LR's Enhance Details: Beware Fuji users!

[@ogonzilla]

Tested it. The difference is so slight, decided not to even make a video on it. I commend you, good sir. :)

[@m.stewart8094]

Hey Omar! It does get rid of the worms pretty good. I'll use it for landscapes when I worry about leaves as stuff. Question I have if Luminar and Cap 1 can do it without special processing why cant Adobe?

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

@@m.stewart8094 You shouldn't get worms if you import into Lightroom with sharpen and noise reduction switched to zero. By default adobe has it set for Bayer sensor.

[@ChateauScholt]

Ok, I‘m watching this on a phone after two glasses of wine, but I constantly thought the not enhanced version was the enhanced version...

[@georgyporgy]

Ditto...it's a non-excitement update and I'm not even sure it's really doing anything.

[@macmac8122]

I just switched to Capture One. It is much better for Fuji. I hope this doesn't change things?

[@xBris]

Ad: 30 % more detail. Reality: 5 % of all users get a 0.1 % increase in details. Nice marketing.

[@terryd8692]

Spot on. Saved me posting the same thing. I guess Adobe need to go to maths class to learn percentages

[@frankwoodbery2473]

Curious how the heck Adobe even came up with that hyperbolic claim.

[@katumus]

Adobe says "Up To" meaning that it is truth and a fact, even if only a 1 photo of 1000 photos would let you get a such difference visible, otherwise less than nothing... Just a possibility, not a guarantee.... Remember, it is same as in stores with "Up to -75% sales" and most products are still normal prices and some are -15% or -25%, but it is still true if you can buy something for -75% off the price...

[@xBris]

@@katumus Sure, obviously Adobe made sure they manufactured an example in the lab to prove their point - they don't want to get sued. It's deceptive nontheless.

[@zodiacfml]

it is hard to believe that they have to release this feature. it's a huge waste of too many things. I thought they're going to have AI based auto tagging of photos?

[@bebespurs]

Only two peoples in the world looking at pics in 11:1 zoom, Tony and сhief of marketing department in Adobe.

[@sebastianfilms4499]

The whole point of this video is to discuss an update that improves detail.

[@KennethRosenstroem]

@@sebastianfilms4499 but only @ 1200% ???

[@sebastianfilms4499]

Well he concluded that there wasn’t much difference. He started at 1:1 and then zoomed in to try to elicit any difference. I doubt it will make much of a difference to any of us (as he mentioned) but I’m glad to see someone do it so I can check adobe’s claim without trying this on my own. Based on what I see not a big difference. However, an informative video. And I’m sure that if I was doing this test myself I would bump up the mag and pixel peep just the same.

[@rtlamb]

@@sebastianfilms4499 except, it doesn't, for most of us.

[@terryd8692]

I must say, I appreciate the 1100% zoom so I can see it on my phone. Or not see it as the case may be.

[@simon_patterson]

It takes a rare talent to be interesting at the same time as demonstrating no real difference between things. Tony has such a talent in spades. This episode was the photography equivalent of Seinfeld - a show about nothing! Bravo Tony, very interesting results that cut through the marketing BS.

[@DobyxRC]

Adobe should be ashamed of themselves for this. It really pisses me off when companies tout this type of claim, then when you go to experience it it just isn't there.... sigh. Thank you SO much for enlightening us Tony.

[@stevegates2]

He still seeling it too you

[@KP3droflxp]

@@stevegates2 If this was supposed to be an advert for LR then I'd want my money back if I was Adobe

[@mrsusan893]

I tried it with 5 different images. All are landscape images and were shot with my X-T2. I see slightly better results with the enhance detail feature from adobe. I compared the results to capture 1, iridient and just a normal adobe raw conversion. I keep the sharpening slider in ACR set to zero and only apply sharpening in Photoshop using smart sharpen. The results certainly aren't 30% better but they are better than all the other methods I've tested so far. Just like camera marketing, they claim that this new technology will blow everyone's mind but in reality it's simply a tiny improvement at best. I'm just happy that Adobe are at least trying to improve their demosaicing algorithm for the X-trans sensors.

[@saniwada]

can we conclude that its a waste for everyone? especially Fuji user's.

[@RyanH0809]

I think so lol

[@rtlamb]

100%

[@ausmartin1]

@@aceflibble Any that come up false proves it is not reliable in Raw. For consumers shooting jpeg yes it's great in nature out of the camera.

[@89DerChristian]

@@aceflibble yes, better detail. But do you really notice it on a print ?

