Jump to content

RadBadTad

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    155

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RadBadTad

  1. 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?
  2. RadBadTad
    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!
  3. RadBadTad
    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.
  4. RadBadTad
    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 performance has become infuriating over the past couple of years for ALL file types, and triply so for RAF files, which take an estimated 4-5 times as long to process as my similarly sized Canon files. Camera profiles, VSCO presets, and library management are about the only things that Lightroom has over Capture One at this point.
  5. RadBadTad
    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.
  6. RadBadTad
    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!
  7. RadBadTad
    The RAF file is 49MB. The converted Tif is usually around 63MB after X-Transformer.
  8. RadBadTad
    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.
  9. RadBadTad
    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 method, the concern you're bringing up is addressed and isn't an issue in practice.
  10. RadBadTad
    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
  11. RadBadTad
    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 thought I would share my process for anyone else interested or struggling with the same issues I was. THE METHOD I'm on Windows 10, using Lightroom CC I went and got X-Transformer by Iridient I then set it up to work as a plugin for Lightroom CC Then, in Lightroom, once you find the files you want to work with and get your detail out of, you just choose to edit them in X-Transformer And then put in these settings which strip out the horrible noise reduction and sharpening, and demosaic the data much better than Lightroom. Then, once it's done running through X-Transformer, your image is back in Lightroom as a TIFF that you can treat exactly like your RAF files, except it's got fine detail in it. It's the least cumbersome method I've found so far that gets really really good detail out of your shots, without forcing you to learn a crazy new half-broken editing software. The other program I found that gets this level of detail is Photo Ninja, but it is really difficult to work with, and feels almost like an Alpha for the first version of Lightroom. I don't advise it. Many photographers won't care about the improvement, and that's fine. Fine detail doesn't make or break a photo if the rest of the content/light/processing is good. But for those that want their full 24 megapixels worth of data, this is a great solution without having to give up Lightroom. Disclaimer: I haven't used the brand new CaptureOne which supposedly does very well with RAF files. Links to two full res comparison photos
  12. RadBadTad
    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 possible, but I guess I could be wrong. If that's the case, I can see that being an issue, though most sports tracking happens much wider than f/11.
  13. RadBadTad
    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 mostly on buffer. Likewise, that 120 fps viewfinder is actually 60 fps if you want the uninterrupted view with the electronic shutter. Not a terrible deal, but bragging about a spec in one place and then disclaiming for a critical use elsewhere takes away some of the excitement. Likewise, the 1/32000 shutter speed is only available in the Manual and Shutter Priority exposure modes (otherwise you’re limited to 1/16000). Note also that at apertures beyond f/11 focus doesn’t track with the electronic shutter, too." http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-goes-further-upscale.html
  14. RadBadTad
    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.
  15. RadBadTad
    Thanks for this. I'll head over there and do some reading. If it's helpful, I'll report back.
  16. RadBadTad
    Importing about 1000 uncompressed raw photos and creating 1:1 previews for all of them takes about 3 hours with my CPU at 100% and the fan cranking at full speed, assuming I just set my computer down and don't try to do anything else while it's working. For comparison, I tried it with some Canon raw files and that process took about 15 minutes. I don't shoot compressed raw just because I have plenty of card space and lots of spare hard-drive space, and didn't see the benefit of shooting compressed, even though it's supposedly still full quality. I've spent about 3 hours with Adobe support controlling my system, changing settings, resetting permissions, uninstalling and re-installing things, doing research on my processor and graphics card, etc. The tech I worked with was very confused about the behavior, and brought in higher level techs/engineers twice for advice on the matter. We finally ended the session with her saying she would continue to do research and get back to me later with a solution. Two days later, I got an email saying that I should disable GPU processing, and update Lightroom, and that was it. (Neither thing made a difference).
  17. RadBadTad
