Attila Bakos

Can anyone tell if S-Log2 from the newer Sony bodies is cleaner?

Yeah I used my X-T2 to create the LUTs, I just tried them on the X-H1 too and they seemed to work. I sold my X-T2 but I'm not sure if it was a good idea. I wanted to get the X-H1, but it has serious AF issues, lots of moiré/aliasing in not just 120p, but 60p as well, and I've seen jerky movement with IBIS in more videos. In many ways the A7III looks better, but I can't leave Fuji just yet, I love the colors and their lenses. With my method I could create Fuji LUTs for the Sony though, but I will wait and see if Fuji can fix the mentioned issues. @deezid is unfortunately right, when you shoot F-log, there will be blocky noise which is not, or not entirely related to compression, and I see it especially in the red channel. At first I thought they fixed this in the X-H1, but now I see it in Ryan Carlson's footage. I had this even with externally recorded ProRes on the X-T2. This is the red channel after nothing but a color space conversion and an s-curve: Once you start pushing the footage, you will need heavy noise reduction. I'm not sure if this is normal. This is the red channel of ProRes from the X-T2 + Video Assist 4K, again, only color space transformation and s-curve: You can't see if from these still images but this noise is all over the face, especially problematic in the darker parts.

I downloaded an X-H1 F-Log footage shot by Ryan Carlson, you can find the sources here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTVzlV6trak I applied WB correction to the eye, then my LUTs, then the same contrast curve to all versions. Again, the LUTs are available as a free download from colorizer.net. When you use them on X-H1 footage, switch the clips to use video levels! Original F-Log Provia Velvia Astia Classic Chrome Pro Neg Hi Pro Neg Std

This is interesting, 1080p60 is cleaner on the X-T2?

I sold my X-T2 for the X-H1, but seeing all the reports about bad AF and jerky IBIS, I decided to wait and see if they can fix these issues.

I use a Blackmagic Video Assist 4K with the X-T2, and I have to start recording on both the camera and the recorder. If I don't press record on the camera, it sends out a worse quality signal. This step is easy to forget, I'm not sure if they fixed this on the X-H1. Also, when recording for a longer period, you will have thermal noise in your F-Log footage. It was not visible with the built in film simulations, only with F-Log. It basicly looks like a lot of hot pixels, but it's only visible in dark shots. Since the X-H1 manages heat better, I believe you won't have this issue there. The biggest problem with X-T2 is that F-Log is kinda broken, the red channel is very problematic, it breaks very easily, which rendered some my footage almost unusable. I tested F-Log coming from the X-H1 and it is WAY cleaner. This is something noone seems to talk about, I had to find this out myself. Oh and if you use film-simulations, the in-camera recordings will be full range, but when you send it over HDMI, it will be video range, so you'll have slightly less precision, if that matters to you. I can't really recommend an external recorder for the X-T2, but a smaller monitor like the SmallHD Focus can be very useful.

@kidzrevil Yes, the gamut of F-Log is Rec.2020. Of course you have to fix exposure issues before applying a LUT, but that's not a big deal, I do it all the time. I'm not speaking against RCM, I love it, but I believe LUTs are great too, if you know how to use them, and you are aware of the limitations.

I wanted to see this for myself so I took two examples, both are 8bit Rec.2020 F-log. All I did was a color space conversion to Rec.709 and I added some contrast/saturation. In the first picture the conversion is done by a 64 LUT, in the second it is done by Resolve. Everything else is equal. I see absolutely no difference here. Now let's see some more reds, that's usually more telling. There is a very slight difference when you look at the harp, but that's it. I'm not a professional colorist, but the result of the LUT would be precise enough for me. And this is trilinear, not even tetrahedral!

@kidzrevil RCM is great and I use it when I can, but I haven't tried ACES yet. I didn't know that trilinear interpolation is not ideal for color space conversion, I will look into this, thanks for the tip.

Yes, and even though you are right about the precision of pure math, a 64 LUT with good interpolation is more than enough for most people. I created size 64 LUTs that transform color space, gamma, and color, all in one, and the result was visually identical to the version where I applied the transformations one by one, each one with a size 64 LUT. But I wouldn't go lower than 64 if precision was needed.

LUTs as a tool are not the problem, but poorly built LUTs are. If you have a LUT with very smooth transitions, and your 8bit footage still breaks with it, Resolve's color management won't save it either. And what do you mean by "very limited amount of transformations"?

There is more to that. Even the 23mm looks better on the X-T2, it's noticably smoother.

Not looking good: The videos you can find about X-H1 AF in video show the same results. Either everyone is doing it wrong or something is wrong with the AF of this body.

It's not my image but from the looks of it the left part has 0% luminance and 100% saturation at the bottom. As we go up vertically, luminance rises, and at the half of the image it reaches 100%. Then saturation is dropped until the top is reached. The right image has 50% luminance at the bottom, and 0% saturation. As we go up vertically, they both rise, at the top they are both at 100%.

When you create your own luts, it's always advisable to check color transitions using an image like this: I applied your ClassicChrome lut to this, and this is what I got: You want to see about the same smoothness as the original image, but with different colors.

If you accept my opinion, you should work on your interpolation, the transitions of your LUTs are very rough. I'll post an example in your thread soon.

I recently finished this project. If you like the results, download the LUTs for free on colorizer.net.

Interesting, 4:2:2 shows almost no difference compared to 4:2:0. Bandwidth does matter, but 10bit has a clear advantage.

Now that sounds interesting! I'll keep my eyes open

Yeah but occasionally my camera sits on a Zhiyun Crane, then I still need decent AF. Unless I keep the distance...

I have my eyes on that one, but I have no chance to try it where I live, and it's pretty pricey.

Sorry I don't know the exact details.

They both have the same 24.2MP X-Trans III sensor, but the X-H1 has dual processor.

Since the X-T2 looks better here, it must some pre-production firmware issue. It's also worth noting that the X-T2 focused as fast as the A6300 in Max Yuryev's comparison, it only lacked the smoothness of the Sony.

We don't know the exact settings but AF on the X-H1 leaves some to be desired. Also notice the focusing smoothness of the A6300 compared to the Fujis.