Leaderboard

on the 1st, he is going to upload the hack. We will install it, only to find when we turn the camera back on, it is playing a rick astley video on loop.

Here's a bit of a review after using the X-H1 for about two weeks, both in a hobbyist/family setting and in my more professional workflow (video production is part of what I do for a living). As a caveat, I wouldn't consider myself a pro video guy, though. I'm a hobbyist who turned video into part of my full-time income. I started a company called 'Worship Tutorials', and a youtube channel is a big part of it - I do a lot of video work (probably 3-6 uploads a week to YouTube), so while I'm not doing work for clients, and I don't have a pro background, video quality is important to me. I also realize that the limitations I encounter are almost purely coming from me, not the gear. Background I've been using Sony bodies for about the past 2 years. Before that, I used Blackmagic stuff - Studio 4k bodies, and then an Ursa Mini 4.6k. That was overkill. My church used to use those, and I loved what they could do, but the workflow for me (working on my own pushing out that many videos) just wasn't good. So I sold all of it and jumped to Sony. First with an a7S ii, then the a7R ii (as a 2nd body), then I sold both of those and went with an a9 + a6500. The colors on the a9 are far, far better than the previous gen. a7 stuff. My frustration with Sony is color. And it's a huge deal to me - I believe color is one of the primary emotional pieces of video. And I hate the way Sony handles color. I do realize, though, that the IQ is there - plenty of people create beautiful work with Sony a7-series bodies, and I finally got good enough in post to make stuff that I thought looked great. But it's always a struggle for me - I feel like I'm always fighting for the colors I want. Then I started reading about the X-T2. So I rented (and then purchased) an X-T2, and honestly I loved it. I loved the handling, the physical controls, and especially the colors. Even still images in Lightroom were easier to get what I wanted (with the Sony raw images, I still felt like I was forever fiddling to get the colors I wanted). In video the image was just more pleasing to me. But it lacked things I really wanted - 120p slow motion, IBIS, smooth gradients from different light sources when ISO was set to auto, better auto-focus, etc. The Sony system was just better spec'd. Plus by this time I had invested in the 24-70 G-Master and the 70-200 G-Master lenses from Sony. These lenses are incredibly good. I returned the Fuji, but I've missed it. So another year of fighting with Sony footage, and then X-H1 is released. Again I rented one, and now I've purchased one (along with the 16-55 f/2.8). Several of the key features I wanted have been implemented - IBIS, high frame rate, etc. But to me, again, the killer feature is color, and with the introduction of Eterna, Fuji's color superiority is even better. Pros/Cons - Fuji vs Sony Over the past two weeks, I've shot a lot of video and stills side-by-side with my a9. Here are a list of thoughts... Auto-focus: The a9 (and presumably the a7 iii) is better with AF. Much better. But honestly the Fuji isn't bad, and it's good enough for what I do. This may be a make/break feature for some, though. High frame rate recording: Sony is better here again - the 120 and 60p footage is cleaner. But I've shot a lot of it with the X-H1, and it's certainly not bad. If you avoid things that you know are going to give you aliasing and moire problems, you'll be fine. For me, it will work. Dynamic range: Again, the nod goes to Sony, but it's very close. Especially if you use the 200 and 400% settings on the X-H1. Low Light: Sony wins here. Full frame, plus their magic with high ISO is hard to beat - honestly does anybody beat them? The X-H1 is acceptable, though. Honestly at 10,000 ISO it's a pretty useable image. We are spoiled with ISO performance. Five years ago (and especially 10 years ago), ISO 3200 was the top you could go, and many cameras looked like crap there. IBIS: Fuji is better in my opinion. Handling/ergonomics: I like the Fuji better - a lot. One thing I do like about the Sony cameras is the ability to set up custom presets for 4k 24p, 60p, and 120p (that's how I set mine up, anyway), and be able to instantly recall shutter speed, frame rate, and aperture in one move. On the X-H1, it's a 3 step process, although it's very fast after some practice. Lenses: Tie (but not if you consider how much they cost). The G-Master lenses I have are awesome. But they are very expensive, and big/heavy. Fuji lenses are very good and very affordable. And finally, the most important things - for me, personally... Image Quality: Fuji, by a lot. Now I agree with Tony Northrup's assessment of the 2x IQ thing, regarding stops. I get that technically, the Sony sensor is able to resolve more light, etc. I get that I can shoot at lower ISO's with the Sony, so from a noise-perspective it's cleaner. But when I look at footage shot side-by-side from both cameras, I pick the Fuji every single time. Especially when shooting with Eterna. It's not even close. Workflow: Fuji wins. Because the image is so much better out of the camera - for my tastes - the workflow is much faster. And at the rate that I make videos for my business (as well as candid home videos of family, etc), it makes an enormous difference for me. Even things like render times are way faster, because I'm doing much less manipulation to the image. Emotional impact: Fuji wins. I love using the Fuji system more. Because of my experience with the X-T2, I think I can say it's not a honeymoon thing, too. Although the a9 is a ridiculously awesome camera to use. I really do love it. The other emotional impact thing is the image quality - and I think the fuji wins here, too - because of color. Final thoughts The 'best camera' doesn't exist. Some are better technically than others, some produce a certain look that users may or may not want. Some lack features or have an abundance of features, but honestly the quality of work that is produced is going to lie with the person creating the work. These days cameras are so good that I don't think it matters what brand or model you use. The Sony stuff (especially the current gen stuff like the a9, a7R iii, a7 iii) is better on paper than the X-H1. There's no question. Is it better in actual use? Depends on who's using it. Personally, I think I could create the same quality work with either system, but I'm convinced the X-H1 will get me to the end goal faster. For you, it may be the other way around. Finally, I think the internet can be a toxic place for people who are looking to buy gear. People come into these discussion with biases, or they are far more concerned with spec's on paper than anything else. Personally, I'm actually kind of upset at myself for even considering switching from my Sony gear to Fuji - at some point I/we just need to ignore all the hype with new stuff and just make content - and get better at using the gear we have. Having said that, I'm probably going to sell all my Sony stuff and invest in Fuji, although I still have about two weeks where I can return the Fuji and keep my Sony gear. Sample Work Here's a video I just produced using the X-H1. I did about 6 takes of this song from different angles (which is why I need at least two cameras for what I do - three would be better). Edited/graded in Resolve. I shot it in Eterna, and honestly I did very little to the image. Just a tweak with white balance and contrast/saturation to taste. With my Sony cameras, this would have required 4-5 nodes using a LUT, color manipulation to lows/mids/highs, skin tone isolation/correction, etc. Another video I made with the X-H1, more heavily graded: Here's a very similar project (to the first one) using the Sony a9 and the a6500 together: It's a bit different look, and I like it. But it took a lot to get there. Here's a video I shot with the X-H1 - again using Eterna, and graded in Resolve: And another with the a9, also graded in Resolve: I know there are lots of people probably trying to decide between the X-H1 and the a7iii. I'm one of them, so hopefully my experience can help you make that decision.

