-
Similar Content
-
-
Posts
-
It seems you are dragging up old stuff that has been known for some time. It is stated in the specs the video is recorded in 10 bits: X-H2S @ 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording X-T4 @ 4:2:0 10-bit internal recording The 4:2:2 gives better color space results. The big video advantage for the X-H2S has been faster readout, being able to use external hdmi capture devices and 6K video capture. There is a fairly good video that has been around for a while discussing F-Log2 vs F-log: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kDlhiEOAus p.s. Welcome to the forum. -
-
By PoorAlchemist · Posted
Is the X-H2S “dynamic range improvement” a myth? Since the release of the Fujifilm X-H2S, Fuji has heavily promoted: the sensor’s internal 14-bit readout, the new F-Log2 profile, and a supposedly tangible improvement in video dynamic range compared to previous generations (X-T4, X-S20, etc.). But when you look at actual laboratory measurements, the narrative starts to fall apart. What the numbers actually show (measured data, not marketing) Based on IMATEST / SNR-style measurements: X-H2S ≈ 12.2 stops at SNR=2 ≈ 13.6 stops at SNR=1 Measured in ProRes HQ, high native ISO (1250) X-T4 ≈ 11.8 stops at SNR=2 ≈ 13.4 stops at SNR=1 Measured in H.264 / H.265, lower native ISO (800) The real-world difference is about 0.2 to 0.4 stop, depending on the threshold used. This is nowhere near a generational leap. The core question: where did the 14-bit promise go? If the X-H2S sensor is truly read internally at 14-bit, a simple question arises: Why does this extra bit depth not translate into a measurable increase in usable dynamic range? Because: the final recorded signal is still 10-bit, read noise appears to cap the signal before those extra bits can matter, SNR curves remain very close to those of the X-T4. In short: 14-bit upstream, same ceiling downstream. And what about F-Log2? F-Log2 is supposed to: extend highlight latitude, better exploit the sensor signal. Yet in practice: measured dynamic range barely increases, what we mostly see is curve redistribution, not actual expansion, shadow noise rises earlier. This raises a legitimate concern: Are we just looking at a remapping of the same dynamic range, rather than a true physical gain? Provisional conclusion (but an uncomfortable one) Based on the available data: the X-H2S “dynamic range improvement” appears largely overstated, the 14-bit readout looks more like a theoretical talking point than a measurable benefit, F-Log2 seems primarily like a grading convenience, not a sensor-level breakthrough. Open but serious question Is the internal 14-bit sensor readout and F-Log2, in practice, a damp squib with no truly palpable impact on real-world video dynamic range? If anyone has: independent measurements showing otherwise, or a demonstrable gain beyond ~0.3 stop, I’m genuinely interested. But for now, the numbers simply do not support the narrative.Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…
Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!
-
By MARRIEDGUY9 · Posted
nothing special, I thought the sky looked cool, handheld, unedited, 16-80 around F11. Bay inland of Indian River, DE right after sunset.Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…
Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!
-
By PoorAlchemist · Posted
Hello everyone, Recently, I've come across the very detailed videos from Edvard (@edvard2942 on YouTube) about Fujifilm autofocus performance. His tests highlight what he sees as a regression in AF fluidity and reliability starting from certain firmware updates, and that the best results aren't always with the latest versions. I'd love to start a discussion here to compile, based on your experiences and Edvard's tests, a kind of “best firmware list”for each body in terms of autofocus smoothness and reliability (especially in photo and video AF-C with older lenses). Here's a summary of what's already well-established from Edvard's analyses (feel free to correct or add details): • X-T3 Firmwares 3.00 / 3.30 are considered the best – smoothest AF, most natural transitions, fastest and most frequent lens motor adjustments. From firmware 4.00 onward (the one that aligned it with the X-T4), there's a clear loss of fluidity in micro-adjustments and quick distance changes. • X-T4 The AF from the initial firmware (~1.00) already uses the algorithm introduced on the X-T3 with 4.00. It's less smooth than the X-T3 on 3.xx, but generally stable. Later updates did not restore the older X-T3 smoothness. • X-H2S Very early firmware (around 1.03) is significantly better than later ones (3.xx, 5.xx, 6.xx, 7.xx), which degraded fluidity. However, even this best version remains below the X-T3 on 3.xx in terms of pure AF smoothness. I'd really like us to expand this list with other bodies (X-H2, X-T5, X-H1, X-Pro3, etc.). Which firmware gives the best AF according to you, or according to the Edvard videos you've seen? One specific question that's bugging me: Can we expect early X-T4 bodies (with factory/original firmware) to be as smooth as the X-T3 on firmware 3.xx? Or is the difference already there from launch? Thanks in advance for your feedback, any downgrade experiences, and tests with different firmwares and lenses. This could help a lot of people optimize their setup.
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now