tomsemiterrific

Shot some clips with the X-T3 today using Eterna and a couple of stabilized zooms from Fuji. Not as much fun as shooting with Rokinon 1.4 lenses or FDs--and if you shoot internal 10 bit 265 you better bring a LOT of batteries.
 

Shot some clips with the X-T3 today using Eterna and a couple of stabilized zooms from Fuji. Not as much fun as shooting with Rokinon 1.4 lenses or FDs--and if you shoot internal 10 bit 265 you better bring a LOT of batteries.
 

H.265 is hardware accelerated now unlike in the NX1 days. Resolve / FCPX will handle it WAY better than Adobe does with their dated software architecture.
What GPU do you have?
Either way, transcoding to ProRes is also hardware accelerated if you have EditReady to hand.

AF test with older primes compared to X-T2. X-T3 focuses faster with less hunting, also continuous AF seems to be more confident, however the transition between close and far subjects is not butter smooth. Might be better with newer lenses.
 

I was shooting Eterna---it is a film simulation between the standard simulations and Fuji F-Log. Eterna is not, strictly speaking, a truly flat profile. F-log is what should be used on bright days like I was shooting on. It will give you a full 12 stops of dynamic range...not too shabby by any means.
The reason I didn't use F-log is because I was trying out these FD lenses for the first time and trying to properly judge exposure and dynamic range in F-log would only complicate things. I wasn't trying to demonstrate dynamic range. I was only trying to show how you can shoot non-electronic, fully manual lenses in the X-H1 because of the 3 axis internal stabilization the camera provides. If I'd been trying to do something finished and professional I would have shot more on a tripod, definitely shot in F-log, been more careful with my exposure over all, and graded things carefully in editing. But in this I was only trying to say you can get some pretty good images with a lot of character, very fast speeds, and not have to spend thousands of $$ on expensive lenses. That's why I mentioned the footage was shot on FDs...never before was possible on Fujifilm cameras. You can do the same with Rokinon cinema lenses--but they're heavier.

Actually, I was not in AWB. I never shoot AWB. My kelvin was set on 5600. That day at the zoo the light was all over the place, with varying clouds, etc. There was no hunting for white balance. The camera was recording what was there in a given situation. If I had been doing something serious I would have white balanced almost every scene. Considering the situation I might have been better off. and gotten more uniform results using AWB.

I was shooting Eterna---it is a film simulation between the standard simulations and Fuji F-Log. Eterna is not, strictly speaking, a truly flat profile. F-log is what should be used on bright days like I was shooting on. It will give you a full 12 stops of dynamic range...not too shabby by any means.
The reason I didn't use F-log is because I was trying out these FD lenses for the first time and trying to properly judge exposure and dynamic range in F-log would only complicate things. I wasn't trying to demonstrate dynamic range. I was only trying to show how you can shoot non-electronic, fully manual lenses in the X-H1 because of the 3 axis internal stabilization the camera provides. If I'd been trying to do something finished and professional I would have shot more on a tripod, definitely shot in F-log, been more careful with my exposure over all, and graded things carefully in editing. But in this I was only trying to say you can get some pretty good images with a lot of character, very fast speeds, and not have to spend thousands of $$ on expensive lenses. That's why I mentioned the footage was shot on FDs...never before was possible on Fujifilm cameras. You can do the same with Rokinon cinema lenses--but they're heavier.

Exactly. What is Pani came out with a FF camera? Would the colors be any better. Would the AF still be pure crap?!?!?
You bet your bipy the AF would suck.
I got my X-T3 yesterday--and the AF and eye AF are fantastic---no smoke and mirrors here. This camera and the technology are the Real Deal Lucile. 
The problem with the FF version (if it actually happens)is the problem with the MFT version: weird color--inferior to the Fuji---and AF that sucks to high heaven.
I just got my X-T3 yesterday and will be publishing a video in a few minutes that uses the X-T3 in a studio setting, and the eye AF and general AF is fantastic. And those Fuji colors. I really think they're better than Canon---better by a LOT!
This video is shot with the X-H1, but there is about three minutes of intro shot on the X-T3, which I just received yesterday. (I've got friends in high places).
The audio recording in the talking part was also recorded internally in the X-T3, using XLR microphones with an adapter---pretty damned clean audio if you ask me.
The zoo shots were done with the X-H1 using standard and speed booster adapters with Canon FD lenses. All zoo video is hand held.

This is the reason I moved to Fujifilm.. It's just got an organic look that people seem to respond to without knowing exactly why it is different (even from fellow videographers). It has something that can't be measured on a chart, something very human (and yea, I know that sounds fanboyish ?).

Actually, I was not in AWB. I never shoot AWB. My kelvin was set on 5600. That day at the zoo the light was all over the place, with varying clouds, etc. There was no hunting for white balance. The camera was recording what was there in a given situation. If I had been doing something serious I would have white balanced almost every scene. Considering the situation I might have been better off. and gotten more uniform results using AWB.

Exactly. What is Pani came out with a FF camera? Would the colors be any better. Would the AF still be pure crap?!?!?
You bet your bipy the AF would suck.
I got my X-T3 yesterday--and the AF and eye AF are fantastic---no smoke and mirrors here. This camera and the technology are the Real Deal Lucile. 
The problem with the FF version (if it actually happens)is the problem with the MFT version: weird color--inferior to the Fuji---and AF that sucks to high heaven.
I just got my X-T3 yesterday and will be publishing a video in a few minutes that uses the X-T3 in a studio setting, and the eye AF and general AF is fantastic. And those Fuji colors. I really think they're better than Canon---better by a LOT!
This video is shot with the X-H1, but there is about three minutes of intro shot on the X-T3, which I just received yesterday. (I've got friends in high places).
The audio recording in the talking part was also recorded internally in the X-T3, using XLR microphones with an adapter---pretty damned clean audio if you ask me.
The zoo shots were done with the X-H1 using standard and speed booster adapters with Canon FD lenses. All zoo video is hand held.

Jon, I kind of like the bokeh--similar in some instances to some of the Russian lenses--they do look busy---I like to think of them as looking Baroque, but you'd be surprised how round and beautiful the bokeh balls are in certain sunset scenes using the 85mm and 100 mm. Maybe I need to control it better, but I like the look of some of it much, much better than the antiseptic clinical look I see in modern lenses---no character, nothing mystical or artistic, and everybody's stuff looks the same. Just my 2 uneducated ¢.
Notice that the X-T3 did not hunt even once during the talking part. It performed on a par with Canon dual pixel. I tried some shots with my wife and daughter moving the AF focus/eye focus in and out and it worked better than my Canon 80D---it didn't fail in the least. The AF or the X-H1 is very good, but the AF of the X-T3 is off the charts excellent. Far better than Panasonic. 

Exactly. What is Pani came out with a FF camera? Would the colors be any better. Would the AF still be pure crap?!?!?
You bet your bipy the AF would suck.
I got my X-T3 yesterday--and the AF and eye AF are fantastic---no smoke and mirrors here. This camera and the technology are the Real Deal Lucile. 
The problem with the FF version (if it actually happens)is the problem with the MFT version: weird color--inferior to the Fuji---and AF that sucks to high heaven.
I just got my X-T3 yesterday and will be publishing a video in a few minutes that uses the X-T3 in a studio setting, and the eye AF and general AF is fantastic. And those Fuji colors. I really think they're better than Canon---better by a LOT!
This video is shot with the X-H1, but there is about three minutes of intro shot on the X-T3, which I just received yesterday. (I've got friends in high places).
The audio recording in the talking part was also recorded internally in the X-T3, using XLR microphones with an adapter---pretty damned clean audio if you ask me.
The zoo shots were done with the X-H1 using standard and speed booster adapters with Canon FD lenses. All zoo video is hand held.

Thanks for the video Tom,those Giraffes have long tongues ,would make Gene Simmons
feel inadequate.

5 days is nothing. Anyone can wait. Wait for what? An announcement or some prototype presentation for a release in 6 months? For a much different color science than Fuji? It will be hard to not resist to this 10-bit Fuji then, though : -) 

If Panasonic does a FF camera I REALLY hope they put the GH5s color science in it. It is a noticeable improvement over the GH5.
These are exciting times for video/shutterbug nerds, but especially for video.

Exactly, Jon. Jordan decided to follow his mother's advise while in Hawaii: if you have nothing good to say don't say anything at all.
But what will we hear from him once he's back in the land of polar bears and hockey players?
@Andrew Reid--
Congratulations Andrew, on your candor. IMO this roll out is, for every reason you mentioned, an EPIC FAIL---and utterly consistent with Canon's recent efforts at frustrating and disappointing their faithful---which are understandably shrinking in number.
The only video centric camera they've gotten right in recent years has been the XC15--a remarkable camera IMO. If they simply produced that style camera in APS-C with interchangeable lenses they would sell tens of thousands of them---but, alas, I'm sure there would still be some pencil neck at the top of their bureaucratic policy making food chain  who would manage to ruin it for us. 

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/26299-fuji-x-h1-new-apsc-video-oriented-camera/
latest specs sound great!
 
i remember that shootout.. so unscientific with different lenses on each body.. and such weird "test shots" .. brown foliage, a baby & fruit lol.. 
anyways Fuji came in 4th btw.. Pentax 8th.. it's all pretty subjective though (aside from iPhone lol)
as a recent Fuji convert (XT2) after spending years on Canikon i must say i'm very satisfied with the Fuji X experience & results both in stills & video.
what sets Fuji X apart are 2 things: X-trans sensor which eliminates chroma noise and gives a more filmic luma noise at high ISO & the film simulations which make use of Fuji's extensive knowledge in film color science. their AWB is also second to none, nailing even the most difficult mixed light situations.
 

Hi, good job, but the problem are the highlights in the clouds. These are extremely overexposed.
1. Profile XR
2. Profile XR with your Highlight-LUT
3. Profile XR with your Highlight-LUT+0 highlights in post production
 

bmcc 2.5k mft mount version will fall even more once bmpcc2 is out. best starter cam for testing out blackmagic color science. put some vmount battery to it and some molltone for shading the monitor and you are set:) I imagine a bmccameras 2.5k with cage and ssd can be found on ebay soon for less than 500usd.

Try ARRI and it will blow you away then. :D

But indeed. Blackmagic color science is great. Put a curve after the REC709 over it and you're good.

The color science is great, a lot of blackmagic footage online is poorly graded or with a bad color balance.
It s good out of the box, with only two main options rec 709 or film if you plan to post produce the shoots, its not like sony where you have a lot of profiles but none are great.

BMD color science has evolved as i believe they were advertising "Color Science 4.0" or something during their launch event.
It's worthy to note they use differently sourced sensors on just about every cam & have had color cast issues with certain sensor batches.
In the end color science isn't really an issue since BMD users mostly shoot Film/Log or Raw and go nuts in DaVinci which is highly optimized for their cams.

I don't think so. I am "struggling with grading skills", but therefore I look forward to getting the BMPCC4k with it's new, improved color science. Because I do love beautiful colors. Take this old Ursa 4k wedding (12 stops DR, shot mostly in 1080 ProRes 60p,  basic CC and a popular BM LUT):
 

@Axel Fair enough. I did say unless you're eager to learn grading. 
But yes, you can do nice things with simple grades too, nice one for sharing that video.