Jump to content

X-H1 Face/Eye Tracking Firmware v2.10 vs v2.11

CineFO

By CineFO
in Fuji X-H1 / Fuji X-H2s / Fuji X-H2

 Share

Recommended Posts

CineFO Newbie

CineFO

Posted
Posted

A few weeks ago I stumbled on a Youtube video from user Unnamed for a Reason (https://youtu.be/35VcYn3AobY) where the X-H1's eye tracking performance with the latest firmware update is demonstrated.  I wasn't aware of the v2.11 update and it brought my attention to it.  Chatting with him in the comments section he told me X-H1 users in a forum noted an improvement in eye tracking which prompted him to do the test, but he had already update the firmware and couldn't really provide a solid comparison.  I loved his methodology for using movies as a tracking subject because it controls more variables, and since I hadn't updated the firmware myself, set out to perform the test in a similar manner.

I had intended to record the results in Video Mode with AF-C and Single Shot with AF-S to compare face and eye tracking in the respective modes but with the hassle of setting it up, some trials and failed attempts over a few hours, I somehow neglected to record any Single Shot footage before the firmware update.  Still, I reasoned the face tracking in Video Mode might reflect the kind of performance difference in Single Shot before and after the update.  The default tracking settings were used so there may be ways to tweak them and get better results.  Movie sequences were chosen for the wide variety of shots and some fast cutting, and also to see how close you can get to an actor before the face is no longer recognized (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and Once Upon a Time in the West), to test how it does with long takes (Kill Bill vol.1, Goodfellas), and seeing how the tracking fares with the face being obstructed every now and then (Pulp Fiction). 

The completed video comparison is a little over 25 minutes with some surprising results (the new firmware doesn't always outperform the old).  The X-H1's LCD screen was recorded with another camera and the plane of focus is off sometimes.  The settings are displayed for those who are curious.  Some sequences were only recorded once using the parameters as the whole thing was time consuming enough as it is, and although the methodology is not 100% foolproof and scientific I thought the community here might appreciate what was captured.  If there are any questions, feel free to ask in the Comments section.

I make no claim over the recorded materials and am not trying to profit from the video but I do have some concerns Youtube may take it down due to copyright infringement.  Without further ado, here ya go:

https://youtu.be/WveCA-DLDA0

Cheers!

-Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • jerryy
      Fungus

      By jerryy · Posted

      A fungus in the forest.

      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!

      (p.s. Open Topic.)  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
×
×
  • Create New...