Fujifilm X RAW STUDIO webapp clone | Hacker News Reader

Fujifilm X RAW STUDIO webapp clone

github.com

167 pointsnotcodingtoday61 comments

Great to see more Fuji X attention, their native software isn't great. Looking forward to trying it out with my older X-T20, which appears supported[1] surprisingly

I was about to mention the Fudge[2] app and its underlying library, but its already listed as a reference, nice!

[1] https://www.fujifilm-x.com/en-us/support/compatibility/softw...

[2] https://github.com/petabyt/fudge

Love this - had contemplated different setups for getting raw studio running on linux but gave up before even trying. This is exactly what I wanted - a way to play with different recipes, no install required.

It bugs out for my XT30 because the profile is a different format, but claude was able to figure out a tweak to get it running and hide some of the features the XT30 is too old for - will do the wireshark thing from a windows machine at some point.

Thank you!

The only reliable raw converter that can handle Fuji color is Capture One. But they have collaboration with Fuji, I don't believe that conversion algorithm is open sourced.

But it would be interesting if AI coding agent could potentially reverse engineer the algorithm.

I always recommend RawTherapee for serious photography work. In addition to having been (at least originally) written by a complete colour theory geek and featuring a treasure trove of knowledge in the form of its companion RawPedia, it supports a whole host of raw formats, X-Trans RAFs among them (although Foveon X3Fs regrettably still an open issue).

I appreciate RawTherapee too and used it for a long time, but I started to notice that it really can’t match DPP for rendering Canon raw images. The denoising is nowhere near as good and it takes a lot of work to make the colors come out as good as DPP which has same processing profiles like “Faithful” that just look great out of the box.

What is DPP? I find it courteous in a conversation when the full name is provided before the first occurence of an acronym.

I had to look for it and for those who are as puzzled as I found Canon Digital Photo professional (RAW Image Processing, Viewing and Editing Software).

Pentax user here (hobby level), I am not aware of the other brands ecosystems.

Denoising is a weak part of RT, but I find with proper lighting it is rarely needed… At least for my use cases.

I have one Foveon camera, any hope for Foveon X3Fs support outside of RawTherapee? DarkTable does not process them correctly either

Like the native Fujifilm software, this does not do raw conversion itself. It uses the processor in the camera to do the conversion.

Smart move of Fujifilm. That will the future of software licencing with AI breaking copyright. Software will come encrypted and only run on secure processors. AI will push us further into an age of cloud, software DRM and software patents. The rest will be effectively public domain.

AIs will reverse engineer the processing algorithms based on observing a few example inputs and outputs...

Actually I give it a try … the results is interesting

I will share it shortly

Doesn't Adobe Lightroom these days also have proper RAW conversion and the Fuji film simulations?

Unless something changed in the last 6 months, the answer is no. Their demosaicing algorithm implementation for fuji still lead to the worms. You need to use capture 1 or dcraw/libraw.

It works for me - over sharpening produces worms but the denoise alone makes it worth it over Capture One for me.

The implementation used by libraw is just as good. Lightroom on the other hand is trash and wormy.

Worked!! Samsung Galaxy fold 7, Chrome 146.0.7680.153, GFX 100S II firmware 1.20

MacOS 15.6.1 - could see the camera via PTP but couldn't connect (clicking "connect" didn't do anything, no error)

Wanted to edit camera profiles on Linux, couldn't get the official app to run in Wine, so I built my own https://filmkit.eggrice.soy

I also personally find the original app infuriating to use, takes a lot of click & wait to modify a profile.

This is really cool! I see you’ve got screenshot of it running on Android, could this ever also work on iOS? I tried in iOS on Chrome, but I just see “WebUSB not supported. Use Chrome, Edge, or Brave.”.

Apple doesn't allow any other browser engine than Webkit. So essentially all browsers on iOS are reskinned Safari.

You will have to wait until the WebUSB support lands in Safari.

Other browser engines are allowed in EU now.

I am not sure what are you trying to say with this comment. AFAIK there is not a single browser on iOS that is not webkit. Even in EU all browsers are reskinned safari.

Also even if somebody build browser engine for alt store then the support of WebUSB (which for sure needs support from OS) would require Apple involvement.

