Color - But Specifically, Fuji

[SRV1981]

Didn't want to hijack another thread but in that thread I was noting what I perceive as film-like images from SOOC Fuji photos/video.  When I show friends they, too, typically pick Fuji when comparing to Sony/Panny/Canon.  They basically, and myself, felt that much of the footage from Fuji felt like a "tv show/movie" but the others looked like high quality "video".  Now, I explain to them that much of that is due to lighting, settings, grading, lens selection, etc. but it is the general feel.

 

Is this something many agree with?  What's the tradeoffs with fuji that make many of you forego it for Panny/Sony/Canon/BM?

 

I'm looking into the XT5/XH2s now out of curiosity for my needs and curious on your thoughts.

[MrSMW]

Their Eterna profile SOOC is pretty good and can take a light grade.

[kye]

I think there are three things going on.  

1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.

2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.

3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

[SRV1981]

3 minutes ago, kye said:

I think there are three things going on.  

1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.

2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.

3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

Great insight and appreciate the data!  
 

what’s your thoughts on why many average folks tend to like Fuji images over most - not all?

[markr041]

If one is going to take advantage of the video capabilities of a camera, such as extended dynamic range (or exposure latitude) and the ability to obtain the color look you want, then you want to shoot using log profiles, 10bit color and 422 sampling. The SOOC looks are then irrelevant. 

One also has to distinguish between "pleasing" colors and accurate colors. Maybe people are hardwired to prefer yellow tints, or other color distortions? My view is to start with accurate color and then grade to taste (but who's taste?), with a nice base of 10bit or 12bit 422 color. I prefer to have colors I can choose, rather than what a camera manufacturer chooses, which will make my videos look like the hundreds (thousand's?) of others who don't grade.

[markr041]

Now, the question is, how are the log profiles of cameras different? And do those differences matter?

Here is what Fuji says, from their official data sheet, about their Flog2 profile:

"The gamma curve of F-Log2 follows the density of negative films, which has a high compatibility with post production technique fostered in the field of cinema film. It also configures 0% CV (Code value) as 95/10 bits and 18% gray CV as 400/10 bits. The gamut of F-log complies with ITU-R BT.2020 and realizes ease of cinema-like exposure and easy grading on the DCI.P3 color space." [emphasis mine]

Note the references to film and cinema. What does Fuji mean by that? Has anybody at Fuji seen actual movies?

[SRV1981]

52 minutes ago, markr041 said:

If one is going to take advantage of the video capabilities of a camera, such as extended dynamic range (or exposure latitude) and the ability to obtain the color look you want, then you want to shoot using log profiles, 10bit color and 422 sampling. The SOOC looks are then irrelevant. 

One also has to distinguish between "pleasing" colors and accurate colors. Maybe people are hardwired to prefer yellow tints, or other color distortions? My view is to start with accurate color and then grade to taste (but who's taste?), with a nice base of 10bit or 12bit 422 color. I prefer to have colors I can choose, rather than what a camera manufacturer chooses, which will make my videos look like the hundreds (thousand's?) of others who don't grade.

Understood - well said.  I, personally, do not want to shoot Log and the original point I was making is that SOOC footage from Fuji was the preferred look to many I showed over the graded Log of other camera systems.  I am curious why people seem to prefer Fuji internal colors versus others.

[ac6000cw]

1 hour ago, kye said:

to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.

...and also don't/can't possibly remember the sometimes scratched, fuzzy, grainy, cue-dotted n-th generation distribution prints (with mono sound and worn sprocket holes) that played in the average neighborhood cinema... while at university I sometimes projected 16mm prints for the film society and they were decidedly 'well used' at times.

I guess they think the pristine 'digitally restored' old movies they see today are what they really looked like to the average cinema customer 'back in the day' 🙂.

[markr041]

5 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Understood - well said.  I, personally, do not want to shoot Log and the original point I was making is that SOOC footage from Fuji was the preferred look to many I showed over the graded Log of other camera systems.  I am curious why people seem to prefer Fuji internal colors versus others.

