Fuji X-T3 and X-T4 discussion

[Mark Romero 2]

51 minutes ago, heart0less said:

If it wasn't for Sigma, all the a6000s wouldn't be that popular.

As a sony shooter, I would personally like to thank canon for making such great lenses.

 

[androidlad]

DJI "officially announced" in a forum post by staff account that Ronin S will support X-T3 via a future firmware update.

Regarding X-T2 and X-H1, they are "not sure".

https://forum.dji.com/thread-151303-2-1.html

[thephoenix]

i guess the other brands will have to follow. that's good news

[androidlad]

Controlling camera parameters and most importantly, pulling focus on Fuji native lenses via USB, require some complicated "reverse engineering".

Interestingly, a Timelapse tool VIEW did it a few months ago:

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/24/timelapse-view-intervalometer-is-now-compatible-with-fujifilm-x-series-cameras/

It allows full control over most Fuji X cameras.

[Attila Bakos]

4 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Controlling camera parameters and most importantly, pulling focus on Fuji native lenses via USB, require some complicated "reverse engineering".

Interestingly, a Timelapse tool VIEW did it a few months ago:

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/24/timelapse-view-intervalometer-is-now-compatible-with-fujifilm-x-series-cameras/

It allows full control over most Fuji X cameras.

The developer of libgphoto2 also did it sometime last year, I haven't checked it though: http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/support.php

[thephoenix]

https://www.fujirumors.com/stc-optics-clip-in-filters-for-fujifilm-x-series/

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, thephoenix said:

https://www.fujirumors.com/stc-optics-clip-in-filters-for-fujifilm-x-series/

pretty cool, though impractical for run and gun if you need to change it out. 

[webrunner5]

11 hours ago, thephoenix said:

https://www.fujirumors.com/stc-optics-clip-in-filters-for-fujifilm-x-series/

Very interesting idea.

[Llaasseerr]

Is anyone else seeing an issue in the Resolve 16 beta where internal h.265 clips from the X-T3 interpreted as full range are actually now coming in video range compared to externally recorded ProRes clips? ie. the only way to get them to match now is to set the ProRes clip to video range and the h.265 to full range. 

In Resolve 15, I found I could set clip data levels to full range for both internal and external recordings and the luma levels matched - ie. they were full range.

[andrew_dotdot]

On 4/22/2019 at 5:43 PM, thephoenix said:

https://www.fujirumors.com/stc-optics-clip-in-filters-for-fujifilm-x-series/

I can see a/the use case. When filming in F-Log, the minimum ISO is 640 - that's a lot of light going in.  So my X-T3 was even overexposing at f2.8 when I was shooting an interview indoors using a pretty basic soft box with a giant single compact fluorescent bulb. In that setting the X-T3 was the B camera to my 5D3 shooting at ISO 200.  I couldn't turn down that particular light even if I wanted to, and I didn't want to stop down the X-T3 and lose the blur of my background. I could see getting an internal ND filter that makes the two cameras "match" in terms of light-gathering ability at f2.8 ISO 640 vs ISO 200 on the Canon, especially if it's optically superior to using on-the-front filters.  

What would you do in a case like the picture below?

1) Use less light?

2) Switch the X-T3 out of F-Log and use another profile?

3) Use an internal (or external) ND filter?

4) Stop down from f2.8?

Such trade-offs! Wow.

 

[androidlad]

4 hours ago, andrew_dotdot said:

I can see a/the use case. When filming in F-Log, the minimum ISO is 640 - that's a lot of light going in.  So my X-T3 was even overexposing at f2.8 when I was shooting an interview indoors using a pretty basic soft box with a giant single compact fluorescent bulb. In that setting the X-T3 was the B camera to my 5D3 shooting at ISO 200.  I couldn't turn down that particular light even if I wanted to, and I didn't want to stop down the X-T3 and lose the blur of my background. I could see getting an internal ND filter that makes the two cameras "match" in terms of light-gathering ability at f2.8 ISO 640 vs ISO 200 on the Canon, especially if it's optically superior to using on-the-front filters.  

What would you do in a case like the picture below?

1) Use less light?

2) Switch the X-T3 out of F-Log and use another profile?

3) Use an internal (or external) ND filter?

4) Stop down from f2.8?

Such trade-offs! Wow.

Replace the fluorescent bulb with either Halogen or high CRI LED ones that are dimmable. Even the highest quality fluorescent lights have spiky and discontinuous spectrum. And most importantly they are not dimmable.

When illuminating faces, light quality in terms of smooth and continuous spectrum is the key.

[andrew_dotdot]

43 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Replace the fluorescent bulb with either Halogen or high CRI LED ones that are dimmable. Even the highest quality fluorescent lights have spiky and discontinuous spectrum. And most importantly they are not dimmable.

When illuminating faces, light quality in terms of smooth and continuous spectrum is the key.

Yep. I was all set to buy a high cri dimmable LED panel, but the delivery was too late. That rented fluorescent had a nasty green cast. Now in have that LED. ?

I think I'm with you on lowering the light. A bump up to ISO 640 on the Canon would be fine. I can dim my bg boat lighting, but I can't gel daylight windows until I can afford a crew to do that for me. :'-|

[MrSMW]

The following may be of use to some and is as follows...

I purchased an Anker PowerCore+ 26800 PD which I have attached to the XT3 via a smallrig clamp and cage plus using a Rode mini and a Feelworld monitor all sitting on a Sirui frestanding monopod.

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 or Canon 50mm f1.8 via Fringer Pro for lenses.

The Rode mini will be replaced for the new Rode Wireless Go as soon as in stock as that seems like a no-brainer to me, but I digress...

Anyway, ran a power consumption test today ahead of my up and coming wedding season and after 4.5 hours continual running time (but not actually recording), can report the internal battery was indicating it still had 80% charge and the battery pack also 80% charge.

I'd expect this to be higher if actually recording and the body possibly slightly warmer than it's slightly warm state, but bodes well.

Pity I can't also charge the monitor, but it's actually fairly low consumption and I have 5 batteries for it anyway.

[androidlad]

40 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

The following may be of use to some and is as follows...

I purchased an Anker PowerCore+ 26800 PD which I have attached to the XT3 via a smallrig clamp and cage plus using a Rode mini and a Feelworld monitor all sitting on a Sirui frestanding monopod.

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 or Canon 50mm f1.8 via Fringer Pro for lenses.

The Rode mini will be replaced for the new Rode Wireless Go as soon as in stock as that seems like a no-brainer to me, but I digress...

Anyway, ran a power consumption test today ahead of my up and coming wedding season and after 4.5 hours continual running time (but not actually recording), can report the internal battery was indicating it still had 80% charge and the battery pack also 80% charge.

I'd expect this to be higher if actually recording and the body possibly slightly warmer than it's slightly warm state, but bodes well.

Pity I can't also charge the monitor, but it's actually fairly low consumption and I have 5 batteries for it anyway.

Smallrig is making a purpose-built holder for power banks: https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-holder-for-portable-power-banks-bub2336.html

If you replace your monitor with Swit CM-55C, you can power it via micro USB.

[MrSMW]

Cool, I think I will upgrade to one of those @androidlad as it's a more elegant solution.

The Swit, that's powered directly from the camera then? That would also cut down on a bit of weight (if the Swit with I presume internal battery is lighter than the Feelworld with external) and make for zero battery swaps on a full day shoot. Which would be great as one less thing to consider etc.

OK, external battery or direct charge from external battery pack. Research + coffee ?

Not sure it's worth a +200 upgrade at this time but a potential option there. Just bought a pair of Rode Wireless GO's and another OSMO Pocket so funds tight right now...

[androidlad]

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Cool, I think I will upgrade to one of those @androidlad as it's a more elegant solution.

The Swit, that's powered directly from the camera then? That would also cut down on a bit of weight (if the Swit with I presume internal battery is lighter than the Feelworld with external) and make for zero battery swaps on a full day shoot. Which would be great as one less thing to consider etc.

OK, external battery or direct charge from external battery pack. Research + coffee ?

Not sure it's worth a +200 upgrade at this time but a potential option there. Just bought a pair of Rode Wireless GO's and another OSMO Pocket so funds tight right now...

