Yurolov

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W06cc9PB49M

wtf lol - thats a weird way to advertise your new camera just saying fuji. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaAJ0FWlNrw

This one looks good though.

56 minutes ago, leeys said:

In this case, Canon gave him money and the camera. 

That's your assumption unless you can provide a link :). Actually before he switched he had a try of the GH5s and I guess it wasn't to his liking. The fact that he didn't promote the 6d makes me think he wasn't paid, but I could be wrong.

Does anyone know what the specs are for HDMI out? Haven't seen them listed anywhere.  

Not sure what your post is meant to mean but just to clarify the autofocus section - I am not saying cinema cameras should have autofocus. In consumer cameras, it is more important to have autofocus than 10 bit because of their intended use. Just like Casey Nesitat left the GH5 for the Canon 6d Mark II (which is much worse than the XH-1), so too will others for the XH-1 because it will give you the things you need at this level - not at the cinema level. If I am doing cinema, I will not choose the 10 bit GH5, and indeed nobody seriously has.  

That's why the XH-1 is better placed in the market to dominate than the other cameras out there. I sued to own a a6500 and I have heard so many people who owned it complain about the things that Fuji has an answer to. It is really a no brainer. 

10 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@Yurolov does the footage I sent you look like a consumer camera ? And yes that is exactly what  im saying. The cinema camera SLOG will intercut with the consumer SLOG. You ever see an A - B side by side test in a theatre ? No. Plenty of movies have even thrown in Gopro footage for certain shots and the audience will not notice. And I find it funny that people like you talk real loud on these forums with no footage and real world experience to support any of your claims. I have plenty real world experience and probably graded more footage than you have shot. I am currently shooting in 14bit with a Canon 5D mark iii and im telling you your 8 bit gripes really aint that serious

The audience will not notice and we are playing ourselves if we think we do. The movie Tangerine was shot on an iPhone and became a hit on Netflix. 8 bit,10bit, 12 & 14 bit at the end of the day the consumer only cares about the aesthetic and for those that have actually been in a high end theatre for a screening knows that most modern day footage looks good on it. Wasn’t it Philip Bloom who DP’d Red Tails which was shot with a stock canon 5d mark iii / mark ii ? It looked amazing on the big screen so it blows  me away when I hear how these 8 bit cameras and this format that has been widely used for years is suddenly this dinosaur people are making it out to be. I am tired of talking about these things on forums because it is now becoming useless to my personal education and development of my own work.

anyway that Fuji color science has been sought after and emulated by so many. I just payed $100 for some Mastin Labs presets that claim its modelled after real Fuji 400h film. Filmconvert has a bunch of LUTs for Fuji as does visioncolor. So I ask myself why not just buy a fuji camera and then here comes the x-h1 in all its glory giving us real Fuji color from a 14bit sensor. Idk how people aren’t seeing how great this can be ?

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Your statement might have been true hell even 5, 6 years ago. There were huge differences between Cine and consumer cameras. Today other than Raw on the top end stuff, and now we can do that with a 4 year old Canon DSLR, the output in 1080p, even 4k is to the average person that watches is pretty minimal. It is because the Codec's have gotten Way better on them.

Yeah I will admit 8 bit is a little week, but that is all the Canon C500, C300, 1DC shot internal.  I would call those cameras Cine cameras. Big thing is they had great Codecs. Guess what a Panny GH5 has a great Codec and 10 bit internal. So I guess it is a Cine camera for hell, 1650 bucks brand new open box. A Sony a7s in Slog 2 I would argue can look like a Cine camera. Plenty of indie stuff done with them.

I would bet good money any of these good DP's of this era could make a feature movie with a lot of these cameras out today other than what Arikhan said, "heavy keying, VFX, extreme grading etc." Yeah we aren't doing green screen with a A6300 or a Transformers movie VFX, but for a lot of it I bet it could be done and parts of it is.

You don't really think they are putting Arri Alexa's in those cars that crash, or buildings that blow up. So they are intermixing what you call shit cameras in with "Cine" cameras and you probably can't tell the difference unless you edited it. Times have changed in the "consumer" industry and damn fast. If I was making these high end cameras I would be worried as hell from them. They are Not that far off now let along 3 years from now. I realize most are made by the same company but thy are not going to be able to get 60,000 dollars from them when you can buy a Sony A7s mk V for 3,200 dollars maybe 3 years from now. IF they put Raw in these cameras, game over. Now I know they are not putting Raw in a camera as thin as a Sony a7 series, but they are allowed to make them a little bigger.

I think there is a bit of confusion here. I am arguing for the xh-1 over other consumer cameras like the gh5 and the a6500 on the basis that people who are purchasing these products will experience no discernible difference between the 8 bit and 10 bit codec, which is something you appear to be confirming. 

I didn't say 8 bit is not enough, but if you are going to produce a movie and if you have a decent amount of financial backing, then there is no discernible reason to choose an 8 bit camera, short of aesthetics, and certainly none for high-paying client work, which is more exacting.

For the purposes these cameras will be used, which does not mean they are not good enough for cinema, the 8 bit or 10 bit is really irrelevant. In fact, if I have great Fuji color SOC then why would I need 10 bit to get it to the same end point, except for some unique situations where I have missed exposure. More important is autofocus and good color. That's partly why canon outsells anyone.  

