Video vs still capability

[MSW]

The X-T2 was bulked up from the T-1 in part to accommodate the heatsink needed to accommodate 4K video.  But if the link below speaks truly, 4K is already old tech - 8K is the future.  Absent some big improvement in thermal efficiency, an X-T(next) will need an addition bulk-up.  Maybe that will come the the super/ultimate x-trans model that is rumored to be in the pipeline.  Perhaps it is time to revert to separate still and video cameras rather than the current digital Swiss Army Knives (DSAK's)?

 

Opinions.

 

 

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/17/rise-8k-pros-cons-adopt-asap/

[Arthur]

On those rare occasions when I come across a scene worth recording on video I am totally satisfied with 1080, though my camera is capable of 4k. It's just me. Other people might be interested in new technologies while I prefer a light weight unobtrusive camera - which was exactly the reason I bought into Fuji in the first place.

 

And yes, I do have a separate Canon video camera for those occasions, when I plan some high quality prolonged recording.

 

Swiss army knife? That's a good way to describe the camera I will not be investing in any time soon.

[Tikcus]

8K then 16K then 32K, they will all happen

 

We just need a few more die shrinks of processors to get the technology into XT size bodies, is there any point in such high resolutions for a moving image that is debatable.

 

For the little video I do (ATM), the output at 1080p from my Xtrans2 bodies is more than good enough.

 

But, I am looking to get back into video and the Video Features that would actually interest me if Fuji adopted them would be:

 

4K photo (the ability that Panasonic cameras have to record 4K video and then pull the stills frame by frame from the camera)

No time limit on video files, 15min recording limits is annoying.

 

If Fuji released an X-V (video) Pro, with all the photo features of the XT-2 and proper video support at less than £2500, I'd definitely want one

Edited April 18, 2017 by Tikcus

[Larry Bolch]

Video is a free feature. It has been around since the dawning of the digital camera era. Every camera with LiveView has a video feed, and firmware and software development costs were paid off long ago. However, not every camera is ideal for video use, and most still photographers lack the necessary skills to do watchable video well. The camcorder is alive and well.

 

Yes, 4k is here and it has been here for quite a while. I did virtual sets for a cable science show back in 2010 and we were working in 4k back then. However, we had access to a 4k video editing suite along with green-screen studio and 4k video cameras—and most importantly—professional staff. I wonder what percentage of people who bought a still camera with 4k being a major deal-maker, have actually finished their second project? I expect that a lot of first projects get shuffled to the back burner unfinished. Making watchable video is skill intensive and a LOT of work.

 

Compared to 1080 HD, 4k needs four times the resources—storage in camera and on drives, RAM and CPU, video card and above all, a 4k monitor. When it arrives, 8k will double that. Of course, if you are shooting for network or theatrical release, you can hire the skills and the hardware costs are trivial compared to the overall production budget. Whether shot 4k or 8k, most enthusiast video will be viewed on standard 1920×1080 HD screens because that is what people have.

[Larry Bolch]

For the little video I do (ATM), the output at 1080p from my Xtrans2 bodies is more than good enough.

 

But, I am looking to get back into video and the Video Features that would actually interest me if Fuji adopted them would be:

 

4K photo (the ability that Panasonic cameras have to record 4K video and then pull the stills frame by frame from the camera)

No time limit on video files, 15min recording limits is annoying.

 

If Fuji released an X-V (video) Pro, with all the photo features of the XT-2 and proper video support at less than £2500, I'd definitely want one

 

A 15-minute take (unedited) would be beyond annoying, it would be close to cruel and unusual punishment. Turn on your TV to a random show. Notice that whether it is news, sports, drama, reality, talking heads, documentary, whatever… they are all made up of cuts with few going over 10 seconds. 

 

Back in the days of 8mm home movie cameras, cartoonists had a field day with people trying to squirm out of home movie nights. Now everyone has a TV and it is not unusual to have it on for many hours a day. This is the standard by which you are judged. Even the lowest budget cable time-filler is well shot with even lighting, steady camera moves, and edited from short takes.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Larry Bolch

[johant]

I am all for a separate video line: that way others get what they want (high end video) and I don't need to pay for it (in terms of money, weight, or extra buttons).

[Tikcus]

A 15-minute take (unedited) would be beyond annoying, it would be close to cruel and unusual punishment. Turn on your TV to a random show. Notice that whether it is news, sports, drama, reality, talking heads, documentary, whatever… they are all made up of cuts with few going over 10 seconds. 

 

Back in the days of 8mm home movie cameras, cartoonists had a field day with people trying to squirm out of home movie nights. Now everyone has a TV and it is not unusual to have it on for many hours a day. This is the standard by which you are judged. Even the lowest budget cable time-filler is well shot with even lighting, steady camera moves, and edited from short takes.

 

that's fine if you can shoot on multiple cameras with a team, when i have to shoot live events on a single camera alone (normally unpaid non professional), having to constantly start and stop recordings for a show that does not have any breaks or pauses is a lot of work, yes i could invest again in a camcorder or a different camera make, but since it is unpaid, and only every now and then i'm not prepared to invest the money

[Florian]

The X-T2 was bulked up from the T-1 in part to accommodate the heatsink needed to accommodate 4K video.

 

My impression is that any x-series camera design is entirely focussed on stills, only adding extra video features after the hardware design has been fixed. In the case of the x-t2, the bulk was added for improved autofocus and continuous shooting, the 4k video only added because it could be done within that bulk. I suspect that's also why Fuji has a less than stellar reputation for video on their cameras.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Florian

[Lumens]

Perhaps it is time to revert to separate still and video cameras rather than the current digital Swiss Army Knives (DSAK's)?

 

 

AGREED 300%.  If I want video I will buy a video camera.