Jump to content

X-T3 SOOC jpgs look like they are fallen appart

User

By User
in Fuji X-T3 / Fuji X-T30

 Share

Recommended Posts

User Newbie

User

Posted
Posted

Hello, I just got an X-T3 after I have owned X-T1 and X-T20.

So far it seems like X-T1 is king regarding jpeg quality, followed by X-T20.

I have tried some film recipes from fujixweekly and on XT1 and XT20 they look normal, but something on XT3 looks way off and I don't know what is happening. If I have the same settings on XT20 as on XT3, the XT20 looks nice and usable but XT3 seems that it was over edited with strange contrast and blown highlights even when underexposed. Looks to me like its processed in less than 8bit somehow. 

Is there anyone here who can help me understand what is happening? 

 

1. here are settings from XT20

IksdtV1ZSnsYgG1zn6VXvp7uBMpN66Om0gQw7BQDfpxFSQ1crBTs2UHbD7eMSs-FVy8Ss28Qt1s2QLt8mNgMSrr4TwkI0z10MroSm3qEmOJhBN2x70AF_FM8qVJF4jrLrW7hWloEeuua94Lkz3RqXOeyV6jmD2vEP0Jd_z1FiZ7C4e6TXnJ_jZcoYbP5ejNtiIOvt_TBaV4lz49lAzoq-_zZyj3wOSCB6pPc-aU9yiQ-BAVqJfEtkIwxphBujIk2P3TF8uEeID3C5Baegf_uyfmvW5ZXVSxvtIa7i-AnFrQFKVEGj263SBWXzMIV0G8r05olVwAw3-RUFhi834m9Im0kveRNh07fPiFlwRQLfdXjPigwNKJqJLSPnUQzYmr8vTNxA_lH8THUx9TCvDWM4CfiMRQlFMeSZlrS_C_Z_-Xd8WZsz999sKT4b_o6VPSkMMJKSWHhF7LaFrY6fSv5PpxyO0y7JyHWUENrXes0AlQ0BbDQ8j2RKvDjqhJLuzrx_GqC67nx-2oWhzaUxY4OEFcxDiMtO-Pe_6fjOj11bZVfgVuUD9qJsVrXzGpvjIaatGRiW8AgNaPzL4TGKdOhi-x9u0erP2nXvsUAD4w83bZwamPqYckPRkacvTSG5pSmbk5tDzU1QyQEiTThNX09KMpykpLLH54NeXKvS8zSWHfOatiSPT0TFab_J9Cu3SM=w2118-h1589-no?authuser=0

 

- here is an example from XT20

S6WmLgSvm0ATEUxqu0T-_VIo8OQQkHhTmcCNDViblPlwQIuo6UACIS_2eqzeitiV4p8pK5CxYLC6-5Nyx5mt2UO8M2YgT9OC3AOtEWoj6UH1OGfj8I70x4u_eDYmDQU6o-UKeWVEsipp0Mf9RIcm0hlQU0ud_Yb7kpUw5N9bCWtn1x12jt1MMSYq0Ddjkgn1lp6REicUEHCRkxTn7ptHKU7O4Wx1eki2dlRELYDwgTVi0jN9A9Y_fC1reiYCeVS0-zzXrQ95BQgoQQsBqVtv-i6s2Qu1kyEY9g9Z7KHYExOgJlckt4oYueRm2qzxgdKrIX3QvC_Gs1rHexQ5xZUo2O7h5Gn7AA29yKhvLMlXKqhoJsWcoQF5HFtIj1emJ1_wn0WO6ui5Lk315KDjg5Ft2WhEO_8abNECxBX7fvnvstnHZOKHdc2zQcuByrqwPx3abWNYctX1UFPIWtnIEnLoDyaGYdbbpI6hpGnjPBdBAn-yZfXuJFR-uHG5Z7-Roh1ry2ieZhE0NSe0U6aGa94PC9xu9FJ3b-IHN0i0K8yTc5dhWd3TnoNpjdmIjX8d7pRn3x6iFGKVsJmR_URq6STrmgJNI1ApMHd0-PVEFIaEdSWUss56Ksy3QERE5tuZm4NqIQQ_ot1jWtfrIpIfdv6odSxvAxAMKQ8EXabdOHDN9wlY5TPtEV-OCdfYO5aviXU=w1224-h1835-no?authuser=0

 

2. Using the same settings from the XT20, the XT3 jpgs look significant worst. They are not even overxposed. Even underexposed photo looks just bad compared to XT20

qrWEI6fwvO9l9X2W__fjEd_VWnkmvb6KXOBqiuyJGEFgFSouiRcl7wXYvMpIZjcGXMt31gzb9It-dxyLPzGYKYoipDNx80CGCKCiSsM4MM7C9mRLvZNL0KGzl_CvGvas4KTKrW1gUTEFC-rKZkaHVysYf2fp1-AmDHqpfcZDB6vvDdolqxHMjFlsuRf6kv54SPawqwjsSD10u3P3mAp2JQMnigIIGspiwSInhPmDfz47OHFrNGRBFwVzwGUWJ84-49rWelPRAbDGli2boypMlSbr4A9DlMEMCUbBXhfacZ2uczdxN6YENoIrvsXBkl9F0QYSlHKFNMTWu3FpLg6VY7ZwoGgPzw3HFnFa-1rOtXc885PP6F77SkMo8450mwzj0YDBTPIrmtaWejTtcWjDyWuxIJZPl6E_ioRIWkVDK-glZ2A6Re_AKZ8IeFDXCqmuKDiIHGOLi5xfJVqsG_-3QhvxI-TfNmhpkH8Pn9qSgyJrhLdjD-iIasODZrn8WHFw0G457BhEN14eRKJ4LnoDofvbLfLU7Jgpq4_VjdszyiLhM9fYj4ZfPuZfaaKgFKxKeciyWFBBRaQd97_XGUqf4Qr0jaRCasITdjrmm_8_KBLxe4RQH7yvCtK5gtj-0f7Ls9v_KJ6Zc4NRVJxzfbxi2MDhcldPUuCGtOqP9SPz45fPc2LqJbBJu2p43kR5i_I=w1224-h1835-no?authuser=0

2oOvSEte1S2KHgzg0E_-l6OfYUdyKOea9FqMLHKaVuqsyrpKKGcA2A7RnnusbwpO11BpnakHfFxePDZKVJ274iBS-YQX4N51IJUla_fn6EcPQxXd7n-T6-yisfAoLV3dRDwGA65IxX0lRPbgcDVQq6YdUYmC52vYSV9WQwCd1pGzSUMsgqb7Y3f_7qDDOx5zcbWKWKUeyVtebebLuDejfpFOJpiuF6gzL__PVr96DXhTSo7xM-iCJclGAjCBOIGd0jzDsLB5ptGn2o8WkDHoPkw5_t_NY-szIaDaqiTRyc5tDBmIQHEdoHP07jmOjts59KqU_VFMxd51qemuMVXi2NegNgXsyUayRW2XnINCJXsIkc3cENzl2yjmuNEwadDQ3yq_-DIliriNixtukjk-mRBQ8PuoabcIG1RmWufY185dCSIyTTdtZFpkUfULUxbIyT6EhOGwqoAGlqU36YgOKPx8X2tQp_IuuYqrj27wONOXgGkB7Nt9yc23EWAMgHTDGxU7RB9zg_iee2qs-h7tCmo2SHRvVOcgGPj6Qxd8Np1xLyE1UdTalR8WrCUix4MDjRa9tSiclkqbnFKTTpXk0VPKG5vDiy3MGKN6mEWyu4HYz9pMSzIX2c9bEBdAAOjJ3Qon6B5ZXkXcSeVnm1yRQC7LlPQAqRkSJC-wiCMrovxi_hiVD910aIq6M7-jRAo=w1224-h1835-no?authuser=0

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jlmphotos Experienced

jlmphotos

Posted
Posted

Firstly I don't see any of your images.  Could be me, but I'm not sure.  Secondly I agree where the XT1 produces some amazing images -- I still use mine over my XH1 for certain shoots.  I also feel the High ISO on the XT1 is a bit better than the XH1.  My opinion anyway.

As far as your issue goes I wonder if it has to do with the processing engine on the XT3 vs the XT1.  Maybe you need to tweak the recipe's to get what you want.  Have you tried that?

Thanks

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
User Newbie

User

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have tried to do some tweaks with the Kodachrome recipe  from fujixweekly and it seems that that particular recipe is not playing nicely. I tried another recipe's and they look definitely better

I am not sure why images are not displayed but I will try another way to show them:

1. Settings from XT20: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtjXfWXuaCC7sDKGpK_AwNnfEhoj?e=7i2knj

2. Sample from XT20: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtjXfWXuaCC7sDO_6qMHblju74tw?e=5SvZ8f

3. Samples from XT3 with the problematic recipe: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtjXfWXuaCC7sDcMotzj3dfN_rEJ?e=oylhuR

4. This is just for the love of XT1 color tones which I love so much: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtjXfWXuaCC7sDqbOIPcaqwiWnMh?e=aDAqEk

 

I really hope the links will work.

I tried different settings for jpg's in XT3. But I don't know what to do in the future though. I will definitely keep the XT3, but somehow XT1 is like a heartwarming camera. It blows my mind with the images it produces overall. This very thing makes me think that Fujifilm evolved for better performance trading the magic of image quality from the older cameras.

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...