    What gets me is when people compare a $4500 camera against a $1600 camera and claim that it's NOT better, simply because they're too attached to their $1600 camera, and don't personally use the advantages offered by the more expensive camera.
  18. RadBadTad
    I left canon after the 5Dmk3, so your comment about that is accurate. Also, regarding: "I wholeheartedly disagree with you that the X-T2 has a lack of clarity and detail or moire. I do think that moire is a little more noticeable in 1080 than 4k, but other than that I think the video files look amazing." I was referring to the photos, not the video. The video looks very nice.
  19. RadBadTad
    I have been doing comparisons in fine detail since I got my X-T1 four years ago, and have tried comparisons of every single update to Lightroom since then, and have used the X-T1, the XPro2, and now the X-T2, and they all have the exact same issue. Fine detail rendering at 100%. At the following link is an image I randomly picked to do a test on. Once rendered through Lightroom, and once rendered through X-Transformer and then brought into lightroom. Download both, and look at them at 100%. Look at the eyebrows, pores, detail in the irises, and hair on her head, and tell me you don't see a difference. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3m5q9flbl24tm2l/AAC7_f7wPSAZM08QBU8k60Oma?dl=0
  20. RadBadTad
    There are lots of example videos showing the camera being used in the real world, in situations that are a lot more strenuous than I'LL ever use a camera in. I watched one last night of 20fps shooting of a pole vaulter in really low light (ISO 6400) with distractions in the frame, and watched the camera nail every single shot without even flinching. There are samples showing no rolling shutter issues. And yes, OIS CAN BE better than in-body, but all the usual arguments apply: Costs savings on lenses, getting stabilization with every lens you own, including legacy glass from back in the day, and as you said, it can be disabled in favor of in-lens IS. You may not care about FF vs APS-C, but many people do, and the benefits are obvious and well documented. And no, battery life isn't worth $3000, but all the rest of it put together certainly is. It's a brand new sensor tech with completely unbelievable features that aren't close to being touched by any other manufacturer. Unless the camera literally doesn't work, then it's better than even a 1Dx or D5 in every way that counts, other than MAYBE durability and weather sealing, and only those because we don't know yet.
  21. RadBadTad
    I really don't mind if they improve video, so long as they don't give up on improving the photo aspects of the cameras. As Sella174 said, I got very frustrated with Canon seeing nothing but video features in updates and new cameras (and even lenses) over the years, and it's one of the main reasons I came to Fuji. I recognize that the more people who buy Fuji cameras, the better for all of us, as it improves market awareness, gives more money for R&D, and generally gives the company more weight to throw around, but make a video team in ADDITION to a photo team, rather than taking resources away from it. And my $.02, their top priority needs to be getting Adobe to come up with an algorithm that can deal with their raw files in a way that makes the results as good as they are automatically with Canon, Nikon, and Sony. I can't believe I don't see more people clamoring for this, and maybe most people shoot JPEG only, but the fact that my files from a 40D have better detail at 100% than my X-T2 in Lightroom is a big issue.
  22. RadBadTad
    20fps burst with AF checked 60 times per second without any viewfinder blackout is way better than X-T2 It has way more phase detect AF points, spread over much more of the image. It has way better battery life despite having way more horsepower under the hood The electronic shutter has no rolling shutter issues It has in-camera 5-axis IS It's full frame Just because another camera comes out that's better than yours doesn't mean your camera gets worse. You can be excited for Sony and for people who will buy, use, and love the camera, all without having to hate your gear, or feel bad about yourself. The a9 is objectively better than the X-T2 in basically every objective way, and yet the X-T2 will probably do just fine taking nearly any photo you could want to take. It's okay. Take deep breaths.
  23. RadBadTad
    Here's a screen shot of my settings for you http://imgur.com/a/jdHe8
  24. RadBadTad
    Affected people should try getting in and really cleaning the contacts well, on the bottom of the camera, the pins on the grip, and the contacts inside the grip where they touch the batteries, just to be sure there's not a communication error between the batteries and the camera. I had a bent pin on my X-T1 grip that made everything all screwy, so it could be something similar in this case?
  25. RadBadTad
    To get the best results out of X-Transformer, turn off sharpening and noise reduction and export completely clean. That made a huge difference for me. When I used the default settings, I didn't get what the big deal was. Once I turned those off, things looked much much better at 100%. I got a tiny bit of color noise, but that goes away really easily with a small amount of NR in lightroom on the resulting DNG/TIFF.
×
×
  • Create New...