Jump to content

Fuji: How about ditching Silkypix for Capture One Pro?

rjoins

By rjoins
in RAW Conversion Fuji X Photos

 Share

Recommended Posts

rjoins Newbie

rjoins

Posted
Posted

I'd like to suggest that with the release of the new Capture One Pro 9, perhaps Fujifilm could bundle the program in the way Sony has, instead of Silkypix.

 

If you agree it would be a better alternative, maybe you could add an encouraging comment.

 

Fujifilm is happy to improve the firmware, why not try to achieve a better image processing arrangement?

 

The bundled Silkypix is pretty much ditched on opening by most people, being about as popular as scabies. The Adobe processing is still not the best.

 

It'd be a real enhancement to Fuji's prestige to have such a comprehensive image editor that produces such superb results and users would gain better file handling, no longer having to pass files back and forwards between apps as they often do just now.

 

Sony has done it. Surely Fuji can make it viable also.

 

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
danwells Community Regular

danwells

Posted
Posted

C1 would be great - I own it, and it is a far better X-Trans converter than Adobe, which is the other real option for most people, I haven't tried the niche solutions like Silkypix or Iridient. I agree that Fuji needs to up their game with included software, especially with the sensor that is a little trickier to convert from.Sony is bundling C1, Leica at least WAS bundling Lightrroom (I don't know if they still are)? If you're a smaller manufacturer, especially if your camera has a "favorite converter", and won't work with some (DxO still won't touch X-Trans of any variety), it is important to bundle a  functional converter (and an old version of Silkypix doesn't count!). C1 is rapidly evolving into a full-function photo package, and is the only TRUE competitor to Lightroom. I don't think a Sony-style deal (C1 express restricted to Fuji cameras is free, upgrades available to Pro functionality, and to handle more cameras) deal would be all that expensive for Fuji, and the X-Pro and X-T series are expensive cameras that could support it (I could see NOT including C1 with X-A and X-M sales, which will most likely be used in JPEG mode anyway).

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhu Enthusiast

bhu

Posted
Posted

Well, Sony uses a Beyer pixel mosaic, which is the standard and is virtually guaranteed broad industry support for our entire lifetime. Fujifilm does not so, to ensure there will always be one converter blessed by Fujifilm as being "correct", they may feel obligated to continue developing Silkypix. If Phase One was purchased by another company with less incentive to support Fujifilms unusual pixel mosaic... (These things do, unfortunately, happen frequently enough to remain a concern.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Scalatron Apprentice

Scalatron

Posted
Posted

I used Capture One when I had my a6000 and I thought it was the best RAW converter for that camera but I'm not overly impressed with the results from my Fuji. It's also very processor intensive and their customer support is patchy. I would put it on a par with LightRoom as far as features such as local editing and cataloguing but would choose LightRoom over it. Silkypix is pretty quick but doesn't have as much fine control as others, it's more like RawTherapee (my favourite) designed for overall editing of single files but I must admit I haven't used it as much as the others yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adzman808 Proficient

adzman808

Posted
Posted

I think SilkyPix works so well for me that I upgraded to the paid version.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Me too and me too!

 

It does so many things that are important very, very well IMO

 

Namely, demosiacing (controlling the strength of demosiacing) and colours, and I don't just mean the Fuji simulations

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • jerryy
      Fungus

      By jerryy · Posted

      A fungus in the forest.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      (p.s. Open Topic.)  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
×
×
  • Create New...