Color - But Specifically, Fuji

[hyalinejim]

2 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

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.

This is true for all makes of cameras. Adobe Color / Standard / Neutral levels the playing field. These profiles are supposed to be close to natural colour, from what I can tell.

The Camera Matching profiles are Adobe's emulations of the manufacturer's own profiles and are always worth checking out as they may be much nicer than the default.

And sometimes using the manufacturer's own raw converter will give slightly nicer colour (but without most of the convenience of Adobe workflow).

[SRV1981]

3 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

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.

I won’t be using log I’ve learned. That said, the xh2s is too big of a body - I’d prefer a more compact setup.  My two biggest worries going back to Fuji - 

1. autofocus 

2. ISO performance 

is the xt5 sensor different than xt4? Is it much worse than xh2s for video and photo? 

[Django]

33 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

I won’t be using log I’ve learned. That said, the xh2s is too big of a body - I’d prefer a more compact setup.  My two biggest worries going back to Fuji - 

1. autofocus 

2. ISO performance 

is the xt5 sensor different than xt4? Is it much worse than xh2s for video and photo? 

The XT5 uses the 40MP XH2 sensor. So yeah very different sensor to the XT4. But they have reduced the size of the XT5 so that it matches the XT1. This results in some crippling for the video side due to heat management. 6.2K & 4K60p max. And it overheats pretty quickly, much more than the XT4. For this alone, I wouldn't go near it unfortunately as I do like the retro dials and form factor. But for casual use it may not be so bad. The AF is I've heard slightly better than XT4.

The sensor is nowhere near the performance of the stacked sensor inside XH2S.

[SRV1981]

13 minutes ago, Django said:

The XT5 uses the 40MP XH2 sensor. So yeah very different sensor to the XT4. But they have reduced the size of the XT5 so that it matches the XT1. This results in some crippling for the video side due to heat management. 6.2K & 4K60p max. And it overheats pretty quickly, much more than the XT4. For this alone, I wouldn't go near it unfortunately as I do like the retro dials and form factor. But for casual use it may not be so bad. The AF is I've heard slightly better than XT4.

The sensor is nowhere near the performance of the stacked sensor inside XH2S.

That is quite frustrating!  Fuji offers almost the perfect image SOOC for users like myself - non-paid enthusiasts for casual docs/travel.  I'm wondering if it goes back to previous ideas i've had of a dedicated video camera as well as camera - but what fuji camera has great AF, compact design, and doesn't overheat for photo?  And what dedicated video camera would compliment and not break the bank too much?

[ac6000cw]

50 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

is the xt5 sensor different than xt4? Is it much worse than xh2s for video and photo? 

To add to what Django has said, there is a fair amount of comment about the X-T5 video capabilities versus the competition and other Fuji cameras in the dpreview review - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t5-in-depth-review

Also, you should listen carefully to Jordan Drake's comments on video rolling shutter, crop factors and SD card stability (for video) in the video review (skip to 6:19 for the video section) - https://youtu.be/y0YSjBiKb0A?t=379

[ac6000cw]

15 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

but what fuji camera has great AF, compact design, and doesn't overheat for photo?

I don't know if Fuji offers it in your country, but in the UK it runs a free loan scheme (currently for X-H2, X-H2s and X-T5 plus various lenses) so you could try an X-T5 for 48 hours - you just pay a refundable deposit.

You keep saying that Fuji AF is bad - maybe if you said what you need the AF to do, someone might be able to suggest which cameras work best in that situation?

(e.g. for me, I almost never film people as main subjects, so human face tracking etc. is almost irrelevant to me, but bird and train subject detection and tracking is really useful as that covers probably 90% of what I film and photograph).

[Django]

46 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

That is quite frustrating!  Fuji offers almost the perfect image SOOC for users like myself - non-paid enthusiasts for casual docs/travel.  I'm wondering if it goes back to previous ideas i've had of a dedicated video camera as well as camera - but what fuji camera has great AF, compact design, and doesn't overheat for photo?  And what dedicated video camera would compliment and not break the bank too much?

