scorsesefan
Veteran
Does anyone know how well Fuji's F-log will match with S-log 2/3 (fs5/fs7)? Thanks
Fuji X-T3 released
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
puredrifting
Major Contributor
In my limited experience, SLog 2 and 3 are one of the most difficult to match with any other camera. Sony's peculiar color science means that their skin tones will usually bias toward magenta, plus both logs are extremely flat like C-Log 2 on Canon only perhaps even more so. F-Log is a very mild Log application, it's still pretty contrasty for Log and Fuji's color science is so different than Sonys. Much closer to Canon and Panasonic IMHO. The other factor is all of this goes out the window if you are a skilled colorist. I have seen skilled colorists kind of pull off miracles in matching cameras, it can be done, it's just that the average editor cannot do it, I know I can't, I can't even match our Hero 5 and 6 and they should be pretty close.
scorsesefan
Veteran
Thanks, Dan. I wound up selling my C100 and ordering a FS5 (the C200 was preferable but out of my price range). As I've mentioned before I'm a competent colorist, but toying around with some Fs5 footage I did find it a more time consuming grade than the C100 or Fuji (f-log). I'm not crazy about the cool look of Sony, but economics has pushed me in their direction. I would like to match my X-T3 to the Fs5 as a b-cam but I've been thinking about swapping it out for a A7SII or RII to save some time and headaches in post...
G
Guest
Guest
Fuji is not helpful in figuring out the hdmi timecode and sound devices mixpre 3 issue.
Has anyone figured out a solution or proper settings yet?
Has anyone figured out a solution or proper settings yet?
G
Guest
Guest
Ah well. Doesn't look like the XT3 will get compatibility with Sound Devices Mixpre's.
I can tell the Fuji support guys are bored talking about the exciting aspect of using a Fuji with a sound recorder.
Unfortunately, that is a no go for me, and my short foray into the Fuji eco system is now over. The 10bit is nice, but H.265 is not. The bit rates are nice, but other companies should follow suit soon.
Another half baked set of features, that gets attention, but doesn't fully deliver.
Between the auto focus flubs and the time-code out only working with Atmos, then it comes down to video quality alone. And the moire in HD is not nice, and the noise from iso1600 on degrades the image. To me, the video interface is rather over complicated to setup and learn. Nice options, but ultimately reinventing the wheel. It is not a video camera you can just take out of the box and start shooting. As a stills camera, it is intuitive, but as a video camera, not so much. If some of the selling features worked better, it might be worth the time getting new lens mounts and learning a new menu and setup. But if you aren't the kind of person who really likes getting new things to try out, the Fuji is not worth the detour.
It is an odd camera, that goes out of its way to add pro video features that ultimately don't work.
I can tell the Fuji support guys are bored talking about the exciting aspect of using a Fuji with a sound recorder.
Unfortunately, that is a no go for me, and my short foray into the Fuji eco system is now over. The 10bit is nice, but H.265 is not. The bit rates are nice, but other companies should follow suit soon.
Another half baked set of features, that gets attention, but doesn't fully deliver.
Between the auto focus flubs and the time-code out only working with Atmos, then it comes down to video quality alone. And the moire in HD is not nice, and the noise from iso1600 on degrades the image. To me, the video interface is rather over complicated to setup and learn. Nice options, but ultimately reinventing the wheel. It is not a video camera you can just take out of the box and start shooting. As a stills camera, it is intuitive, but as a video camera, not so much. If some of the selling features worked better, it might be worth the time getting new lens mounts and learning a new menu and setup. But if you aren't the kind of person who really likes getting new things to try out, the Fuji is not worth the detour.
It is an odd camera, that goes out of its way to add pro video features that ultimately don't work.
F-LOG is extremely close to the original Sony S-LOG. Practically the same exposure values for 18% Grey and 90% white for instance. No trouble color correcting the Fuji, and what I like most is that there is much greater retention of color information in faces, especially in the traditional highlight areas of the forehead and nose in contrasty situations. This is one of the chief strengths of this camera.
SLOG2 and 3 have never stood up as well as the original s-log. They are compressing the values in different place on the curve and I find that they yield too much noise.
scorsesefan
Veteran
Thanks. S-log 2/3 definitely yields some noise in the shadows in lower light situations. I use Cinegamma for low contrast shooting... Fuji colors are definitely more pleasing out of the box but getting there on Sony can be done with some work I suppose...
