Fuji XT3 Waxy skin no texture TEST

[thebrothersthre3]

This has been a long reported issue with Fuji cameras. At higher ISO's the skin gets waxy and there is a loss of detail. I noticed this heavily on my Fuji XT2, at 1600 iso there was some nasty waxy skin thing going on. Is the problem still relevant on the XT3 shooting F-log? 

Shot with -4 NR and -4 sharpening (all the way down). Flog H265 24p 4k with the eterna LUT applied. 

Here is a google drive link for the original file(transcoded to prores 422). 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uy3u_9oZuiNUozLEVB2PTFHlWlKwXMQr?usp=sharing

(file name "NR Test XT3")

Thoughts? 

[deezid]

Thanks for the test.

Seems like underexposing helps preserving detail (less compression) but temporal filtering causes some strange "static" noise, fine and flickering pixels (instead of actual detail) and smear when subject or camera is moving slowly - the same happens on the GH4 above ISO 2000 and A73 above ISO 1600 - but both show even more ghosting. Both the X-T3 and Z Cam E2 (which is way worse though) show this issue at every ISO. Still the X-T3 looks like a better cam in low light than the A73 does which is a complete mess in higher ISO due to strong temporal filtering.

But honestly, looks way better than the other footage another person on YouTube shot and uploaded (both internally and externally in ProRes) using sharpening and noise reduction at 0 and interframe nr turned on.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sb0MH4soxt-Kqtf0jiYXc4dN0u5U-iFD/view?usp=sharing

Overall, I would actually use this camera up to ISO3200 (when slightly underexposed and NR/Sharpening at -4 and interframe NR off).
Wondering how HLG looks in different exposures. Expecting more detail even

[thebrothersthre3]

1 minute ago, deezid said:

Thanks for the test.

Seems like underexposing helps preserving detail (less compression) but temporal filtering causes some strange "static" noise, fine and flickering pixels (instead of actual detail) and smear when subject or camera is moving slowly - the same happens on the GH4 above ISO 2000 and A73 above ISO 1600 - but both show even more ghosting. Both the X-T3 and Z Cam E2 (which is way worse though) show this issue at every ISO. Still the X-T3 looks like a better cam in low light than the A73 does which is a complete mess in higher ISO due to strong temporal filtering.

But honestly, looks way better than the other footage another person on YouTube shot and uploaded (both internally and externally in ProRes) using sharpening and noise reduction at 0 and interframe nr turned on.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sb0MH4soxt-Kqtf0jiYXc4dN0u5U-iFD/view?usp=sharing

Overall, I would actually use this camera up to ISO3200 (when slightly underexposed and NR/Sharpening at -4 and interframe NR off).
Wondering how HLG looks in different exposures. Expecting more detail even

I'll test HLG next. Would be cool if it was cleaner. I just got a 4k monitor also want to see what I'm missing ?

[deezid]

2 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I'll test HLG next. Would be cool if it was cleaner. I just got a 4k monitor also want to see what I'm missing ?

Please download the video I've linked before and take a look. That's what the camera does in standard settings. 
Maybe they turned down temporal filtering a bit already, because your example looks nowhere near as bad as the footage I've taken a few months ago at photokina.

[webrunner5]

I thought it looked better at 3200 ISO than it did at 400 ISO LoL??

[thebrothersthre3]

23 minutes ago, deezid said:

Please download the video I've linked before and take a look. That's what the camera does in standard settings. 
Maybe they turned down temporal filtering a bit already, because your example looks nowhere near as bad as the footage I've taken a few months ago at photokina.

Interesting, I am just glad turning down the NR helps. 

 

9 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I thought it looked better at 3200 ISO than it did at 400 ISO LoL??

Maybe its the grain? Some people think Fuji grain looks filmish. 

[mercer]

Interesting. It seems like you really don’t need to overexpose F-Log to get a clean image at base ISO... hmm. If that was sLog2, it would have been a noisy mess.

How accurate is the Kelvin WB? Any shifts needed?

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Interesting. It seems like you really don’t need to overexpose F-Log to get a clean image at base ISO... hmm. If that was sLog2, it would have been a noisy mess.

How accurate is the Kelvin WB? Any shifts needed?

WB seems good to me though I haven't done any testing and I honestly suck when it comes to properly white balancing. I could do a sort of test with a color chart if you are interested though.

[thephoenix]

looks like more an overexposure issue than a waxy skin problem to me.

would be interesting to see the curves wen shooting