Fuji X-T3 and X-T4 discussion

[webrunner5]

Yeah but not everyone that buys a video camera is looking for a Cine Look. YouTube, Docs, sports, even interviews, music videos want sharp as heck stuff. Cine stuff in in the minority for the amount of people that buy these price range of cameras. They would all be out of business if they looked like most of us on here like. Are you really going to take videos of your kids when they are young that look like a 8mm film? You want sharp.

[webrunner5]

Speaking of a CIne look. Interesting article from Tom Cruise and director Christopher McQuarrie.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/04/motion-interpolation-tom-cruise-hdtv-4k/?yptr=yahoo

[Anaconda_]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but not everyone that buys a video camera is looking for a Cine Look. YouTube, Docs, sports, even interviews, music videos want sharp as heck stuff. Cine stuff in in the minority for the amount of people that buy these price range of cameras. They would all be out of business if they looked like most of us on here like. Are you really going to take videos of your kids when they are young that look like a 8mm film? You want sharp.

In almost all of your examples, I think you’re wrong. Watch any feature documentary or music video made in the last 2 years or even longer. They all look an strive to look ‘cinematic’. Sports and (some) YouTube are the only parts I’d agree with you on. 

As for filming kids. I don’t film mine on 8mm, but do use 35mm film often for photos and film with cinelike profiles or BMD film. Why wouldn’t I if those are available to me? When BRAW is out for the pocket, I’ll more than likely use that exclusively.

No one is going to decide against buying a camera because it has a cine profile, but many people would choose not to buy a certain model if it didn’t have one. 

[zerocool22]

Yeah you are right. But those who arent interested in a cinelook are way better off with a traditional camcorder though.

[Snowbro]

XT3 comes tomorrow, going to compare to the 1DX ii, would be nice to have a small body with 10 bit 4k. I thought it was odd that cinema5d says the XT3 with FLOG and 1DX with Cinestyle both have 11 stops of DR. Makes me think that the 1DX would have had amazing DR if it had real CLOG... It looks like the roll off is decent in FLOG + Eterna, I know the Canon looks a little softer at 0 sharpening, but that also makes it look a little more cinematic imo. I was thinking of adding a Black Pro Mist 1/8 to the XT3, not sure yet. I didn't find the footage from it (YT) to be as harsh when compared to Sony 4k. I just seriously hope Fuji updates the motors in their f/1.4 primes, i'll use MF until then. 

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

In almost all of your examples, I think you’re wrong. Watch any feature documentary or music video made in the last 2 years or even longer. They all look an strive to look ‘cinematic’. Sports and (some) YouTube are the only parts I’d agree with you on. 

As for filming kids. I don’t film mine on 8mm, but do use 35mm film often for photos and film with cinelike profiles or BMD film. Why wouldn’t I if those are available to me? When BRAW is out for the pocket, I’ll more than likely use that exclusively.

No one is going to decide against buying a camera because it has a cine profile, but many people would choose not to buy a certain model if it didn’t have one. 

I think you are crazy LoL. Hell 99.6% of the people in the world have no clue what Cine, or Filmic even means camera wise. And probably 90% of them Never it take off of Auto or Program mode. There is really not that many crazy Bastards like us in the world.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think you are crazy LoL. Hell 99.6% of the people in the world have no clue what Cine, or Filmic even means camera wise. And probably 90% of them Never it take off of Auto or Program mode. There is really not that many crazy Bastards like us in the world.

People definitely look at a product and think "this looks like a movie" or "this looks like something cheap my nephew put together." Just because average viewers don't have the same visual acumen and vocabulary doesn't mean they don't recognize good aesthetics.

[Emanuel]

It actually does matter to serve aesthetics as much as any other value or principle. Mass communication hardly helps. A fallacy.

E : -)

[thebrothersthre3]

Has Cinema 5D done a recent test on the 1DX dynamic range recently? Because they used to rate the A7SII at 13 or 14 stops and now they say it has 10.5 or something. If they did a test a long time ago it probably is not on par with their current testing methods.

[Snowbro]

It looked exactly the same to me.

"Our software measured about 11 stops of usable dynamic range on the Canon 1D X mark II. This is very similar to the rating of the Canon 1D C, and just under the 12 stops of the Sony a7S II" idk

Edit: found new chart with XT3 & A7sii. You're right, 1DX ii is probably a stop less DR than XT3. 

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

People definitely look at a product and think "this looks like a movie" or "this looks like something cheap my nephew put together." Just because average viewers don't have the same visual acumen and vocabulary doesn't mean they don't recognize good aesthetics.

If "normal" people liked Cine stuff every camera would have that look. That look is rare as hell even in a Cine camera.  It doesn't just pop out of the camera, any camera.  Average people like video that is bleeding edge sharp and the manufacturers make all of the consumer ones that way.

They go to Disney World or to their sons football game to get sharp as hell shots. 98% of all the photos in the world anymore are taken on a Smartphone, and I would bet one hell of a high percentage of video is taken on one, and I doubt many of them are Cinematic, Filmic.

Most movies in the world are now seen on a LCD TV not in movie theaters. And most are in 720p and the detail, compression on them pretty much sucks from the cable provider, let alone all the crap that is added, or worse subtracted in the actual TV to knock down what quantity that is left.. So the recognize good aesthetics thing is sort of a thing of the past also. I am afraid the "cheap my nephew put together" is more the norm now sad to say. Film is dead in more ways than one these days. Most young people don't know what it even is, and don't even care. Most new films that are out are fast action stuff, shot digitally, with 2/3 the movie VFX on steroids, with the volume set to 12. There is so much going on in these new movies you don't even have time to actually look at the camera aesthetics, you are memorized by the all that is happening. It is sensory overload more than anything now.

It's a shame really, great movies are becoming a thing of the past that are really special. They are all becoming cookie cutter Marvel Comic book stuff that is mostly computer generated with no real regard to a Cine, Filmic look. Just a lot of flashing lights with fight scenes, humans versus the machines.

14 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

It looked exactly the same to me.

"Our software measured about 11 stops of usable dynamic range on the Canon 1D X mark II. This is very similar to the rating of the Canon 1D C, and just under the 12 stops of the Sony a7S II" idk

That is somewhat believable. True rating of even the Arri Alexa is 14 to 14 1/2, 15 tops. So no consumer, prosumer camera is really going to be as high as an Arri. It has all been exaggerated a bit for years.

[Emanuel]

So sadly real your description is. I still want to believe Vimeo will triumph over YT : )

The funny stuff is FF route helps it out, almost as larger formats for acquisition such as MFT or S35 for cheap have contributed to oppose all that.

Here is a fair reason why I've been learning  to never bash variable good looking slowmo or shallow DOF.

E : -)

[Snowbro]

Why does the UHD scaled down to FHD have 12 stops of DR vs 11.2 for UHD on their chart? 

[webrunner5]

15 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

So sadly real your description is. I still want to believe Vimeo will triumph over YT : )

The funny stuff is FF route helps it out, almost as larger formats for acquisition such as MFT or S35 for cheap have contributed to oppose all that.

Here is a fair reason why I've been learning  to never bash variable good looking slowmo or shallow DOF

E : -)

I am afraid Vimeo will probably go belly up. A lot of my videos are not able to be seen by the public because I have dropped my subscription. I only sort of pay for it when I want to upload Videos LoL.YouTube doesn't really do that. Once it is there it is there as far as I know. I honestly don't upload to them what little I do upload.

[KnightsFan]

21 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

Why does the UHD scaled down to FHD have 12 stops of DR vs 11.2 for UHD on their chart? 

Because downsampling decreases noise, thus giving more dr in the shadows (at the expense of resolution of course).

[Anaconda_]

@webrunner5 - I'm a little confused as to your point. First you say people want 'sharp as heck', and then explain that 99% of photos and videos are on a smart phone. Which is why nobody cares about cinestuff.

To me that sounds less like caring about, or not looking for a cine look and more about not wanting to carry a phone and a camera at the same time. For most users, the photos they take on their phones aren't even close to as sharp as the interviews you see in every Netflix documentary, for example. I would for sure call those documentaries cinematic and filmic. Same for those blockbusters. They're flashy, noisey and sharp, but are definitely cinematic.

Now, if you could buy a phone that has a cineprofile and can take RAW photos, without having to download third party apps, I'm sure many people would never even use those features, but for many it would be a reason to buy that phone over a competitor's model.

It all comes down to the best camera in the world is the one in your hand when you need it. For everyone in the western world, that's your phone. In that case, sharpness, filmic images, high iso, sensor size, lens mount etc. has nothing to do with it.

Those who do want any of the above, need to work out if it's worth buying another device to achieve that. For us here it is, and 'filmic' is one of the main criteria, for a vast majority the phone will give passable results, but that doesn't mean it has a look or feel people are looking for.

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Hell 99.6% of the people in the world have no clue what Cine, or Filmic even means camera wise

It's the difference between store bought lasagne and home made. Both edible, both will taste just fine, but with a little more effort, homemade will beat store bought any day. I don't have the vocabulary to explain why, but I know and appreciate the difference anyway.

