Jay60p

On 10/16/2020 at 9:31 AM, Kisaha said:

Yes, thank you, but where is it?!

They have to act fast, most people in business I know will get a Canon from now, till Christmas. Canon will "dominate" the video market again.

It has been at least 2 years since the XH1, it wasn't a huge success, I thought they learned by that release, "smaller" companies have to do a couple of right moves to put them ahead the curve, BM does alright, Fuji had a few nice releases lately, but they have to be pro active, and get ahead.

Also, they need some better "video" lenses, less breathing, some kind of parfocalness, I.S on hybrid lenses (a better 16-70mm 4f, this one is a very expensive dissapointment), the excellent 10-24 on a newer version, e.t.c

Their ecosystem is 95% photocentric right now, and do not tell me about their 2 manual MK lenses, they are nice, but not enough, and certainly not up to what we expect in 2020-2021.

according to this interview

(https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/09/04/fujifilm-interview-covid-gfx-strategy-shrinking-ibis-300K-cycle-shutter)

X-H2 will come with "some sort of breakthrough", "something more revolutionary".

Possibly global shutter? oversampled 6K60? AI boosted AF?

Since they appear to be very ambitious for the X-H2, I am willing to wait. X-T3 is still all I need now.

There are two Fuji choices right now for $999 (B&H information):

X-T3 : for Video:  4K60p 10bit internal, no IBIS. (reduced from $1500)

X-S10: for video: 4K30p 8bit internal, with IBIS.

I would recommend the X-T3.

I am happy with the video stabilization in Final Cut Pro, very adjustable with less "wobble" than IBIS.

On 9/17/2020 at 12:27 PM, tupp said:

Using a speedbooster or focal reducer can allow the qualities of the larger format optics to be captured on a smaller format.

This hadn't occurred to me. I had to check this out.

So do my Full Frame Nikkor zooms show the shallower FF DOF on my Fuji X-T3 after mounting
on the Zhongyi Turbo II speed booster? I finally shot some tests and yes, they do.

So, no need to switch from APS-C or MFT to a new Full Frame camera to get the same shallower depth of field from your FF lenses, if you need it.

There are several good speed boosters (dumb or smart) that mount FF lenses with the added bonus of boosting light level by one stop, which you could use to reduce your ISO setting by half.

Myself, I use the speedbooster for the wider angle view rather than DOF. Simply stopping down one stop brings your DOF back to the deeper APS-C equivalent.

(As always my posts are for the newer users here like myself. I’ve used 35mm Kodachrome and
Bolex 16mm starting forty years ago, but I only started playing with a digital mirrorless recently.)

15 hours ago, Jay60p said:

Those quick tests were with the 10-24 zoom on continuous auto focus.

I just noticed that auto focus affects the auto ISO smoothness at 60p.

Switching to manual focus and viewing the auto ISO in viewfinder shows a smooth auto ISO exposure change at 4K DCI 200mbps HEVC 60p...

Actually, no. It's smooth in the viewfinder until you start recording the shot, then the intermittent auto ISO returns in 4k60. The pauses come at about one stop adjustment at a time, so not a problem at small exposure changes.

2K60 and 4k24, 4k30 are fine, no more ISO stepping even over a 5 stop ISO adjustment.

If you are shooting with manual SLR zooms that are not constant aperture, the auto ISO will adjust the exposure for you smoothly as you zoom, at medium to slow speeds. Auto ISO response will lag behind fast zooms.

1 hour ago, Jay60p said:

So 30p looks completely smooth, 60p improved but not completely smooth, in my X-T3.

Those quick tests were with the 10-24 zoom on continuous auto focus.

I just noticed that auto focus affects the auto ISO smoothness at 60p.

Switching to manual focus and viewing the auto ISO in viewfinder shows a smooth auto ISO exposure change at 4K DCI 200mbps HEVC 60p.

Thank you Fuji.

7 hours ago, jpleong said:

The recent stepping fix worked across my Fujifilm cameras (X-T2, X-T3, and X-H1).

It DOES NOT solve the fixed-aperture stepping-artifact (I say artifact because it's not actually stepping) whilst zooming. I tested with both the XF 18-55mm and XF 55-200mm.