If you are not going to shoot log, and want ooc colors, and a small camera for video, you might consider the Sony ZV E10 (not ZV E1). It is APS-C but smaller and lighter than the fx30. No IBIS or 10bit (which you do not need), but with Sony OSS lenses (there are plenty), handholding is fine. and, of course, those lenses are small. You have lots of controls of color and looks in the camera. Onboard audio and mics are very good (like the ZV E1).

[SRV1981]

9 minutes ago, markr041 said:

If you are not going to shoot log, and want ooc colors, and a small camera for video, you might consider the Sony ZV E10 (not ZV E1). It is APS-C but smaller and lighter than the fx30. No IBIS or 10bit (which you do not need), but with Sony OSS lenses (there are plenty), handholding is fine. and, of course, those lenses are small. You have lots of controls of color and looks in the camera. Onboard audio and mics are very good (like the ZV E1).

How does that compare to an XT5?  Also curious if it is worth waiting for a7cII.  Whats the general opinion on 8bit vs. 10 bit when not color grading. much?

[markr041]

3 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

How does that compare to an XT5?  Also curious if it is worth waiting for a7cII.  Whats the general opinion on 8bit vs. 10 bit when not color grading. much?

The a7cii will be full frame, and thus you are stuck with big lenses. I you want compact, you have to stick with smaller sensors. APS-C is a good compromise.

If you do not color grade, and you expose properly, no visible difference (someone will claim - color banding! - but it is shown this has more to do with compression issues). I have never seen it in the many videos I have shot in 8bit. Everything you see on TV and on your monitor is 8bit unless you go HDR.

I have never shot with a Fuji camera, so I cannot compare. The Sony ZV E10 has Sony's modern AF.

Here is an 8bit ZV E10 video with the tiny, cheap 16-50 Kit lens (OSS):

Actually (8bit!) HDR, but you will see the SDR version. Gyro stabilization available.

[SRV1981]

48 minutes ago, markr041 said:

The a7cii will be full frame, and thus you are stuck with big lenses. I you want compact, you have to stick with smaller sensors. APS-C is a good compromise.

If you do not color grade, and you expose properly, no visible difference (someone will claim - color banding! - but it is shown this has more to do with compression issues). I have never seen it in the many videos I have shot in 8bit. Everything you see on TV and on your monitor is 8bit unless you go HDR.

I have never shot with a Fuji camera, so I cannot compare. The Sony ZV E10 has Sony's modern AF.

Here is an 8bit ZV E10 video with the tiny, cheap 16-50 Kit lens (OSS):

Actually (8bit!) HDR, but you will see the SDR version. Gyro stabilization available.

so that looks pretty dang good for video - how is it for photo?  What i've liked about fuji is that the in-camera emulations produce wonderful SOOC video and photo.

[markr041]

3 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

so that looks pretty dang good for video - how is it for photo?  What i've liked about fuji is that the in-camera emulations produce wonderful SOOC video and photo.

I don't take photos except with my cell phone (and they are pretty good - my cellphone uses AI, much more advanced than most cameras). The ZV E10 has lots of Picture Profiles and a large amount of customizations for each. The ZV E10 has the latest Sony "color science."

[ac6000cw]

Aren't most Sony APS-C cameras (including the ZV-E10, but not the FX30) well known for having high levels of rolling shutter distortion in 4k?

A quote from dpreview's review of the ZV-E10 (which is still online at the moment):

Quote

Not a problem if you shoot video content which doesn't show it up (or stills with mechanical shutter), but it's certainly one of the main reasons their APS-C cameras have never been on my shopping list (as I often shoot content which really is badly affected by it).

[Django]

The Fuji film simulations combined with X-Trans sensor is what gives Fuji its singular SOOC filmic look.

There is one often overlooked tradeoff which is chroma noise smoothing that can give mushy colours especially in Flog.

You probably won't even notice it though if you're not shooting log. Then there is the sharpness that some perceive as too intense even at the minimal setting. But YMMV, some people like it.

The main gripe many people have about Fuji for video is their lenses aren't really suited for manual focusing and up until XH2S the AF was rather dodgy. It is much improved and seems sticky on XH2S but still some quirks persist.

Perks aside, XH2S still has one of the best sensors around with 14-bit readout, 6K and open-gate. And very chunky ProRes files.

