Jump to content
Andrew Reid

I WILL be getting a Fuji X-T3!

Recommended Posts

On 9/28/2018 at 4:24 PM, CyclingBen said:

Second, no one thought Panasonic would go full frame, yet here we are. I agree, Fuji will stay with apsc until smartphones catch up and their medium format might always be a niche product, sorry for being hyperbolic.

By the time smartphones truly catch up, then APS-C sensor design will have leaped forward themselves many times over. 

And yeah, I too don't see APS-C being dumped for Medium Format. As Medium Format still means very large and bulky lenses, no matter how small you  make the body. And APS-C will always keep an edge in that area. (this is also why I reckon MFT still has a shot at surviving into the future in the long term)

 

On 9/28/2018 at 4:24 PM, CyclingBen said:

B29BD81B-7903-44F9-B8A6-63D42DFF71AC.jpeg

 


How did you get that pic of me?
 

On 9/28/2018 at 4:42 PM, Robert Collins said:

The 'mini medium format' of Fuji GFX is a bit of a dead end or very niche (it is mostly attractive to photographers who like to shoot a 1:1 aspect ratio.)

The reason is fairly simple - the sensor size is simply too 'small' to make a meaningful difference relative to full frame.

mini medium format = 44 x 33mm

FF = 36 x 24mm

For people who shoot landscape the horizantal, the difference between the two sensors is a little over 20% (44 v 36). So the light gathering difference is less than half a stop and the resolution difference 20%. This is much less than FF v APSC and APSC v M43. (And is virtually a rounding error in the greater scheme of things.)


Remember how in the earliest days of digital DSLRs that they put a "crop sensor" inside the early DSLRs? But that was merely a temporary stepping stone until "full frame sensors" because technically possible/affordable. 

I believe the same is happening now with digital medium format.  That it is only a matter of time until they put a bigger sensor behind their current mount. 

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

Can somebody pls check if AF speed under movie settings makes a difference? I'm using the 16mm 1.4 at the moment, and focus changes pretty fast, no matter what AF speed setting I use. It doesn't seem to make any difference if it's -5 or 5, am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 11:41 PM, frontfocus said:

Some of the film simulations are made to produce waxy skin. They dialed it down after many raised their voices about it. But it‘s not a bug it‘s a feature. Fuji cameras are very popular in parts of asia and waxy skin there is often what people, especially young females, are looking for. 

of course it would be best if it were a menu option

Waxy skin is a quick and cheap make up artist 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Attila Bakos said:

Can somebody pls check if AF speed under movie settings makes a difference? I'm using the 16mm 1.4 at the moment, and focus changes pretty fast, no matter what AF speed setting I use. It doesn't seem to make any difference if it's -5 or 5, am I missing something?

I believe the movie AF-C settings only take effect during recording, not in liveview standby.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, androidlad said:

I believe the movie AF-C settings only take effect during recording, not in liveview standby.

Thanks! I used live view as I don't have a card with me at the moment, so that must be the case.

3 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Yes, I believe this is the case. They should add an option to switch it on when connected to an external recorder.

Back then when I used an external recorder with the X-T2, I HAD to press record on the X-T2 too, otherwise the HDMI signal quality was worse, so I'm kinda used to doing that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, crevice said:

Some more impressive footage here :

 

Pretty impressive except for the harsh blownout highlights outside the car window, most camera will struggle with this so from a production standpoint, they could have put a sheet of ND gel over the window to bring the highlights down a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Pretty impressive except for the harsh blownout highlights outside the car window, most camera will struggle with this so from a production standpoint, they could have put a sheet of ND gel over the window to bring the highlights down a bit.

From the youtube description it sounds like this was simply a test of the camera, so they probably didn't put much into it. ND gel would have been a good idea though. I might actually look into some myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, crevice said:

Some more impressive footage here :

 

Thanks for this. Lighting nitpicks aside, I only wish they hadn't done the CW-style constantly sliding back and forth during dialogue CUs. The footage itself has a great look, with a pretty "cinematic" style grade straight out of camera. It handles that heavily saturated red very well, too. I've worked with plenty of cameras that would band and block up with that much primary red gradient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when people were talking about banding on x-t3 footage, I bet it was because the clips on youtube were encoded as h.264. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have 10-bit h.265, color grade it, then export in h.264 I would think you can have your footage fall apart with certain grades since h.264 is 8-bit (At least in PP CC)

I have a top spec PC & it still takes too long imo to export h.265 with a higher quality setting. I know you can export in ProRes or Dnx, but that would take ages to upload to youtube. What is the best method to encode a 10 bit project to share without it falling apart in h.264? Seems pointless to have a 10 bit camera if you export in h.264?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

So when people were talking about banding on x-t3 footage, I bet it was because the clips on youtube were encoded as h.264. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have 10-bit h.265, color grade it, then export in h.264 I would think you can have your footage fall apart with certain grades since h.264 is 8-bit (At least in PP CC)

I have a top spec PC & it still takes too long imo to export h.265 with a higher quality setting. I know you can export in ProRes or Dnx, but that would take ages to upload to youtube. What is the best method to encode a 10 bit project to share without it falling apart in h.264? Seems pointless to have a 10 bit camera if you export in h.264?

Recording in the the highest quality possible give you more freedom to create a look or 'grade' without image issues. Which yes is then often used to create low quality masters for YouTube etc (or high quality ones for screening etc)

Even if you end up only in 8 bit h264 you still had that initial freedom to create a look that acquiring footage in the low quality codec would not allow.

😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are still talking over a billion colors vs 16 million. Just because it was initially 10 bit, doesnt mean those colors can be there when it is taken down to 8 bit. I saw much more banding & colors breaking apart when I encoded a 10 bit video to 8 bit with a lut & just more banding without a lut. There has to be a way to still keep the benefits of the 10 bit without resorting to long h.265 encoding times or uploading a monster sized prores/DNx file to YT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the benefits of uploading monster proress files to be not worth the effort as they will only encode it down to a small 8 bit file regardless? Maybe there are some benefits I'm not aware of ? It's not like YouTube is showing people the good file.

YouTube aside if you are doing a DCI for a film festival or such then you get to keep all the goodness for that 😁

At least a few people can see your work properly hehe

I guess ideally I would always record Raw, then are are ready for any future formats or exhibition opportunities. Maybe in 2020 YouTube gets taken over by something better or offers better quality itself. Then all your footage is ready to go 

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...