[@TheHannes]

Hear, hear!

[@kyliejonesphotography]

I love how I can watch your video and then know I'm not crazy when I see no difference in my "enhanced" photos. Your do the hard work, we watch and save heaps of time. As always. Thanks Tony!

[@Qwiv]

Is this a scam to sell more HD or cloud space to photogs?

[@Joshua97776]

Tony you should do a video comparing Fuji RAW files on Light Room VS Capture One Pro :)

[@EoWKen]

I am literally holding my breath for an actual comparison of this. Also, when using software to convert the RAW before importing it into Lightroom (which supposedly is the best practice)

[@AyushBakshi]

I love it when the video is a bit technical and I actually understand things. One thing I would suggest is when the difference in images is very minute that you've to zoom 8:1 then show the difference blend result of images too.

[@DemosSoupashis]

Great comparison Tony many thanks, if people need to zoom in to this extent to see a difference I think they should question if they are truly in to photography as a creative, It's got to the point where certain groups of "photographers" are only driven by the pixel peep mentality. Yes it is interesting however I have never had an issue using xtrans sensors with LR and certainly never had a client say any different.

[@michaelogden5958]

Jayz. Zooming in to molecular level to *maybe* see a difference? Marketing at its usual.

[@RedBatRacing]

Come on Adobe, clearly CSI still have superior technology. Zoom enhance, zoom enhance... Ah the murder's face reflected in the victims eye. All from a 240i web cam

[@southerncharity7928]

ENHANCE!

[@AoCabo]

I've always wanted to see every one of my pimples and facial blemishes in the absolute correct color! Thanks Adobe!!

[@Imhotep397]

The moral of the story: use Capture ONE

[@danieljarman1313]

Love Capture One. I switched in October

[@chrisgibbsphoto]

CaptureOne Pro has steep learning curve, but once it clicks, its a joy to use!

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

@@chrisgibbsphoto Capture One is good at certain things but it is not Gods Gift to Fuji it has limitations so people must use the trial period well before you commit BECAUSE there are many coming back as there are going over so choose carefully. There are many reason for going over to capture one worms and artefacts in fuji Raf files should not be the main reason. See my earlier comments on switching off default sharpen and noise reduction.

[@pebmets]

@@chrisgibbsphotoI agree with you. Once I got over the learning curve, I never looked back.

[@freequest]

@@oldgrumpyjim5003 Good Advice. Test before you buy. I may just do that.

[@gaza4543]

Im sorry, but for fuji users this is massive improvement! From what i can see with my XT2 files I'm getting no false colours and i'd actually argue that the lightroom original is rendering the file wrong. There is no way an eyelash standing 3 feet would appear completely black light the original shows. That tone/colour would be built from numerous colours and refracted light and would probably come across all sorts of colours. Just as you can see from the the enhanced version i would say its more correct with the multi colour rendition. But! You could be right! again it's one of the endless arguments that will be debated forever more. But there is no denying and is plain as day that rendering of the file is miles ahead of the traditional fuji files, no false details, no smearing everything has bit more polish and is more clearly defined. It's plainly obvious even at 100%. Also the enhanced versions allows for more traditional sharpening techniques as you would with bayer sensors. It seems a fashion to bash Adobe but i say bravo Adobe and thank you for making the effort but there's plenty of room for improvement as its still not ideal and would much prefer native support without having to jump through hoops to achieve a clear image.

[@culinarykid92]

Even Jared Polin said it won't matter other than possibly big prints (his example was billboards). I'm glad to see a real example that supports the claim.

[@SHAGUIML]

Nothing better than Capture One 12 for Fuji users

[@BlackWipeout]

Shagui M not only for Fuji users but for all users ;)

[@asub3292]

This is why i love your channel Abode: This thing will be 30% better! Most "journalists": CLICKBAIT TITLES, NO FACT CHECKING, OMG EVERYONE NEEDS THIS You: There is a slight improvement, but no one would notice, and its not always better, spend your time worry about things like composition.

[@jpdj2715]

Bayer vs Fuji. If you buy a display, its specififation of pixel resolution might be 3840 x 2160 (~4K). That is about 8.3 megapixel. However, each pixel consists of 3 sub pixels: 1 R, 1 G and 1 B. That means we have about 25 mega subpixels. When we buy a camera, this is turned upside down (we are being helixed?). 24 megapixels means 12 megapixel Green, 6 Red and 6 Blue - both in Bayes and Fuji xt. When the camera's processor has measured each pixel's light value (electrical resistance), this then is input into a conversion program (algorithm) that extrapolates (invents) an R and G value with each B, or R and B with each G, etc. This becomes your "raw" file (roasted to the point of being well done). Depending on the quality of the algorithm in the camera's firmware (and processing power of its cpu), "mosaicing" is introduced, that may have to be removed again. With increasing megapixel resolution, it becomes easier to sort this out. So, 50 megapixel has twice the pixels of 25, 1.4 times the visual resolution but may need less computation for rgb extrapolation and demosaicing. I guess that Fuji's xt pixel arrangement makes demosaicing a computationally easier than Bayer, albeit any regular subpixel pattern will have the issue. Anyhow, let's get deeper into this in the public debate as developers of camera brands may need that as driving force to go to the next level.

[@PabloB888]

At 1:1 there's a clear sharpness and fine details improvement on my fuji RAWs and the most important thing is, there are no longer worms artifacts from sharpening because noise is reduced as well.

[@Hkmmotologs]

capture one is the best image processing software for fuji x-tranz sensor users.. clean and no wormy pixels.. better processing.. save it in tiff and then edit or retouch further in Photoshop

[@log0log]

Most noticeable difference is on a pictures with moire pattern. On my Panasonic G85, with no AA filter, I can clearly see no more moire on the dress or buildings with a new processing algorithm.

[@djsuth7727]

Capture One Pro remains a much better option for processing Fujifilm RAF files, in my opinion. Like you, I've found that the enhanced details option is hit and miss. Even if it was a bit more impressive I'm not keen on having to generate an extra DNG file ( which is much bigger than the original RAW file ) plus LR is still quite a slow beast compared to some of the other RAW processing apps. It's time Adobe stopped being lazy and rebuilt LR Classic ( ugh .. I hate that title ) from scratch to improve its performance.

[@ScottVincentPhotos]

Chelsea: Honey, what do you think about my eyes? Tony: Your eyelashes look a bit wormy. That's true love!

[@EDHBlvd]

Tony, sometimes I really appreciate your videos. This is one of those times. 👌

[@gryzman]

This also works in Lightroom CC (not classic). Which is way easier and better in so many ways, and I'd recommend using it as the default for everyone.

[@dzllz]

Great video! Good job for calling out the overhyped marketing about this feature.

[@jpdj2715]

I had never looked into "sharpening" as my photos looked really good. I accidentally applied sharpening once to a photo with a layered dress, the top layer being fine and very open black lace. I had never felt the lace was missing until I slid up the sharpening. It seems to me, this new resolution enhancement is a variant of that sharpening, with marginal results.

[@jonstewart9315]

I tried this the morning of the day you posted this video and I also found the before and after photos indistinguishable.

[@PT-re2gi]

Sounds interesting but for Fuji I will stick with Capture One for the import.

[@JasonPatz]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this clearly with good examples.

[@KiR_3d]

Great explanation! Thank you! AFAIK this tricky pattern is to avoid moire artefacts in photographs. So Fuji users are more in plus than having this questionable "enhance" feature pro for other cameras

[@johnbanks9392]

Rather than sampling a 2x2 grid like a Bayer sensor, the Fuji sensors use a 3x3 colour grid. Any 3x3 box will give 5 green, 2 blue and 2 red pixels. It's not guess work, it's the same method as Bayer but using 3x3 rather than 2x2.

[@bobcartledge5250]

"30% greater detail to that pixel over there. See? That one on the left? Yeah, that one!"

[@jamesbettanyphotography244]

To quote Admiral Nelson: "I see no signal"... For Fuji users Capture One is far superior, for that matter, RawTherapee is far superior since you have micro-control over the demosaicing algorithm, but honestly, when Cap One Express for Fuji is free just do it... or stump up the relatively cheap £500-ish (deals come and go, I can't remember the exact price) for Cap One Pro and run with it forever.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

I thought that as well 18 months ago but guess what? things aren't that great in Capture one!

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

moo it just didn’t suit me workflow wise was too used to Lightroom

[@jpdj2715]

This new version reports two major improvements: 1) this resolution enhancement (improved revelation of what is already in the raw?). 2) Tethering. I have to say that tethering support has improved a lot. If not, I would have left the mud-straw ship.

[@youknowwho9247]

Comment section full of people who are disappointed this isn't perfect on the first try. Can we stop being dicks and take this as an ongoing process that makes hopeful computation may give us more out of our files in the future? I mean most people have Lightroom anyway and I don't see a downside to this.

