Fuji X-H1. IBIS, Phase Detect 4K beast?

[anonim]

5 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Most of the videos so far don't really show off Fuji's IQ I must admit. I think it's because most of the footage put out is from that Eterna profile, which is a not a very interesting or impressive profile.

However, having shot with many cameras under the $3000 range (from a Nikon d5200 to a Canon C100 II and many in between) I can attest to Fuji having the most pleasent image of them all. 

I mean just look at this. Shot with the XT2 with  35mm f1.4 and classic chrome

 

Perhaps my blue eyes, but I see very strong green cast... so title could be Becoming an Avatar...

4 hours ago, mkabi said:

I said it before and I will say it again…. Lets wait for the camera to get into more capable hands.

More than half the footage coming out… I don't know, may its user error, but they don't look right.

Including that Japanese footage.

With that said, this is the only one I saw with the 4K Eterna at 200mbps that looked half decent, and even then I don't think they pushed the image to any degree:

 

THAT'S called Teal and Orange ... (I have to whisper obvious... woman is beautifull).

[Andrew Reid]

As for dynamic range...

4K H265 from the NX1 on standard certainly has more information in the blacks than 4K H264 on the Fuji X-Pro 2 / X-T2 (set to Classic Chrome)

Again this is big area of change since NX1's release... If you set it to 235 from 255 you can recover a ton of stuff in the highlights and with the higher-bitrate codec hack it holds onto more in the shadows as well. Original v1.0 firmware and H.265 support on the computer side killed dynamic range, tons of clipping!

NX1 (240Mbit):

X-Pro 2 (100Mbit):

[anonim]

1 hour ago, mechanicalEYE said:

 

 

 

I'm sure I'm wrong, but Behind the Scene to me looks better than Actual Scene - which actors flow in greenish/tinish (jazzish?) spleen, perhaps stylistic decision.

[mkabi]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

Watch this scene back to back with the scene from Collateral, you will be unimpressed. As a reproduction is lacks the dynamic of the original scene. They might have tried using a dolly, or slider. Also, the image looks too sharp and digital... lacks the organic look of the original. I do still like the camera, and I feel it was a great effort on the part of The Camera store, but the original work is head and shoulder beyond this. 

Just keeping it real.

The real question is... can the GH5 and/or GH5S do better?

I have neither Fuji nor Panasonic... no glass... nothing... so I have no real stake in it.... by saying it. I think the Fuji looks better than the GH5. This is purely wooden niccolls to wooden niccolls... here is a GH5 version:

 

And from watching that... this is very digital and video-y to me. Its my personal opinion, though.

But, I will admit the Gh5 is far more compact and to be somewhat equivalent they had to shoot the Fuji with an external recorder to get 4:2:2.

17 minutes ago, anonim said:

Perhaps my blue eyes, but I see very strong green cast... so title could be Becoming an Avatar...

THAT'S called Teal and Orange ... (I have to whisper obvious... woman is beautifull).

1000% agree on the T/O grading.... but is that part of the Eterna profile? Or is that separate grading? 

Plus, I admit the girl might of swayed me to like it 

[anonim]

31 minutes ago, mkabi said:

The real question is... can the GH5 and/or GH5S do better?

I have neither Fuji nor Panasonic... no glass... nothing... so I have no real stake in it.... by saying it. I think the Fuji looks better than the GH5. This is purely wooden niccolls to wooden niccolls... here is a GH5 version:

 

And from watching that... this is very digital and video-y to me. Its my personal opinion, though.

But, I will admit the Gh5 is far more compact and to be somewhat equivalent they had to shoot the Fuji with an external recorder to get 4:2:2.

1000% agree on the T/O grading.... but is that part of the Eterna profile? Or is that separate grading? 

Plus, I admit the girl might of swayed me to like it 

"I think the Fuji looks better than the GH5" - Agree.

"...this is very digital and video-y to me" - Don't agree... I think that Panasonic footage is completely destroyed by Noise reduction...but, as in the case of Fuji version, maybe it is stylistic decision - here we are returned into atmosphere of flat comics?

"...but is that part of the Eterna profile?" - I don't know, but probably name Eterna has some root in meanings of Eternal, so yes - it must be Bluer than blue...

