![band in a box tracks band in a box tracks](https://plugintorrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/983de2083346d758cf5b40efbb4bb2de.jpg)
I've just replaced my X-T20 with an X-T3, used for the first time yesterday to photograph my daughter at her graduation.
![band in a box tracks band in a box tracks](https://usermanual.wiki/Pg-Music/PgMusicBandInABox2010MacintoshUserGuide778376.1298759041/asset-3e.png)
X-T3 and Lightroom - is it me? Joined: Apr 28, Messages: 8 Likes Received: 1. Because "fixing" the X-Trans issues would have required significantly changing the most vital part of the rendering process - the demosiacing - It would have required significant engineering effort to change it for X-Trans rendering and not break the backwards compatibility, and may not have been possible without affecting the way the system works.This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect. Lightroom and camera RAW was designed to maintain backward compatibility and non destructive editing, all the way back to the original version and be fully non destructive. As I've already said, "Enhance Details" was not designed specifically for X-Trans files, and is doing some advanced computational imaging to improve the quality of all RAW files. Why did they go to such a roundabout way of addressing X-Trans files, and not just fix the original demosaicing? I did ask, and based on what I was told this is my understanding of it. Now, I know what people are going to say.
#Band in a box tracks pro
I should point out though that my MacBook pro is quite old, and on newer systems with a better GPU this should be much faster. It should be noted though, that this is doing far more than X-Transformer, and in my testing, for some images there is clearly a difference. Compare that to X-Transformer, which takes around seconds. On my old MacBook Pro it takes around 1 to 2 minutes on a Fuji file.
![band in a box tracks band in a box tracks](https://www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbw2020full/images/9/bbw2020full_clip_image004.jpg)
It requires a relatively modern GPU, and it can take some time to process. On non Fuji files, there is also clearly a visible difference when examining details - at least in the files I've tried.
![band in a box tracks band in a box tracks](https://www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbm2019upgrade/images/3/chapter3_clip_image003.jpg)
It produces extremely clean and detailed images from your X-Trans files, and is probably of a higher quality than X-Transformer in certain circumstances. If you are familiar with X-Transformer, it works in a similar way, in that it creates a DNG with improved demosaicing. Today, Adobe has released a new version of Lightroom which finally addresses the X-Trans issue. Others have switched away from Lightroom together to something like Capture One. People have been hoping that Adobe would eventually fix the problem, and turned to other solutions, such as Iridient X-Transformer. Ever since Fuji released its first X-Trans camera, and Adobe added support, many of us who have shot Fuji over the years have been unhappy with how Lightroom handles Fuji files.
#Band in a box tracks professional
Any thought welcome.Thomas is a professional fine art photographer and writer specialising in photography related instructional books as well as travel writing and street photography. It was certainly good for LR, but for C1 I've no definite idea about necessity. I would like to hear opinions if Iridient transformer is still necessary when using C1. I haven't seen the Iridium settings tools being outrageous better, I use iridium for the core business only to interpret the Xtrans data. It is all bloody time consuming enough working in LR or C1 so that I really don't need another page of Iridium settings to deal with, so I keep the iridium settings fixed as lean as possible. So I don't use it to play with it's settings for varying pictures, I've found my general preferred Iridium settings and done with it. You ain't got a preview when you play with Iridient settings, it's so cumbersome to fool around with it, there is no flow in working with it. So far if I want smoother I'll use post processing for that. Please share a clue if you have one, thanks. MORE DETAILED did not showed me pixel peeping problems in various shots, to be honest I have no idea why SMOOTHER exist. So I only had to bother about Iridient MORE DETAILED or SMOOTHER. Therefore I choose to have only 1 setting in Iridient that seems to work for all, and leave the rest of tasks to LR or C1 or PS. If you start to jockey around with setting in Iridient differently for different kind of pictures, are you really going to keep track of what you do in iridient compared to what you did in LR or C1 or PS? Sometimes I feel like it did nothing at all? Iridient could do a better job in finding/treating CA. For all purposes I have only 1 setting no matter what program follows.: