The demosaicing of the Bayer array is simpler than for an X-Trans array.

It's interesting to note that in the update at the bottom of this discussion of the X-Trans III processing the author says, "UPDATE: roll on to November 2020 and I’m now enjoying Fuji’s fabulous Bayer sensor in the recently released XT200. To my eyes this bests X-Trans every time." You have to wonder why the XT200 is so hard to find. Maybe Fuji doesn't want to admit that X-Trans may have been a colossal mistake.

Here is a test using the 24MP Sony A7 III with a 55mm lens.

There is very little difference, if any, in the sharpness so apparently Sony's default sharpening is very close to Capture One's.

The overall look of the auto adjusted image from Capture One is very close to the JPEG SOOC.

The A7 III is, after all, a much better camera. The demosaicing of the Bayer array is simpler than for an X-Trans array.

It's interesting to note that in the update at the bottom of this discussion of the X-Trans III processing the author says, "UPDATE: roll on to November 2020 and I’m now enjoying Fuji’s fabulous Bayer sensor in the recently released XT200. To my eyes this bests X-Trans every time." You have to wonder why the XT200 is so hard to find. Maybe Fuji doesn't want to admit that X-Trans may have been a colossal mistake.

That begs the question, add or remove what contrast? Since I left clarity adjustment at 0 (also for dehaze and structure) in the C1 default version, that question is moot.

The answer is, the contrast provided primarily by the default sharpness. The defaults for Fuji and C1 were set by different people at different times. What you are seeing is that C1 simply uses a slightly higher standard than Fuji in the X100T. Every other software vendor will probably have a slightly different default than C1.

It's hard to tell how much but the resulting JPEG for the Provia STD result can be sharpened slightly more to make it the look about the same as the C1 version with its default amount setting of 140.

But there are other things in the mix. There is no straight conversion available on the camera that does not have some adjustments. The Provia STD is not a straight conversion of the raw image, just a different set of adjustment values that disagree with the default values in the C1 "straight" conversion.

If you toggle between the two results you can see that there is a clear difference between the two images when it comes to the brightness of the shadows, mid-tones and highlights. These differences are as important as any change to the default sharpening since that is easier to see details the closer you are to middle gray.

In the final analysis, if you are happy with the JPEG coming from the camera, you are done and there is no need for any additional expense and effort.

But if you are dissatisfied in any way with the camera's JPEG, editing in the camera is a PITA and not very productive. You might as well save yourself a lot of grief and shoot raw. You can get a more satisfying result quicker and easier from just about any raw editor.

If you convert the raw data on your computer and not make any changes to the result then you are happy with the standards set by your software and the image you recorded. Otherwise you need to tweak the adjustments to satisfy your own standards.

That answer is wrong and you are wrong.

To explain away the visible differences we can all see between camera processed X-Trans files and alternative raw processor results as just differences in contrast, clarity, default sharpening, and input profiles is a mistake.

Demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA is a critical factor and plays a critical role. You are mistaken to discount it.

From DXO (https://www.dxo.com/tech-news/unique-sensor/):
"One of the reasons that the Bayer filter has proven so tenacious is that engineers are used to processing its data. Finding the best recipe for demosaicing Bayer sensors has kept researchers busy for four decades, and the highly sophisticated algorithms developed over the years have allowed them to mitigate many of the limitations fundamental to its design. Even fairly simple algorithms, such as those embedded in the first digital cameras, yield fairly good results.

The increased complexity of the X-Trans pattern, on the other hand, entails a demosaicing process that is far more elaborate. Fujifilm’s engineers are said to have spent five years waiting for their cameras’ processing power to catch up before introducing X-Trans in the X-Pro1 in 2012. At the same time, the research community has published far fewer papers about X-Trans demosaicing than they have for Bayer; not only is it a more complex problem but less research effort has been spent solving it. It seems fair to assume that current X-Trans demosaicing algorithms are still some distance away from achieving a theoretically optimal solution. This is one reason that Fujifilm enthusiasts often find themselves jumping between software packages in search of a solution that delivers the best results..."

At DxO, we have attempted to create better X-Trans processing in the past, but we were never quite satisfied with the outcome...

Today, image processing is being revolutionized by machine learning, particularly by a technology called convolutional neural networks...

X-Trans demosaicing is a great candidate for machine learning. Being more complex than Bayer demosaicing, the advantage of machine learning over traditional engineering should be even greater than that achieved with Bayer demosaicing. Our counterparts at Adobe demonstrated exactly this when they introduced their machine learning-powered “Enhance Details” feature in early 2020. Reviewers concluded that, while the difference for Bayer images was rather subtle, it was a significant improvement for X-Trans images.

At DxO, we leveraged machine learning in DxO PhotoLab to solve another highly complex task: our RAW conversion technology — DxO DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD — uses a single, huge convolutional neural network to apply demosaicing and denoising at the same time." [my bold]

OMG! Another case of engineers in the photo industry going off half-cocked without checking first with Scotty! You'd think they'd learn. You should contact DXO and explain to them that it's just contrast, clarity, default sharpening and input profiles so they can get that embarrassing nonsense about demosaicing off their website.