Taranis

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Apparently, it has the same extraordinary build quality of other Fuji lenses, superb sharpness, quiet autofocus and silly crazy optical image stabilization. B&H has some 155 customer reviews, averaging 4.5-5 stars.

Thanks, exactly what I needed to hear The price difference is huge and I think I can live without that constant f/2.8.

8 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

The focus change is pretty quick with AF-c, but I'm not using it to pull focus, for that I'd use MF and just use the back button as a backup. You can slow tings down a bit in post if you don't cut it out. As far as SS,I'm using it a lot when just shooting tourist stuff, if I want a critical shot I'll put my $$20 Hoya vari-ND (surprisingly good, got it off eBay) on the lens and keep the SS at 1/50 or 1/60.

The 50-140 is awesome, much better than the similarly priced Sony 70-200/4 and on par with CaNikon's best. I wish I could have taken it with me, but the lighter 55-200 got the nod.

Cheers

How does the 55-200 compare to the 50-140 when it comes to 4K video?

I have the SLR Magic Vari ND II, it's one of the best in it's price category. It's also a polarizer, but that part is unfortunately a pain to adjust.

17 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I suck at grading, which is why I'm so reluctant to even try shooting CineLike with the G85. I think photographic film for making prints only has around 13 stops of dynamic range, doesn't it?

Nice work, Taranis! How much dynamic range does the X-T2 have without Flog, anyhow?

Thanks. Hard to say, with Pro Neg STD -2 shadows/highlights I could get about the same DR as with the D5200 using Flaat11, there was maybe a little less color information in the darkest areas. I'd say between 10-11 stops without F-Log, but that's only my unscientific guess

6 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

I shoot mostly stills. Havent noticed any waxy skin issues. Maybe because i shoot at -4 noise reduction always?

Yeh with Flog it has about 12 stops according to cinema5d which puts it on par with the a7s ii slog3 and one stop under the c300 ii. Im hoping they add a less extreme version of Flog to the internal recorder

What do you mean by less extreme? F-LOG is pretty usable the way it is, I just tried to grade two shots provided by Oliver Nimz, his footage was posted here earlier. My grade is intentionally very close to his:

There is a little banding in the sky, otherwise I think it's fine even though it's 8bit. There is some green tint in F-LOG, but nothing you can't fix in post.

5 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Interesting tests! Looks like Fuji wins for high iso and AF. EM1 II for DR and sharpness. For me though, Fuji def takes the lead for its overall rendering (at least in those scenes - except for the portrait which I think they should have used a different profile and WB).

High ISO and AF, Fuji definately wins. Some mentioned that the Oly is sharper, the problem must be me then, when I watch the cows scene I see more detail in the X-T2 shots. And lastly DR, it's not enough to just shoot -2 shadows/highlights in pro neg std, you have to push the shadows, there's a lot of information there with less noise than what you see with the Oly at maximum DR settings. And I'm sure with F-Log the Fuji would win in DR too.

46 minutes ago, Axel said:

@Taranis

We evaluate what can be done with this footage. That's all.

And as a side effect some grades turn out to be "better" (liked by more people), than others. But I get it, I should leave it a side effect

What's happening here could be more fun if there was some kind of an app connected to this forum where you could upload a log footage and let people post their grades, and people with more than x posts could upvote the ones they like. I know, turning grading into a competition is not the best idea, but it's sort-of happening here already, so why not :D Oh, and the winner should be rewarded somehow, I haven't figured out that one yet.

6 minutes ago, MaxAperture Films said:

A little chroma noise lurking in those shadows, but looks pretty solid considering it's still pre-production and only a 150 Mb/s 10 bit codec.

Yeah, nothing you can't handle in post. While I'm not seeing a DR improvement over the GH4 (or maybe just a little), the footage seems to be completely usable.

In case anyone is interested, this is what the noise looks like when shadows are pushed:

1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

The 5d 3 in RAW is a BEAST in low light too. I need more capitalization than my keyboard can give me, that's how much of a BEAST it is  

If that thing does better (not the noise reductioned blurrs the sony fullframes give out) then I will eat my shorts and pants and hat.

You can always go larger: BEAST

Resolve 12.5.4 (Win version) won't open the 10bit files, anyone else having this problem?

Sounds good. Would "sell" better with comparisons though, but oh well.. I'll just have to give it a try.

