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

[webrunner5]

I would argue Canon Just Has to come up to maybe 10 bit and a damn better Codec on this new Mirrorless camera. The new body will be their platform for years to come.  Same with Nikon's one. They both have to have something great to compete with Sony Panny. They just can't keep F ing around forever anymore.

Hell now even Fuji is picking up the pace big time. So you have them, Panny Sony going hell bent, and I would not rule out Blackmagic throwing something in the Mix here soon also. Canon Needs to wake up and fast. They can't still keep the same crap going forever.

[Robert Collins]

29 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah on the Photo side most cameras now are 14 bit. Very true.

True. However while our raw files are 14 bit which is great for editing and manipulating them - nearly all output is 8 bit jpeg with sRGB (a narrow) colorspace.

[webrunner5]

28 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

True. However while our raw files are 14 bit which is great for editing and manipulating them - nearly all output is 8 bit jpeg with sRGB (a narrow) colorspace.

Yeah huge difference in Raw and JPEG. That is why the ML Canon 5D mk III stuff is so damn good looking. Shooting Raw video.

[jonpais]

audio feature set is another area where the Fuji falls behind. 

[bwhitz]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Did you even look at the video kidzrevil posted above using the Fuji X-T2. Hell if this new one is 15% better looking output wise hell it will be great! I don't see how it Just being 8 bit makes it crap. Hell that is all a Canon 1DC,  a C100, Sony A7s is. I sure as hell would not call those cameras crap!

Depends what you're using them for. For documentary production... you're right 8-bit is totally workable. But for anything "cinematic", anything with VFX... ect. Yes, all those cameras are crap. And trust me, I used to think people like me were a**hole trollers... I used to roll my eyes at all that "client-facing" or "professional" talk... but damn, I was wrong. I had to eat my words when I started working on some of these productions. Sometimes these people want a crazy stylized look to the footage... but a certain paint, or fabric, whatever, needs to be isolated and colored to advertised specifications... and the image cannot lose fidelity. You simply cannot grade 4:2:0 8-bit footage in any real sense or use it for VFX (where I mainly work). I've tried... I've had colorists try... it always ruins the image and cannot be presented outside of "crash-cam" or "spectator" footage. 

But to say something somewhat constructive... I will say the detail looks very good in that video though. I've been wanting to get a GH5 or GH5s... and I just cannot find a video that looks like it even resolves a 2K image. I guess I had never looked at the footage that closely... but something is ruining the images from those cams... even the "camera originals" people offer for download. There must be heavy noise-processing that cannot be turned down all the way. Everything has that "digital-gause" that ruins fine details and textures. Even the older Blackmagic 2.5k camera appears to resolve more detail than the GH5. So, anyways... the Fuji does look allot better in this department! 

[Trek of Joy]

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

The specs for Fuji X-H1 show battery life shooting 4k video of 35 minutes.

The XT2 spec says 40, but its under specific CIPA rating conditions. Just like the ratings for number of shots per battery, they aren't difficult to exceed. I bet I can get close to an hour, if not more with the XH1 as well. For stills the XT2 is rated at 340 shots, I've shot over 1,000 clicks and a couple dozen short video clips on a single w126s battery, and still had juice to spare. I shot a project in Sydney awhile back, over 3k frames and I did it with 3 batteries. Even if you only get 35 min, that's still not a ridiculous 6 batteries for an hour.

Chris

[Robert Collins]

5 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

The XT2 spec says 40, but its under specific CIPA rating conditions. Just like the ratings for number of shots per battery, they aren't difficult to exceed. I bet I can get close to an hour, if not more with the XH1 as well. For stills the XT2 is rated at 340 shots, I've shot over 1,000 clicks and a couple dozen short video clips on a single w126s battery, and still had juice to spare. I shot a project in Sydney awhile back, over 3k frames and I did it with 3 batteries. Even if you only get 35 min, that's still not a ridiculous 6 batteries for an hour.

Chris

The full specs for the XT-2 and XH-1 are here....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l4axfg0hwqbjr4w/Fujifilm X-H1 Vs. X-T2 Specs Comparison 2.pdf?dl=0

They look very good to me but I am more a stills/hybrid shooter than a video specialist.

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, bwhitz said:

Depends what you're using them for. For documentary production... you're right 8-bit is totally workable. But for anything "cinematic", anything with VFX... ect. Yes, all those cameras are crap. And trust me, I used to think people like me were a**hole trollers... I used to roll my eyes at all that "client-facing" or "professional" talk... but damn, I was wrong. I had to eat my words when I started working on some of these productions. Sometimes these people want a crazy stylized look to the footage... but a certain paint, or fabric, whatever, needs to be isolated and colored to advertised specifications... and the image cannot lose fidelity. You simply cannot grade 4:2:0 8-bit footage in any real sense or use it for VFX (where I mainly work). I've tried... I've had colorists try... it always ruins the image and cannot be presented outside of "crash-cam" or "spectator" footage. 

But to say something somewhat constructive... I will say the detail looks very good in that video though. I've been wanting to get a GH5 or GH5s... and I just cannot find a video that looks like it even resolves a 2K image. I guess I had never looked at the footage that closely... but something is ruining the images from those cams... even the "camera originals" people offer for download. There must be heavy noise-processing that cannot be turned down all the way. Everything has that "digital-gause" that ruins fine details and textures. Even the older Blackmagic 2.5k camera appears to resolve more detail than the GH5. So, anyways... the Fuji does look allot better in this department! 

Yeah I can see with doing heavy VFX there is no way 8 bit 4.2.0 is getting the job done. But there is few cameras that I could begin to afford that can, new or used. Hmm.

What kind of resolution you need? 2.5k, 4k. You know you are looking at a damn near Raw camera output, BM comes to mind, that can do that sort of cheap. 1080p opens up some old good stuff, but 1080p in this day and age isn't worth putting big money into. Now 4k down sampled to 1080p, yeah. Blackmagic Ursa 4k and the mini 4k are getting damn cheap. I think they might get it done, but suck at low light. And the are sort of Tripod only stuff especially the original Ursa, Yikes it is heavy.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, bwhitz said:

Depends what you're using them for. For documentary production... you're right 8-bit is totally workable. But for anything "cinematic", anything with VFX... ect. Yes, all those cameras are crap. And trust me, I used to think people like me were a**hole trollers... I used to roll my eyes at all that "client-facing" or "professional" talk... but damn, I was wrong. I had to eat my words when I started working on some of these productions. Sometimes these people want a crazy stylized look to the footage... but a certain paint, or fabric, whatever, needs to be isolated and colored to advertised specifications... and the image cannot lose fidelity. You simply cannot grade 4:2:0 8-bit footage in any real sense or use it for VFX (where I mainly work). I've tried... I've had colorists try... it always ruins the image and cannot be presented outside of "crash-cam" or "spectator" footage. 

But to say something somewhat constructive... I will say the detail looks very good in that video though. I've been wanting to get a GH5 or GH5s... and I just cannot find a video that looks like it even resolves a 2K image. I guess I had never looked at the footage that closely... but something is ruining the images from those cams... even the "camera originals" people offer for download. There must be heavy noise-processing that cannot be turned down all the way. Everything has that "digital-gause" that ruins fine details and textures. Even the older Blackmagic 2.5k camera appears to resolve more detail than the GH5. So, anyways... the Fuji does look allot better in this department! 

There is 8-bit and 8-bit... There isn't "one 8-bit". To dismiss bit rate is simply to ignore determinant variables.

As much as NR doesn't cross the whole ISO range on GH5 series.

GH5S is also a different camera on that regard.

Neither resolving detail is a panacea of another than the regular GH5 nor a trouble for oversharpened edges on and from such capture device instead.

Seems to me you lack experience about the tool you've chosen to discuss.

I'm sorry but some BS detector still stands when a superior Fuji's color science is misplaced for anything else.

:-)

[webrunner5]

I think from what I have seen the GH5s does seem would I would call having a Sony A7s look to it. The original one. A more gnarly, grungy look than the GH5. I think it is a whole different look, which is not surprising that it is a whole new sensor, and has less MP's. I like the color science of it. I think is has great potential. And being 10 bit I don't see how it can be ignored for serious work.

57 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

There is 8-bit and 8-bit... There isn't "one 8-bit". To dismiss bit rate is simply to ignore determinant variables.

 

 

Yeah a 1DC and a Canon Kiss comes to mind.

[Emanuel]

Underestimating the tool is absolutely nonsense...

[Yurolov]

6 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

how does this make sense ? SLOG is designed for Sony sensors you know....the same way umm FLOG is designed for Fuji.When you start using words like "better" when comparing unreleased cameras to what people have shot and tested it makes me wonder what you are basing this evidence on. It sounds more so like your really hoping its better than Sony cameras when in reality it doesn't matter. Does it produce a good image should be the question. 

Slog was designed for their cinema camera range and slapped into these consumer cameras, which is why you will get some pretty funky colors SOC if you use the profiles and why many people eschew them. Can they be graded? Sure. But are they designed for these cameras - definitely not. Why do you think no one uses slog3 - if it was intended for their alpha range, don't you think it would be useable? Flog was designed around the xt-2 and the sensor.

I don't need to make assumptions as I have owned the sony cameras which I sold for the fuji, so I know it will have better IQ period. 

The 8 bit v 10 bit argument is redundant at the level these cameras are playing at - none of them are cinema cameras nor are they designed to be. If you are going to be shooting for cinema you won't be using these cameras. For their intended purpose, having 10 bit v 8 bit is so minuscule that it is more down to user competency. If this thing has face detect autofocus in video mode as they are saying, a la canon, then that will be a lot more important than anything even the panasonic cameras have managed.      

[jonpais]

@Yurolov I can't speak about Slog, since I've never shot with a Sony camera. But to say that Fuji, Sony and Panasonic are not designed with filmmakers in mind, or that 8-bit is no different from 10-bit - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But yeah, face detect AF makes all the other video-centric features on these other cameras completely redundant. Since when have you seen face detect AF in a theatrical release? Your comments don't hold up,  just leave it alone, okay?

[Emanuel]

Sure all this is BS from the head of Imaging at Panasonic... the man behind the GH5S and EVA1 -- another consumer camera! *cough cough* :D

LOL :-)

 

 

[jonpais]

8 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Sure all this is BS from the head of Imaging at Panasonic *cough cough* :D

LOL :-)

Could you summarize, Emmanuel? I'm tired of watching videos for the day.  I'm also tired of listening to idiocies from newbies who couldn't even say what a cinema camera is or is not.

[Emanuel]

3 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Could you summarize, Emmanuel? I'm tired of watching videos for the day.  

No need Jon, you've already beat me with your previous post! ;-)

[webrunner5]

Gulp!

[kidzrevil]

I love these often regurgitated and equally misunderstood forum talking points @Yurolov

SLOG was designed for 8 bit 10 bit and 12 code values cameras so any camera that shoots SLOG can be intercut between eachother. Is it a mystery as per why they have a xavc-s & xavc-L codec ? This falls in line with how they planned on implementing SLOG into ALL of their cameras. This is why these people have engineering degrees and we don’t. They think ahead.

slog was not designed for only cinema cameras it just premiered on cinema cameras first. Its the same as CLOG. These log profile all map your exposure to a specific code value that a LUT later decodes and maps to a rec709 color space. (Soon maybe the camera manufacturers will create LUT’s to output to rec2020 etc.)

I’ve heard hollywood dp’s namely William Wages ASC say himself that cinema cameras are just the industries stubborness and unwillingness to let go of bigger cameras and old standards. He says he personally shoots with a GH4 and has intercut with varicam footage and pulled it up for the audience to see. Your argument is null and void and im sure you dont even have your own footage to support your claims of 8bit & 10bit implementations in “consumer cameras” are worthless. Have you even worked with a cinema camera before ?

I also forgot to mention that I use SLOG3 on a Sony A6500. When you know how to grade you don’t complain about things like how wide color spaces like SGAMUT look straight out of camera on your rec709 display. Noob

 

[jonpais]

i just did a test with my X-T2. With a newly charged battery, the camera was able to record two ten-minute clips and one four-minute clip in succession before stopping recording to avoid overheating. The battery still has tons of juice remaining - in fact only one of the five bars has disappeared, as far as I can tell. I say as far as I can tell because all of the information in the display is too small to be read by human eyes. I sincerely hope the X-H1 has larger icons.

[Yurolov]

59 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@Yurolov I can't speak about Slog, since I've never shot with a Sony camera. But to say that Fuji, Sony and Panasonic are not designed with filmmakers in mind, or that 8-bit is no different from 10-bit - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But yeah, face detect AF makes all the other video-centric features on these other cameras completely redundant. Since when have you seen face detect AF in a theatrical release? Your comments don't hold up,  just leave it alone, okay?

You didnt read my post properly - I said that at the level these cameras are at there is no real difference between 10bit and 8bit as the people using them won't see any discernible difference, and I can point you to numerous example of this on youtube. I didn't say that there is no difference between 8 bit and 10 bit. The sort of people using these consumer cameras are more willing to focus on (pardon the pun) is autofocus. I never said cinema cameras should have autofocus.

Of course you can say, but I use 10 bit and know how to use it - but then again neither are you shooting cinema. Because anyone shooting cinema isn't using these cameras.   

33 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

I love these often regurgitated and equally misunderstood forum talking points @Yurolov

SLOG was designed for 8 bit 10 bit and 12 code values cameras so any camera that shoots SLOG can be intercut between eachother. Is it a mystery as per why they have a xavc-s & xavc-L codec ? This falls in line with how they planned on implementing SLOG into ALL of their cameras. This is why these people have engineering degrees and we don’t. They think ahead.

slog was not designed for only cinema cameras it just premiered on cinema cameras first. Its the same as CLOG. These log profile all map your exposure to a specific code value that a LUT later decodes and maps to a rec709 color space. (Soon maybe the camera manufacturers will create LUT’s to output to rec2020 etc.)

I’ve heard hollywood dp’s namely William Wages ASC say himself that cinema cameras are just the industries stubborness and unwillingness to let go of bigger cameras and old standards. He says he personally shoots with a GH4 and has intercut with varicam footage and pulled it up for the audience to see. Your argument is null and void and im sure you dont even have your own footage to support your claims of 8bit & 10bit implementations in “consumer cameras” are worthless. Have you even worked with a cinema camera before ?

I also forgot to mention that I use SLOG3 on a Sony A6500. When you know how to grade you don’t complain about things like how wide color spaces like SGAMUT look straight out of camera on your rec709 display. Noob

 

Ok, so you are saying slog 2 from their cinema camera range intercuts with the a6500 then? I just want to make sure I understand your argument here, cause that's what you said. I have owned the a6500 and I know what slog does to the camera. I also own cinema cameras and understand the difference between the two. To suggest that the difference between the two is stubbornness on the part of the end user is quite funny.

 

And you can grade the a6500 as much as you want, it will still look like the consumer camera that it is.