"I admit the girl might of swayed me to like it" - Mkabi, all of the sudden, I'm filling so sad... she's gone... again... but as always, not at all in my direction...

"I have neither Fuji nor Panasonic... no glass... nothing." - I have Panasonic and glasses. But looking at this footage, I wouldn't buy it again if it is the best GH5 can do

 

[mkabi]

4 minutes ago, anonim said:

I think that Panasonic footage is completely destroyed by Noise reduction...

Given the fact that you have no way of turning off Noise reduction, that that is the character of the camera.,... so those are the images you will get every time and all the time with the GH5.

[anonim]

9 minutes ago, mkabi said:

Given the fact that you have no way of turning off Noise reduction, that that is the character of the camera.,... so those are the images you will get every time and all the time with the GH5.

Well, it not have to be true... You can turn off Noise reduction to -5 - and from my experience I'm quite sure TVstore did not make such choice. Why? Because scene is extremely poor lit (contrary, Fuji scene is extremely good lit) and they choose to killed any shadow and recreate world of Georges de La Tour... As a result, picture is so sublimely clean of noise... and of details. Three guys around computer and Resolve didn't even protect faces, they leveled everything equal... I dare to say, very naive and amaterish job.

Going to adventure with 3200 ISO in the dark with GH5, The must is, first, to have T1.2 option in the sleeve, and second, find a way to minimized effect of noise reduction to a main subject. Choosing such extreme lowlight scene for Vlog presentation of GH5 is very very strange choice...

[mkabi]

6 minutes ago, anonim said:

Well, it not have to be true... You can turn off Noise reduction to -5 - and from my experience I'm quite sure TVstore did not make such choice. Why? Because scene is extremely poor lit (contrary, Fuji scene is extremely good lit) and they choose to killed any shadow and recreate world of Georges de La Tour... As a result, picture is so sublimely clean of noise... and of details. Three guys around computer and Resolve didn't even protect faces, they leveled everything equal... I dare to say, very naive and amaterish job.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just want to make one thing clear.... its just semantics and how you think along the lines of what the words actually mean.... "turn off" is not the same as "turning down." And, in the end, it all comes down to how much did Panasonic think was enough noise to be acceptable by the general user. And, this goes the same with any company and what they are not telling you.... for example, Canon might be adding a filter somewhere along the pipeline to clean up the image slightly before handing it over to the user so the end user can say I applied NR here.

[anonim]

1 hour ago, mkabi said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just want to make one thing clear.... its just semantics and how you think along the lines of what the words actually mean.... "turn off" is not the same as "turning down." And, in the end, it all comes down to how much did Panasonic think was enough noise to be acceptable by the general user. And, this goes the same with any company and what they are not telling you.... for example, Canon might be adding a filter somewhere along the pipeline to clean up the image slightly before handing it over to the user so the end user can say I applied NR here.

"turn off" is not the same as "turning down." - Of course, it's true.

About the rest - you are probably right, but I'm simply not technically competent to say anything relevant.

Just, from the experience - Panasonic GHx cameras extremely suffer in too demanded low light circumstances, especially trying to make fake-clean image with strong noise reduction calculation. GH5s is, from my angle of view, again wrong step in the same direction. BUT

returning to Fuji topic - I think that Panasonic with its color science evolution (from GH3 onward) bravely looks after to match first Canon, then even Alexa's, i. e. mellow-quite natural profile (look at excellent add-solution of @Sage luts). Contrary, Fuji, as I wrote earlier, to my eyes has different choice - to dazzled with some hyperrealistic, as inner-iluminated skin and other tones. From examples that I saw in this topic, it seems to me that xt2 has better, more balance colors than x-h1. Is that result of next step in to-dazzle-emulation work? I don't knnow, it's just my opinion without experience with Fuji cameras, so probably, or surely, wrong.

[webrunner5]

31 minutes ago, anonim said:

returning to Fuji topic - I think that Panasonic with its color science evolution (from GH3 onward) bravely looks after to match first Canon, then even Alexa's, i. e. mellow-quite natural profile (look at excellent add-solution of @Sage luts). Contrary, Fuji, as I wrote earlier, to my eyes has different choice - to dazzled with some hyperrealistic, as inner-iluminated skin and other tones. From examples that I saw in this topic, it seems to me that xt2 has better, more balance colors than x-h1. Is that result of next step in to-dazzle-emulation work? I don't knnow, it's just my opinion without experience without Fuji camera, so probably, or surely, wrong.