But if you don't need such high-end specs/performance and don't even shoot log or grade then I don't really see much point investing in such a cam. Might as well shoot on any older cheaper 8-bit model..

[mercer]

Just get an R7, if you're in the US, they're on sale now. 

[kye]

7 hours ago, markr041 said:

Now, the question is, how are the log profiles of cameras different? And do those differences matter?

Here is what Fuji says, from their official data sheet, about their Flog2 profile:

"The gamma curve of F-Log2 follows the density of negative films, which has a high compatibility with post production technique fostered in the field of cinema film. It also configures 0% CV (Code value) as 95/10 bits and 18% gray CV as 400/10 bits. The gamut of F-log complies with ITU-R BT.2020 and realizes ease of cinema-like exposure and easy grading on the DCI.P3 color space." [emphasis mine]

Note the references to film and cinema. What does Fuji mean by that? Has anybody at Fuji seen actual movies?

There are a few things that would benefit you to understand.

Firstly, no camera on the market these days is "accurate" - they all apply a strong look to the image.  Those that apply a colour profile (either 709 or log) apply a significant number of colour tweaks to the image, and those that shoot RAW get similar tweaks in post when converted to 709 by a colour space transform or a LUT etc.

Secondly, all the looks from all the manufacturers share a number of common traits.  I've compared quite a lot of different cameras over the years and shared the results here, so go digging if you're curious.  These traits are essentially things that the human eye finds desirable, and they began with film (which was in development for decades and decades with the all the worlds best image scientists all working on it) and then when digital gradually took over this processing continued in development.
If you don't agree with this, or aren't aware of it, find footage of a colour checker from as many camera brands as you can and just look at the curve applied to the greyscale and look at a vector scope of where the hues are falling - they're not falling where they should if the image was even remotely "correct".

Thirdly, non-camera nerds see the world very differently to us, and it's not like we all agree on everything.

I suggest you find one of these people that prefers Fuji and load some images into Resolve and start adjusting things and see which things they don't care about and which things makes them hate the image when you change them by only a tiny amount.  This is how you can find out, in broad terms, what it is that they like and are sensitive to about Fuji in-particular.

[D Verco]

7 hours ago, markr041 said:

Note the references to film and cinema. What does Fuji mean by that? Has anybody at Fuji seen actual movies?

Flog2 has an identical gamma curve to Arri Clog3, and the colour space is rec2020. So yeah it probably is one of the best log profiles around. Especially considering the support, and knowledge for Arri footage in the cinema & high end commercial space. 

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, Django said:

The Fuji film simulations combined with X-Trans sensor is what gives Fuji its singular SOOC filmic look.

Agreed

 

7 hours ago, Django said:

There is one often overlooked tradeoff which is chroma noise smoothing that can give mushy colours especially in Flog.

I struggled to get Flog where I wanted it to be so always stuck with shooting Eterna.

7 hours ago, Django said:

Then there is the sharpness that some perceive as too intense even at the minimal setting. But YMMV, some people like it.

1/8th mist VND with sharpening dialed down fixed that for me.

All in all, one of the nicest SOOC looks around IMO.

Filmic/cinematic etc are different definitions for different folks. I personally go with ‘do I like the look?’ and with Fuji I do.

But yes, always struggled a bit with the lenses and that is ultimately what made me leave Fuji.

There are more lens options now however with some new stuff (Tamron 17-70, Sigma 18-50 for zooms) plus updated primes.

I could easily go back to Fuji.

[aaa123jc]

The unique SOOC look comes from both the different sensor technology and those film simulations.

If you just import the raw files into lightroom and using adobe color science, the color is just kinda decent. Then, you change the color profile to those film simulations and the difference is night and day. It's almost a magical moment. That's why I buy a fuji camera for stills (mostly for causal use though).

For video, eterna is a decent starting point, if you don't plan on shooting Log. The XT5 and X2Hs are great cameras with a lot of features, but it really comes down to if you need those high end features.

Personally I choose my fuji camera based on look and erogomics, since the color sciene is terrific regardless of the model. That's why I sold my XT4 and got a XE4 instead. The only feature I ever miss is the IBIS.