Thanks for that. I agree with pretty much all you found. The Sony advantages are slight, aside from full frame. The Fuji advantages are large, and unique to Fuji. I watched Northrup's follow up video last night. The clickbait headline was "2x better image quality" basically, and he knew full well what sensationalism that was, fresh from the Sony press junket, then tries to back peddle in a follow up video full of disclaimers, and that "2x = 1 stop" line, which should be infamous... should be on t-shirts... If I ever see him at a show or PR event, I'll shout "2x BETTER = ONE STOP!"

..and welcome to ETTR class today folks in the Fuji X-H1 thread!

This is me waiting for the raw video file...

It reminded me of this

Here my last work about my travel in Japan in march 2018. Shot with 5DIII RAW 14bits lossless 1920x1080 29fps EF 24 70mm 2.8 Grade on DR14 + Film Convert / edit on PP CC 2018

This video concludes some clue of my thinking about "color science"... isn't it actually some sort of predefined color grading? Above of all questions about Fuji I was/am interested (of course) in phenomenon of its unique color. So, after inspecting samples, I think that, roughly speaking, there's always some color amplification/saturation precisely at the areas of color and tones around spectre of lighter complexion skin - and, proportionally, muted color in darker or equally precisely predefined color-oposite areas... That's make impression of pop-ing humans from background - as it were always made secondary corrections involving just that areas of color... When in the scene there's no similar distribution of tonal contrast, for my eye at least Fuji lose its distinctive uniqueness of "look" - to the level that low light scene are least distinguishable from comparative shots of other cameras... Especially in this example, it could be nicely seen (I think) because of many changing light conditions where "secondary-corecting-favorized" area disapeared. Moreover, here we have competing area of similar or identical color in background, so pop-ing impression is lowered... In a word: I came to (maybe interesting or bizarre) conclusion - that Fuji's subtle-contrasting color science is tempered as with the role-model of some prominent Pre-Raphaelite painters in mind, with similar technique used for making impression of slightly inner illumination: Edward Burn Jones before all...

Yes, the GH5 itself has the worst rolloff of the bunch. The S has good clipping correction, and I intend to bring the accelerated Alexa style rolloff to the S in the future (need to get a hold of one for measurement)

Last time I had one of my GH5Ss outside it was plenty bright. To the point where I couldn’t see my external SmallHD monitor which is daylight viewable. There was snow, grass and lots of sunlight. I recorded in VLogL and had no trouble getting good highlight roll-off. Have you used this camera? The ‘S’ might look like the GH5... but they are very different cameras.

Jon you know what dude... screw you. You are single handedly ruining this site because you can’t have a civilized discussion with people. You do what you want. But don’t act like other people are wrong for bumping up ISO because your Leeming LUT rules tell you otherwise. There are a lot of impressionable beginners or people that don’t have your disposable income and need to raise their ISO because they don’t have access to whatever lighting kit you’ll spend thousands of dollars on. I could give two shits what you set your zebras at... real filmmakers use light meters anyway. Good point on sLog2. But there does seem to be a pattern with Log profiles and higher ISOs. Traditionally DSLR’s and DSLM’s base ISOs were at the lowest setting but once Log profiles were introduced, those base ISOs were bumped up. I assume it has something to do with each individual Log curve and how the information is stretched on the curve? So some curves need the additional brightness of the higher ISO to get a cleaner image?

This is interesting. Alister Chapman July 23, 2015 at 6:40 am Reply "Well most cameras that shoot raw or log don't actually have any highlight roll off. The light response is uniform up to the clip point, unlike cameras with more conventional gammas that do actually alter the response to highlights with a knee or similar. What you see with most modern log or raw cameras is the effect of a greatly extended dynamic and highlight range that allows you to capture the way the light in the scene itself rolls off which is why its looks so much better than the electronic roll off in traditional video cameras." It is a reply in this article. http://noamkroll.com/why-highlight-rolloff-matters-more-than-dynamic-range-which-affordable-cinema-camera-does-it-best/

I love shooting black and white, but I don’t get to do much motion in black and white. I did shoot a short a few years ago in black and white:

Hey all, I've just finished up a new grading tutorial especially for any of you shooting CinemaDNGs. It actually works with any CinemaDNG, not just limited to Blackmagic cameras. In the tutorial I show you how get access to the full dynamic range, richer colours throughout the full range, and all in a curve thats a lot nicer to grade than BMD Film. Feel free to leave any feedback or questions and I'll do my best to help you out!

My bread and butter is video, but I've been slowly getting more photography gigs. I know ideally you'd have 2 cameras for reach, but that's such a massive investment. Right now I have the GH4, so staying with m43 is preferable. What in ya'lls opinion is the best photo/video hybrid, assuming most of work is still video? GH5 (not GH5s) seems like the no brainer.

