Jump to content
Dave Maze

Fuji X-H1. IBIS, Phase Detect 4K beast?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

The eterna footage I seen looks like it has a light version of the m31 LUT built in. The shadows are shifted towards teal ! Im waiting for some footage of eterna from someone in this forum so we can assess

If I can rent one I can compare to the rolls of s16 Eterna 250D I have in my freezer (stocked up when it was discontinued) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

The most curious note IMHO is the fact we feel much difference between both realms than going with the GH5, actually. Eterna is a charm though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonpais said:

A sort of torture test of the IBIS. I believe Gordon Laing is simply holding the camera at arm's length with the absolutely gigantic 16-55mm f/2.8,. which is a gorgeous lens BTW. The lens has no OIS. It appears that he's just walking normally, no ninja walk, so the X-H1 does quite well considering. Obviously, not a vlogging camera, which I'm sure he's aware of. He's shooting with the new Eterna profile, which Fuji added after feedback from filmmakers. It would seem as though there's been no grading of the footage. However, because Eterna is a rather flat picture profile, I'm guessing that best results can be obtained by doing some color correction in post, not SOOC. 

 

Mmmm....I wonder how it would have looked if he had used an ND filter and not shot at 1/1000th of a second?

At least we know its probably very capable of doing some nice stills extraction when you shoot with that 8.6 degree shutter angle ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

I personally think Fuji's goal is to become a hybrid camera manufacturer. An ideal balance between video and photo capabilities. As a freelancer I shoot both photo and video and sometimes you need to do both simultaneously for a client which is very hard to do with cameras who solely focus on video. I can even see this benefiting journalist who now are expected to do both video and photo on assignments. That plus fuji color and a 200mbps bit rate we can guarantee our footage meets the 4k uhd broadcasting standard. I think Fuji covered the basics very very well with how they went about it. I agree that not only isn't it a GH5 killer it was never intended to be. I think most of us our so obsessed with brands competing that we miss the point in their product. I do not think Fuji is threatened or even thinking about the gh5 when the gh5 users aint even their market LOL 

Agreed. I'm very much a hybrid shooter as well, which is what makes Fuji's so appealing. They're great stills cameras that shoot really nice 4k video - that's why I bought into the system. IBIS is the main reason I'm still using Sony. Though after watching a few recent videos posted here, I really like what I'm seeing from the XH1. 

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

A sort of torture test of the IBIS. I believe Gordon Laing is simply holding the camera at arm's length with the absolutely gigantic 16-55mm f/2.8,. which is a gorgeous lens BTW. The lens has no OIS. It appears that he's just walking normally, no ninja walk, so the X-H1 does quite well considering. Obviously, not a vlogging camera, which I'm sure he's aware of. He's shooting with the new Eterna profile, which Fuji added after feedback from filmmakers. It would seem as though there's been no grading of the footage. However, because Eterna is a rather flat picture profile, I'm guessing that best results can be obtained by doing some color correction in post, not SOOC.

 

Couldn't watch it past the 2nd spin around without losing my breakfast, but AF held onto him pretty well. Looks good.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

If I can rent one I can compare to the rolls of s16 Eterna 250D I have in my freezer (stocked up when it was discontinued) :)

Dope ! I look forward to seeing this !!! After reviewing some more of the fuji footage I think the draw with the new Eterna profile is it is like the modern day version of the Eterna film stock. I’m starting to think they are not trying to emulate the actual film stock but this is more so there answer to the Sony Cine4 gamma & Cinelike V’s out there. It has the color baked in but you can make minor adjustments if need be. No need to dramatically alter skintone like a LOG profile ? this camera maybe a lot more important than we know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I dont think they ever tried to emulate exactly with Acros, velvia, etc. Its more a naming thing with a hint of those stocks character.

And I also agree on the less need for post to save skin approach. I gave up dialing down contrast and saturation a long time ago. My philosophy is that someone have spent alot of time and money on the baked in curves. And they are probably a better starting point than what I can get.

On fuji I usually pick a look in camera and only do minor luma tweaks in post. Looks great imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some 120 fps footage I shot with the X-H1 tonight of my son and some of his friends from the neighborhood. Used 1/250 shutter speed, ISO 200, Eterna film simulation, auto white balance. Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 lens.