I think Fuji now is trying to mimic Canon by concentrating on peoples face and ignoring the rest. But somehow the Fuji colors are looking more like Olympus output compared to say a Canon output. I never have been a big Fuji fan even in the film days. Just too much over the top colors wise. But this new camera seems to be a step in the right direction, at least to me.

[Aussie Ash]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think Fuji now is trying to mimic Canon by concentrating on peoples face and ignoring the rest.

Fujifilm have always put effort in to skin tones,you seem to be forgetting the Fujifilm S3Pro (2004) that was favoured by wedding

photographers for nice skin tones.

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, Aussie Ash said:

Fujifilm have always put effort in to skin tones,you seem to be forgetting the Fujifilm S3Pro (2004) that was favoured by wedding

photographers for nice skin tones.

 If you look at this Gallery and can call the colors natural well. And I doubt DPR fiddled with the color output. Colors are a bit over the top. Olympus was the same way at the time. I am not saying a lot people didn't like it, but they sure were not accurate, at least to me. But you are right a lot of weddings were shot with a Fuji at the time. But there is a reason Canon has been the 800 pound gorilla. Their color science is pretty accurate other than a hint of Orange in Reds. But I am really more of a Nikon color fan than Canon most of my life. I think they strike a good balance between the two. Wow if there was a ML Raw Nikon D750 I would be all over that!

And at the same time the original Canon 5D was the king of weeding photographers and I would imagine the 5D mk IV still is.still is. I used to use the original 5D for Model Portfolios and friends weddings as a guest for years. I just was never a fan of Fuji colors. Now for landscape most armatures like a Fuji because there is not much you need to do for printing. But that does not make them ideal for true color. I have never been a person that likes HDR photography and that is sort of what the output of a Fuji looks like to me. Not my cup of tea.

https://***URL removed***/sample-galleries/3299540988/fuji-finepix-s3-pro-review-samples/6308448159

[Papiskokuji]

As I watch all those Fuji videos everybody posts, I keep wondering how do you guys get such good results with these cameras. I have a great deal of experience shooting with Sony, Canon, etc. cameras but I can’t seem to get decent or consistent results with my X-T20 in video mode. Not that it really matters, I bought it almost only for taking stills (the best mirrorless camera I have ever used) but all the videos have waxy skin tones (some stills have it too, only on jpeg at high iso), crushed blacks, and are definitively soft. I really hoped for a camera I could use the output right away. And it’s not the case.

So I ask you guys, do you have the same feeling ? What are your settings (+2 in highlight and shadows doesn’t solve the problem for me...) ? What film simulation, color, sharpness settings ?

thanks !

[Trek of Joy]

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

As for dynamic range...

4K H265 from the NX1 on standard certainly has more information in the blacks than 4K H264 on the Fuji X-Pro 2 / X-T2 (set to Classic Chrome)

Again this is big area of change since NX1's release... If you set it to 235 from 255 you can recover a ton of stuff in the highlights and with the higher-bitrate codec hack it holds onto more in the shadows as well. Original v1.0 firmware and H.265 support on the computer side killed dynamic range, tons of clipping!

Doesn't the Xpro2 lack the ability to adjust highlights, shadows or lower in-camera sharpening? You can change all of those on the XT2. I think the XH1 with said abilities and a higher bitrate will be a little different than what you're getting from the Xpro2.

[Emanuel]

12 hours ago, Yurolov said:

Ye, that looks good. It may well be the profile, you are right. But the motion is alos nicer and it has a nice creamy look to it (maybe from the lens?). I know the 35 1.4 is meant to have quite a bit of character. 

The point is people have a bit trouble to get that the proof is in the pudding ; ) A camera starts to show its potentiality in the sensor's color character. All manufacturers have a color signature by their own. As Inazuma wisely pointed out, FujiFilm is above the line. Color blindness won't be able to see it, that's for sure :-)

[webrunner5]

14 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Most of the videos so far don't really show off Fuji's IQ I must admit. I think it's because most of the footage put out is from that Eterna profile, which is a not a very interesting or impressive profile.

