Jump to content

First look at the Fujifilm GFX 50S - could this photo behemoth get RAW video like Hasselblad H6D-100C?


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GiM_6x said:

RAW is a NO quality loss compresion.

No thats not true. RAW just means non-debayered data. There are lossy compressed RAW formats from various manufacturers. The reason you can get more information from RAW than non-RAW even from compressed footage with the same bitrate is because there are less "pixels" to compress when you are dealing with RAW. 1/3rd to be exact. Then you can used the extra bitrate to increase your bitdepth, and in consequence get good tonal precision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

No thats not true. RAW just means non-debayered data. There are lossy compressed RAW formats from various manufacturers. The reason you can get more information from RAW than non-RAW even from compressed footage with the same bitrate is because there are less "pixels" to compress when you are dealing with RAW. 1/3rd to be exact. Then you can used the extra bitrate to increase your bitdepth, and in consequence get good tonal precision. 

You are right, there are manufacturers who offer "compressed RAW" (!).
And RAW means more and different than "non-debayered data", and it is quite specific for each sensor!
And now all depend on how the data was compressed, lossy or not.
If lossy, well... it is no more RAW. If you lose data, well... is is just a "better" JPEG since less was lost, if you want to "qualify" it else than a "loss quality compression RAW".
Personal, once you lost data and quality by compressing, I cannot consider it RAW.
But the words are used so by so many, including corporations, that a false understanding is build.

The same with video LOGs, when shooting LOG - any one type you choose, you compress the gama in areas of "main" exposure, to allow to "expand" areas outside main exposure as in shadows and highlights (aka you loose data in main exposure and create "new" data in shadows and highlights - not "enhance" quality, but will prevent lossing too much general by the codec). This is a "better" option comparing to the video losing quality once the codec itself will cut from shadows and highlights, yes.
The best should to have a codec who just respect each area and exposure the same "weight", as ProRes and few others.

Still, ProRes is no RAW.

After LUT-ing :-) / color grading, you never recover the real info which was lost by applying the LOG, but yes they will be close enough.
My eyes can see these differences, and a part of my jobs were to "color", but never been able to "restore" the real colors, just close by, also for everybody they were perfect.

My first on many diplomas was a bac in Applied Sciences, Industrial Design, Mechanics (master), electronics and telecommunications, compuers networks and then other one in computers only, some industrial certifications too.
I was designer of hardware and software (1980s-1990s).
I was working as professional photographer (2000s).
In 1990s-2000s I did studies on optics - models running on computers, for my understanding on how are the laws working in lenses and cameras, and with my knowledge I really understand how these toys are working.

After 50+ years working on film - I started as child in 1960s, I saw the real "performances" of the new digital technology.
I embrace it just for "second" performances, as cheap, easy to see instatly the results and easy to communicate, share.
Think of going in a 3 weeks in mountains just to find letter that you lens was defective and everything is lost.

Very few products at the "easy access of a consumer" are really quality. If you are a PRO, you will invest in your tools!
I have a camera where the RAW is not compressed at all, that is why I bought it, just for this... "particularity".
I don't want to enter in details since I am not interested in a "war" of makers and models and so on, as happs sometimes.

I apologise for this burst, I will not answer on this thread anymore (but will read it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are we getting past the very long integration times on these sensors if we’re shooting video ?  I thought that was pretty much baked in. Last time I tried the X1D it wasn’t useable and you can’t really change that. The Fuji footage looks lovely but they’re all locked off shots with little movement.  What happens when you’re hand held ?

JB 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Andrew, 

                 Great article and brings up some of the interesting options the GFX is capable of.  For me personally, just being able to "view" the EVF in my preferred option of 6:7 and 5:4 was enough for the purchase :)  Something i have been wishing that Sony would do for years!  I hate the 3:2 ratio...

You mention that the Sigma 24-35mm f2 covers but this directly contrasts what Jonas Rask (who you reference at the start of the post) mentions in his article. He states that it has a hard vignette at 24mm. 

I don’t want to say much about the individual lenses that I tested, only that they all covered the sensor apart from the Sigma 24-35 zoom, that gave hard vignetting at 24mm."

Have you done any further testing with this lens?  Does it cover at 24mm at infinity or did you just test things close up?

Would be a great lens to compliment the Fuji 32-64mm if it did actually cover..  

Thanks in advance, would love to know some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 year later...

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...