Jump to content

Video really needs to be top priority for Fuji


val

Recommended Posts

I currently have an X-T1 and I've been tossing up what I should get for my next camera. I've been getting more into video and so that's become very important.

 

Just researching and literally watching EVERYTHING available it is clearly obvious that the X-T2's video needs more work.

 

These are some of the best footage I could find

 

 

 

 

Yet compared to Sony's A6500.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euoycGBzIhU

 

 

There is just a clear lack of clarity and there is a weird loss of detail with running water but then a moire/digital sharpening look on sticks/fences/wires. Yes Sony has far more experience with this and XAVC-S is a great codec yet Fujifilm are known to listen to their customers.

 

So as a Fuji user who wants to stay with Fuji. I can only ask (if they're not already) to really work on their video quality. Even F-Log shows the lack of detail so it's clear that the process from sensor to output is where the issue is. Pretty much the only thing holding me back from selling all of my Fuji gear and getting the Sony A6500 is that Sony's telephoto options are just ridiculous.... I love my Fuji 55-200mm and I'm finding it strangely difficult to part with. The rolling shutter looks to be an issue that I'll run into a lot with the Sony.

 

Finally I really do hope they can remove the crop factor from the 4k video. No doubt that ties in with the downsampling but I can only hope.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two comments:

1. Your personal priority of video over still photo is hardly shared, in my opinion, by the majority of Fuji users.

2. Comparison of arbitrarily chosen video clips made by people of varying skills under different lighting conditions with differing lenses, shooting different subjects proves nothing. I mean, absolutely nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two comments:

1. Your personal priority of video over still photo is hardly shared, in my opinion, by the majority of Fuji users.

2. Comparison of arbitrarily chosen video clips made by people of varying skills under different lighting conditions with differing lenses, shooting different subjects proves nothing. I mean, absolutely nothing.

 

1. Ignoring a different market because of existing users is being short sighted.

2. They all show my same point hence why I shared them. You clearly don't understand the common reason why each clip was chosen.

Edited by val
Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly don't understand the common reason why each clip was chosen.

Well, we're probably not interested in video ... just a guess.

 

Why not ask the forum admins to create a specific Video with X-series subforum? Then you have all video related questions and feature suggestions in a central place. That also increases the chance that Fujifilm will read, and act on, the suggestions.

Edited by johant
Link to post
Share on other sites

The look of video from a camera is really incredibly dependent on the way it's shot and graded, so pulling some random footage from nobodies online isn't going to be a very good indication of what the camera is capable of. The quality of the video is great, especially if you're using an external recorder for the flat files and better bitrate. 

 

And most Fuji shooters are looking for better image quality, not better video. Better AF, better lenses, better processing, better stabilization, etc.

 

Yes, some people are calling for better video, but pretty much everyone who's got an X-T2 on the new firmware is very pleased with what they're getting from the camera. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask 10 different people what Fujifilm's priority should be and get 10 different answers.

 

 it's kind of comical ....

 

Ask 10 different people about anything subjective and get 10 different answers.

 

It's not comical, it's why we are here debating these topics in the first place.

Edited by c0ldc0ne
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask 10 different people about anything subjective and get 10 different answers.

 

It's not comical, it's why we are here debating these topics in the first place.

True, but I still think video deserves its own subforum. It's very important for those who use it, and pretty irrelevant for those who are only interested in photo capabilities. And video is different enough from still photography to justify a separate section, in my opinion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To the OP: The reason I left Canon was because of their emphasis on video, instead of stills photography. In terms of me and myself, Canon thus ignored their current market, went after another market and lost a customer. Probably no big deal to them and I'm sure, just like Canon, FUJIFILM won't fold if I stop being a customer when they make video cameras that can also do stills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP: The reason I left Canon was because of their emphasis on video, instead of stills photography. In terms of me and myself, Canon thus ignored their current market, went after another market and lost a customer. 

