dgbarar

Why?  I have version 6 on my X-H2S that I use to video birds.The tracking AF for video in version 6 does not work any better than subject detect in the previous firmware.  In fact, I find it to be a PITA.  With my eye to eyecup I have to use the joystick to select the subject.  Version 6 still loses the tracked subject and goes OOF.  Why?  Because it is essentially the same autofocus algorithm that does not work well for subject detect.
These folks have had years to perfect their phase detect autofocus and two years with the X-H2S.  But it is still the lack of video autofocus performance we have come to expect from FujiFilm.  Not certain why this is the case.  Is it lack of technical skill from the autofocus team?  If it is, then they should be terminated.  Maybe there are issues with X-Trans and this is the best they can do.  If that's the case this is a management issue.  All I can tell you is that Fuji is yet to figure out video autofocus.  At this time there should be no more excuses.

Hi Gems:
Skip the variable ND filters as they are basically polarizing filters.  It won't matter how much you pay, they will always end up looking bad.  If your clip is static and using a longer lens then you might be OK.  However, if you are using a wider lens and you pan, then the sky will vary in darkness as you pan--it looks awful.  In fact, you might even see the darkened band of polarized light running across the sky even if you don't pan with a wider lens.
To the fairest,
Eris

I am eagerly awaiting a m43 camera with phase detect autofocus from Panasonic--a GH6s or GH7.   If the autofocus works well, then I will ditch my X-H2S that is a major disappointment with respect to video autofocus.

Hi All:
I decided to bite the bullet and upgrade to firmware version 3.0.  I am delighted to report that communications with the RS2 did not change as a result of this firmware.
As for for video auto focus, I took 8 clips at 60 FPS of ring tail doves against trees denuded of leaves.  Of these 8 clips, only 1 was out of focus.  Balance were sharp.
I also took 4 clips at 120 FPS.  Three of them were of ring tail doves against the same denuded trees.  All three clips were in-focus.  The fourth clip was of grackle in the same de-nuded trees.  Because there was more contrast between the bird and trees I expected that this clip would remain in focus.  It did not.  That was a disappointment.
More testing is required.  But my first impression was the video autofocus for version 3.0 is an improvement over 2.1.  However, FujiFilm still needs to continue to make improvements.  I look forward to the next update.
Don
 

Hi All:
I decided to bite the bullet and upgrade to firmware version 3.0.  I am delighted to report that communications with the RS2 did not change as a result of this firmware.
As for for video auto focus, I took 8 clips at 60 FPS of ring tail doves against trees denuded of leaves.  Of these 8 clips, only 1 was out of focus.  Balance were sharp.
I also took 4 clips at 120 FPS.  Three of them were of ring tail doves against the same denuded trees.  All three clips were in-focus.  The fourth clip was of grackle in the same de-nuded trees.  Because there was more contrast between the bird and trees I expected that this clip would remain in focus.  It did not.  That was a disappointment.
More testing is required.  But my first impression was the video autofocus for version 3.0 is an improvement over 2.1.  However, FujiFilm still needs to continue to make improvements.  I look forward to the next update.
Don
 

Hi All:
I decided to bite the bullet and upgrade to firmware version 3.0.  I am delighted to report that communications with the RS2 did not change as a result of this firmware.
As for for video auto focus, I took 8 clips at 60 FPS of ring tail doves against trees denuded of leaves.  Of these 8 clips, only 1 was out of focus.  Balance were sharp.
I also took 4 clips at 120 FPS.  Three of them were of ring tail doves against the same denuded trees.  All three clips were in-focus.  The fourth clip was of grackle in the same de-nuded trees.  Because there was more contrast between the bird and trees I expected that this clip would remain in focus.  It did not.  That was a disappointment.
More testing is required.  But my first impression was the video autofocus for version 3.0 is an improvement over 2.1.  However, FujiFilm still needs to continue to make improvements.  I look forward to the next update.
Don
 

This might be a little off topic and it may or may not help others using FCPX.   Never transcode your H265 files to Proress 422 before importing into FCPX.  Allow, FCPX to generate optimized files upon importing.  The optimized files are ProRes 422.  Do your editing.  Once you have completed your project, delete the optimized media and you will be left with a smaller project file that only has the H265 media.  If you ever need to edit your project, allow FCPX to again generate the optimized media.
Hope this might be of help to others.
Don

