We have to convert X-Ray emissions into images or mathematical representations which we then interpret visually/logically. So there is some level of information compression which we have to do just to be able to do some interpretation.
This is not a hit on them at all, in fact it's a genius workaround. All I really want to point out here really is the limits to our perception and the lengths that we go to, in order to transform non-perceivable phenomena into into modalities that we can perceive. It's an exercise in investigating the boundaries of our epistemic capabilities.
In this strict frame of mind, it is not a trivial epistemic statement to say that "the highlight colour at yellow.com is yellow", since your screen can not physically emit yellow light.
—John Cavil, Cylon Model Number One, Battlestar Galactica
If you decide to go the fuzzball route, then perception without direct visualization isn't too hard, aside from the holographic principle, which helpfully justifies the idea that fuzzballs are a place where 3D movement becomes 2D movement. On a fuzzball, you might imagine strings moving around on the surface, but there's no meaningful way to move further into the fuzzball nor to detach from the surface and leave, aside from getting lots of energy and popping off as Hawking radiation/firewall. Incidentally, 2D movement is something that we have tons of intuition for already!
[0] https://www.space.com/35231-deepest-x-ray-image-black-holes....
Edit: Many folks would consider our gravitational-wave telescopes, like LIGO, to give us data which could be interpreted visually. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_88S8DWbcU