![iridient x-transformer vs silkypix iridient x-transformer vs silkypix](https://www.fujirumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Softeware.jpg)
I should point out though that my MacBook pro is quite old, and on newer systems with a better GPU this should be much faster. It should be noted though, that this is doing far more than X-Transformer, and in my testing, for some images there is clearly a difference. Compare that to X-Transformer, which takes around seconds. On my old MacBook Pro it takes around 1 to 2 minutes on a Fuji file.
![iridient x-transformer vs silkypix iridient x-transformer vs silkypix](https://fujiaddict.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/RAW-FILE-CONVERTER-EX.jpg)
It requires a relatively modern GPU, and it can take some time to process. On non Fuji files, there is also clearly a visible difference when examining details - at least in the files I've tried. It produces extremely clean and detailed images from your X-Trans files, and is probably of a higher quality than X-Transformer in certain circumstances. If you are familiar with X-Transformer, it works in a similar way, in that it creates a DNG with improved demosaicing. Today, Adobe has released a new version of Lightroom which finally addresses the X-Trans issue. Others have switched away from Lightroom together to something like Capture One. People have been hoping that Adobe would eventually fix the problem, and turned to other solutions, such as Iridient X-Transformer. Ever since Fuji released its first X-Trans camera, and Adobe added support, many of us who have shot Fuji over the years have been unhappy with how Lightroom handles Fuji files. Thomas is a professional fine art photographer and writer specialising in photography related instructional books as well as travel writing and street photography.