I boosted saturation in post by about 10% and adjusted exposure slightly (including adding a bit of contrast) in Resolve, but this is pretty much straight out of the camera with a contrast/saturation boost. The highlights are blown out in places, but they were in shadow with full sun in the background - that's a tough scene for any camera. There is some aliasing visible on some of the straight lines in the homes in the background (rooflines), but overall I think this footage looks pretty good - certainly good enough for me for the B-roll kind of footage I shoot.

I'm actually a Sony shooter - I run a company/youtube channel called 'Worship Tutorials', and video is one of the main things I do. Currently my main camera is a Sony a9 and an a6500. The a9 is actually my favorite Sony body for video, even without the picture profiles. I've used the a7S ii and the a7R ii in the past as well, and the a9 just looks better, with far better colors, than either of those, picture profiles or not. The slow motion footage out of the a9 is cleaner than the X-H1, but not by much, and the colors and overall picture out of the Fuji is far better, in my opinion.

I'm honestly just sick and tired of dealing with Sony colors. I can actually match the Sony footage to look a lot like the footage from the X-H1 (with various film simulations), but it's so much more work. With the volume of video work I do (I upload 4-6 times per week to youtube), workflow speed is important to me, and with the X-H1, it's just so fast and easy to get a very good looking image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there!

I'm considering buiying this one for video purposes.. 

Do you know if unlimited recording 4K is possible with any Power Adapter + external battery USB?

Something like this:

https://www.tethertools.com/product/case-relay-power-bundle/

Or will you need an external recorder to avoid the recording time limit?

If someone have tried some other reliable and/or cheaper solution that would be great to hear about it! :)

At last, some crazy idea about external recording.. wouldn't it be great to record in our smartphones?? I guess I'm dreaming.. but would it be possible?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This clip echoes my own experience as I switched from a raw-based workflow years ago. The most interesting part is at 06:17, the red car door, when he shows the complexity of what the jpeg engine is doing. Of course it is possible to echo the look with enough work in a raw developer, but that takes a lot of time and it is difficult to maintain consistency, especially if it’s a body of work spanning months or even years. I am not convinced that Adobe’s mimicking of the film simulation are as advanced as the in camera imaging chain. 

I always shoot raw+jpeg and save the raw files on an external drive as digital negatives of sorts. The jpegs straight from camera is what is used most of the time. The example with the girl in blue top is also interesting.  I find that Provia, Velvia, Astia and pro neg hi work very well together and can be used interchangeably in a publication or for a series of prints. Acros is the best out of camera black and white I have seen except for the Leica monochrome. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my computer Adobe and the in camera simulations ends up 100% identical with zero effort. So for me its raw or nothing.

But I can definitely understand the appeal of good jpegs. It depends on what parts of the images making process one appreciate.

Same thing goes for video. If one loves shooting but hates grading, then a bmpcc isn't exactly a killer camera. But if one enjoys the post process a low bitrate stills camera might feel underwhelming. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Fuji processing software that uses the camera to process raw files is a great way to get the 100% authentic Fuji look if Adobe or whatever you're using isn't cutting it. The caveat is its slow/clunky and the number of supported cameras is limited. Though I think Adobe has gotten a lot better since the "Fuji Rethink Raw" video above was posted back in 2016.

Personally I shoot a lot of high contrast scenes outdoors, jpeg's just can't capture the DR like a raw - I hate blown clouds/sun/skies and I mostly shoot handheld so bracketing is usually not something I can do. For me even the jpegs still need tweaks. For portraits the jpegs looks great, especially with Astia as shown above. Arcos is awesome for B&W SOOC and I really like Chrome for cityscape or street stuff. The new Eterna is going to be my go-to profile for video, and it looks like it'll be good with landscape stills as well. I'm in the "hates grading" camp Mattias mentioned, so I really dig Chrome, Pro Neg and now Eterna.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An employee of Leica developing once was asked what was best. Leicas imbedded raw interpretation or Adobes.
His answer was something like, "they built the raw develop software so Im sure they do a better job with the raw files."
I keep that in mind since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

An employee of Leica developing once was asked what was best. Leicas imbedded raw interpretation or Adobes.
His answer was something like, "they built the raw develop software so Im sure they do a better job with the raw files."
I keep that in mind since then.

Isn’t that because Leica uses DNG which is a universal format rather than a proprietary one? Makes sense.