I will bring out this video again to show the IBIS is pretty ok when you know its limits. Slo mo looks good to me and only slight moire on the scene with buildings. I also tested today Samyang 14mm T3.1 in low light and IBIS works superb with wide angle. Handheld of course. This is SOOC F-log ISO3200.

EDIT>>>>> I'm trying to be less argumentative so I've deleted my original response to this but suffice to say that you couldn't have missed the point of my posts more if it they'd been written in invisible ink. I do hope you can see the irony in your offering the sage advice that 'not every camera is for everyone' immediately after criticising someone for explaining exactly why - in its current form - that camera isn't right for them though. <<<<< EDIT

Actually, this Canon camera still has far to go until it can "one-up" this Forza camera from 2014. The Canon model shoots 120mp at 9.4fps, while the 2014 Forza unit can shoot 200mp at 60fps.

Canon just one-upped everyone with a 120mp sensor that shoots video. If 8k is 30-something mp, how many k's is a 120mp image? The math blows my mind. chris

That's quite a difference between the Varicam 35 Lut and New GHa Tungsten Lut. The GHa Tungsten Lut looks great!

Golden hour is not what I am looking for in a camera. It's just that without wider dynamic range, you end up giving up something (lights or darks) in high dynamic lighting scenarios. At least the way I perceive things with these cameras. I know a lot of people did not like the fact that the GH5s did not have sensor stabilization, but I was more disappointed that the dynamic range of the GH5s was only marginally better than the GH5. The sensor has got 14 stops, yet VLOG-L and the other baked-in profiles do not take advantage of what the sensor can do. I'm sure Panasonic, Sony and the rest of the manufactures do not want to eat into their higher-end cameras, but I would gladly pay an extra $1k for well-designed mirrorless camera that offers 13 stops of dynamic range. It would be a pleasure to use such a camera. For the work that I do, I often shoot with very large telephoto lenses. Besides smaller mirrorless cameras, the only camera that comes to mind that ergonomically fits the bill for me is the Canon C200, but then I'm looking at a 10k investment by the time I buy Cfast chips and batteries. Maybe I should just wait and see what the A7SIII has to offer whenever that camera is introduced.

Thanks for the responses! The Sony stuff in the song videos certainly has a different look than the Fuji, but in my testing I've found I could pretty easily get the Fuji footage to look like the Sony footage if I wanted (I used a Kodak LUT to get most of that look). However, I can't really get the Sony footage to look as natural as the Fuji footage, if that makes sense. Probably the biggest factor for me was more candid everyday type footage. In my studio setup (and with enough time in post), I feel like I can get either camera to give me what I want, but for my own personal stuff - taking video/photos of family and that kind of thing - the Fuji looks better with less work, which is important for me. Regarding Tony's '2x better' video - I do appreciate how he starts it off by saying "None of this really matters". I just saw another video he posted - shot on the X-H1 even - where he again drives home the point that gear matters very little these days, especially since so many camera makers are putting out great stuff. Yeah I've always thought their studio setup has strange/anaemic looking lighting, but that's all a personal preference thing. The stuff they do in natural lighting always looks great. I think they go for that high key fashion kind of look, which is a lot different than what we see these days from most talking head review channels. Their content is excellent in my opinion.

For me this one looks significantly above other: capturing light reflections is brilliant, color distribution is smoother with better range, also distinction of face details looks to me more 3Dish prominent. Thanks for very usable post, sort of real life comparison.

Everyone knows Sony goes up to 11!! Noone can beat that. Certainly best marketing in business, doing a lot of stuff right and funnels capital at the right direction.

oh lighten up jon... always so confrontational..

Honestly, all I really know is these conversations get horribly complicated, incredibly quickly. High isos provide benefits in low light by reducing read noise especially in low bit and dual isos can provide benefits in terms of cleaner images at high isos. When it gets to the stage of adding 6 stop NDs to reduce light on a sensor, so you can shoot at high isos (like 3200) when an iso is effectively an electronic gain of existing light (which is bound to increase noise), it all begins to sound like nonsense!! I also think it is unnecessary (for say my camera to say it is at iso800 when it is at iso100 internally). We are not supposed to be electrical engineers...