That’s because zooms cause aperture stepping even on manual aperture, which is not smoothed in this firmware update. (Except for 18-55 which did not step when the aperture was wide open.)

I installed the update and did a few pans from a window view to an indoor view which showed very smooth auto ISO at 30fps. Every frame shows a change in video scopes luma so there is no stepping. Fixed!

However, at 60fps I get pauses during the auto ISO, it adjusts smoothly for about 30 frames, then pauses for about 35 frames, then adjusts some more for 30 frames and continues intermittently like that until the ISO is fully adjusted. Do you see the same?

So 30p looks completely smooth, 60p improved but not completely smooth, in my X-T3.

On 9/20/2020 at 5:29 AM, Anaconda_ said:

According to Fuji Rumors, this update also gives:

No more exposure stepping in either Auto ISO or Aperture priority.

I haven’t installed it yet, but-

This is really REALLY excellent news.

This new smooth auto exposure (ISO) solves my biggest problem with Fuji video.

Auto ISO allows panning from sunlit areas to shadow, doing interior walk-throughs with changing available window light, and any uncontrolled situation where you don’t know how the light will shift during a shot. Which is often the case in run & gun video. Having to set a manual exposure is no longer necessary full time to avoid the flickering exposure stepping. You have a choice.

Here is how it looks in the X-H1
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYyrEd4vhqi-01AIlmc3DKQ/videos

(I have been waiting to see if there were any reports of firmware update problems,
so far have not seen any.  There had been a problem with an update for X-T3 last
year which increased the auto focus hunting/pulsing when stopped down to f/8 or more.
That was fixed in a later update, but it took half a year?)

Auto aperture is still stepping, but I much prefer setting an aperture for depth of field,

and let the ISO go on auto.

5 hours ago, noone said:

In camera correction is not necessarily a bad thing as it means they can make lenses better in other areas (or cheaper or both).

Yes, it is a very good thing in the Fuji lenses. That's why I was asking about third party lenses, if they don't get corrections that puts them at a disadvantage.

And I wonder where a particular lens's correction information is stored, in the lens firmware or the camera firmware? Just curious.

A few thoughts on this topic:

1) I would have expected this equivalency theory would have been tested more reliably by still photographers at the numerous

photography forums long ago. They use a much wider range of format sizes than the video people here at EOSHD.

If not, it could be there is just too many variables to control, or no consensus on the methods to use.

2)  I would suggest using a 4x5 sheet film camera (8x10 is at $15 a shot!) and limit the test to manual lenses.

Mount all lenses on a 4x5 lens board and take a 4x5 shot for each, to be scanned for viewing.

This way the camera does not change, the sensor does not change, no digital transformations are done in camera.

The different lenses would have different size image circles in the 4x5s, so would be of different resolutions,

but that should not effect the depth of field comparisons much.

21 hours ago, tupp said:

A good focal reducer will transfer most of the FF resolution and the lens character to the smaller format.

I did look at the SLR primes with the Turbo II speedbooster. It shrinks the first fringing seen, but it includes more of the edges of the

image circle, with more CA, so overall the fringing looked the same. It really is not a big problem, in video it will never be noticed unless

you look for it, it's more of a problem in still photos.  I use these SLR primes for stop-motion and time lapse, where you don't want any

communication with the camera that changes the lens settings.

Here is a review of my favorite Fuji lens that includes comments on the in-camera corrections (CA, vignetting, distortion) for anyone

unfamiliar with this: https://opticallimits.com/fuji_x/887-fuji1024f4ois?start=1

My question is, what about the third party lenses? Do the mirrorless cameras generally apply in-camera corrections to

Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, that come in their lens mounts?

6 hours ago, tupp said:

Of course, the Kipon APS-C lens looks softer and more mushy wide open, with the 8"x10" lens exhibiting more resolving power and a crisp image.  Also, the plane of focus with the 8"x10" lens seems more solid and well defined than that of the APS-C lens.  The APS-C lens additionally suffers from chromatic aberration (remember, Caldwell confirmed that lenses for smaller formats are more prone to aberrations).

I think that these differences between these two lenses are common to most lenses made for lager and smaller formats, and that the such results will largely be consistent in any proper DOF/format comparisons that might follow.

