Fujifilm GFX 100 support issues
Tested with an uncompressed RAF from dpreview:
- The white point in raw/black white point is probably wrong and should be around 32500 instead of 16383.
- The colors are IMHO better if you take the values of the GFX50 in the standard color matrix (source: adobe_coeff.c).
- Compressed RAFs are not yet supported.
The white point in raw/black white point is probably wrong and should be around 32500 instead of 16383.
Indeed, looks like both black and white points need to be different between 14-bit and 16-bit modes which rawspeed currently doesn't seem to distinguish @LebedevRI
Exif.SubImage1.BlackLevel 15872/256 15872/256 16128/256 16128/256
Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel 16383
vs
Exif.SubImage1.BlackLevel 65536/256 65536/256 65536/256 65536/256
Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel 65535
The colors are IMHO better if you take the values of the GFX50 in the standard color matrix (source: adobe_coeff.c)
The coeffs come from the Adobe DNG converter for all cameras, and I don't think we should be doing anything different here (I just double-checked there was no error in pasting the values). Perhaps the wrong black point was part of the problem as well. You can finally of course do your own calibration.
Compressed RAFs are not yet supported
This issue did not get any activity in the past 60 days and will be closed in 365 days if no update occurs. Please check if the master branch has fixed it and report again or close the issue.
I have the same issue with the GFX 100S 16 bits uncompress file. It's indeed open with darktable, but it's mostly unusable because the image are always way too bright. I just like to understand where are the problem, is it in some profiles (maybe I can help by providing some file/test/etc.) or in the core of darktable (no way I can help)
This issue did not get any activity in the past 60 days and will be closed in 365 days if no update occurs. Please check if the master branch has fixed it and report again or close the issue.
9cde436e011c70c696f362409f3593e1f17ebca8