8 bit cameras can be used in cinema but in practicality they won't be. Tangerine was shot on an iphone. But the director has just followed it up with Florida Project, which had a bigger production value and was shot on an Arri. 

Last year, the winner of the Golden Lion at Venice, the woman who left, was shot on a as7ii and in 2012 the winner pieta was shot on a 5d mark ii. It is possible in indie narrative work, but given the choice people will pick the raw cinema camera, because there are distinct advantages and it does look better. There is no question about it, and it isn't just that one is raw and the other is 8 bit - there are many more factors as you know.

So I am saying at this level the xh-1 is the most appealing, and will be more appealing to a wider audience than the gh5 or a6500 if the color and the autofocus are as good as the rumours are saying. Face detect autofocus coupled with ibis - it's the only camera on market that would do that. Think about the possibilities with that combo and with the fuji colors. 10 bit on a small m4/3 camera pales in comparison. 

If I am using my cinema camera I don't need this, but for these types of cameras and for their intended use, the fuji wins hands down, and I think this will be reflected in the sales numbers if they can market it properly.      

59 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@Yurolov I can't speak about Slog, since I've never shot with a Sony camera. But to say that Fuji, Sony and Panasonic are not designed with filmmakers in mind, or that 8-bit is no different from 10-bit - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But yeah, face detect AF makes all the other video-centric features on these other cameras completely redundant. Since when have you seen face detect AF in a theatrical release? Your comments don't hold up,  just leave it alone, okay?

You didnt read my post properly - I said that at the level these cameras are at there is no real difference between 10bit and 8bit as the people using them won't see any discernible difference, and I can point you to numerous example of this on youtube. I didn't say that there is no difference between 8 bit and 10 bit. The sort of people using these consumer cameras are more willing to focus on (pardon the pun) is autofocus. I never said cinema cameras should have autofocus.

Of course you can say, but I use 10 bit and know how to use it - but then again neither are you shooting cinema. Because anyone shooting cinema isn't using these cameras.   

33 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

I love these often regurgitated and equally misunderstood forum talking points @Yurolov

SLOG was designed for 8 bit 10 bit and 12 code values cameras so any camera that shoots SLOG can be intercut between eachother. Is it a mystery as per why they have a xavc-s & xavc-L codec ? This falls in line with how they planned on implementing SLOG into ALL of their cameras. This is why these people have engineering degrees and we don’t. They think ahead.

slog was not designed for only cinema cameras it just premiered on cinema cameras first. Its the same as CLOG. These log profile all map your exposure to a specific code value that a LUT later decodes and maps to a rec709 color space. (Soon maybe the camera manufacturers will create LUT’s to output to rec2020 etc.)

I’ve heard hollywood dp’s namely William Wages ASC say himself that cinema cameras are just the industries stubborness and unwillingness to let go of bigger cameras and old standards. He says he personally shoots with a GH4 and has intercut with varicam footage and pulled it up for the audience to see. Your argument is null and void and im sure you dont even have your own footage to support your claims of 8bit & 10bit implementations in “consumer cameras” are worthless. Have you even worked with a cinema camera before ?

I also forgot to mention that I use SLOG3 on a Sony A6500. When you know how to grade you don’t complain about things like how wide color spaces like SGAMUT look straight out of camera on your rec709 display. Noob

 

Ok, so you are saying slog 2 from their cinema camera range intercuts with the a6500 then? I just want to make sure I understand your argument here, cause that's what you said. I have owned the a6500 and I know what slog does to the camera. I also own cinema cameras and understand the difference between the two. To suggest that the difference between the two is stubbornness on the part of the end user is quite funny.

And you can grade the a6500 as much as you want, it will still look like the consumer camera that it is.

6 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

how does this make sense ? SLOG is designed for Sony sensors you know....the same way umm FLOG is designed for Fuji.When you start using words like "better" when comparing unreleased cameras to what people have shot and tested it makes me wonder what you are basing this evidence on. It sounds more so like your really hoping its better than Sony cameras when in reality it doesn't matter. Does it produce a good image should be the question. 

Slog was designed for their cinema camera range and slapped into these consumer cameras, which is why you will get some pretty funky colors SOC if you use the profiles and why many people eschew them. Can they be graded? Sure. But are they designed for these cameras - definitely not. Why do you think no one uses slog3 - if it was intended for their alpha range, don't you think it would be useable? Flog was designed around the xt-2 and the sensor.

I don't need to make assumptions as I have owned the sony cameras which I sold for the fuji, so I know it will have better IQ period. 

The 8 bit v 10 bit argument is redundant at the level these cameras are playing at - none of them are cinema cameras nor are they designed to be. If you are going to be shooting for cinema you won't be using these cameras. For their intended purpose, having 10 bit v 8 bit is so minuscule that it is more down to user competency. If this thing has face detect autofocus in video mode as they are saying, a la canon, then that will be a lot more important than anything even the panasonic cameras have managed.      

You can do it, but is it worthwhile doing it? Not an expert here, but slog sgamut does some funky things to the colors in the Alpha cameras. Clog on the other hand is effective on an 8 bit camera. True you might save in clipping but what are the tradeoffs in most circumstances. 

Flog will be native to the sensor so the image quality should be leagues ahead of the a6500, 10 bit or not. Then there is the better ergonomics, the lenses and the price point. I think this should directly compete with the GH5 and is much better than anything Sony has offered up.