[@youknowwho9247]

@Phil Jones65 If you don't like Lightroom, don't use. Either way, randomly complaining about it on the internet is pretty pointless. People won't base their decision whether to use Lightroom or not on this feature.

[@youknowwho9247]

@Phil Jones65 I'd like to see actual evidence that people are moving away from Lightroom beyond your baseless assumptions. Because their subscriber numbers say otherwise. I also don't get this urge to rant. This feature is clearly not perfected. Maybe it'll be useful some day, maybe it won't. Either way, I don't see a downside to an effort at more computational post processing. I mean you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

[@youknowwho9247]

@Phil Jones65 How about you show me some of that evidence. Feel free to link the corresponding data right here.

[@jeanleguique4280]

5:36 He really does his best not laughing out loud

[@JHuffPhoto]

Hey, if you are a pixel peeper and it makes you feel good then use it. I don't think I will be wasting my time. I am not printing billboards and short of that I doubt you would be able to notice a significant difference. It is nice to see that you tried to find a significant difference but I really just couldn't see any.

[@curtis6861]

I just switched to Capture One, I'll never touch Adobe again.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

Curtis I said that as well but eventually returned!

[@chrisgibbsphoto]

@@oldgrumpyjim5003 The Catalogue is better in Lightroom if we're being honest, but that's about it as far as my workflow is concerned.

[@bjure8111]

Even the C1 is good, the work flow is horrific compared with lightroom.... I have tried it but always return to LR...

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

@@bjure8111 Yeh there is quite a few returning after not being able to adjust. Its a different beast altogether. Thats why I always advise caution. You can walk away from a subscription plan but its a wee bit different in C1.

[@curtis6861]

@@bjure8111 that's personal preference though. I think the workflow is great - move from one tab to the next making adjustments untill you reach export. It's far more intuitive than lightroom.

[@AnthonyGoodley]

Extra processing time to maybe get better details that you must zoom in to such a crazy level to see that in practically all applications it never would matter. What you get is a file that is 3X-4X bigger. Such a no-brainer, sign me up for this new feature! 😲😂

[@mohamedessammohamed9889]

If you have x trans sensors, get capture 1 fujifilm version, or get On1 raw and if you don't want to pay anything just use fujifilm x Raw studio or silky pix raw converter

[@sclogse1]

Silky pix doesn't seem to work with my T2 with firmware late 2020. It works on my X-M1. Which came with it.

[@Sketchmee5]

Thanks Tony,you save us a bunch of money!

[@CraigBoehman]

I found the same results using the Sony A7M3. I didn't start seeing subtle (and inconsequential) differences in files until at least 4X zooming - but most subtle differences started at around 8x. I didn't bother magnifying any further because none of these minute differences would be worth the trouble and time of converting my already adequate ARW file to dng - for no net visible "Enhancement". While I normally applaud Adobe's updates - with the content aware update being somewhat legendary in my mind - it seems to me that Adobe released a much-to-do-about-nothing update on the whole. For those of us strictly using Photoshop CC for post, we have the enhancement option in the Adobe RAW filter. But who would really want to take the trouble to further convert an ARW file (or whatever native RAW format) to dng? One of the big reasons I don't use Lightroom to begin with is to remove at least one full step in my workflow, which is the exporting of images from one platform to another needlessly. Normally, this is a topic for another conversation but there's absolutely no compelling reason for me as a Photoshop post guy to use Enhancement and then have to deal with additional dng files too. The argument for doing this is that the dng file format is open source...but really, it's been around only since 2004 and who's to say that another open source format won't come along that's even better than dng? Now, this is a topic for another conversation. I'm only left with the question of why Adobe even bothered to make such a claim as to gaining up to 30% enhancement? I'd really like to see this particular image file(s) they used to come up with this figure.

[@kyle_medina]

I’ve tried this on a few photos and see no difference.

[@justinlloyd6455]

Bummer. What kind of camera and lenses? Can you try any scenic shots with static camera+subject at high F/stop? Like a shot of a forest or landscape?

[@jefferycampbell2243]

@@justinlloyd6455 I see a big difference with my Fuji XT2 files. Sharpening raw files creates wormy artifacts and forced me to do my sharpening in PS. Enhanced details pretty much eliminated the worminess so I could sharpen in LR.

[@Topper_Harley68]

@@jefferycampbell2243 What file format do it support,? It wan't do it on my RAF files in LR 2020.

[@onegrapefruitlover]

Using Capture One for sharpening makes a bigger difference than Enhance Details on Lightroom, at least for the files from the X-T1. Plus the color rendition is just miles ahead on C1 for those files.

[@Argolich]

I've tested it as well. I have been finding that gray-green tint appearing somewhat consistently and your video explains in some good measure why. The comparison of the Bayer and X Trans sensor was very helpful. I think by and large, Adobe still isn't quite there with processing the X Trans. I've been using Iridient X Transformer to convert my RAF files to DNG and frankly, the results are pretty good. A lot of that odd discoloration is mitigated quite a bit. That being said, when I run the image through Topaz or some of the NIK plug ins such as Silver FX Pro 2 after the DNG conversion, the image often has that tint to it that is a bit of a pain to remove.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

Artificial intelligence in photography is many times overestimated. Software can't really replace a sharp with great optical quality lens. However software can conceal common problems of affordable kit lenses and that is very useful for the typical amateur photographer. Fuji X-trans and Sigma Faveon sensors have serious advantages over common Bayer sensors under specific conditions.

[@tomscott4438]

Ran it on some older X-E2 files and newer images taken with my X-Pro-2. A slight improvement but when you factor in the time to process and the huge file it creates, not worth it for me. Once again they come up with an "improvement" that increases processing time, uses massive amounts of your GPU, and takes up even more storage space. Well done Adobe; you've managed to make a slow, bloated, resource hog, even more so. Kudos.

[@jenohogan9254]

I'm glad I watched this. I have a Fuji X-T2. Thank you!!

[@stevelink21]

Tony, you're correct that LR isn't the best app for processing Fuji files...for example, I find Iridient Developer generally superior, especially in terms of image detail!

[@kennethwilliamsinc]

Yea, I just tried the feature on some A9 files. 30% increase is 😂 but there is a slight improvement. A slight improvement is still a welcomed improvement especially when you don’t have to pay extra for it.

[@alextorresphoto]

Thanks Tony! I wrote another comment last night on the DNG conversion conversation for Fuji X trans sensors. Continuing on that, I wonder how this compares to a photo compared to DNG using lridient x-transformer. I noticed the "night" shots issue also. Shots that are low light, with artificial lightining, or high contrast seems to have these little details in the DNG change. However when using the Fuji profiles these colors and details change back to superior results. I still feel like Iridient does a better job compared to Adobe, 48 - 64MB with the former, and latter going up to 122mb! This whole demosaic algorithm thing is a really big deal and it shows in the conversions. Also when converting to DNG, what are the default settings? Are they turning sharpening completely off? I've learned that sharpening is best done last. Turn sharpening off and apply noise reduction before sharpening. Also set color profile to one of Fuji's profiles, not Adobe built in. I feel like everything in Adobe suits the Nikon and Canon shooters. For X-trans you have to go the extra mile. I commend Adobe for putting something out there. It seems they are serious about capturing the Fuji market. However, I think there is still a long way to go and I hope they don't stop. Like everything in tech, it's always escalating and getting better. I think the big breakthrough will be when they are confident enough to make these enhancements good enough that you don't need an "enhanced" version and they figure out how to do the math fast enough for the CPU to handle without having to convert to DNG first? Possibly baking it into the smart previews and using RAW caching to work in the background? Perhaps we'll need a breakthrough in CPU tech first. Which one will it be! The chicken or the egg!

[@CaseyConnor]

There was also a surprising amount of chromatic distortion in the "enhanced" image -- see at 7:49 and 8:02 -- besides the eyebrow itself being reddish, there are larger blotches of color added among the lashes. This was more significant than the eyelash discoloration, to me. (Unless this was due to youtube compression.)

[@alexcorll90]

I found the difference to be pretty big under certain circumstances, mainly any image with high frequency detail like grass and fur. But it results in a 120MB DNG file, 4x increase. I can't adopt X Trans for my work if I have to add that step every time to be satisfied.

[@PeterBrockie]

5% of the time, it works every time.

[@NickAuskeur1]

11:1 is craaaazy. Feels like snake oil to me, all this it's a non-issue in reality? Cheers for your thorough dissection Tony!

[@rtlamb]

It's absolutely snake oil! I never zoom in more than 1:1. Since I shoot Olympus that uses a Bayer sensor this won't do anything for my images.

[@jpdj2715]

The update, in Windows, depends on Windows 10 update 1809 (the October 2018 update). My new PC model was manufacturer-tested with 1809, but refuses to go from 1803 to 1809. And LR is nice enough to inform me. Fortunately, in LR there is nothing to be sad about.

[@albertosalas285]

It seems there is something wrong in Adobe rendering and they can not fix it. Very simple solution. Dump LR and switch to C1

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

Or simply save money and adjust Lightroom so that it doesn't sharpen on import!

[@Hjettis]

Thanks for many great videos about camera and photo review etc. on their channel here on KZbin, it is inspiring and educational. One thing I could now wish for is an assessment of the tool to store and edit images with, what one needs of hardware to use in e.g. Lightrom and Photosohop. What amount of ram and best poresessor etc

[@PaganiTypeR]

I mean... It's a start. If they'll keep improving it (without it making more errors), then who knows... this might be usable feature and a major selling point for adobe. At the moment - no, but they are on the right track.

[@georgetrujillo9618]

I don't like lightroom anymore, I think its easy to use, and the controls make a lot of sense. I truly prefer capture one now, and being a fuji user I think that the render is far better.

[@N9olan]

Lightroom does not process the X-Trans files the way that it should. Also, the X-Trans sensors do not have the same color filter over their photosites so, the colored photosites are registering other colors. For example, the green photosites can register a good much of the blue and close to the red colors, it is the same for the other colors with blue being the least or the most atenuable.

[@heitorpergher]

"Let's look at this particular eye lash". That says a lot about this update...

[@sashafarion]

Tony you can see difference on the landscape photos in Fuji RAF (grass and leaves)

[@dankspangle]

If I said to you I'll make your car go 30% faster, or I could make you live 30% longer, or increase your salary by 30% you'd be pretty chuffed. You'd cert have no trouble noticing a difference. So, 30% more detail? That's 1/3 more. Wow. And yet you can't see the difference at 11:1. You should be able to zoom in and see round corners like Blade Runner. Checks date... nope, not April 1... can't think of any other explanation... (Not dissing your video, by the way. Love your videos. Love the massive doses of proper science and common sense. Love the power couple of KZbin camera malarkey.)

[@jefferycampbell2243]

Tested it on my X-T2 astro images and had mixed results. It did reduce noise in dark areas, but added halos around my stars - almost like increased chromatic aberration. On more typical images, I found it significantly reduces worminess when pushing the sharpening. Also, the enhanced image incorporates any edits made to the raw file before it was enhanced.

[@Yang-qx7no]

Try topaz lab AI gigapixel, it could produce some very impressive resolution upscaling. It does require your original picture to be tack sharp and preferably shot in low ISO otherwise some artifacts may show up. But the under the right conditions it’s like magic.

[@TimberGeek]

I'll have to take a look. I'm only 16MPx and my lenses vary wildly.

[@fedupguy2004]

I would be very interested in a side by side comparison of new Lightroom algorithm against Capture one and irridium, Thomas Heaton did a video a couple of years ago with the old enhance details algorithm. The future is hexagonal bin sensors.

[@wellwhatthen10101]

I do agree Tony it is a waste of time Adobe trying to say that they are giving you something that really makes a difference to your photos, what a joke and it will only work on windows 10 to boot. anybody that still has windows 7 will miss out crap Adobe.

[@glenmcvey2265]

You've got Buckley's of me caring about this! Love your work though Tony.

[@boatman222345]

Years ago I got into a debate with a friend about Olympic records. My contention was that eventually any increase in broad jump distance records would reach a limit imposed by basic human physiology. In other words no human being is ever going to be able to jump 100'. My friend's response to this was to point out that Olympic officials would respond by measuring distances in smaller and smaller increments. In other words the new broad jump record would be so many feet .003". Simply put companies like Adobe are running into the same sort of physical limitations. Given Lightroom's many already impressive processing powers it's getting harder and harder to come up with "impressive improvement." Thus we have this latest feature...and other equally lame ones will undoubtedly follow. All of this of course causes much sleep loss among Adobe Executives! What sort of financial future does a company have after approaching and passing the "possible?" Any guess as to their response to this most worrisome eventuality? Drum roll please... Subscription Based Sales!

[@beberdje]

10:23 hit or miss, i guess they never miss huh?

[@dustin6097]

Tony's got a wife but I bet she doesn't kiss him MWAAAH!

[@rproctor83]

@@dustin6097 something something... hit the dab like mia kalifa?

[@lupevalenzuela5818]

Excellent video, Tony! Thanks!

[@cakeisfun1]

I'm going to buck the trend here. Using an X-T2 and enhanced details on photos with repeating fine details, specifically foliage, I can see a pretty substantial improvement even at 1:2. Photos like portraits etc. with minimal repeating fine details I cannot see a difference.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

You'll get the same results with Iridient X Lightroom's import default settings are better switched off (sharpen & Noise reduction) that was causing the worming and other issues

[@JustinGravesKC]

This is not how X-trans sampling works. It will never look at a 2x2 block of green-only pixels and "guess" the color. Every individual photosite on any modern digital camera is treated as a pixel. To process, you iterate each pixel and estimate its color based on neighboring pixels to get other color information. This is the point of X-Trans. The layout ensures every pixel has a neighbor of each other color. In a Bayer layout, this is not the case (you often have a red or blue pixel missing a color in adjacent neighbors), meaning Bayer is actually the layout requiring more "guesswork" than X-Trans.

[@WildBikerBill]

Bayer: www.google.com/search?safe=active&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS592US592&q=Bayer+photo+pattern&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5jpGUn8HgAhUgJTQIHZIVDFMQsAR6BAgCEAE&cshid=1550354189158630&biw=1920&bih=977 X-Trans: www.google.com/search?safe=active&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS592US592&q=X-Trans+photo+pattern&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo_5qfn8HgAhVRJ30KHSU8C4QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1920&bih=977

[@DonEvans1]

After seeing the announcement, I immediately made sure I had the update and tested it out. After 3 or 4 tests, I had to check the calendar to see if it was April Fools Day. 30? No way. Wont be wasting my time, hard drive space, or processing power on this joke of an update.

[@chrisgibbsphoto]

I left Lightroom for CaptureOne Pro and the difference is night & day. But be warned CaptureOne Pro is a 10,000 hours gig, you must put the effort into it to see results. On a side note, once CaptureOne clicks, it's an absolute joy to use, you never get to that Lightroom point where you're thinking, "it'd be nice to have another adjustment curve." #itsgotlevelstoo

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

The only issue I had with Capture one was, after I committed to it, I was shown a way to avoid the issues of xtrans going through Lightroom import and, I gradually slinked back to my old familiar ways as I missed photoshop and C1 was no alternative. The other annoying thing was I was able to get better rendering detail through Lightroom with Iridient plugin and that is still the case. I'll obviously keep C1 incase I change my mind but so far for my 36X24 prints its better in Lightroom with sharpening and noise reduction switched off and sharpening in photoshop using high-pass. Capture One just now doesn't suit and I fear many are jumping too soon and end up coming back having spent good money ;-)

[@LokkieF]

What is a 10000 hour gig..?

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

@@LokkieF More than the rest of my life span!!

[@chrisgibbsphoto]

​@@oldgrumpyjim5003 Coming from a professional film/darkroom background, rendering detail and overly sharp imaging was never really my gig, it wasn't something I chased in analogue. I understand there was a fascination back in the day with Panatomic-X and the like, but to be honest I was always more a Tri-X lover. Getting back to CaptureOne Pro, for me, it gets closer *way closer* to the old analogue film look than Lightroom ever could. The level of tonal control, and grain simulation is astounding in CaptureOne. I'd go as far as to say the grain simulator looks more pleasing to my eye than scanning film from my archive, as filmgrain gets very *bitty & harsh* when scanned and digitally processed, it holds little resemblance to what I saw in the grain magnifier under a cold cathode enlarger. Great to have so many choices though!

[@chrisgibbsphoto]

@@LokkieF I had around 2 or 3 goes at CaptureOne whilst running Lightroom, I never got CaptureOne, Lightroom is pretty easy to master. But when Adobe effectively killed my Lightroom 6 standalone and accompanying Photoshop, I said screw them, and spent the next year pounding away at CaptureOne. Finally with CaptureOne Pro 12 I'd say I'm happy, I can do everything I could in the darkroom *with ease* and then some. It's got the the point with version 12 where processing images has become as much fun as it ever was in the B&W lab, very therapeutic. Lightroom for me felt a creatively restrictive.

[@estebanzd9434]

I once saw a dead project in a git site, that used HQx, but in RAW files instead of PNG or similar. That thing is sick by itself, but yeah, imagine the file sizes.

[@jacobsmith6689]

Oh no. CSI TV writers are going to have a field day with this.

[@davidrd85]

Did you check any photos with Moiré pattern? That was one of the scenarios Adobe highlighted.

[@JUNO-69]

The title triggered Ken and he lashed out and yelled at his magnet collection.

[@lukaszw7608]

Even though I was interested in this topic I didn't get to watch this video for a couple of days because I thought it's mostly for Fuji users -_- Anyway, thanks for the cool explanation.

[@DeanWall]

Thanks Captain Pike

[@Lesmc1of3]

Hi Tony, I have a X-T3 and tried this on 3 or 4 landscape images this morning and there is a pleasing improvement in grass and rock. Zooming in really close there are one or two high contrast areas that are now showing a distinct red line, like CA that isn’t in the original. At standard zoom I’m happy, but it won’t be for every image.

[@jayx8472]

Lost me. Thankyou for the detailed update review.

[@unpadonundnaundxtall4740]

As soon as I got used to the high resolution option being on top KZbin decides to put it back on the bottom. Make up your damn mind youtube!! Great video 👍🏼

[@dergo]

With D300, D800 and Z6: no improvement. Can be even worse with fine fur. But with Fuji it CAN make a very big difference. With default sharpening, you have to zoom in at least 2:1 to see a difference. But if you want to up sharpening, then the new algorithm can shine! You can sharpen way more after you applied the detail enhancement (tested with XT-2).

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

Yep me too, but I got the same results with Iridient and slightly better than capture one.

[@Jacob_Roberts]

This looks like a solution in search of a problem. Tony, please say that your book is inexpensive rather than cheap. Inexpensive implies low price. Cheap implies low quality. Your books are high quality.

[@nmelcam1]

Great video, just wondering, would this process affect DXO Mark data? Specifically in perceptual megapixels? Making Camera + Lens combination more true to the camera's sensor MP's

[@DominikMarier]

I did see a major difference on green foliage / forest / grass shot on my FUJI XT-20

[@John1986ATR]

I shoot with a Fujifilm XT20 and enjoy using the camera but I don't really understand the advantage of the X-Trans vs Bayar. I've read that it's meant to prevent Moire but I don't really see that as an issue. With all this extra work to process the sensor output why not just use Bayar...

[@marcofazio1318]

I disagree with you, I don't think your test is relevant. First of all, in both bayer and x-trans patter every software need to guess the color infomations during RAW democisation. It's not true when you sai that there are group of 4 pixels without colour informations in the x-trans patter. Those pixel have color information next up/down - left/right. If you consider a 4x4 pixel grid you can see that the quantity of colour informations are the same. 8 green, 4 red and 4 blu pixel. This is exactly the same for the bayer sensor in a 4x4 grid. The only difference is the way those colour are allocated. The algorithm in fuji sensor is not close at 2x2 pixel grid for determinate the democisation but it consider an bigger grid, probably a 4x4. Better? Worse? I don't know, just a different way. Second, and most important, display a picture at 11:1 doesn't make sense at all, you have to see it 1:1. At 11:1 you are not looking your image any more but a huge pixel interpolation that your software is doing. If you can't see any difference at 1:1 is because probably there are not difference. Everything you see zooming in is an "interpolation" made by the algorithm that lightroom is doing in real time. It's not relevant at all.

[@martinyip65]

Agreed. Utterly pointless evaluating at beyond 1:1.

[@ducav2]

Doesn't he in fact show that you won't see a difference unless you zoom in to useless magnitudes? That sounds pretty much relevant to me. Kudos to Tony for showing that.

[@warsawdrives6739]

"a little more separation at the top of the U" wow, totally worth additional 120MB on my disk :P

[@mohsin_sait]

What's a good Lightroom alternative? Currently using Luminar and I'm not as satisfied as when I used Lightroom.

[@Simon-SBL]

I've been waiting for the geek analysis, thanks! I can see so little (if any at all) difference it probably won't matter, I've not printed any, but that may not matter either. Adobes' own format, .dng don't work at all, I just get a black image, how odd! Jared (Fro) mentioned that dng v1 was not compatible, but later dng version are supposed to be, anyway, it's not an issue really just an interesting oddity.

[@BartRos1980]

Its interesting how they deliver on this promise. Does it matter if its a original RAW or a DNG? Seeing as I shoot with Gmaster glass and a Sony a7riii I dont think I need more resolution. And before that a K1. I would be interested how it might do with 4/3rd images. I use a lx100 ii as a 3rd cam. For street and Instagram its just fine at 17mpx, but for architecture and landscapes I would want a little more sometimes. And now carry multiple cams. When will this be rolled out?