G
Guest
Guest
Coming from a heavy Sony background, i don’t find F-log familiar. S-log is pretty easy to grade. S-log 2 has some noise, but i’ve always been able to grade it out, It has a good amount of range. Just can’t expose looking at the monitor, definitely need some wavy waves.
F-log felt unfamiliar. Seems some get good results, but i did not. ‘Thought with 10bit it would be easy. There is a strange ‘gray’ that i can’t get around. Reminds me of a refined cinema-style from the old canon days.
One can get good images from the camera, but f-log does not remind me of s-log.
S-log and c-log are probably the simplest for me to grade, with s-log2 a not so distant 2nd. S-log 3 feels like a stretch with most cameras.
F-log felt unfamiliar. Seems some get good results, but i did not. ‘Thought with 10bit it would be easy. There is a strange ‘gray’ that i can’t get around. Reminds me of a refined cinema-style from the old canon days.
One can get good images from the camera, but f-log does not remind me of s-log.
S-log and c-log are probably the simplest for me to grade, with s-log2 a not so distant 2nd. S-log 3 feels like a stretch with most cameras.
Last edited:
Using LUTCalc you can see what's going on with the gamma curves: https://cameramanben.github.io/LUTCalc/LUTCalc/index.html
When shooting on Sony I found SLog2 worked the best, and was relatively easy to grade (A7S II + SGamut3.cine + in-camera sat.). SLog3 was too flat for 8-bit (very similar to Canon Log 2 and ARRI LogC).
For Canon, I found Canon Log 3 the best for overall log shooting (Canon Log 2 for max DR in the sun).
Looking at F-Log, after about -1 stop (see chart) it's a fairly constant/linear offset from SLog2.
If one is having a challenge with F-Log, first transforming it to SLog2, Canon Log 3, ARRI LogC etc. to bring to familiar territory could help. LUTCalc makes the transformation easy.
When shooting on Sony I found SLog2 worked the best, and was relatively easy to grade (A7S II + SGamut3.cine + in-camera sat.). SLog3 was too flat for 8-bit (very similar to Canon Log 2 and ARRI LogC).
For Canon, I found Canon Log 3 the best for overall log shooting (Canon Log 2 for max DR in the sun).
Looking at F-Log, after about -1 stop (see chart) it's a fairly constant/linear offset from SLog2.
If one is having a challenge with F-Log, first transforming it to SLog2, Canon Log 3, ARRI LogC etc. to bring to familiar territory could help. LUTCalc makes the transformation easy.
G
Guest
Guest
Thanks! That is helpful.
scorsesefan
Veteran
I think slog2 is recommended for 8 bit - at least on the fs5.
G
Guest
Guest
I’ve read that any Sony model with less than 14stops DR, S-log 2 may be all that is needed.
And that S-log 3 is more close to the ACE’s standard.
G
Guest
Guest
Thanks! I have to get lutcalc
Grug
Veteran
The lack of timecode with the Mix Pre 3 is a shame, but I can't agree with your general summary. For all the compromises that mirrorless stills cameras pose for video work, I think the X-T3 really does stand out head and shoulders above the rest for ease of use. The ergonomics and speed with which you can adjust settings is world's better than the rest. The quick menu makes switching recording formats/framerates a breeze. The 10-bit is fantastic. h265 is a pain in the arse, but apparently the only option for internal 10-bit recording in a large-sensor mirrorless stills camera (as evidenced by Panasonic's upcoming options).
The bitrates are remarkable, and nothing (not even the big Panasonics that are coming) can touch Fuji on that front.
As a tool to do video with, that isn't a video camera, I think they've done a wonderful job.
But it's still not a video camera, and it sticks you with a bunch of compromises as a result. The compromises are so much less than everything else out there though, that I think it makes a strong contender. I've been using my two more and more as b-cameras. Combined with something small like a Ronin-S, it's an incredibly powerful 10-bit, autofocussing tool to keep in the kit for those moment when you need stabilised camera movement, but production can't afford the real thing.
NorBro
Major Contributor
They were actually the last ones to the party...all of the main players with their major releases have had quick menus and tons of programmable buttons (Sony has the most on any of their newer cameras and was offering this when Fujifilm didn't even have a 4K camera yet).
And some systems now utilize buttons or switches to change formats/framerates so it doesn't get any quicker than that.
And also IMO, Fujifilm has probably the worst menu system I have ever seen. Swiping the screen is fantastic though.
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
Do you disagree with anything i said?
G
Guest
Guest
Kind of interesting how we can say such similar things and yet have such radically different opinions.
Last edited: