Fujirumors is reporting that the new film simulation that will be announced—along with the GFX100 II camera—on September 12 will be called Reala.
Fujicolor Reala 100 was Fujifilm’s first Superia film, even though initially it did not have Superia in the name. Superia films shared Fuji’s “4th layer technology” and Reala was the first to have it, but Reala was marketed towards “pro” photographers while Superia was marketed towards “consumer” photographers. Eventually Fujifilm added Superia to Reala’s name. There were several different versions of Reala manufactured, including a high-ISO Tungsten one made for motion pictures, but Reala 100 was the most popular. Reala was very similar to Superia, but Superia was intended for “general purpose” photography while Reala was intended for portrait and wedding photography. Colors are rendered a little differently between the two films, especially blue, which is deeper and more saturated on Reala, despite Reala being overall slightly less saturated than Superia 100. Fujifilm discontinued Reala in 2013.
When I read that Reala would be the name of the new film sim, I wondered how Fujifilm would differentiate the rendering of it from Classic Negative, which is closely modeled after Superia emulsions. Would it be a slight tweak with deeper blues and slightly lower vibrancy? After given it some thought, I believe that the Reala film simulation won’t be an accurate facsimile of Reala film, but something else entirely.
Some film sims are meant to be somewhat accurate reproductions of specific emulsions, such as Classic Negative and Acros. Some are meant to be general representations of certain groups of films but not accurate to any specific, such as Classic Chrome (Kodak slide film) and Eterna (motion picture emulsions). Others are just brand names, and aren’t meant to accurately replicate the films they’re named after, such as Provia and Astia; in the case of Astia, Fujifilm says it renders the ideal of the emulsion—what the film would have looked like if they could have done it—but not the actual aesthetic. In the case of Nostalgic Neg., it’s meant to replicate an era of American film, and not any specific stock. Eterna Bleach Bypass emulates a darkroom process.
I have zero inside knowledge, so I can only speculate what the new Reala film simulation will look like. Come September 12th, we’ll have a much better idea. What I think you can expect is a neutral rendering. I believe that it will be low-contrast with accurate-yet-muted colors.
A few weeks ago, a Fujifilm manager stated, “…it’s important for us that we have an image that is very clean. Because of course for editing in post-production, you can do anything, right? As long as the original image is very clean and has the best image quality.” The interviewer responded, “I guess my ideal would be if the camera could even save, say, an ‘undisturbed’ JPEG. It’s kind of funny thinking of a JPEG as some sort of a RAW format.”
That’s what I think the new Reala film sim will be: a very clean, “undisturbed” look as a foundation for editing. Maybe Eterna-like low-contrast toning with PRO Neg. Std-like colors, and maybe even more muted than that. From there, you can manipulate the file however you wish using your software of choice. I know there are people who want that, but probably most of those who read this website regularly will be disappointed if it’s true. I’ll hold out judgement until I see it, but I’m crossing my fingers that the Reala film simulation will be a tweak of Classic Negative that will more closely mimic Reala emulsions. If it does not end up replicating the film, I’m sure I will still be able to make some interesting Film Simulation Recipes with it, no matter how it looks. But… I’m sure it won’t be given to any currently existing cameras, only those models that come after September 12th, so it will likely be awhile before I get a chance to try it.
We know that the JPEG format is a lossy format so can not record what the camera sensor sees or what is recorded in the RAF. So I’d like a definition. What does undisturbed JPEG mean?
I can’t speak for the person who said it, but my interpretation was a JPEG that is low-contrast with muted neutral colors. I could be misunderstanding, though.
That person is ignorant of the JPEG standard. The term undisturbed JPEG is not a technical term. It does not exist.
The person who said that is David Etchells, the founder and CEO of Imaging Resource, and pro photographer since the 1970’s. I doubt he is ignorant of what a JPEG is… he probably is more knowledgable than you and I combined. I think he is simply stating the possibility of using an as-neutral/natural-as-practical JPEG as a starting point for editing as an alternative to post-processing a RAW file.
I truly respect David’s credentials. With my Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and my experience working at the imaging lab in the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton, I understand the value of clear definitions. Currently, the term lacks meaning for me, and I’ve been unable to locate a definitive explanation online. I believe it would be beneficial if David could offer a precise definition. I’ve made efforts to search for information without success, and I’m hopeful that he can help clarify the matter.
I would reach out to him.
It’s clear now that I have the full context of what David said.
“DE: Yeah, I guess my pain point has more to do with the exposure within the frame rather than the color issue. But of course the cellphone manufacturers are manipulating everything. It’s kind of interesting because I see people asking, well “do you want the Apple look or the Samsung look”. – But also the Apple or Samsung look could change significantly from one generation to the next. I guess my ideal would be if the camera could even save, say an “undisturbed” JPEG (it’s kind of funny thinking of a JPEG as some sort of a RAW format), and then one that the camera had some influence over. And if I could just dial it up or down, you know like I want the camera to do its thing, but maybe -2 or +1 or something like that.”
He’s talking about whether the final JPEG was manipulated with AI (like on the iPhone) before saving or is a normal “undisturbed” SOOC JPEG.
Sorry. Forgot to post the link to PetaPixel.
https://petapixel.com/2023/08/07/fujifilm-opens-up-about-ai-8k-video-entry-level-cameras-and-more/
This was easy to find once I knew the source was David.
I used Reala a lot back in the day and loved it. Although as film Sims go, I’m happy with Nostalgic Neg & the recipes linked to it at the moment. Off topic…I hope to see a XT-40 or XE-5 one day.
I hope to see those cameras, too, someday. Thanks for the comment!
I liked using Reala in 120 A LOT. I hope that Fujifilm produces a sim that closely matches the film. I wonder if the new sim would in anyway impact the existing Reala sim here at FXW.
My guess is that the new film sim will not much resemble actual Reala, and my Reala Recipe (and the Classic Negative film sim) will be a much closer match to the film. I think they’re just going to use the brand name, and the Reala film sim will be divergent from the actual film aesthetic. I hope I’m wrong.
And again, the camera a lot of us have, the older X-T3, again appears to be left behind by Fujifilm with potential updates and film sims, especially Classic Negative. Luckily you’re here Ritchie to fill the gaps for the rest of us. Keep up the great work 😎 Hamish, New Zealand.
Yeah, it’s a real shame that Fujifilm left the X-T3 and X-T30 on an island. It doesn’t make sense to me. I appreciate your kindness!
As I think about it, a JPEG designed to be easily edited kinda makes sense. Fuji’s raw files were already really big. My 26MP XTrans4 has files about 50% bigger than my 24MP Pentax. Seems like the 40MP XTrans5 can have 80-100MB files. GFX100 has files around 230MB.
Film sims go a long way, allowing the camera to do a lot of work for you in the moment. But you won’t always want to process all your files the same way, sometimes you’ll also want to change your mind, and cutting file sizes down to 1/4 the size has benefits. If you aren’t looking to push things too far, I can see a more workable JPEG being of some benefit to some folks or in some situations.
There are losses with JPEG, but with 40 or 100 MP, you’ve got a lot to lose.
There’s already a surprising amount of legroom for editing JPEGs (more than I think many realize), so for saving space and speeding things up, it makes sense (for some) to edit a JPEG vs a RAW, as long as the JPEG is “clean” to begin with.