Fujifilm GFX started with... 645z file?

eddie1960 · 01-17-2017, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Then again, look what happened when Minolta "imitated" Honeywell a little too closely.

I'm not going to say this will end with Fuji lying dead in the dust and their tech wearing a Ricoh label, but still, the line between "hack" and "plagiarise" can get pretty thin if you're an IT lawyer out for blood.

i doubt the hack is what they will use, it would have been a test (and i agree it does sound like a story from marketing more than engineering) like anything else fuji will be taking an openly available sensor (that Pentax and others use) and adapting it their way (as all the brands do)

biz-engineer · 01-17-2017, 03:52 PM

Pentax is a very easy target for competition because weak in marketing / sales / promotional efforts. Technical, just make a product taking some of the specs of the Pentax product, and roll out the product with broad marketing & sales, and wipe out Pentax remaining shares. The problem of making great products with tiny marketing/sales spending is the next one with louder voice cover the small voice of Pentax.

Winder · 01-17-2017, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by interested_observer

In the end, it's a Sony sensor from both. Neither is FABing their own propriety sensor. If and when a true 6x4.5 size sensor becomes available, it will be available to everyone. Yes, Pentax will be able to drop it into their current body, easily - however the others will soon follow....

The full sized sensor is already available. Phase One is using it. The Fuji GFX mount does not support a sensor larger than the current 645 crop sensor, so Fuji won't be dropping a larger sensor in without a new mount and new lenses. Pentax and Phase One can both use the larger system with their current mount.

**Rondec** · 01-17-2017, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

i doubt the hack is what they will use, it would have been a test (and i agree it does sound like a story from marketing more than engineering) like anything else fuji will be taking an openly available sensor (that Pentax and others use) and adapting it their way (as all the brands do)

Fuji is fine. They make nice cameras and very nice lenses. I just don't think they are magic. People have this impression that they have somehow defeated the laws of physics. The reality is that they have a really good jpeg engine -- a lot better than Pentax's. Once you get to RAW files, they are about equivalent to similar sensors -- that is to say the K5 and X Pro-1 will have similar dynamic range and noise, assuming the same iso. The same will be true for the GFX versus the 645Z.

The GFX will not be compatible with a full sized medium format sensor, nor will the glass they are building cover that size sensor meaning that if the market moves in that direction, they could have a little tougher time selling crop medium format. A lot depends on pricing and performance of all of these cameras and it is too soon to say for sure.

**luftfluss** · 01-17-2017, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Sorry, I still don't buy it. Fuji works most of their magic by overstating their iso levels, making Fuji image files seem cleaner at a given iso than competitors. By using the x trans sensor, they make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images to clarify the situation.

The way this is phrased implies that a reason Fuji uses X-Trans is to "make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images". Fuji has been using "alternative" sensor technology since before DXO existed. DXO itself claims that it is possible to modify their procedures and software to measure the X-Trans sensor, but they don't feel it's the best use of their resources to do so at this time. Same thing with Foveon sensors. If Fuji and Sigma (whose RAWs are even more proprietary than Fuji and highly modified) were to gain large marketshare, you bet DXO would begin to measure the sensors.

Quote:

Beyond which RAW files should not have proprietary processing applied. If Fuji is applying processing that sticks with an image when you open it in Lightroom, then that is bad on their part. You should have a clean, neutral file that you can then process however you want.

Pentax has been cooking their RAW files since the K-5, and even moreso in the K-70.

*
But yeah, I think this sounds like marketspeak shenanigans on Fuji's part, if the story is fairly close to the truth.

Jonathan Mac · 01-18-2017, 12:48 AM

I'm not surprised at all that Fuji looked at a Pentax camera in order to make their decision on whether or not to go MF. As a user of both systems it's clear that they share a common design idea - to make gear that's for photographers rather than people who just want a bigger camera, thinking that simply buying one will improve their photography. I've used Canon & Nikon gear and it's much more difficult to use because they prioritise dummy modes over controls that are important for photography.