There is another factor with the new digital cameras which will complicate DOF/format test results.

My Fuji X-T3 recognizes specific Fuji lenses and automatically corrects aberrations for those lenses in camera.

I have FF Canon, Takumar, Minolta 35mm prime lenses with dumb adapters, and none of them are as sharp and clean as the two APS-C Fuji zoom lenses I use. The Fuji zooms don't show color fringing. My FF 35mm primes and Nikon F zooms do (on very close examination).

For all us older fellows who spent years shooting Kodachrome 135 slides, full frame is what
we used. Anything smaller was grainier and softer. So I think FF has an immediate attraction due
to so much of our personal photo history from the 1960’s to the 2000’s.

But now the smaller digital formats have higher performance in video, years sooner than the larger formats, since smaller sensors are faster. And cheaper.

Fuji will be coming with a new generation of APS-C (XH-2?) which may once again jump way ahead of the new FF, since Fuji does not need to hold back on specs to protect a FF line. Hopefully Panasonic will do the same with GH6 and not skimp on high video performance due to S5.

Note: I just saw a post elsewhere that had pie chart showing FF was about 10% of market vs. APS-C being about 90%, 2018-2019.  FF may be growing but it looks like it's not about to dominate the market for quite a while yet, if ever.

On 9/15/2020 at 3:05 PM, Jay60p said:

Yeah, I put off installing new firmware for a month or two, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes.

Speak of the Devil...

X-T3 Firmware update

Version: 3.30

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/support/download/firmware/cameras/x-t3/

"Very dangerous... you go first."

Yeah, I put off installing new firmware for a month or two, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes.

Good to hear a happy ending!

On 9/12/2020 at 3:43 AM, tupp said:

The DOF on a Super 16mm camera can be made to "mathematically" match the DOF on an 8"x10" camera, but they will not look the same.  Furthermore, in the same scenario, the rate and manner in which the DOF "rolls off" will differ between those two different formats.

To test this you could use:

standard 16mm, Bolex (Kern Paillard 10mm at f/1.8

4/3rds, 17mm at f/3.2

APS-C (Nikon DX), 22mm at f/4

Full Frame, 34mm at f/6.3

8x10, 256mm at f/45

The 16mm would have to be wide open and the 8x10 would have to be completely stopped down (my 8x10 270mm is f/4.4 - 45)

This is according to this calculator:

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"f":13,"av":"8","fl":50,"d":3048,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}

Damn it you’ve got me doing it now!
Like Oliver Hardy and his taxi driver getting involved in Stan Laurel’s jigsaw puzzle,
and they miss his wedding ceremony…

I don't recall having that happen, tried changing some things but those settings haven't greyed out.

Is this a new camera?

I think the biggest drawback for larger sensors is they have always been a few years behind the smaller sensors in performance, at least in mirrorless hybrids.

My most important spec is 4k60p. Fuji had it in 10 bit HEVC two years ago.  The FF Sony & Canon 10bit took two years to catch up & match it. And they are still nowhere near the $1500 the X-T3 was. Panasonic's GH5 4K60p also looks great from two years ago, I still have MP4 samples I downloaded late 2018 that look indistinguishable from FF 4k60p.

It used to be in the old film days that a doubled increase in format size gave a doubled increase in resolution. So when I first heard DSLRs were about to go full frame I thought, Great!  But, in digital it's not that simple. Video UHD is still 3840 x 2160 no matter the sensor size.

The other major drawback is price - this from Wikipedia...

"Production costs for a full-frame sensor can exceed twenty times the costs for an APS-C sensor. Only 20 full-frame sensors will fit on an 8-inch (200 mm) silicon wafer, and yield is comparatively low because the sensor's large area makes it very vulnerable to contaminants—20 evenly distributed defects could theoretically ruin an entire wafer."

8 hours ago, noone said:

It is not just "theory".   

A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter the format but if you are multiplying the focal length to get an equivalent focal length, you should ALSO multiply the f stop.....if for some god forsaken reason you actually wanted to shoot two cameras with different size sensors alongside each other (and everything else was equal), you would need (aprox) a f1 lens on a 1 inch sensor camera, a 1.4 lens on a M43 camera, a f2 lens on an APSC sensor camera and a 2.8 lens on a FF sensor and a f4 lens on MF (though MF sensor size varies).