What a great project. Amazing work, thank you for shipping this.

While file format (RAF, DNG) often is an acronym, “raw” by itself simply references raw image data; it is not an acronym, not a trademark, and does not need all caps.

The mistake of “shouting” raw is perpetuated in the wild even by serious companies, but let’s not let Apple degrade our literacy[0]. I’ll point to Adobe which does, in fact, use the correct spelling[1].

[0] It is fine when used as part of idiomatic spelling of their product or trademark (“ProRes RAW HQ”, etc.), but IIRC their promotional materials and even developer docs do shout it when simply referencing raw image data, which is a little ridiculous.

[1] https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/digital-negative.html

This is one of those "well actuallys" battles that has been lost a long, long time ago my photographic friend.

Yes, "RAW" itself isn't a format like TXT or an acronym like JPEG, but in practice RAW appears alongside other all-caps names like JPG, DNG, TIFF, etc. in menus and documentation and so the industry has mostly converged on writing it RAW for consistency.

Fujifilm writes "RAW": https://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x100vi/connections/raw/

Nikon writes "RAW": https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/zf/en/raw_processing_59...

Canon writes "RAW": https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/trainin...

Leica writes "RAW": https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-73002-Leica-...

Even Adobe writes "RAW": https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raw.htm...

Descriptively yours,

In practice raw means raw (scene-referred) image data; the days when it meant filename extension are long gone.

However many examples you point out, there is no limit on poor editorial standards and lack of literacy, and I have no issue with that. That doesn’t mean we should stop calling out misspellings in official documentation.

Never thought about that. Always wrote it all uppercase because that’s what camera maker Canon consistently does from what I’ve seen.

If I search for Canon raw on Google the Canon owned websites that I see writes it all uppercase; RAW.

One of their pages that I find even makes note of that:

> The letters RAW do not stand for anything – it's just a convention that RAW is usually written in capital letters – and the names of RAW files from Canon cameras do not end in .RAW.

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/image-file-types/

I'd expect a cause is that most camera makers are Japanese, and it's not uncommon in Japan to uppercase words written in Latin alphabet for aesthetic reasons

Very plausible, I haven’t considered it.

Perhaps the combination of that and the old .raw filename extensions on old filesystem implementations where everything appears uppercase (since camera firmware is slower to catch up, this persisted for years even though contemporary OS already had no such limitation) made it stick.

I can only recommend to consult more trustworthy sources.

Funny, I've been shooting digitally since 2007 and I've never seen RAW spelled other than RAW. I guess we've been doing it all wrong :shrug:

I’ve been in the film industry since 2010 and yes I see RAW but any camera department will tell you it’s just “raw” unless you’re talking about a specific raw codec that has “RAW” in the name. The reason no one corrects anyone is that it’s such a common thing and it doesn’t have any major consequences. “We are shooting raw” vs. “REDCODE RAW” (most people just say “red raw” but just giving full name for clarity).

There’s no need to be lowkey rude about it either way.

To be fair, it's essentially de facto convention at this point in the ecosystem, regardless of what's "right" or "correct". No one is gonna bat an eye regardless if you write RAW or raw either.

I saw it used both ways. My question about which one is right was answered as soon as I bothered to look up what it is, which I did when I got interested in raw photography.

RAW gets all caps the same way TXT, JPG, CMD, SH, BAT, and etc. get all caps. That is, you are also perfectly free to say raw files, text files, JPEG files, command files, shell scripts, and batch scripts, or .txt files, .jpg files, .cmd files, .sh scripts, and .bat scripts, and not everyone uses the same convention (or even consistently a single one).

I don't really see "SH" being used instead of "sh". JPG and JPEG get the uppercase treatment because it is actually an initialism (Joint Photographic Experts Group) unlike "raw".

Some are more used than others, and indeed, JPEG is an initialism. My point is the uppercase treatment doesn't depend on initialism, i.e. RAW doesn't have to stand for something to be capitalized because uppercasing file extensions is just a thing that happens.

The way I interpreted what they were saying is that they were focused more on the fact that for raw files, the extension is not ".raw", it's ".nef" (for Nikon for example) so that's why it's questionable to capitalize it.