I fully expect the Fuji MF gear to be superb, not that I'll ever own any of it. I'll be sticking with film for my MF.

noelpolar · 01-18-2017, 01:31 AM

All this fuss over nothing.... the K-1 is the new MF anyway. Everybody knows that....

2351HD · 01-18-2017, 02:35 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by noelpolar

All this fuss over nothing.... the K-1 is the new MF anyway. Everybody knows that....

That's BS too.

redcat · 01-18-2017, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by noelpolar

All this fuss over nothing.... the K-1 is the new MF anyway. Everybody knows that....

It closed the gap between FF and MF nicely

**Rondec** · 01-18-2017, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

The way this is phrased implies that a reason Fuji uses X-Trans is to "make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images". Fuji has been using "alternative" sensor technology since before DXO existed. DXO itself claims that it is possible to modify their procedures and software to measure the X-Trans sensor, but they don't feel it's the best use of their resources to do so at this time. Same thing with Foveon sensors. If Fuji and Sigma (whose RAWs are even more proprietary than Fuji and highly modified) were to gain large marketshare, you bet DXO would begin to measure the sensors.

Pentax has been cooking their RAW files since the K-5, and even moreso in the K-70.

*
But yeah, I think this sounds like marketspeak shenanigans on Fuji's part, if the story is fairly close to the truth.

There was someone who ran various files through a program that looked for RAW noise reduction/tampering and found that there was some in the K3 starting at iso 3200, but not below that. Other Pentax cameras it seemed to start at iso 1600. That said, that is not the sort of thing you would notice at all in real world shooting.

When I read this "story" I see someone saying "We took an unprocessed file and processed it and lo and behold, it looked better." If all we are doing is comparing jpeg engines, then this is a non-story since few medium format shooters will shoot SOOC jpegs.

RonHendriks1966 · 01-18-2017, 09:04 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

Sorry if I don't buy into the adervtising hype.

If someone has enough money to buy a 645z or Fuji gfx, I hope to goodness that they are doing their own post processing and not relying on camera jpeg engines. Seems like a waste otherwise.

It's the ultimate snapchat camera.

photoptimist · 01-18-2017, 09:27 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

There was someone who ran various files through a program that looked for RAW noise reduction/tampering and found that there was some in the K3 starting at iso 3200, but not below that. Other Pentax cameras it seemed to start at iso 1600. That said, that is not the sort of thing you would notice at all in real world shooting.

When I read this "story" I see someone saying "We took an unprocessed file and processed it and lo and behold, it looked better." If all we are doing is comparing jpeg engines, then this is a non-story since few medium format shooters will shoot SOOC jpegs.

Exactly!

And yet this highlights a sad truth that even the most professional of cameras live and die in the market based on the judgements of amateurs looking at SOOC images.

mikeSF · 01-18-2017, 03:04 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by redcat

It closed the gap between FF and MF nicely

Well, between APS-C and MF anyway.

gavincato · 01-19-2017, 12:54 AM - **1 Like**

You know guys, I do get completely this mentality that you need to shoot raw, and then edit it to get the results. I really do, I shoot raw all the time.

But I gotta tell you, the Fuji inbuilt colours are really incredibly good. I use XT2's alongside my 645z and the fuji's just look great out of the camera. In lightroom you can switch between the various styles in the raw file, and often it's better than my own LR presets (that I've spent a lot of time making!!!). It's certainly a heck of a lot more consistent than my editing

I'm assuming it'll be the same on the gfx.

**Digitalis** · 01-19-2017, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by LFLee

Pentax RAW file was already superior to the original Pentax image simply by applying their own image processing algorithm

If they are using SOOC processing then that is understandable, even adobe can produce JPEG files from RAWs with superior output quality to Pentax. Crucial context is lost in the quotation through omission of what they were comparing the image data to.

i'm calling this BUNK. On the fact that there is no evidence or description of the imaging pipeline used, and no meaningful data confirming their conclusion was published.