[webrunner5]

We must have a pretty different definition of what filmic looks like I guess. I don't relate sharp with Filmic much at all. I see it as sort of hazy, shallow DoF, sort of noisy looking, on the darker side, kind of unexpected effects, even slo mo which I hate, muted, paler colors, on and on. Pretty much the opposite of a Smartphone. Average people must really like that because that is what is in every phone made. Super sharp, high saturation colors that jump off the screen. If your smartphone pictures and video aren't sharp you need a newer phone. My phones are that way, and to be honest for the stuff I would shoot with a phone I like it that way. Look at the new DJI Osmo Pocket. Makes the GoPro look dull sharpness wise. People will love it, right up their alley.

And I don't think phones just give passable results. I think they give Way better results than the vast majority of people EVER got out of their DSLR's, and a lot of their P&S., and Tons better video than the old clunky video cameras ever had. Sure at night they sort of suck, but most high end Cine cameras are not so hot even today. It is only the last few years this Dual ISO thing has taken off, and they are in very few hands even now. Even a Arri Alexa is pretty bad in low light.

Sure we on average don't like that highly processed look. But we are less than 1% of the whole world. And I will admit, I take the vast majority of videos on my phone, and photos on it, and I have it set to auto and away I go. The people that I show it to, mostly family, have no clue what filmic is and don't care. They want to see sharp in focus stuff that has realistic colors. And a Smartphone gives that to me and them in Spades. I think my Smartphone shots are pretty sharp. And for DR there again most people have no clue what that even is and I really don't myself look at the output of my phone and say Wow the DR sucks, it looks terrible. I think phones, cameras have gotten to the point that a lot of this stuff is good enough that it just looks more than good enough right out of camera. Tech has really jumped forward in the last 5 years, and for the average person, even enthusiasts it is probably good enough on the vast majority of shots.

 

[Kisaha]

26 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

We must have a pretty different definition of what filmic looks like I guess. I don't relate sharp with Filmic much at all. I see it as sort of hazy, shallow DoF, sort of noisy looking, on the darker side, kind of unexpected effects, even slo mo which I hate, muted, paler colors, on and on. Pretty much the opposite of a Smartphone. Average people must really like that because that is what is in every phone made. Super sharp, high saturation colors that jump off the screen. If your smartphone pictures and video aren't sharp you need a newer phone. My phones are that way, and to be honest for the stuff I would shoot with a phone I like it that way. Look at the new DJI Osmo Pocket. Makes the GoPro look dull sharpness wise. People will love it, right up their alley.

And I don't think phones just give passable results. I think they give Way better results than the vast majority of people EVER got out of their DSLR's, and a lot of their P&S., and Tons better video than the old clunky video cameras ever had. Sure at night they sort of suck, but most high end Cine cameras are not so hot even today. It is only the last few years this Dual ISO thing has taken off, and they are in very few hands even now. Even a Arri Alexa is pretty bad in low light.

Sure we on average don't like that highly processed look. But we are less than 1% of the whole world. And I will admit, I take the vast majority of videos on my phone, and photos on it, and I have it set to auto and away I go. The people that I show it to, mostly family, have no clue what filmic is and don't care. They want to see sharp in focus stuff that has realistic colors. And a Smartphone gives that to me and them in Spades. I think my Smartphone shots are pretty sharp. And for DR there again most people have no clue what that even is and I really don't myself look at the output of my phone and say Wow the DR sucks, it looks terrible. I think phones, cameras have gotten to the point that a lot of this stuff is good enough that it just looks more than good enough right out of camera. Tech has really jumped forward in the last 5 years, and for the average person, even enthusiasts it is probably good enough on the vast majority of shots.

 

You say the Osmo Pocket is amazing for most people, but then you say mobiles phones are good enough for most people. I agree to the second part of that paradox.

Alexa is an unfortunate example, we all know that is not the way we treat Alexa's in the business and there aren't a lot of enthusiasts or amateurs that own one, for more reasons than iso performance.

Masses yes, enthusiasts - no. For hybrid enthusiasts (at least) an X-T3 is a dream that came true.

[webrunner5]

19 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

You say the Osmo Pocket is amazing for most people, but then you say mobiles phones are good enough for most people. I agree to the second part of that paradox.

Masses yes, enthusiasts - no. For hybrid enthusiasts (at least) an X-T3 is a dream that came true.

And what percentage of people that buy a X-T3 do you think will even take one video with it? I wold bet less than half do. And half of them won't use 10bit. Everyone on here acts like everyone is like us. They aren't. Most are photo people.

[zerocool22]

I fail to see who this osmo pocket is targeted for. My mom would not shoot with it as why would she spend any money on a camera as she has her smartphone, I as a videographer would not shoot with it as it looks non professional, the quality is no where near any real camera. None of my pro or hobbist friends wants to shoot with it for mainly the same reasons. I guess only youtubers are interested in this(for vlogging purposes).