The Swit can be powered directly from a compatible power bank via micro USB (minimum 2A current, 5V voltage). There's no internal battery.

[jpleong]

On 4/24/2019 at 4:23 AM, andrew_dotdot said:

I can see a/the use case. When filming in F-Log, the minimum ISO is 640 - that's a lot of light going in.  So my X-T3 was even overexposing at f2.8 when I was shooting an interview indoors using a pretty basic soft box with a giant single compact fluorescent bulb. In that setting the X-T3 was the B camera to my 5D3 shooting at ISO 200.  I couldn't turn down that particular light even if I wanted to, and I didn't want to stop down the X-T3 and lose the blur of my background. I could see getting an internal ND filter that makes the two cameras "match" in terms of light-gathering ability at f2.8 ISO 640 vs ISO 200 on the Canon, especially if it's optically superior to using on-the-front filters.  

What would you do in a case like the picture below?

1) Use less light?

2) Switch the X-T3 out of F-Log and use another profile?

3) Use an internal (or external) ND filter?

4) Stop down from f2.8?

Such trade-offs! Wow.

 

I would try a few things:

1) Depending on what was clipped, I would be tempted to keep it in F-LOG and ETTR.

2) Change the distance of the key light to the subject.

3) Shoot in Pro-Neg Std rather than F-LOG to access the lower ISO options (if you wanted to keep some grading flexibility).

4) Use the X-T3 as the A-cam, shoot in 4K  so you can crop and use it as the B-cam, too. Light for the X-T3. Use the 5D3 as the backup.

[andrew_dotdot]

13 hours ago, jpleong said:

I would try a few things:

1) Depending on what was clipped, I would be tempted to keep it in F-LOG and ETTR.

2) Change the distance of the key light to the subject.

3) Shoot in Pro-Neg Std rather than F-LOG to access the lower ISO options (if you wanted to keep some grading flexibility).

4) Use the X-T3 as the A-cam, shoot in 4K  so you can crop and use it as the B-cam, too. Light for the X-T3. Use the 5D3 as the backup.

I’ve not tested shooting in Pro-Neg on the X-T3. So, I will have to see about that - thanks very much for the tip!

I shoot Magic Lantern Raw on the 5D3, and while it’s not 4K, there are numerous upsides – raw, full-frame, excellent L lenses, Canon color science – that make it the A camera when the the subject is on a chair and the camera is on sticks. Off sticks, the X-T3 has the upper hand with 4K, auto-focus, F-Log, 10-bit and great-looking Fuji color science. The X-T3 replaced my Canon 70D (on Cinestyle profile) for the purpose, once the expensive, lacklustre, painfully first-gen EOS-R was released and made my mind up.

Moving the light is practical sometimes, but sometimes not. I was incredibly cramped in terms of space - the observant viewer will note  there’s a staircase baluster on the right edge of the frame. The light shape characteristics are different at different distances as well, and I was going for the Rembrandt look, and was conscious of light going everywhere. I had a black screen on her dark side to try to manage the reflection.

Cruious about anyone’s tips for working with Pro-Neg Std!

[BrunoCH]

6 hours ago, andrew_dotdot said:

Cruious about anyone’s tips for working with Pro-Neg Std!

I think it's not a good idea to use Pro-Neg standart. The actual sensitivity is 640 ISO. All the values below are a software negative gain (decrease  highlights). In LOG you get 2 more stops in  dynamic range than  all the other film simulation profiles.

[androidlad]

56 minutes ago, BrunoCH said:

I think it's not a good idea to use Pro-Neg standart. The actual sensitivity is 640 ISO. All the values below are a software negative gain (decrease  highlights). In LOG you get 2 more stops in  dynamic range than  all the other film simulation profiles.

It's not like that.

DR100 film simulations let you use base ISO160, this is the native ISO with a video gamma that limits dynamic range, but ProNeg Std is the flattest of all film simulations.

DR400 film simulations start at ISO640 and behave similarly to F-log, which actually expose at ISO160 and push shadow 2 stops. DR400 film simulations have similar DR with F-log (minor difference in roll-off), especially with highlights/shadow set to -2.