01-18-2017, 08:08 AM	#25
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by luftfluss The way this is phrased implies that a reason Fuji uses X-Trans is to "make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images". Fuji has been using "alternative" sensor technology since before DXO existed. DXO itself claims that it is possible to modify their procedures and software to measure the X-Trans sensor, but they don't feel it's the best use of their resources to do so at this time. Same thing with Foveon sensors. If Fuji and Sigma (whose RAWs are even more proprietary than Fuji and highly modified) were to gain large marketshare, you bet DXO would begin to measure the sensors. Pentax has been cooking their RAW files since the K-5, and even moreso in the K-70. * But yeah, I think this sounds like marketspeak shenanigans on Fuji's part, if the story is fairly close to the truth. There was someone who ran various files through a program that looked for RAW noise reduction/tampering and found that there was some in the K3 starting at iso 3200, but not below that. Other Pentax cameras it seemed to start at iso 1600. That said, that is not the sort of thing you would notice at all in real world shooting. When I read this "story" I see someone saying "We took an unprocessed file and processed it and lo and behold, it looked better." If all we are doing is comparing jpeg engines, then this is a non-story since few medium format shooters will shoot SOOC jpegs. Last edited by Rondec; 01-18-2017 at 08:29 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fuji GFX Medium Format Announced.	Winder	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	58	01-09-2017 05:33 AM
Interview with Fujifilm execs	luftfluss	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	01-23-2016 05:13 AM
645Z raw file size	MKD	Pentax Medium Format	4	05-31-2015 11:28 PM
file sizes with 645Z	RR645	Pentax Medium Format	16	04-23-2015 08:24 PM

01-17-2017, 01:54 PM	#16
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by pathdoc Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Then again, look what happened when Minolta "imitated" Honeywell a little too closely. I'm not going to say this will end with Fuji lying dead in the dust and their tech wearing a Ricoh label, but still, the line between "hack" and "plagiarise" can get pretty thin if you're an IT lawyer out for blood. i doubt the hack is what they will use, it would have been a test (and i agree it does sound like a story from marketing more than engineering) like anything else fuji will be taking an openly available sensor (that Pentax and others use) and adapting it their way (as all the brands do)

01-17-2017, 03:52 PM	#17
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,225	Pentax is a very easy target for competition because weak in marketing / sales / promotional efforts. Technical, just make a product taking some of the specs of the Pentax product, and roll out the product with broad marketing & sales, and wipe out Pentax remaining shares. The problem of making great products with tiny marketing/sales spending is the next one with louder voice cover the small voice of Pentax.

01-17-2017, 04:56 PM	#18
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by interested_observer In the end, it's a Sony sensor from both. Neither is FABing their own propriety sensor. If and when a true 6x4.5 size sensor becomes available, it will be available to everyone. Yes, Pentax will be able to drop it into their current body, easily - however the others will soon follow.... The full sized sensor is already available. Phase One is using it. The Fuji GFX mount does not support a sensor larger than the current 645 crop sensor, so Fuji won't be dropping a larger sensor in without a new mount and new lenses. Pentax and Phase One can both use the larger system with their current mount.

01-17-2017, 05:14 PM	#19
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by eddie1960 i doubt the hack is what they will use, it would have been a test (and i agree it does sound like a story from marketing more than engineering) like anything else fuji will be taking an openly available sensor (that Pentax and others use) and adapting it their way (as all the brands do) Fuji is fine. They make nice cameras and very nice lenses. I just don't think they are magic. People have this impression that they have somehow defeated the laws of physics. The reality is that they have a really good jpeg engine -- a lot better than Pentax's. Once you get to RAW files, they are about equivalent to similar sensors -- that is to say the K5 and X Pro-1 will have similar dynamic range and noise, assuming the same iso. The same will be true for the GFX versus the 645Z. The GFX will not be compatible with a full sized medium format sensor, nor will the glass they are building cover that size sensor meaning that if the market moves in that direction, they could have a little tougher time selling crop medium format. A lot depends on pricing and performance of all of these cameras and it is too soon to say for sure.