OK, I was not familiar with the Equivalency Debates so I found this all quite confusing.

I found Wikipedia to be even more confusing. But then I found this excellent article:

https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso  that begins -

"I know, I know. After the 2012-2017 Great Equivalence War, photographers everywhere agreed never to utter that word again. Nasim’s famous quote, “Everyone is right, everyone is wrong,” has been etched both into the peace treaty and into the hearts of millions. However..."

So "aperture equivalence" is about matching depth-of-field between formats, not brightness or exposure.

And about the FF F/2 and aps-c f/1.4 :

15 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

...there is a 28-70mm f/2 lens available for FF now (which would be require a 18-46mm f/1.4 for a comparable aps-c lens).

that is also about matching depth of field (to the shallow side).

So FF has an advantage if you are generally trying to throw the background out of focus, which is the current fashion no doubt about it. (Which seems to be about getting a "Hollywood" cinematic look?)

But if you want as much of your field of view and the people in it in sharp focus (like I do), then shorter focal lengths on smaller sensors have an advantage. Which is why I for one don't need FF.

6 minutes ago, David Bowgett said:

The overall amount of light coming through the lens wouldn't change, but you lose a stop in terms of depth-of-field, and generally also a stop in terms of ISO performance (although the latter isn't always consistent) when going from Full Frame to APS-C.

1) Depth of Field: I think you are saying in full frame at 28mm the depth of field is shallower than at 18mm in APS-C, with fields of view about the same.

Which you prefer is a personal preference. I want the deepest depth of field possible, for me less depth of field is major downside to FF.  Nowadays I shoot family video and I want everyone in the room to be in focus as much as possible. I don't shoot narrative (did years ago), but now I want less trouble keeping moving & unpredictable subjects in focus. I know that the FF shallow focus was the big thing in recent years for a lot of people, but that would be a major PITA for me. I don't like seeing auto focus working in my shots (for me it's distracting & often picks the wrong person), I prefocus as much as possible in manual. I like using old FF SLR manual zooms with or without a speedbooster, on a tripod. For better depth of field I use at least f/5.6, fast f/2 lenses have no appeal for me.

Speaking of deep focus, that is the technique I really admire the most in the older B&W Hollywood films, I love some of those wide angle shots showing a room - with a ceiling! - as in Citizen Kane. I admit, I prefer wide angle shots over telephotos. I have the Fuji 10-24 zoom. All my telephotos are vintage SLR.

2) ISO performance: I think you mean full frame has less noise at high ISO compared to smaller sensors, I agree there. If I was doing street photography at night I would be concerned with this, but I rarely hit ISO 10,000 with what I shoot. (Indoors I have 5000K LED bulbs in all my lamps which allows mixing window light with the lamplights without white balance problems.)

2 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

..Meanwhile there is a 28-70mm f/2 lens available for FF now (which would be require a 18-46mm f/1.4 for a comparable aps-c lens).
 

Just curious as to the theory that an f/2 in FF would require an f/1.4 in APS-C?

I just checked several lenses on my X-T3, pointing to my computer screen with this post.

Using manual exposure, 1/60th at ISO 1000:

APS-C Fuji zoom 18-55 required f/8 at 24mm.

My Nikon full frame 24-85 on a dumb adapter also required f/8 on it's manual aperture ring at 24mm.

A 16mm C mount 25mm prime lens at f8 measured 1/3rd stop lower, due to some black vignetting.

Why would aperture brightness change one stop between FF & APS-C, assuming no other glass added?

Update:

The Mitakon Zhongyi Lens Turbo II for Nikon to Fuji X also needs back focus adjustment on my X-T3.

It has the aperture ring in the center, so you can remove the back flange with four screws the same way as shown above

with the Fotodiox NIK(G)-FX dumb adapter.

It needed the black masking tape plus an extra layer of thinner tape (about 11 thousandths of an inch total) to keep my

Nikon AF 28-85 in focus, as well as my newer Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.

I think you meant to reply to my post:

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/46429-oversampling-high-iso-noise-test/

...and started a “new topic” instead of a “reply to this topic” ?