I have always wondered if increasing the highlight setting on some cameras such as Panaosnics and Fuji's could actually make the highlight rolloff better. I've never tested it but in theory it seems like it would reduce the abrupt clipping, making it more of a rolloff.

Great shots Jon. Really nice work. Do you have any in actual lowlight, where your $9 reflector saved the day... or night for that matter?

"and the further away from the base ISO, the less dynamic range you will have" Well I have no clue how it works, but in video with Log you have the most DR you can get in a camera, and Log stuff is shot at pretty damn high ISO's on average. You have no choice over it. Yeah in Photo mode, hell you are lucky to have 3 DR at high ISO's

I’ll have to try it. I knew FilmConvert has a ML Raw profile, but I never really tested. When I started this thread, I was toying around with an RX10ii... thinking I could avoid some common color banding issues of sLog2 by having the 4 Luma values of monochrome. It actually worked exactly as I hoped and loved the 120p video but every time I went out to shoot something, I picked up my 5D Mark III, so I sold the RX10ii since it wasn’t getting used. But there is something very cool about the RX10ii and if I have some disposable income in the future I can see myself buying it again and treating it like a S16mm B&W camera for run and gun projects. Nice frames, please post the short when it’s competed. What camera did you use? Looks cool as always, Matt. Excited to hear you’re working on another feature. Any details? To expand upon your points, I believe that B&W easily adds a level of suspension of disbelief that can really strengthen some films. Eraserhead being a perfect example of this. It’s like anything can happen in a B&W world. I’ve had an idea for a film for years that needs to be shot in B&W... if only I can find the time to pre-produce it. The blended, Super imposed frames at the end is such pure cinema. It felt as if I was watching a film from the 40s or 50s. Great work.

Looks good! Can't wait to try it out.

Check it out: New LogC Tungsten New GHa Tungsten ________________________ VLog + Varicam 35 Lut

Exactly the problem, he posted a date when he would be ready to share his hack. Why can't you and many others here just WAIT for that date to come? It is only 3 days from now at this point. Why do you feel the need to force someone to do something they are not prepared to do. He asked until the first, why not wait until the first and then start pestering him for proof. Now you are willing to pay money rather than just wait a few more days, he has not broken his original timeline or anything yet. If it is fake then the 1st will come and everyone will know it. If I am not mistaken he didn't even post this here, someone else found it elsewhere and released it here. You just want proof to put your own mind at ease, to protect yourself from whatever perceived harm that is could come to you. Hopefully he takes you up on your offer, the hack is legit, and maybe you will learn something from this.

Property insurance is sometimes forced and sometimes not. For commercial yes, for residential, it's highly encouraged. Here in the States we live in a "I'll sue your ass off" environment.

Here it is: small, lightweight and affordable https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1399823-REG/canon_3042c002_eos_c700_full_frame.html

If I come to your balcony and sing a song, can I get a free NXL too ? Love your work Luca, I'm a big fan <3

hahahaha is that you Ebrahim Saadawi???

@lucabutera I understand...I still will NOT put out something NOT corresponding to my personal criteria. So, be patient, please. As I understand, you are impatient, I will send you an (crippled) DNG example from an early release from last year. I will post it tomorrow afternoon, so you could get a first idea about my work. @All Stop bashing, insulting and any other conspiracy theory, you ALL will eat your words. It's fine and normal to be sceptical...But after reading some postings of this thread, you will come to the conclusion of "lynch mob". As said, NOW I do this for my integrity in the eyes of people knowing my identity. That's all. My interest in sharing my EXPERIENCE and HowTo is completely gone. Cheers

This kinda sounds like your thing

Huh? This statement is just silly and ignores actual facts. I may be wrong, but wasn't Canon first with 1080p (5D2), first with 4k (1DC) and first with 4k60p (1DX2) in a stills/video hybrid? Plus they created arguably the best AF in the video realm with DPAF. And they have that Cinema line, which by all accounts is pretty successful. Video is obviously not the driving factor in DSLR/mirrorless camera sales, since Canon's market share almost equals the rest of the camera industry combined. The "Canon is doomed because they can't compete with Sony/Panasonic in the specs/hardware" echo chamber on this site and others is silly. Jesus, how long have people been calling Canon the next Kodak? SMH. Chris

I shoot B & W a lot. Combining short films, music videos and tests I have about 25 B & W videos on vimeo right now. I'm shooting my next feature in B & W. Here's the most recent short: I even used music from one of my all-time favorite films, Night of the Living Dead. This is the second B & W video of my daughter set to music from that movie. Eraserhead is my favorite example of B & W cinematography, and my favorite lighting in any movie as well.

There is something to be said about the A7III that goes beyond specs – I own the A7III and I own the A7rIII and I used to own the GH5 and after som extensive testing I must say the A7III is lacking. It's a fine camera, certainly at the price point. Small but by no means insignificant things make it less useful to me however. For starters the 4K full frame may be very detailed and sharp, but is plagued by a weird shimmer and a subtle stuttering when moving the camera and it seems to me it has more moiré than the A7RIII, barcode artifacts notwithstanding. I also find that the pixel binned 4K full frame readout from the A7rIII is more pleasant to the eyes and I think it has to do with better motion cadence, less rolling shutter and more efficient IBIS (that 0.5 step makes a big difference in real world usage without stabilized lenses). Not saying the A7III is not a good video camera, but I do prefer the image produced by the rIII. It would be interesting to hear if someone agrees/disagrees. I know the camera isn't available yet in the US, but here in Sweden and the rest of Europe it's been in stores for some time now.

Nice DIY thinking - and nice test of little setup.

The grade is not my cup of tea. Maybe it's a tad under exposed, maybe it's the vignette , and the color on the second grade has too much green/orange for my taste. With that said, I can tell the edge has been taken off by the Pro-Mist filter.

I just shot my first short in BW, love the way it captures light. So glad my camera LCD could show BW when shooting. Straight from timeline (proxies, so very heavily compressed) and a simple BW LUT.

SOLD

Well, was it you or me that has been speaking with him privately? You have comphresion skills, I'm sure of it. I tried to be a conduit and temper the situation. He asked for my help and support and that's exactly what I agreed to do and intend to do going forward, despite this becoming a trick or not. My lack of fear of being fooled puts me in a unique position. I've also been ridiculed and mocked during this fun exhibition. But I'm 44, been around the block a few hundred times and back. I made it too easy for you guys. I gave you my clear and honest assestment of the general mood that was happening on the other side as it became apparent. Some of you debated, postured, professed, demanded and gave altimatuim. Not wise. Not strategic. Now you get to pay up. Every brilliant mind we recgonize today has gone through the same old shit before people admired their work. It starts off as healthy skeptism. It then moves into impatience, then baiting, then insults and ridicule or defamation of character, and then finally eating their own shit sandwich. Look at the Sistine Chapel. Years behind schedule. Still deeply revered today. As far as the New Yorker's statement. It's my observation. Even New Yorker's will tell you that their "in-your-face" communication style is unique to the geography, and they seem pretty smitten with it too. I'm not revealing any secrets here. BTW, I have six close friends from NYC and one from Jersey and family from Detroit. The tech companies in the greater Seattle area draw people here from all walks of life. I've noticed New Yorker's (from NYC) don't fair well over here if they're not willing to adapt to a more sutble west coast communication style. Turns out the people here don't appreciate being cat called by a derogatory nickname followed by a demand in the workplace. This is one of the more liberal places I have ever lived in. In fact we've had legalized recreational weed for some years now, first to enact $15/hr minimum wage, and we just passed statewide protections for net neutrality. We largely swing Bernie and we're telling ICE to back off. Studies show when one state entacts brave progressive policies the other states soon follow. You're welcome America. ? You can question this RAW hack, Arikhan's and my own integrity, but do not question my liberalism. ? Thanks for your vast contributions. So far all signs lead to "likely".