01-17-2017, 09:41 PM	#20
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,618	Originally posted by Rondec Sorry, I still don't buy it. Fuji works most of their magic by overstating their iso levels, making Fuji image files seem cleaner at a given iso than competitors. By using the x trans sensor, they make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images to clarify the situation. The way this is phrased implies that a reason Fuji uses X-Trans is to "make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images". Fuji has been using "alternative" sensor technology since before DXO existed. DXO itself claims that it is possible to modify their procedures and software to measure the X-Trans sensor, but they don't feel it's the best use of their resources to do so at this time. Same thing with Foveon sensors. If Fuji and Sigma (whose RAWs are even more proprietary than Fuji and highly modified) were to gain large marketshare, you bet DXO would begin to measure the sensors. Quote: Beyond which RAW files should not have proprietary processing applied. If Fuji is applying processing that sticks with an image when you open it in Lightroom, then that is bad on their part. You should have a clean, neutral file that you can then process however you want. Pentax has been cooking their RAW files since the K-5, and even moreso in the K-70. * But yeah, I think this sounds like marketspeak shenanigans on Fuji's part, if the story is fairly close to the truth.

01-18-2017, 12:48 AM	#21
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,887	I'm not surprised at all that Fuji looked at a Pentax camera in order to make their decision on whether or not to go MF. As a user of both systems it's clear that they share a common design idea - to make gear that's for photographers rather than people who just want a bigger camera, thinking that simply buying one will improve their photography. I've used Canon & Nikon gear and it's much more difficult to use because they prioritise dummy modes over controls that are important for photography. I fully expect the Fuji MF gear to be superb, not that I'll ever own any of it. I'll be sticking with film for my MF.

01-18-2017, 01:31 AM	#22
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	All this fuss over nothing.... the K-1 is the new MF anyway. Everybody knows that....

01-18-2017, 02:35 AM - 1 Like	#23
2351HD Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 750	Originally posted by noelpolar All this fuss over nothing.... the K-1 is the new MF anyway. Everybody knows that.... That's BS too.

01-18-2017, 02:53 AM	#24
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	Originally posted by noelpolar All this fuss over nothing.... the K-1 is the new MF anyway. Everybody knows that.... It closed the gap between FF and MF nicely

01-18-2017, 09:04 AM - 1 Like	#26
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Rondec Sorry if I don't buy into the adervtising hype. If someone has enough money to buy a 645z or Fuji gfx, I hope to goodness that they are doing their own post processing and not relying on camera jpeg engines. Seems like a waste otherwise. It's the ultimate snapchat camera.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-18-2017, 09:27 AM - 1 Like	#27
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,121	Originally posted by Rondec There was someone who ran various files through a program that looked for RAW noise reduction/tampering and found that there was some in the K3 starting at iso 3200, but not below that. Other Pentax cameras it seemed to start at iso 1600. That said, that is not the sort of thing you would notice at all in real world shooting. When I read this "story" I see someone saying "We took an unprocessed file and processed it and lo and behold, it looked better." If all we are doing is comparing jpeg engines, then this is a non-story since few medium format shooters will shoot SOOC jpegs. Exactly! And yet this highlights a sad truth that even the most professional of cameras live and die in the market based on the judgements of amateurs looking at SOOC images.

01-18-2017, 03:04 PM - 1 Like	#28
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Originally posted by redcat It closed the gap between FF and MF nicely Well, between APS-C and MF anyway.

01-19-2017, 12:54 AM - 1 Like	#29
gavincato Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 247	You know guys, I do get completely this mentality that you need to shoot raw, and then edit it to get the results. I really do, I shoot raw all the time. But I gotta tell you, the Fuji inbuilt colours are really incredibly good. I use XT2's alongside my 645z and the fuji's just look great out of the camera. In lightroom you can switch between the various styles in the raw file, and often it's better than my own LR presets (that I've spent a lot of time making!!!). It's certainly a heck of a lot more consistent than my editing I'm assuming it'll be the same on the gfx.

01-19-2017, 01:28 AM	#30
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by LFLee Pentax RAW file was already superior to the original Pentax image simply by applying their own image processing algorithm If they are using SOOC processing then that is understandable, even adobe can produce JPEG files from RAWs with superior output quality to Pentax. Crucial context is lost in the quotation through omission of what they were comparing the image data to. i'm calling this BUNK. On the fact that there is no evidence or description of the imaging pipeline used, and no meaningful data confirming their conclusion was published.