“RAW file” makes sense when it’s an actual RAW file. However, raws come in a wide variety of other formats, too. DNG, NEF, X3F, RAF, just to name a few—all of these contain raw image data of some shape or form[0].

This project happens to be dealing not with RAW files, but with RAF files. (Even if it was indeed dealing with RAW files, there would still be a distinction between RAW as a file format and raw photos as a general concept, but we can safely sidestep that can of worms for now.)

[0] In fact, there isn’t even a precise definition or shared spec as to what constitutes a raw photo—it could be literally anything from debayered/denoised/prettified image to straight up sensor number dump in whatever way firmware feels like—which makes capitalising raw, as if it’s a specific thing, doubly silly when you’re not talking about a specific format.

This is one of those things as a pedantic technologist I've had to accept, like DJs referring to USB thumb drives they store their music on as "USBs".

Casual use is one thing, but this is documentation so I hold it to a higher standard…

Its hard to get anyone not to capitalise three letter words and best to just have a longer product name.

The use of “raw” being objected to is not in a product name.

I appreciate the breakdown.

But practically speaking, does it really matter? The goal of language is to communicate, and in this case we all understand what the author is referring to when they reference "RAW".

It's like chastisting someone for saying "Band-Aid" instead of "bandage". One refers to a specific company that makes small adhesive bandages and the other is the thing itself. But we all understand what you mean when you say "band-aid".

And isn't that the point?

I would not chastise anyone for saying anything, especially in a casual setting, but I will point out a misspelling in written documentatation.

“Band-aid” or even “bondage” is fine, as long as you’re understood, but would you be happy to see that written in some medical guidelines? Would you feel confident that whoever wrote it even knows what they are talking about?

Sure, except this is just photography. Not exactly life and death.

1. Photography is critical in many life or death activities like murder investigations.

2. I take it you would be fine if software official documentation for spelled JSON as “jeyson” or something equally random.

> FilmKit uses WebUSB to connect directly to your camera, your camera's own image processor handles the conversion. FilmKit is a static client-side app, hosted on Github Pages

Isn't that same as a jpeg then?

Edit: There are some parameters:

> FilmKit communicates PTP (Picture Transfer Protocol) over USB, the same protocol that X RAW STUDIO uses. The camera does all the heavy lifting: it receives the RAF file and conversion parameters, processes them, and returns a JPEG.

>Isn't that same as a jpeg then?

Yeah, but Fuji X cameras are renown for their JPG processing so many people want the in-camera JPG. You could shoot directly to JPG but with an app like that you can later change the JPG profile, etc. while adjusting exposure parameters.

More like a WebGUI for your camera.

This is pretty impressive work.

On a related note, Fuji’s simulations being locked to their walled garden has been an issue for third party tools forever. All “replications” of on device are just that. And never comparable.

I think a lot of people would like to study how they work to create true replications.

This is amazing, thank you for launching it. I know this webapp itself will make me more likely to look at raw photos on my Fuji once again.

I have a Fuji X-T5 camera which I haven't really used, and have almost no workflow for.

Could someone explain what this software does?

And I'd also appreciate any software and workflow people use.

Would prefer Linux software, but macOS is okay if the quality/ ease of use is too different.

When taking photo's on the Fuji it stores both RAW and JPG file - the camera's settings (film simulation, exposure, white balance, grain etc.) are all 'baked in' to the JPG. This app (and the official X RAW Studio) allows you to use the camera's onboard processor to modify the RAW files with these settings (or recipes, to use the term adopted by the Fujifilm community) after the fact, and re-export the photo as JPG. It's super useful for figuring out which recipes you prefer for different types of shot!

I'd also recommend checking out Fuji X Weekly [0] for recipe ideas and example shots if you want some inspiration.

[0] https://fujixweekly.com/recipes/

I love how you styled the interface. The UI elements are minimalist and great looking. Did you take inspirations somewhere, or was it a from-scratch design?

A ChromeOS Platform application, rather.

Interesting, I’ll check it out. But just like X RAW studio, I bet that it won’t work with my old X-E1.

This is amazing. Thank you. Seems to be working just fine with X-H2.

any future support for the GFX cameras?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com