For photo none of their cameras overheat and with the latest lenses, AF is pretty solid. Its really only for 10-bit video at high resolution/fps/codecs that the XT5 will give you issues. But for the casual use you're doing plus SOOC shooting it could work. At this point best bet is indeed to try and rent one and see if it works for your particular needs.

[SRV1981]

22 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

I don't know if Fuji offers it in your country, but in the UK it runs a free loan scheme (currently for X-H2, X-H2s and X-T5 plus various lenses) so you could try an X-T5 for 48 hours - you just pay a refundable deposit.

You keep saying that Fuji AF is bad - maybe if you said what you need the AF to do, someone might be able to suggest which cameras work best in that situation?

(e.g. for me, I almost never film people as main subjects, so human face tracking etc. is almost irrelevant to me, but bird and train subject detection and tracking is really useful as that covers probably 90% of what I film and photograph).

Humans, thanks!

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

That is quite frustrating!  Fuji offers almost the perfect image SOOC for users like myself - non-paid enthusiasts for casual docs/travel.  I'm wondering if it goes back to previous ideas i've had of a dedicated video camera as well as camera - but what fuji camera has great AF, compact design, and doesn't overheat for photo?  And what dedicated video camera would compliment and not break the bank too much?

Try a used Fuji XS10 with the 18-55mm f2.8/4

 

[Benjamin Hilton]

On 5/2/2023 at 10:47 AM, 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.

Yeah this is really accurate. People use the term "filmic" to describe something wide in variance. Are we talking about 1950s film, 1970s, slide photography, modern 35mm stock etc etc. I'm actually not a huge fan of the crazy 16mm filmic look that's popular right now, nor the 1970s look. I don't mind most modern 35mm stocks (Kodak 8323 and such) a whole lot, but kind of prefer a more modern clean grade overall. 

[aaa123jc]

On 5/3/2023 at 6:00 PM, hyalinejim said:

This is true for all makes of cameras. Adobe Color / Standard / Neutral levels the playing field. These profiles are supposed to be close to natural colour, from what I can tell.

The Camera Matching profiles are Adobe's emulations of the manufacturer's own profiles and are always worth checking out as they may be much nicer than the default.

And sometimes using the manufacturer's own raw converter will give slightly nicer colour (but without most of the convenience of Adobe workflow).

Yes indeed. Though from my experience, profiles of other brands (like Nikon) don't improve the images as dramatically as the fuji ones. Maybe the emulations of fuji profiles are better made? Adobe put in more effort?

On 5/3/2023 at 6:59 PM, SRV1981 said:

I won’t be using log I’ve learned. That said, the xh2s is too big of a body - I’d prefer a more compact setup.  My two biggest worries going back to Fuji - 

1. autofocus 

2. ISO performance 

is the xt5 sensor different than xt4? Is it much worse than xh2s for video and photo? 

Like Django has said, the XT5 uses a different sensor than XT4. IMO the autofocus of fuji in stills is great and usuable in video mode. Just don't expect it has Sony or Canon's level of AF. The newer models like XT5 should have better AF, if only slightly.

ISO performance is again behind Sony technically. However, the fuji usually handles noise in a more pleasing manner. Some recipes even work better in high ISO. Unless you shoot in really really high ISO, I believe its ISO performance will be good enough, especially for photos.

[hyalinejim]

8 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

profiles of other brands (like Nikon) don't improve the images as dramatically as the fuji ones. Maybe the emulations of fuji profiles are better made? Adobe put in more effort?

I think it's probably because Fuji make "better" profiles than Nikon. Adobe gets as close as they can to the manufacturers' own profiles for the Camera Matching.

In this case I imagine you're seeing better results for Fuji when switching from Adobe Color to Camera Matching because you prefer Fuji's profiles to Nikon's, just as you would presumably prefer Fuji's JPEGs and also non-log video profiles versus Nikon's.

[MrSMW]

Fuji have a huge history of making film.

Nikon do not. They make cameras.

Clever people at Fuji have taken that knowledge of making positive and negative film and crafted digital versions of that history.

Perhaps not identical digital replicas, but at least emulations that evoke something along the same lines.