However, having shot with many cameras under the $3000 range (from a Nikon d5200 to a Canon C100 II and many in between) I can attest to Fuji having the most pleasent image of them all. 

I mean just look at this. Shot with the XT2 with  35mm f1.4 and classic chrome

 

That is terrible color. She looks like she is ready to be laid out in a casket! Please tell me your monitor is not calibrated.

[Matthew Hartman]

16 hours ago, anonim said:

Thanks for clarification - but as I already confessed, I'm, in fact and sadly, a boiled frog - but I know that there are around also strong human characters with resisting anti-frog capability

Haha. Well according to statistics most of us are in that same pot on a slow boil with you. ?

19 hours ago, Prandi said:

@jonpais
You're pretty annoying ;-)

Dude, that was pretty mean spirited.

Jonpais is very partial to facts and has been known to go to great lengths to back up his assertions. He throws them out there but if that doesn't interest you just disregard it. No need to get insulting. He's a real person with real thoughts and opinions. 

That being said, Jonpais, I think you should lay off of Mattiaus a little, he's a good guy with a big heart and contributes a lot to the online photographic and video community.

This topic got out of hand a little. It's just a camera. Lets not lose our good sense over differences of opinion. 

[Matthew Hartman]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

As for dynamic range...

4K H265 from the NX1 on standard certainly has more information in the blacks than 4K H264 on the Fuji X-Pro 2 / X-T2 (set to Classic Chrome)

Again this is big area of change since NX1's release... If you set it to 235 from 255 you can recover a ton of stuff in the highlights and with the higher-bitrate codec hack it holds onto more in the shadows as well. Original v1.0 firmware and H.265 support on the computer side killed dynamic range, tons of clipping!

NX1 (240Mbit):

X-Pro 2 (100Mbit):

Andrew is 100% correct here, I know this because I've done my own comparisons that match his assertion. You can clearly see more gradient values in the NX1 image.

Although I dont think the NX1 pulls in 13-stops like Samsung claims, I think it certain conditions it comes close. Pragmatically I would say 10-12, which isnt necessarily "bad". You just have to really watch those highlights. 

That being said, what cripples these sub $3k cameras is that the way they look and capture motion just does'nt look very filmic. Which is not an issue if you're not after that. And obviously if you're a photographer you care less. 

Sometimes, under the right conditions footage from these systems can look filmic, especially if you know professional lighting, but it takes considerably more work to massage the image, whereas you flip on a BMD or RED and even shooting a cup of coffee looks like a filmic and dramatic affair. Am I off base here? 

There's "something" in the motion, it looks smoother or creamier, subjects look more "weighted". It's more than 24fps, color grading, shallow DOF and cine bars. My eyes have become acclimated/sensitive to spotting it right away. The Fugji's motion looks like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, etc., in the same class. The differences are very small. Color and resolution (NX1 incrediably sharp) seems to be the biggest seperator here. Although, I would say I think Sony has a tiny tad bit less of this look. 

When someone can deliver that filmic experience under $3k out of the box, then I personally feel we have something magical on our hands. I feel like everything going forward is going to be "meh" until (or if) that happens for me.

After watching some more examples of Kinefinity 4k and 6k footage it looks video-ish to me as well. Not that far from what my NX1 could capture to be completely candid. 

One property I notice with cinema cameras is they only resolve sharp detail where its needed, giving a nice eq balance to the image. Because they have more DR they capture more and smoother graduated "ambient occlusion". 

Sorry, I use 3D rendering terms to explain it for lack of a better way. If you do any 3D rendering, you know exactly what I'm talking about. 

Have I finally cracked? 