Dear EphariamP:
You stated the following in your post:
"Sorry, but you are wrong here. 62,984,828 people voted for Trump, vs 65,853,514 for Clinton, so nearly 3 million more voted for Clinton. Why isn't SHE president? Thank our regressive electoral college system put in place by aristocratic southern slaveholders."
You do not understand the origins of the US Constitution.  During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 one of the biggest hurdles to overcome was that the small states were concerned about being dominated by the large states.  To get agreement amongst the 13 states they agreed to the following:
Bicarmal legislature with the lower house (House of Representatives) to be proportional to the population and an upper house (Senate) where each state would have two senators. That the President would be determined by the majority of electors.  With each state having a number of electors equal to the number of members in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. You made the statement that our "electoral college systems was put in place by aristocratic southern slave owners".  But who were the large states of the day: New York(non-slave), Pennsylvania(non-slave), Massachusetts (non-slave), Virginia(slave), and  North Carolina(slave).  And the small states were: New Jersey (non-slave), Connecticut (non-slave), Rhode Island (non-slave), Vermont (non-slave), and Maine (non-slave).
As you can see, it was the small, non-slave states that wanted what has become known as the Connecticut or the Great Compromise not the "aristocratic southern slaveholders" as you asserted.
When you make statements like this it important to get your facts correct.
Let the revisionists begin with their flaming and possible banning from the this site.  Regardless, I don't care. Just want to make sure that the history is correct.
Sincerely,
Don

Dear EphariamP:
You stated the following in your post:
"Sorry, but you are wrong here. 62,984,828 people voted for Trump, vs 65,853,514 for Clinton, so nearly 3 million more voted for Clinton. Why isn't SHE president? Thank our regressive electoral college system put in place by aristocratic southern slaveholders."
You do not understand the origins of the US Constitution.  During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 one of the biggest hurdles to overcome was that the small states were concerned about being dominated by the large states.  To get agreement amongst the 13 states they agreed to the following:
Bicarmal legislature with the lower house (House of Representatives) to be proportional to the population and an upper house (Senate) where each state would have two senators. That the President would be determined by the majority of electors.  With each state having a number of electors equal to the number of members in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. You made the statement that our "electoral college systems was put in place by aristocratic southern slave owners".  But who were the large states of the day: New York(non-slave), Pennsylvania(non-slave), Massachusetts (non-slave), Virginia(slave), and  North Carolina(slave).  And the small states were: New Jersey (non-slave), Connecticut (non-slave), Rhode Island (non-slave), Vermont (non-slave), and Maine (non-slave).
As you can see, it was the small, non-slave states that wanted what has become known as the Connecticut or the Great Compromise not the "aristocratic southern slaveholders" as you asserted.
When you make statements like this it important to get your facts correct.
Let the revisionists begin with their flaming and possible banning from the this site.  Regardless, I don't care. Just want to make sure that the history is correct.
Sincerely,
Don

Dear EphariamP:
You stated the following in your post:
"Sorry, but you are wrong here. 62,984,828 people voted for Trump, vs 65,853,514 for Clinton, so nearly 3 million more voted for Clinton. Why isn't SHE president? Thank our regressive electoral college system put in place by aristocratic southern slaveholders."
You do not understand the origins of the US Constitution.  During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 one of the biggest hurdles to overcome was that the small states were concerned about being dominated by the large states.  To get agreement amongst the 13 states they agreed to the following:
Bicarmal legislature with the lower house (House of Representatives) to be proportional to the population and an upper house (Senate) where each state would have two senators. That the President would be determined by the majority of electors.  With each state having a number of electors equal to the number of members in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. You made the statement that our "electoral college systems was put in place by aristocratic southern slave owners".  But who were the large states of the day: New York(non-slave), Pennsylvania(non-slave), Massachusetts (non-slave), Virginia(slave), and  North Carolina(slave).  And the small states were: New Jersey (non-slave), Connecticut (non-slave), Rhode Island (non-slave), Vermont (non-slave), and Maine (non-slave).
As you can see, it was the small, non-slave states that wanted what has become known as the Connecticut or the Great Compromise not the "aristocratic southern slaveholders" as you asserted.
When you make statements like this it important to get your facts correct.
Let the revisionists begin with their flaming and possible banning from the this site.  Regardless, I don't care. Just want to make sure that the history is correct.
Sincerely,
Don

Answers to your questions
There is about 2/3 - 1 stop improvement in dynamic range with HLG over Flog.
I am unable to tell if there is a difference in highlight rolloff.
Difference in noise?  I usually shoot at isos above base.  So I am unable to comment if there is a difference in noise.
One other thing about shooting HLG on the X-T3.  I am less prone to getting some unusual magenta casts in highlights with HLG.  The disadvantage of HLG is that you must record H265 and one has to transcode the footage to improve editability.
Don Barar
 

Answers to your questions
There is about 2/3 - 1 stop improvement in dynamic range with HLG over Flog.
I am unable to tell if there is a difference in highlight rolloff.
Difference in noise?  I usually shoot at isos above base.  So I am unable to comment if there is a difference in noise.
One other thing about shooting HLG on the X-T3.  I am less prone to getting some unusual magenta casts in highlights with HLG.  The disadvantage of HLG is that you must record H265 and one has to transcode the footage to improve editability.
Don Barar
 

Hi AL:
Thank your your help.  It made me think more about what is going on with the Smooth Track settings and the interaction with the trigger.  To solve my problem I did the following:
Set up a custom profile for User 2 Smooth Track Settings Speed High Deadband low (I have mine set at 10) Sensitivity High Now when I rotate my body (and trigger not depressed) the Ronin S maintains it position relative to my body and allowing me to create my pan.
Thank you again for your input.
Don