I've been told that for long term storage it's generally better to choose low rpm drives, they are supposed to be more reliable. Most of the NAS drives are low rpm. I never cared but I thought it's worth mentioning

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

This will be short and painless. Here is a comparison between three popular lenses: the Rokinon Xeen, the Zeiss Milvus, and the Veydra mini primes, first at T4, and again at T1.5. The Rokinon holds its own at T4, but wide open it is extremely soft. 

Yes it is, but the Fujinon 35mm f/1.4 on the X-T2 could perform better in 4K. According to lenstip it has better center sharpness wide open.

Correct me if I'm wrong but when you crop in in 4K you don't use some of the light projected to the edges of the sensor. If that's true then you actually crop in to a sharper territory by leaving a part of blurry edges behind. While the cropped area has less information, it's still 5120x2880, 1.77 times the required resolution. And while I don't have a 35mm f/1.4 Fuji prime, nor a newer f/2.0 one, it's hard for me to imagine that the difference in sharpness would be THAT noticeable in 4K when using both lenses wide open. I'd love to see a test. In the end f/1.4 is all about DOF, and someone here already mentioned that it has more than enough sharpness for video when it's wide open. Maybe not for you though

On another topic: Some people mentioned that you can use the Pro Neg. STD to "emulate" F-LOG, but I did some test yesterday, and after massaging the footage in Resolve, I got about the same DR in all film emulation modes. It's only the shadow and highlight settings that do a real difference.

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

Is this relevant to video? We have an 1.17 crop and the image is downsampled to 4K. And even then who wants that ultimate sharpness in video?

Just made a quick comparison with my D5200 (using Flaat11). Wanted to see how the X-T2's DR compares with the flattest settings possible without F-log. Everything is in the description. Unfortunately it was an overcast day, but I tried to find high contrast scenes. This test is not about color.

6 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Shot at 0:40 is the standard Panasonic colour without EOSHD Pro Color though...

Do you mean the later shots (1D X Mark II and G85 with Pro Color?)

Sorry I meant the whole example starting around 0:40. Watching it again the Pro Color candle does not have the pink of the 1DX MK2, so I actually prefer the Pro Color over that. It's just that overall redness that I find a bit too much.

Good work, it looks nice! There is just one exception, the 0:40 example, it's way to red for my taste, and the pink in the candle is a bit unnatural.

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

Everyone here already knows about my idegenkedés to variable aperture zooms, but I've got a lot of time on my hands, so can you share your thoughts on how you can justify the purchase of the 16-55mm, given that it's four times more expensive, weighs a ton, etc., etc. Are you unhappy with the kit lens? Sorry, I'm bored, just want someone to talk to. ????

Haha I wish I had your time, my 1 year old daughter leaves me close to none Right now I have no reason to buy the 16-55 as I have very little experience with the kit lens, I bought it 2 weeks ago. But who doesn't love fixed aperture zooms... so I wanted to buy the ND filter for the largest lens I might buy in the future. I come from Nikon so I have no Fuji glass at all, and I want to be prepared.

20 hours ago, jonpais said:

That's why I don't like step-up rings.  You do realize the 16-55mm is a monster lens, don't you? Definitely not something you'd carry around as an all-rounder like the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. Anyhow, here's a clip I made with the Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8. I followed Max Yuryev's suggestion and raised shadows -2 and lowered highlights -1. With the flatter contrast, what appeared to be oversharpening is no longer an issue either. happy camper.

 

Yeah I see now it has more than double the weight of the kit lens. One reason the keep that too. I ended up ordering a cheap screw on lens hood, not much options for 86mm anyway. (That's the front thread size of the ND filter.)

I ordered a 77mm SLR Magic VariND II, I'll use it with a step up ring on the kit lens. I might buy the 16-55 2.8 later hence the 77mm. The problem is I can't use the lens hood this way, what would you guys use to block unwanted light in this case? I want to keep it as lightweight as possible.

7 hours ago, SuperSet said:

Looks great. Was that graded or SOOC?

 

No way that's SOOC. I just asked him if he used a film emulation. We'll see.

2 minutes ago, jonpais said:

No need to ask. He's provided the information already:

Some technical info, if you are interested:
Camera: Fujifilm X-T2
Lenses used: FUJI XF16mm F1.4, FUJI XF18-55mm F2.8-4, FUJI XF55-200mm F3.5-4.8
Film Simulation Mode: Astia Soft (i wish Fuji would implement F-Log internally)
Edited on Premiere Pro CC 2017, graded with Lumetri.

Where did you find this info? I don't see in on Vimeo.

Just found this, it's shot with the kit lens, I think it's gorgeous: