AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
If you're curious I was using the Fuji 18-55 OIS at f/9 and 30mm to mimic the sigma. Left: Sigma DP2Q (very slightly sharpened) - Right: same as above (Iridient)Īs you can see, the result obtained via Iridient rivals that from the Sigma (!) The image processed in Iridient is very nice and I compared it to the same scene taken with my reference for resolution: a Sigma dp2Q developed with Kalpanika (I know I could do slightly better with SPP). The differences are macroscopic at this 100% zoom: foliage from RT 5.8 demosaic is evidently full of artifacts and really unpleasant. Left: RawTherapee 5.8 3-passes Markenstijn (RT RL deconv) - Right: Iridient (RT RL deconv) I found the differences to be really visible for foliage/grass. sharpening is where the difference really emerges: the iridient version is largely more resistant to stronger sharpening with few noticeable halos/artifacts. comparing unsharpened results leads almost to the same results Well, the results were absolutely unexpected: Keep in mind that I disabled every form of sharpening/denoising by Iridient. I heard that Iridient does the best job at extracting information from x-trans raw files so I downloaded the demo. I'm a seasoned RawTherapee user and I sometimes use Capture One 20, but I strive to avoid windows software as possible. Due to the italian covid-19 restrictions I had some time to play with cameras in my backyard I have a Fuji X-T30 and a Sigma DP2Q.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |