after X-Transformer.

I would guess that you're shooting compressed raw, so it makes sense that the decompressed file would be larger. 70mb seems high though. Mine are almost always 49mb and change.

I don't understand exactly how the process works, but if you go into the link for setting up X-Transformer as a plugin, there are multiple spots where the author basically says "Don't worry about it!" I'm under the impression that while Lightroom spits out a file for X-Transformer to work with, it doesn't actually use that file, and it goes back to the original raw file and starts from there. Or possibly it knows what to look for in the file to strip out the adjustments Lightroom has made, I'm not quite sure. Either way, the end result is that you don't get Lightroom's junk, so whatever the me

I'm also unhappy with the overall performance of Lightroom, but that's a separate issue. I'm currently participating in a thread over on the Adobe support page trying to help devs nail something down in terms of processor usage and optimization - https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-cc-2017-poor-performance?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=new_comment&utm_content=topic_link

First, a comparison between X-Transformer's rendering, and straight Lightroom. Settings are exactly the same between the two images. I've always struggled with the weird rendering of detail that I get with my RAF files in Lightroom. I've tried a few different processors to get my fine detail, but they either don't do much to solve the problem (Capture1) or are incredibly cumbersome to use (Photo Ninja) or are not available to me on Windows (Iridient) I recently found X-Transformer (By Iridient) and found that it works more or less perfectly, and lets me keep my Lightroom workflow, so I

I wouldn't say that any of that is even remotely a deal breaker. They're minor niggles that won't come close to affecting 90% of the people who use the camera. And I would trade down to 15fps in my viewfinder if it meant no blackout during burst shooting. Blackout is a dealbreaker. 60fps is not. 1/32000 shutter speed is a fringe case in the first place, so having to use manual or shutter priority to get it isn't meaningful. The f/11 thing might be a problem, but I don't really understand what they're saying about it. That you can't use f/16 and also track focus? That doesn't seem

Is this what you're referring to? "So about those footnotes. Some are ignorable, a few are important. For instance, while the buffer and frame per second calculations are correct for one card slot, the second card slot is not UHS-II. Why camera makers think this is a good thing to have differing slots when they are constantly performing integrity checks on the disk tables on cards, I don’t know. Basically you’re always limited by the slowest card in the camera. So shooting to both cards at the extremes of what the camera is designed to do is likely to have some downgrading effect, probably

As you go up the ladder in terms of features and expense, your returns diminish while your costs increase. Do you believe a 1Dx is three times as good as a 5Dmk3? Do you believe that a Ferrari is 10 times as good as a Honda Civic? I don't, but they'll sell less of them, to people who absolutely need (or absolutely want) the few improvements that it provides, and the a9 is the same. The a9 isn't competing against the X-T2, it's competing against the 1Dx, and the D5.

Thanks for this. I'll head over there and do some reading. If it's helpful, I'll report back.