The most recent ones such as ‘Classic Negative’ are not based on any particular film stock, but instead an era. Or a collective representation of an era.

The bottom line is sensor aside which ‘may’ have an impact on the result, it is more a case of their ‘intent’ and effort to produce these things that sets them apart.

With most other brands, the result tends to be more a case of that is what that sensor produces with a few digital tweaks.

The ‘same’ profiles in Photoshop applied to the Fuji raw files are not the same as those that come SOOC with Fuji Jpegs.

The results SOOC from the ‘medium format’ Fuji digital cameras are just bonkers beautiful and probably the closest thing to ‘digital film-like’ files.

If I did not shoot 50:50 stills and video on every job, I would without question be shooting a pair of GFX100S’s with a pair of primes.

Or the Hassie X2D which is also crazy good for stills. Which is fortunate as it can’t shoot video.

My rule of thumb would be:

Ultimate SOOC or raw/edited stills, either of the two above cameras.

’Film like’ stills SOOC either on their own or combined with shooting video, AKA hybrid, then any Fuji camera.

Possibly the most ‘film like’ of all, OG X100. Properly vintage user experience compared with any more recent Fuji camera is an added ‘bonus’ 😂

[Django]

Agreed. Also let's not confuse "cinematic" which has become a general buzzword today and actual film simulation which is what Fuji gives you inside its X series. 

Fuji film simulations are based on actual 35mm film stocks from their own film legacy. This isn't just a LUT as you can tweak it in-cam and even set grain size etc (albeit only in photos). These are known as Fuji recipes. For video the most usable one is Eterna based on the Eterna cinema film stock.

This is a unique in-cam approach compared to other manufacturer picture profiles which are often pretty basic if not cliché. Fuji have a clear advantage since they have actual Film heritage. 

Being able to preview these looks and tweak them while shooting is ace creatively speaking not to mention fun. SOOC baked profiles is often overlooked by most manufacturers. I'll mostly shoot log for video and RAW for stills because of this but with fuji cams SOOC film simulations is a great alternative. Definitely a major incentive of going Fuji! 

[SRV1981]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Fuji have a huge history of making film.

Nikon do not. They make cameras.

Clever people at Fuji have taken that knowledge of making positive and negative film and crafted digital versions of that history.

Perhaps not identical digital replicas, but at least emulations that evoke something along the same lines.

The most recent ones such as ‘Classic Negative’ are not based on any particular film stock, but instead an era. Or a collective representation of an era.

The bottom line is sensor aside which ‘may’ have an impact on the result, it is more a case of their ‘intent’ and effort to produce these things that sets them apart.

With most other brands, the result tends to be more a case of that is what that sensor produces with a few digital tweaks.

The ‘same’ profiles in Photoshop applied to the Fuji raw files are not the same as those that come SOOC with Fuji Jpegs.

The results SOOC from the ‘medium format’ Fuji digital cameras are just bonkers beautiful and probably the closest thing to ‘digital film-like’ files.

If I did not shoot 50:50 stills and video on every job, I would without question be shooting a pair of GFX100S’s with a pair of primes.

Or the Hassie X2D which is also crazy good for stills. Which is fortunate as it can’t shoot video.

My rule of thumb would be:

Ultimate SOOC or raw/edited stills, either of the two above cameras.

’Film like’ stills SOOC either on their own or combined with shooting video, AKA hybrid, then any Fuji camera.

Possibly the most ‘film like’ of all, OG X100. Properly vintage user experience compared with any more recent Fuji camera is an added ‘bonus’ 😂

 

3 minutes ago, Django said:

Agreed. Also let's not confuse "cinematic" which has become a general buzzword today and actual film simulation which is what Fuji gives you inside its X series. 

Fuji film simulations are based on actual 35mm film stocks from their own film legacy. This isn't just a LUT as you can tweak it in-cam and even set grain size etc (albeit only in photos). These are known as Fuji recipes. For video the most usable one is Eterna based on the Eterna cinema film stock.

This is a unique in-cam approach compared to other manufacturer picture profiles which are often pretty basic if not cliché. Fuji have a clear advantage since they have actual Film heritage. 

