Lightroom 8.2 X-Trans Enhanced Details Issue

[Chris Kern]

There appears to be a problem using the new Enhanced Details demosaicing method with Fuji X-Trans files.  This has been reported to Adobe.

[rdonson]

Thanks for the heads up.  I always use compressed RAF files and was wondering why Enhanced Details did NOTHING! 

[john beardsworth]

It's not just Fuji files, compressed or not, and what also matters is the individual computer, maybe its graphics card.

On my 5 year old Mac Air the problem happens every time I try it with Fuji XT2 uncompressed or compressed. But I can make EDNGs from the same files perfectly on my Windows 10 machine which has far more RAM and a better graphics card. Before this post I tested a Nikon D100 file over onto the Mac and it did process correctly - annoying as it disproves my "it's not Fuji" comment! - but I have seen reports on Adobe's forum of other Nikon files failing.

I'll test again later with a bigger Nikon raw file, but I'm just not that interested. It's good that Adobe are trying this kind of thing, but I see the feature as more of a "technology preview". Each file takes ages to render, you clutter up your catalogue with additional and much bigger duplicates, and often it's pretty hard to identify the IQ benefit. For me the jury is out, but it's worth trying on individual images.

John

[Chris Kern]

It's not just Fuji files, compressed or not, and what also matters is the individual computer, maybe its graphics card.

Yes, there does indeed appear to be an environmental component to the "Enhance Details Causes Cut out Squares" problem.

I also initially tested with a five-year-old MacBook Air, and was unable to process any Fuji X-Trans files successfully.  (I tried files from an XT-1, an XT-2, and an XT-3, as well as the sample X-Pro1 file provided by Adobe.)  I had no difficulty running the Enhanced Details tool on that machine against a Nikon .NEF file produced by a D800E.

This morning, I bit the bullet and installed LR 8.2 on my 2013 Mac Pro.  All six of my test files were successfully demosaiced with Enhanced Details.  The beefier graphic hardware on the Mac Pro made a huge difference in processing time, by the way: on the MacBook Air, they were taking several minutes to process, on the Mac Pro between 10 and 20 seconds.

[Chris Kern]

This morning, I bit the bullet and installed LR 8.2 on my 2013 Mac Pro.  All six of my test files were successfully demosaiced with Enhanced Details.  The beefier graphic hardware on the Mac Pro made a huge difference in processing time, by the way: on the MacBook Air, they were taking several minutes to process, on the Mac Pro between 10 and 20 seconds.

And this just in from Adobe's Simon Chen on the Photoshop/Lightroom feedback website:

This is likely due to older hardware that is unsupported by macOS machine learning frame work, aka coreML It is not too surprising since CoreML is pretty new.

[MBehrens]

UPDATED
My comparison to IXT was incorrect. I had IXT sharpening set to low, which was applying a small amount of sharpening to the file. I've removed that comparison file.

I have found that the results of processing with IXT with the More Detailed processing and no sharpening is virtually identical to LRCCE. See the new comparison file attached - different subject. This is no sharpening (0) in LRClassic for these screen grabs. Setting sharpening to 20 in both reveals different results, the IXT file sharpens more quickly than the LRCCE file and is more sensitive to the detail slider.

Sorry for the mis-information earlier.
=====================
I'm not having any issues with creating enhanced LR DNGs from X-Trans (X-T2 compressed) files.
The resulting DNG files are huge, RAF = 24MB, LRCCE DNG = 115MB

I'm finding that Iridient X-Transformer DNGs are better detailed/enhanced and nearly 1/2 the size (62MB) of the LRCCE.

The LRCCE images are more detailed than the standard LRCC rendering, but IXT is very easy to use and gives me some control that LRCCE does not. I just don't see myself using the LRCCE feature.

Attached an ITX / LRCCE comparison and a Std LRCC / LRCCE comparison. The IXT is set for the smoother RAW Process, my preference. though I do use the More Detailed setting when needed. I like having the option.

Windows 10 (1809)

[DP]

I'm not having any issues with creating enhanced LR DNGs from X-Trans (X-T2 compressed) files.
The resulting DNG files are huge, RAF = 24MB, LRCCE DNG = 115MB

based on that size Adobe apparently creating linear DNG files -> demosaicked, beats me why they were so impotent not to make a new process version with that demosaick working w/o linear DNG step...

[rdonson]

It's not just Fuji files, compressed or not, and what also matters is the individual computer, maybe its graphics card.

On my 5 year old Mac Air the problem happens every time I try it with Fuji XT2 uncompressed or compressed. But I can make EDNGs from the same files perfectly on my Windows 10 machine which has far more RAM and a better graphics card. Before this post I tested a Nikon D100 file over onto the Mac and it did process correctly - annoying as it disproves my "it's not Fuji" comment! - but I have seen reports on Adobe's forum of other Nikon files failing.

I'll test again later with a bigger Nikon raw file, but I'm just not that interested. It's good that Adobe are trying this kind of thing, but I see the feature as more of a "technology preview". Each file takes ages to render, you clutter up your catalogue with additional and much bigger duplicates, and often it's pretty hard to identify the IQ benefit. For me the jury is out, but it's worth trying on individual images.

John

John,

I have a 2017 27" 5K iMac with 40 GB RAM and a Radeon Pro 580 8GB VRAM and I don't see any improvements whatsoever on any RAF file with the new Enhanced Details.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

based on that size Adobe apparently creating linear DNG files -> demosaicked, beats me why they were so impotent not to make a new process version with that demosaick working w/o linear DNG step...

+1

Cheers,
Bart

[john beardsworth]

John,
I have a 2017 27" 5K iMac with 40 GB RAM and a Radeon Pro 580 8GB VRAM and I don't see any improvements whatsoever on any RAF file with the new Enhanced Details.

The effect is very subtle or even invisible, Ron,  and you should try a few of the type of images which benefit most from it - in general, ones with lots of fine detail such as the one used in my article here. This shows a couple of ways to analyse the results in Photoshop, but if one needs to go to such lengths to detect the benefit...?

[OmerV]

On a late 2013 iMac with older X-E1 16meg RAF files, the enhanced detail feature worked quite well. Downloaded X-T3 RAF files from DPReview and those too were visibly “improved,” to my eye anyway. No problems at all though the larger X-T3 files take about a minute to process and the DNGs are much heftier.

[rdonson]

The effect is very subtle or even invisible, Ron,  and you should try a few of the type of images which benefit most from it - in general, ones with lots of fine detail such as the one used in my article here. This shows a couple of ways to analyse the results in Photoshop, but if one needs to go to such lengths to detect the benefit...?

Thanks, John.  The Adobe solution processed quickly in Lr for me but to be honest I like the results I get from X-Transformer much better.

[MBehrens]

I have a 2017 27" 5K iMac with 40 GB RAM and a Radeon Pro 580 8GB VRAM and I don't see any improvements whatsoever on any RAF file with the new Enhanced Details.

Ron,
Is your iMac (version 10.13) or later?
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/enhance-details.html
This seems to be very OS dependent.

I don't see any benefit over X-Transformer either.
- Morey

[rdonson]

- Morey...

2017 27" 5K iMac 40 GB RAM Radeon with 8 GB VRAM
Mac OS 10.14.3
Lightroom 8.2

I don't know what the issue is but it seems to make little difference with my compressed RAF files although it processes quite quickly.

I'm staying with X-Transformer until I see a reason to change.