![iridient x-transformer dpreview iridient x-transformer dpreview](http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2017/01/fujifilm_x100f_1.jpg)
However when preparing to buy a second camera I checked the HR raws on the dpreview reviews of the PEN-F and M5.2 and found that they were much sharper than those that I took and, in fact, as sharp as the normal raws (which were also available for download). I have no reason to think that you are not correct as I have always found that the HR raws were soft compared to either the HR jpg or a resized version of the standard raw, and that kept me from using the HR functionality in my M1.2 for a long time. My tentative conclusion is that something about the LR de-convolution routines at the time of de-mosaicing are not (yet?) well adapted to the HHHR ORF files. Without any additional LR sharpening, the Iridient DNG was noticeably sharper than the LR ORF. I processed the ORF raw in Iridient's O-Transformer with a setting that defeated LR sharpening but applied the standard ("default") Iridient sharpening in it's place that apparently includes both edge-sharpening and de-convolution methods. I note that FM uses a de-convolution sharpen.ģ. There was a marked improvement in perceived sharpness of small details in the ORFs processed this way.
![iridient x-transformer dpreview iridient x-transformer dpreview](https://i0.wp.com/www.fujixpassion.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DNG_RAF_100_03_Default.jpg)
Typically, FM suggests a setting of '2' for out-of-focus sharpening of ORFs. I sent an unsharpened LR file to PS and used the FocusMagic plugin. I found that on several HHHR files the 'de-convolution' sharpening improved the apparent definition of detail.Ģ. I also increase the detail setting quite a lot to 50 (or more) and add masking at about the same amount. I set the amount to 30 or so and the radius to 2.6.
![iridient x-transformer dpreview iridient x-transformer dpreview](http://www.aevansphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Edit-In.jpg)
I sometimes use, instead, an approach that involves a stronger 'de-convolution' sharpening by selecting a high-radius-low-amount setting. "Standard" sharpening for me of ORFs is a typical low-radius-high-amount 'unsharp' using a radius of 1.1 and an amount of about 70 with 25 detail (default) with no masking. I won't fill this thread with test images but here's the summary of what I've found so far:ġ. I've done a bit more testing of HHHR shots in LR and am more and more inclined to think that the softness of the OMD ORF files compared to the JPEGs has to do with the current LR demosaicing of ORFs. I attach a couple of 100% crops (screen-shots from LightRoom). Maybe it is using the M1X camera profile. Maybe this is because LR does not yet have a camera-specific demosaic routine for the Mk III. Look, specifically, at the background patterns in the banknote. Although modestly sharpened and with a bit of 'clarity' and 'contrast' the RAW looks fuzzier, to me, than the JPEG. But sort of disappointed in the RAW file. I was really surprised how good the JPEG is. I imported the shot into LR and lightly processed the RAW (.
Iridient x transformer dpreview free#
The shots were sharp and, although taken inside on a gloomy afternoon at ISO-6400 (on 'auto') were surprisingly free of luma noise.īut the point of my post is to let you look for yourself. Of course the first thing I did was try the new hand-held hi-res. They were surprised they had one in stock: so was I, but they matched the best price in AU so I bought it. I picked up an EM-1 Mk III, to my surprise, from a photo retailer (Ted's) in a local Mall.