Fujifilm strikes me as quite different. Adobe renders ok nowadays but used to look pretty bad with Fuji files. I haven’t found their conversion as good as the proprietary one. Fujifilm repeatedly underlines their imaging chain, reminding people of jpeg, lenses, xtrans and so on. A bit Apple like. Of course if they want to do something really controversial with for example sensor they have to leave universal standards behind.

@Trek of Joy I love the new Fujifilm conversion software. It’s slow and cumbersome but I still use it. I often do tiny tweaks to the jpegs too. Like Mattias is saying so much easier to start from somewhere. Just like it was with C-type printing with film and colour paper. You started out from a colour profile that was already good. Just needed burning/dodging usually. Personally I find jpegs mostly sufficient. To me  HDR, pulled shadows, cranked up vibrancy and clarity looks way worse than any clipping. The people that configure jpegs really know what they’re doing. Same way the experts that configure colour film know that too.

Jpegs used to look very bad. I’m happy that changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Castorp said:

Isn’t that because Leica uses DNG which is a universal format rather than a proprietary one? Makes sense.

Fujifilm strikes me as quite different. Adobe renders ok nowadays but used to look pretty bad with Fuji files. I haven’t found their conversion as good as the proprietary one. Fujifilm repeatedly underlines their imaging chain, reminding people of jpeg, lenses, xtrans and so on. A bit Apple like. Of course if they want to do something really controversial with for example sensor they have to leave universal standards behind.

@Trek of Joy I love the new Fujifilm conversion software. It’s slow and cumbersome but I still use it. I often do tiny tweaks to the jpegs too. Like Mattias is saying so much easier to start from somewhere. Just like it was with C-type printing with film and colour paper. You started out from a colour profile that was already good. Just needed burning/dodging usually. Personally I find jpegs mostly sufficient. To me  HDR, pulled shadows, cranked up vibrancy and clarity looks way worse than any clipping. The people that configure jpegs really know what they’re doing. Same way the experts that configure colour film know that too.

Jpegs used to look very bad. I’m happy that changed.

Sluta trolla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Castorp said:

Isn’t that because Leica uses DNG which is a universal format rather than a proprietary one? Makes sense.

Fujifilm strikes me as quite different. Adobe renders ok nowadays but used to look pretty bad with Fuji files. I haven’t found their conversion as good as the proprietary one. Fujifilm repeatedly underlines their imaging chain, reminding people of jpeg, lenses, xtrans and so on. A bit Apple like. Of course if they want to do something really controversial with for example sensor they have to leave universal standards behind.

@Trek of Joy I love the new Fujifilm conversion software. It’s slow and cumbersome but I still use it. I often do tiny tweaks to the jpegs too. Like Mattias is saying so much easier to start from somewhere. Just like it was with C-type printing with film and colour paper. You started out from a colour profile that was already good. Just needed burning/dodging usually. Personally I find jpegs mostly sufficient. To me  HDR, pulled shadows, cranked up vibrancy and clarity looks way worse than any clipping. The people that configure jpegs really know what they’re doing. Same way the experts that configure colour film know that too.

Jpegs used to look very bad. I’m happy that changed.

Lifting shadows and pulling down highlights is the digital version of burn/dodge, I'm not talking HDR. When shooting a sunset for example, I expose for the sun and bring up exposure in the rest of the image in order to have something visible, otherwise I'd have the sun and a mostly black frame. The sunset from Easter Island posted below is an example. I'm not a fan of blown clouds that are blobs of white with no detail. Another example is from Borobudur, it was a gray morning but the sun was up and not clipping the clouds left the stone structure very dark, raw allowed me to recover more detail in the stones. Jpegs just can't capture everything a 14-bit raw image can - which is closer to what my eyes see and what I want to convey in an image. A simple 2-shot bracket can accomplish the same thing, but I'm doing a lot of traveling - 55 countries and counting - so for me carrying a tripod isn't always practical. Plus I prefer to be small/light and just go run-and-gun with a small bag with me when exploring. I shot a lot of raw + jpeg when with my XT2's and even DR400 wasn't enough, processed raws look better to me. And the ones below are just quick edits on a 12" MacBook, I'll clean them up when I'm back home on my iMac. Everyone has different methods, whatever works for you is cool.

Cheers

Chris

 

Easter Island Sunset 9.jpg

Borobudur 18.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...