Fuji X Trans

It is now Wednesday and still no response from DxO. @sgospodarenko

Well it happens that some people talk more than they should sometimes. That is probably why you are confused now.

Stressing DxO staff will not help you. If someone has an answer for you you will get it. Else, just wait and see. Simple like this. Sorry I am just a tid bit annoyed by all those without patience or manner on this forum.

DxO staff said the question should be answered. Therefore it should be answered. Your response is therefore neither welcome or relevant.

I found out how to silence this thread. Have a nice Xmas :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hello guys,

It was already explained a lot of times here on the Forum and outside that Fuji X Trans won’t be supported by DxO PL and nothing has changed since then. The latest post - https://forum.dxo.com/t/revamped-beta-test-program/9355/68

As far as I understand the message on Instagram meant the new support for Fujifilm GFX100 body.

Svetlana G.


Thank you for clarifying. But I can assure you my question was very specific. I mentioned that I believed the DxO stance was not to support X Trans and that as such the software was not suitable for all. The response was “we are working on it”. I replied that that was great news and asked if there was an eta. The response was no eta but were are working on it. There is no confusion there.

1 Like

In this case how do we process Fuji files with DXO Photolab: work in JPEG only? other?

You can find more on subject

And here

A far as I am aware all you can do is export raf files to tiff via another program and then process the tiff in PL. PL will not even read DNGs based on X Trans. So this so called great software locks you out of Fuji X Trans and always will. As such my Mac is now locking out all things DxO. Given the price of Cap One for Fuji (Fuji only version) there is a case for going that way or of course Lr. Another alternative is to use Cap One Express for Fuji (free) develop as far as you can and then export tiff to PL if you need more.

Thank you for your answers. I was considering buying a Fuji XT but recently discovered that Photolab does not support XTrans images. I bought the Elite + Viewpoint version recently, it bothers me to have invested in this software and finally go through image format transformations (RAW TIFF …) to import Fuji XT RAW images into Photolab. Staying on Photolab therefore obliges me to buy everything except Fuji XT.
Processing XTrans doesn’t have to be more complicated than processing Bayer matrix sensors unless it is for other reasons !

DxO is a small team, there’s some not too happy people and complaints about only few new features every year and an improvement backlog list. Don’t get them off their backlog list, we want those improvement =)
Like some have said, fuji x-trans best bet is C1 if not an Lr/Ps. Most software support camera profile and lens correction is limited to whatever is currently on Lensfun. DxO get there own test for camera/lens profile and demosaic (however you spell this). If they don’t want to then they just don’t have to, many times they said it would not be supported even few post up got another staff answer, why you keep asking?

mikerofoto please tell me which notable software does not support Fuji X Trans apart from DxO? C1 supports it as does Lr, ON1, Luminar, Affinity and Ps (there will probably be others). Your comments do not reflect the market either in terms of Fuji support or a fragmented approach to what is supported and what is not. This ends up being a question of whether one is prepared to let the software dictate the camera used. From my perspective the answer is no and for that reason I will no longer support PL or DxO Nik.

Images might look different to some eyes but I emphasise “different” is not better or worse it is just that - different. A lot of the Fuji stuff has the lens info embedded in the raw file, C1 uses that a lot for a start. And as for nef I am not blown away by DxO results - and I used to shoot Nikon.

Incidentally, you are either having a problem with interpreting English, are missing the point, or are just starting trouble. Listen carefully - I do not care what DxO do. I am not asking for it (I moved on months ago), I just sought clarification because DxO here say they will never do it whilst DxO on the Instagram page said it is in hand. Is that clear enough for you (answer not required)! And irrespective of your ramblings - there are still a good selection of editors that handle Fuji X and other cameras more than adequately.

I think the situation is relatively straightforward. DXO have said consistently that Fuji X-Trans would never be supported. However, Fuji Bayer sensor cameras are supported and that is where the Instagram confusion arose.
There is a technical reason why X-Trans is not supported in that PRIME noise reduction operates before demosaicing and therefore Fuji X-Trans is totally incompatible. The development time, if possible, to develop X-Trans PRIME is simply too great. Add in the commercial aspect of Fuji choosing C1 as their preferred partner for raw conversion making a free version of C1 available to Fuji users, and the question becomes “would you invest money in such a project?”.

Remember the free version of C1 Fuji is not free, Fuji pay Phaseone for every registered copy.

Technically and commercially Fuji X-Trans is a non starter for DXO. I am sure DXO regret this but sometimes that’s just how it is.

If I were using Fuji I would certainly be using one of the C1 options, it’s a no brainer for me :slight_smile:


As I said, the issue is that on one platform (forum) DxO) say one thing and on another (Instagram) something else. Svetlana’s comment “As far as I understand the message on Instagram meant the new support for Fujifilm GFX100 body” is misinformed and I have proven that by revisiting the exchange on instagram. DxO need to get control of their staff.

I’m impressed by this spent energy in a losing battle.
You know the answer since your first of thirty posts before

All this noise for a software you dont’t use !

Maybe the first mistake is already to take anything for face value/serious serious which is written on Instagram. For me personally Instagram is not a news channel which I take serious - might change in the future but for now…



I certainly understand your frustration based on what you see as a miscommunication on the issue of the x-tran sensor. I, myself, have never read the instagram post to which you refer so I can’t comment on that aspect of this ongoing dialog. However, I think it is pretty clear at this point that DXO is not currently using any significant resources to provide support for x-trans. Whether that will change in the future is anyone’s guess. Given that, I wonder want the purpose is in continuing this dialog since in the end it will not result in support of this sensor.



How hard can this be Mark? I want DxO to own its own mis-information (even if unintentional) for the benefit of those who might take it the wrong way. A business owning its own mistakes is hardly a new philosophy. However it does rather seem that this might be beyond DxO and if so I can only hope they reap the benefits!

Anyway, I have given them the opportunity to react in a positive way and can now do no more than drop this organisation from my “recommended” list. Sad as I had hoped they were better but there we go…

Might this be more of a case of an individual on Instagram needing to clarify a mistake? Is there even a link or other written record to refer to? Or a person’s name? Why must the whole company organize around this? You have already received clarification here. Why not be at peace?