[jonpais]

As an X-T2 owner, I just don’t see a compelling reason to upgrade to the X--H1. Both cameras share the same sensor and color science: footage could be intercut seamlessly with no one being the wiser. The Camera Store could just as easily have shot their Collateral clip with the X-T2. The $1,540.00 it cost me last year would already start to look lke a bargain if I actually shot with it. When the X-T20  appeared, it was tempting to try that one out too, but its charm is also its downfall - the charm lying in its size, the downside being that it would be grossly unbalanced with lenses like the 90mm f/2, the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8. The excellent 23, 35 and 50mm f/2 lenses would be much more suitable. I guess the intention of Fuji here is to sell the X-H1 as a big production camera - definitely not for bloggers or vloggers. Which is why I find some of their nostalgiac promotional videos of lovely actresses toting around the diminutive Fuji cameras of yesteryear a bit ironic - videos that would be more appropriate showcasing the X-T20, not the stepchild of the GFX. Of course the videos are pure fantasy, but to me they demonstrate just how much easier their film cameras were to use.

[Matthew Hartman]

4 hours ago, Papiskokuji said:

As I watch all those Fuji videos everybody posts, I keep wondering how do you guys get such good results with these cameras. I have a great deal of experience shooting with Sony, Canon, etc. cameras but I can’t seem to get decent or consistent results with my X-T20 in video mode.

1.) Rent a very expensive cine lens the size of a small canon, probably on a PL mount.

The lens gives the image a personality or character. You are actually mostly looking for imperfection here.

2.) Good diffused lighting, staying away from extreme contrast ratios and harsh shadows with short falloffs, especially if you're shooting in 8/10 bit in camera. 

3.) Camera settings. Go flat if you can't shoot RAW. Turn down or off internal sharpness and reduce contrast. Saturation can be left at default. 

4.) Set a custom white balance using a white or 50% grey card. This will help you greatly in post get an accurate color balance. You should fair well with your Fuji. 

5.) Subtle grading. Most ppl want to fill up their entire waveform chart and have deep contrast, but I think the sweet spot in emulating film is sitting 10-15% below 100 and 5-10% above zero. This is obviously subjective and contextual, and rightfully should be. Learn about qualifiers. 

6.) Tiffen Pro Mist 1/4 (or silimar) helps reduce digital sharpness. Industry even uses them on $60k cameras. 

7.) Aviod handheld with cameras that have bad rolling shutter and jitter. If you need that look add it in post with tracked camera shake presets. You'll spend much less time not having to fuss with warp stabilizer, which in practical terms is no magic pill. 

8.) Movement/Composition/Line/Texture/Contrast ratios/Lighting/Visual Narrative/Sound/Musicality. Study up on these subjects. They will boost your production value x10 even on a Dora the Explorer Fisher Price camera. Swiper, no god damn swiping!

 

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

As an X-T2 owner, I just don’t see a compelling reason to upgrade to the X--H1. Both cameras share the same sensor and color science: footage could be intercut seamlessly with no one being the wiser. The Camera Store could just as easily have shot their Collateral clip with the X-T2. The $1,540.00 it cost me last year would already start to look lke a bargain if I actually shot with it. When the X-T20  appeared, it was tempting to try that one out too, but its charm is also its downfall - the charm lying in its size, the downside being that it would be grossly unbalanced with lenses like the 90mm f/2, the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8. The excellent 23, 35 and 50mm f/2 lenses would be much more suitable. I guess the intention of Fuji here is to sell the X-H1 as a big production camera - definitely not for bloggers or vloggers. Which is why I find some of their nostalgiac promotional videos of lovely actresses toting around the diminutive Fuji cameras of yesteryear a bit ironic - videos that would be more appropriate showcasing the X-T20, not the stepchild of the GFX. Of course the videos are pure fantasy, but to me they demonstrate just how much easier their film cameras were to use.

Looking at your details and plight, I honestly don't see a strong case for you to upgrade either. You would be gaining minimal improvements over your current setup. I would instead invest any extra cash on other gear. 

I hate how these manufacturers make people feel like they MUST have the latest and greatest. If we thought of these cameras in terms of say a cresent wrench, would we "upgrade" so often? 

I have a question for everyone. How do you purchase your gear? Cash? Credit? If it's credit, is the upgrade honestly worth going into debt over? 

I spent considerable money on my current gear in the last couple years. Now that the spending frenzy is over I'm looking at all this gear and I'm in disbelief. The odd thing is I knew I was on a spending high at the time and I did it anyway. Spending money is a high and one can get addicted to it, even going into considerable dept.

What's the saying, "The eyes are bigger than the stomach"?