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Large format please, 8x10 at least. 

One large format, coming right up... 8x10 is only available in anamorphic cinemascope sir, there's no demand for any others.

7 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Because 90% of my lenses are FF. 

Most of mine are too. I have X-T3.

For the FF telephoto lenses it increases their effective focal length, big advantage there.

For my two manual Nikon SLR zooms I just got in the Turbo II speedbooster today.

Mainly for my Nikon AF 28-85, I now have access to the full coverage of the lens, plus it cuts my ISO requirements in half

(so less advantage of a full frame camera in the ISO department, on top of the the cleaner 6K to 4K oversampling!)

Besides the Fuji 18-55 kit zoom the only new lens I needed was a wide angle, the Fuji 10-24 is amazing.

I found an earlier post about this exposure stepping workaround (auto aperture & AE-L lock), so I'm not the first!

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/24941-fuji-exposure-shift-during-video-recording/?do=findComment&comment=341693

Wish I hadn't missed this one six months ago.

On 8/14/2020 at 11:46 AM, Xavier Plágaro Mussard said:

Is anybody zooming in 2020?? Of course, yes to reframe, but I say "keep in editing" zooms?? 

I have become amazed at how different Fuji users are.  I remember watching a well-respected youtube review of the X-T3 for video and the reviewer's methods and settings were completely different than what I would use, and his complaints were about things that did not bother me at all, and he never mentioned any of the things I have problems with. So to each his own.

I am doing mostly family video (birthdays, barbecues, my kid's new activities) and use zoom lenses all the time, trying to cover what is going on in a group and zooming in on who is speaking or going crazy at the time.

I also do backyard nature, and a bird feeder about 20 feet from my window allows for great telephoto views of food fights, including squirrels who come for the seed droppings and are always chasing away the chipmunks. If I didn't have a telephoto zoom mounted I couldn't have kept a deer in frame who wandered in the yard and headed straight for my window.

So I've been playing with the 10-24 in "auto aperture/exposure lock" mode and it is the closest thing to a camcorder mode that I've got with the X-T3, without exposure stepping. The auto focus is improved from the last firmware update. I've only got a few inexplicable focus jumps in about 7 minutes of shooting with 10-24 & 18-55 zooms. Still, the gold standard for me is a tripod and a manual zoom.

23 hours ago, kye said:

I'm about to update my ageing MBP and am looking forward to the better h265 support that will come with a new OSX and latest Resolve (I can't upgrade Resolve until I update OSX and there's a limit to how new your OSX version can be on a given hardware setup, so I'm kind of stuck in the mud until I upgrade my hardware).

This is what's been working for me for a year and a half, and it's cheap.

I have the i5 Mac Mini 2018 for $1000. I have both OSX Mojave (for some older apps) and OSX Catalina (for FCPX and editing Fuji files) installed on the internal SSD on two separate volumes, selectable from the keyboard on startup. I can also boot up from OSX on my external drives.

I also have Windows installed with Parallels for some unique utilities (for processing 3d stereo pairs, unusual audio conversions, etc).

So far I have only needed the 8GB memory it came with, FCPX edits the 4K60 10bit HEVC from my X-T3 smoothly with no problems in OSX Catalina. I haven't tried Resolve, that requires 16GB.

I have never needed to use an intermediary so far, doing mostly single track editing without any heavy special effects.

I believe the reason I can do this is due to the T2 chip in the Mini, which does HEVC acceleration (besides the Security features).

I can play 4K60 10bit HEVC LongGOP at full resolution at full speed from Quicktime Player.

Inside FCPX the same files always play smoothly in the viewer's "better performance" mode.

I edit straight from my camera files, render a master to ProRes, then compress to MP4 HEVC in Handbrake.

I usually display the final Handbrake 10bit 4K HEVC files with a 256GB flashdrive that my 2017 Sony TV can play smoothly with its own internal android software.

Computers that have the Apple T2 Security Chip

These Mac computers have the Apple T2 Security Chip:

iMac introduced in 2020

iMac Pro

Mac Pro introduced in 2019

Mac mini introduced in 2018

MacBook Air introduced in 2018 or later

MacBook Pro introduced in 2018 or later

(from https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT208862)