Video quality of futures cameras

[nzswedespeed]

I for one hope Fuji keeps improving their video quality.

 

This got me thinking, canon has the popular hack of Magic Lantern which enables full 14bit raw recording (albeit at lower realities and for limited time).

 

However Fuji raw files are massive, but their jpegs rule. I wonder if Fuji has considered implemented a similar approach (ie 1080p jpegs at 24fps, or higher resolution and frame rates). And then maybe a incamera to stitch them together for people who want it right then.

 

This is probably very niche, but Fuji doesn't have any video line to protect like most of the other companies. I really don't want to have two sets of cameras and lenses etc.

[Larry Bolch]

It was quite sensational when dSLRs were capable of doing network quality video. Canon managed to get House to do a whole episode shot with their cameras. A small industry cropped up with rigging, monitors and other accessories to help convert dSLRs into video production cameras. The fad did not last all that long. Production companies found that they could rent actual video production cameras at a reasonable price and they were much more efficient on the set. They actually were video cameras and designed to be familiar to cinématographers. For those who don't rent, Blackmagic, Canon, Panasonic and Sony make fully professional video cameras at prices competitive to dSLRs.

 

Video on still cameras has been there since the beginning. Any camera that has LiveView has a video feed, so it is as near to being a free feature as anything standard on cameras today. With high resolution and ever faster processing, 4k is quite easily accessible as a selling point even if totally impractical for most buyers. It looks good on the specification sheet, even if most buyers will never be able to use it.

 

Which is to say, that now video is not high on any camera makers priority list. The ability to shoot 4k was not a goal, but a side-effect of 16-24MP sensors and current processing power. Clearly most video is shot with camera phones and uploaded to Facebook and other social media sites unedited. I expect the output of phones exceeds that of consumer still cameras by orders of magnitude. Anyone who has tried to do high-quality video will have found the demands daunting. Camera operation is quite different from stills and editing vastly different. So phones for consumer video, video cameras for anyone who is serious. Since the feature is free, it will be included on still cameras, whether anyone uses it or not.

 

Are you not aware that Fujifilm is one of the big players in video production on an industrial and network level? They don't build cameras, but they build a formidable arsenal of lenses for video cameras, ranging from an entry-level $3,900 to an eye-watering $233,490.00 101× zoom. B&H lists 81 individual Fujinon lenses. That is a pretty serious video line.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&ci=1884&setNs=p_PRICE_2%7c1&N=3908282152+4291437653&srtclk=sort

[Naddan28]

Whilst I agree serious video for large scale productions etc is clearly not going to be a DSLR/Mirrorless camera win but I see lots of applications between that and iPhone videos of birthdays/weddings for Facebook.

 

Fuji jpeg colours are great. Fuji's lenses are great, the DoF you get back an iPhone could be really useful and for documentary work etc I suspect an XT1 is more practical than huge cine camera. On that basis I'd like Fuji to up their game significantly, simple things like a 3.5mm jack for microphones would be a start!

[nzswedespeed]

Thanks for that info Larry. I do agree that Fuji has a serious professional presence with their lenses, and that tools are relatively cheap compared to what they used to be (BMPCC etc). However I am looking at the likes of Canon which has implemented good video options (ie you can use Cinestyle profiles to reduce clipping) to where Fuji can grow. Canon/Sony/Pansonic - the 3 bigger players in the hybrid market all have professional lines they need to protect (although Sony and Panasonic (especially Panasonic with the release of V-Log) have been very generous to the lower end of the market) - which is why I believe Canon has been so tight with jumping to 4K, and crippling the 80D.

 

I must admit I wanted 4K for extra clarity when down-scaled, however my iPhone now has it - and to be honest I would actually rather far better dynamic range (not possible with the sensor size) and being able to use DOF to your advantage. Fuji X series has amazing glass and produces brilliant colour - it's a potential match made in heaven. 

 

Maybe I am dreaming of RAW 1080P, or even 1080P jpegs @24 or 30fps. Fuji does however need to implement more features. Even the X-Pro2 you cannot control the highlight/shadow tone like you can in photo mode....! This is a huge oversight. They really need to be putting in a "flat" (or similar to cinestyle) to really capture some interest from the hobbyist video crowd. Maybe this isn't what fuji is after, but from what I've read there are lots of people interested in a solid hyrbid platform - fuji nails Stills - they just need to get solid video. I would most likely shift to another system in the next couple of years if a better options arises (Nikon is making solid inroads). I refuse to give up the EVF though hahah.