Jump to content

X-Trans moiré on fashion photography

victorreis

By victorreis
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

True_Tech Newbie

True_Tech

Posted
Posted (edited)

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2715-fashion-portraiture/ 

Instagram

www.jmacapodi.com

 

I'm not a pro but I'm highly interested in fashion photography and transitioning to it, I have my first shoot planned with friends this week, I came across him on reddit, and I see him often during my research, just so happens he post here as well. 

Edited by True_Tech
Link to post
Share on other sites
kimcarsons Collaborator

kimcarsons

Posted
Posted (edited)

There's a lot of misinformation out there about this (unsurprisingly, much of it spread by Fuji's marketing)

 

The fact is that the X-Trans pattern itself does not really prevent moire or false color any better than Bayer does.

 

It's all about the demosaicking and noise reduction.

 

I don't think I've ever seen moire in Fuji's JPEG output. But you may see it when processing the RAW files in other software, where steps like demosaicking, denoising, and moire removal are separate and optional (although some amount of denoising is part of X-Trans demosaicking algorithms)

 

The bottom line is: you won't see it in the JPEGs because Fuji's in-camera processing is quite aggressive and thorough.

 

And if you see it in your RAW processing there are many noise reduction and moire removal algorithms which will reduce it.

Edited by kimcarsons
Link to post
Share on other sites
bhu Enthusiast

bhu

Posted
Posted

Pixel = picture element = group of sensor elements that, together, comprise the necessary information to reproduce any color the elements are capable of recording or displaying for the smallest solid angle. Individual color elements do not have to be the same size, either. OLED panels often use much larger blue elements than red or green to keep the drive voltage down and reduce burn-in while delivering the same amount of light as a smaller blue element driven "harder", but I digress. OLEDs are not used for sensors in any meaningful way.

 

Mosaic = repeating arrangement of picture elements (pixels). A mosaic may be as simple as a pixel like RGB-stripe, may be slightly more complex such as GR,BG (Bayer) where there are two green elements, or a bit more complex GBG,RGR,GBG in tiles that alternate between 0 and 90 degree rotation (portrait and landscape, if you will) so that it takes 4 sets of these 3x3 tiles to define the basic mosaic. X-trans is a 6x6 arrangement (mosaic) of 3x3 pixels alternating in orientation as if you are laying a patterned tile and turn every other one 90 degrees. 

 

X-trans is, arguably, a modified version of Bayer. The pattern is more complex but there are still twice as many green elements as red and blue and those green elements have some bias toward horizontal and diagonal lines but the pattern was "softened" by making quads of green elements.

 

Moire is still possible on X-trans but will be less apparent due to the disruption in the green elements' pattern. Moire comes from capturing and image with a pattern that largely aligns with the sensor's pattern, or a pattern on the media it is reproduced on like a computer monitor or electronic printer.

 

For more information, look up moire in Wikipedia and then modulation transfer function.

Link to post
Share on other sites
aceflibble Collaborator

aceflibble

Posted
Posted

I've not experienced any moiré problems with the newest sensors and processors (Pro2/T2), but I did with the previous generations (all the 16mp models).

 

The much bigger problem, and why I don't use Fuji for anything involving textiles, hair, fur, or feathers, is even the new sensors and processors are still no good with high-frequency detail. The area of fashion which makes up part of my work demands 20mp+ files without resizing, so clients can check details like stitching and fine texture all from one image file. This is why Fuji completely fails. Skin tones? No problem. Patterns? No problem. Moiré? Never. Colour reproduction? Absolutely fine once you've made a calibrated profile, like with any other camera. High-frequency detail? Completely smeared, even with absolutely 0 noise reduction of any kind, worse than any low-pass filter.

 

If your fashion work is viewed in a resized form or as, for example, a full length shot, Fuji works absolutely fine. If your fashion work is viewed at full size or includes macro/detail crops, either forget Fuji, or have a different system to hand specifically for the close-ups.

Link to post
Share on other sites
victorreis Apprentice

victorreis

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I've not experienced any moiré problems with the newest sensors and processors (Pro2/T2), but I did with the previous generations (all the 16mp models).

 

The much bigger problem, and why I don't use Fuji for anything involving textiles, hair, fur, or feathers, is even the new sensors and processors are still no good with high-frequency detail. The area of fashion which makes up part of my work demands 20mp+ files without resizing, so clients can check details like stitching and fine texture all from one image file. This is why Fuji completely fails. Skin tones? No problem. Patterns? No problem. Moiré? Never. Colour reproduction? Absolutely fine once you've made a calibrated profile, like with any other camera. High-frequency detail? Completely smeared, even with absolutely 0 noise reduction of any kind, worse than any low-pass filter.

 

If your fashion work is viewed in a resized form or as, for example, a full length shot, Fuji works absolutely fine. If your fashion work is viewed at full size or includes macro/detail crops, either forget Fuji, or have a different system to hand specifically for the close-ups.

 

It's most lifestyle/outdoor. I don't work with studio, beauty, strong flashes, etc...

 

Do you use iridient? Here in Brazil the price of a used xt1 (new in official store: 2800 US)  is nearly a used d800 and a new xt2/xpro2 (importers) can buy a D800E/D810. 

 

Thank you very much! 

Edited by victorreis
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

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...