RAW support for Fuji X-Pro1 and X-E1

One of the most criticised features of both Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro1 is lack of proper support for RAW conversion from major software developer. Two issues contribute the the problem:  a proprietary format for Fujifilm RAW files, and proprietary decoding required for X-Trans sensor data.

Most sensors used in digital cameras can capture only the intensity of the light but cannot distinguish colors in a single pixel [the exception is Foveon sensors]. In order to capture color information sensors use a mosaic color mask (Bayer color filter array), generally made of tiny red, blue and green filters. With such mask different pixels capture light intensity only in one color chanel out os these three colors and the color is reconstructed using the data from the adjacent pixels with a little help from various demosaicing algorithms. Such interpolation can create color artefacts, especially at some regular patterns, e.g. regular black and white lines. The problem of color moire can be solved by blurring the sensor output with an anti-aliasing filter but this comes at expense of fine details. So the camera manufactures are trying to get the right balance between details and lack of color moire by using different anti-aliasing filters and sophisticated demosaicing algorithms.

X-Trans sensor used in Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro1 has very unusual color mask that is resistant to color moire and hence does not require anti-aliasing filter. However, the standard algorithms of color interpolation cannot be used for such mask. Apparently Fujifilm had developed a sophisticated method for demosaicing of the X-Trans data but was reluctant to share the information with other software developers. On other hand, the first camera with X-Trans sensor, X-Pro1, was released less than one year ago, and I assume does not sell in big numbers compared to other cameras with RAW output. In this situation the third party software developers would be reluctant to put any efforts in a system with marginal share in digital world. RAW converters are very popular with DSLR users, and DSLRs now dominate the advanced cameras. Even among CSC, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony are the most popular names. On top of that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung - all use conventional Bayer mask. Apparently Fujifilm is taking a step in the right direction: it seems the company is ready to share the information about the X-trans sensor with ACR (Lightroom and Photoshop converter). If true, Lightroom may finally get a proper support for RAW files from Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro1.

Why RAW is important? RAW files keep the original information from sensor. It is some kind of a "digital negative". The RAW data can be processed later, and many parameters such as white balance can be applied after the shot. Per pixel, the RAW files store more information than the JPEGs. For example, sometimes blown highlights can be recovered from RAW files while it is impossible in JPEGs. More details can be recovered from RAW data.

Should we all shoot in RAW? I am not so sure. Camera manufacturers have proprietary RAW formats. The efforts were made to create a common RAW format but it is still just a dream. I cannot preview Olympus RAW files on a Windows computer without a dedicated software. Specialised software is needed to open and edit the RAW files, and it is unclear what kind of support we can get in the future for old camera models. Kodak and Minolta were gone, and it is hard to imagine that someone would develop support for their RAW files. Some camera makers create very good JPEGs, so it is hard to get more details from RAW files (my impression with old Olympus DSLRs). You need to convert RAWs into JPEGs to share the files with friends or on the web. My conclusion is that it is good to have RAW but not really necessary in 95% cases. The solution is to write both JPEG and RAW, and delete ones you don't need later.

As for the post on SoundImagePlus blog: for some people JPEGs are just fine. For example, I do like Fuji colors in JPEGs (as long as I do not use their vivid mode for landscapes) and most reviewers praise JPEGs from both X-E1 and X-Pro1. I found the JPEGs from Fuji X10 are quite pleasant and generally showing accurate colors. I do not develop RAWs from the X10 because of the software but I am mostly happy with the JPEGs. So, less hassle for me. The lack of support for X-P1 / X-E1 RAW data from major third party software manufacturers reminds me the orb / white discs / disks issue in Fuji X10. The sensor blooming was seen as a very serious problem by some people but essentially had no effect on others including me. While I would love to see the X-Trans RAW files supported in UFRaw / GIMP, the lack of RAW support is definitely not a deal breaker for me.

The requirements and expectation of a professional who earn his living though photography are quite different from these of an average photo hobbyist and happy shutterbug :)

update: first hand information on cooperation between Fujifilm and Adobe (interview on Photokina 2012, Imaging Resource).