X-Pro2 uncompressed versus lossless compressed raw files

[gdanmitchell]

I understand the meaning of the term "lossless compression," and recognize that there should be no difference between converted raw files whether one uses the uncompressed or the lossless compressed X-Pro2 raw files. However, recalling that there have been some stories in the past concerning other manufacturer's compressed files that turned out to not be quite identical, I wonder if anyone has actually compared image files from photographs using the two formats and, if so, what was the result?

 

Also, does anyone know which converters do and do not currently handle the lossless compressed Fujifilm raw format?

 

Thanks,

 

Dan

[J-P Lee]

Also, does anyone know which converters do and do not currently handle the lossless compressed Fujifilm raw format?

 

I know Iridient Developer only handles uncompressed at this point.  

[flysurfer]

As of now LR/ACR, RFC EX 2, PhotoNinja and Iridient (very soon).

[adzman808]

As of now LR/ACR, RFC EX 2, PhotoNinja and Iridient (very soon).

Photo ninja is uncompressed XP2 RAW only atm

 

http://www.picturecode.com/cameras.php

 

C1 also supports uncompressed XP2 RAW, but several users had registered complaints on another forum. Not my place to spread info that I don't have first hand experience of though!

[flysurfer]

Photo ninja is uncompressed XP2 RAW only atm

 

 

Mine does compressed RAWs.

[Jürgen Heger]

It is the Photo Ninja 1.3.3c pre-release candidate that supports compressed X-Pro2 files and also the X-E2s among some other new cameras. This version us available since April 14th.

[adzman808]

Oh i stand corrected, by one day

 

So can PN read RAF meta data and apply lens corrections yet?

[Jürgen Heger]

I have not checked in detail what PN does. But I remember that it said something like "correcting CA" when I opened a file of the X-E2s. I do not have a X-Pro2, but I see no reason why it should not do the same there. I do not know if PN does geometrical corrections.