 

Make that two customers.  :) Love my Fuji,  Video?  What's that?  Sounds like it is meant for a different camera, definitely not mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can go get yourself a Panasonic G4 or something along those lines.  Let Fuji develop what they are the BEST at:  still cameras.  You know what Fuji should do immediately?  Via Firmware no doubt:  Fix the damned "Q" menu so when I create say a "landscape" in C2 for example, ALL, and I repeat ALL my settings stay with C2.  I shouldn't have to make ANY changes except select C1 through C7.  Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't mind if they improve video, so long as they don't give up on improving the photo aspects of the cameras. As Sella174 said, I got very frustrated with Canon seeing nothing but video features in updates and new cameras (and even lenses) over the years, and it's one of the main reasons I came to Fuji. 

 

I recognize that the more people who buy Fuji cameras, the better for all of us, as it improves market awareness, gives more money for R&D, and generally gives the company more weight to throw around, but make a video team in ADDITION to a photo team, rather than taking resources away from it. 

 

And my $.02, their top priority needs to be getting Adobe to come up with an algorithm that can deal with their raw files in a way that makes the results as good as they are automatically with Canon, Nikon, and Sony. I can't believe I don't see more people clamoring for this, and maybe most people shoot JPEG only, but the fact that my files from a 40D have better detail at 100% than my X-T2 in Lightroom is a big issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And my $.02, their top priority needs to be getting Adobe to come up with an algorithm that can deal with their raw files in a way that makes the results as good as they are automatically with Canon, Nikon, and Sony. I can't believe I don't see more people clamoring for this, and maybe most people shoot JPEG only, but the fact that my files from a 40D have better detail at 100% than my X-T2 in Lightroom is a big issue. 

 

I have been using LR against my XT1 and XT2 raw files since I invested in the Fuji system 2.5yrs ago.  I shoot 1/2 dozen weddings a year and other 'stuff', so I've gone through many thousands of images.

 

I have never had a problem with LR processing my raw files and I think the majority of X-Trans users may be the same.  NOTE ... I'm not talking speed/performance ... I'm talking image rendering.

 

I have two different presets I apply to the XT1 and XT2 raw files when I import.  They are what I consider my own default settings.  This simply entails Astia colour profile and my own version of sharpening.  These two (colour profile and sharpening) are mandatory.  After that, what is applied is simply personal preference.

 

I was curious if I was missing something so I recently downloaded the demo of X-Transformer and Fuji's endorsed Silkypix and the demo of ON1 RAW.   ON1 RAW gave me trouble with the very first image I loaded which was an old Nikon raw file from D3s (when I exported it is when the problems showed up), so I never even got to playing with Fuji raw file.  I just abandoned it.   I opened a ticket with ON1 about it and they told me it is a known glitch in the recently released April 2017 version and they are working on a fix.

 

With my test of X-Transformer and Silkypix I used the same Fuji raw file I shot a couple weeks ago of an Osprey bird flying into its nest with a stick as it was nest building.  I shot it with XT1 and 50-140/2.8 @ 140mm.   Image is very sharp (shutter was approx 1/1000, ISO was low and lighting was good).   I applied 'fine detail' sharpening in Silkypix and exported to a TIFF.  In X-Transformer I did two DNG files ... one with default X-Transformer sharpening, the other with no sharpening in X-Transformer.  I then opened these 3 files in LR along with the original Fuji raw file, but with my preset applied to the Fuji RAF.  But I then made all copies Velvia colour profile for this shot comparison.  I pixel peeped quite a bit in comparing all 4 images in the side-by-side comparison feature in the Library module.  I compared all versions against all other versions.

 

I know that it is not an exhaustive test as I only used one image and each image opened in software has certain 'characteristics' that a raw processor could process different.  But this was my first true test to see if something other than LR would show me more in this raw image.

 

The end result of this one image was I could see no difference between the output of all 3 products.  I was looking at the birds feathers, face, eyeball, the sticks of the nest, etc.

 

This was simply my experience and why I think you don't hear more people clamoring over it.  

 

I'm not saying you aren't have a problem.  I'm just saying that over the last couple of years Adobe has improved their x-trans processing and it may have reached a point that it only fails in certain images with certain characteristics that a very small percentage of the population would even notice.

Edited by Adam Woodhouse
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...