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

    • 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! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
×
×
  • Create New...