Being able to preview these looks and tweak them while shooting is ace creatively speaking not to mention fun. SOOC baked profiles is often overlooked by most manufacturers. I'll mostly shoot log for video and RAW for stills because of this but with fuji cams SOOC film simulations is a great alternative. Definitely a major incentive of going Fuji! 

Excellent points and reinforces my desire to shoot fuji.  The x50/100 is pricey for a non-pro like me but I will also want compact like xt30II or xe4 and will pursue those unless the upcoming Fuji event announces good successors.  And for video I may stick with fuji in the form of an xh2s or wait and think on what to do for video.

[MrSMW]

24 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

And for video I may stick with fuji in the form of an xh2s or wait and think on what to do for video

XH2s would be superb for both video AND stills.

Save the money on that second body and instead, upgrade that 18-50mm f2.8/4 (best lens for non-IBIS bodies) and go for the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 for a FF equivalent 27-105mm lens.

Or on a budget, original XH1 which is a FABULOUS camera for stills and good for video.

But as before, if size is a thing, then the XS10.

[SRV1981]

Just now, MrSMW said:

XH2s would be superb for both video AND stills.

Save the money on that second body and instead, upgrade that 18-50mm f2.8/4 (best lens for non-IBIS bodies) and go for the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 for a FF equivalent 27-105mm lens.

Or on a budget, original XH1 which is a FABULOUS camera for stills and good for video.

But as before, if size is a thing, then the XS10.

Ahh I get it.   That said, I guess i'm looking for a primary camera that can live on my shoulder and in a bag so the XH2S is too big for that daily work.  It would be a good video camera for me I think though!

Basically, I'd like to take photos that have the SOOC fuji look that's fairly compact (xt30II/xe4) and then have a dedicated "video" camera for the times I want to film things when traveling, mini docs etc.  An XS10 body would be better for that than the xh2 due to size.  Not sure you'd want to be with a partner or friends in Italy and sporting an XH2s as you go to museums, beaches, night clubs, hiking etc.  ?

[MrSMW]

XE4 is the smart persons choice over the uber-hipster X100V.

Pair it with an XS10 for light video work.

Share an 18-50mm f2.8/4 with maybe one fast prime between the two et voila, a very compact and capable compact kit.

I do not choose to, but could and would comfortably shoot a full wedding, Hybrid, with that set up without a second thought.

Longer form video I’d want something with a fan in order to avoid overheating and shutdown, but my point is the above kit is EASILY capable of high end pro results, in a small package and at a bargain price.

I shot an entire wedding season (stills only) on a single OG X100.

I wouldn’t do it today, with that camera, but an X100V? Sure, easy. I just choose not to.

[SRV1981]

1 minute ago, MrSMW said:

XE4 is the smart persons choice over the uber-hipster X100V.

Pair it with an XS10 for light video work.

Share an 18-50mm f2.8/4 with maybe one fast prime between the two et voila, a very compact and capable compact kit.

I do not choose to, but could and would comfortably shoot a full wedding, Hybrid, with that set up without a second thought.

Longer form video I’d want something with a fan in order to avoid overheating and shutdown, but my point is the above kit is EASILY capable of high end pro results, in a small package and at a bargain price.

I shot an entire wedding season (stills only) on a single OG X100.

I wouldn’t do it today, with that camera, but an X100V? Sure, easy. I just choose not to.

That's positive and inspiring!  OF course it would look better, the wedding, with an a7iv or r5 or even an xh2s, that said this is a great example of fitting the solution for the individual.  I will now be scoping those two as a good all-around enthusiast combo for photo and video for travel, documentary, personal every day carry uses, etc.  Love it!  And if I get to the point where I need longer than 10-30m clips at a time I will then look into a more appropriate video camera.  SOOC is my preferred workflow.

[ac6000cw]

A video that tries to compare the XT3, XT4, XT5, XH2 and XH2s for stills and video:

https://youtu.be/4JPoTzoXrNw

http://<iframe width="1244" height="700" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4JPoTzoXrNw" title="Which Fujifilm Camera To Get (XT3, XT4, XT5, XH2 or XH2s)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>