Fujifilm X-T4 camera rumored specifications : 6k60p video and 10-bit internal
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
I'm doubtful.
They actually had the real estate for it on the GFX100 and still didn't do it. :/
Grug
Veteran
I'm hoping the fact they're really doubling down on video features might change that. But yeah, not overly hopeful.
I'm still blown away by how close the X-T3 is able to match my A-cameras, but the frankenrigging just kills me.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I am tempted by the Fuji XT-4 but I love the XLR audio adapter with the Panasonic cameras. Do these cameras have a line in if one used an external recorder? It would be shame to see such a video centric camera totally forget about audio.
Grug
Veteran
I've fed a Sound Devices Mix-Pre3 into my X-T3 a couple of times, but the internal pre-amps are so crappy, that even on the minimum amplification (letting the sound devices do all the heavy lifting) it's still kinda crappy. I'd never want to rely on the camera's internally recorded sound, just use it as scratch track to pluralise the clean signal in your audio recorder.
If I were buying a mirrorless camera for video today, it'd be S1H without a doubt - it's definitely setup more comprehensively for it.
marvinhello
Well-known member
It's actually the same 26MP sensor:
With any luck Fujifilm has improved the audio performance in the X-T4.
My main concern is recording time limitations. I've been using my GH5 cameras to film live events, so it would be great if the X-T4 could do this too.
Bassman2003
Veteran
It will be a real head to head with the GH6. I see the XT-4 as a better stills camera but the GH6 would have the nice audio and whatever improvements come along.
NorBro
Major Contributor
The 4 will have the draw of the larger sensor and more attractive color science, and the 6 would most likely have the better IBIS and something appealing like 4K/120p over its smaller sensor. Maybe even 8K recording. I definitely think it will have 6K recording.
On a side note, dynamic range is the only thing that has barely moved for almost everything (besides expensive cameras) in the last 10 years, so it would be nice to finally see a mirrorless camera where its #1 advertised spec on the list is 15-16 stops rather than resolutions, or framerates, or IBIS, or AF, etc. Just something different for once.
On a side note, dynamic range is the only thing that has barely moved for almost everything (besides expensive cameras) in the last 10 years, so it would be nice to finally see a mirrorless camera where its #1 advertised spec on the list is 15-16 stops rather than resolutions, or framerates, or IBIS, or AF, etc. Just something different for once.
I posted this somewhere. There's a Korean based chip maker - mostly geared toward the smartphones - with a new processor that can vary its exposure and then blend the frames for the HDR. The idea isn't new. Red had it in their cameras and the key is the elimination of ghosting while maintaining the resolution and the desired frame rate. The Koreans claim to do this live in camera with 8K. Or so I recall.
PS. The resolution hasn't moved much for the APS-C and MFT sensors either. It's more like the full frame just got a lot more affordable. Fuji claims that their proprietary CFA makes 26 look like 32. Sony made even grander claims for F65 due to the similar arrangement. But Sony is protecting its own full frame line, so 26 it is. As the processing power goes up, it actually makes it more suitable for video.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Resolutions - especially via large sensors - aren't able to move up in the video world as quickly with the demanding and desired framerates, which is why we are slowly seeing these 5K/6K modes (even photo modes that shoot video) start to trickle in at 24p/25p.
I don't know what phones are doing, but until they start looking as good as cinema cameras they are out of the conversation from the pure IQ sense.
I don't know what phones are doing, but until they start looking as good as cinema cameras they are out of the conversation from the pure IQ sense.
marvinhello
Well-known member
I am not suggesting that videographers ought to dump their high end camera (or mid-tier cameras, for that matter) and switch to smartphones but that, if a given feature or performance exists in the mobile world, then it ought to also exist in the stand alone pro cameras that cost much, much more. So, if it's 8K, then every pro camera ought to have 8K. If it's an additional ToF sensor/module for AF, then let every pro camera have ToF. If it's AI AF, then it better AI AF for everyone.
All the components are sold "off the shelf" by multiple vendors, with the exception of the sensors which are purchased from Sony by the majority of the photo/video companies.
G
Guest
Guest
Agreed.
But high end cameras are a bit more purpose built.
Arri has done a lot to ruin the concept of resolution. “Better pixels” nonsense. As part of the reason they are better is a “trick” and not really just the pixel itself, from what i understand. So, they held image quality back for the lower tier with their dual gain image stacking patent. Unless everyone else just opted not to include it.
Now the the 65 and LF exists, every sees that resolution wasn’t the problem, but sharpening and contrast was.
For the most part, i’m ok with were cameras are at, but would really like to to see digital come into its own, and right now, it is just crazy expensive to get 14+ stops of honest to goodness image quality. A tall order, but digital needs the head room to soften off the edges, and we haven’t had that since it decalared the death of film on anything but the most expensive cameras. Would love to see better dr in the T2i tier someday soon.
....but looks like cell phones are going to get there first.
Last edited:
Personal opinion - the Alexa ALEV family of cameras can produce superb images at any reasonable DR. Which means it's not the DR. In other words, it looks great in scenes that are at best 6 stops (i.e., no direct major light source, including windows, in or near the frame), which means that there's "secret sauce" over and beyond the sensor's dual-readout.
So what is it? Well, I recall my days selling mid-high end audio and having a Denon rep tell us that their gear is not about volume, is not about low distortion percentages, it's about music. In other words, Denon amps - and this is going back 30 years - were fine tuned by ear, no matter what the electrical design team had delivered in terms of the pure technology. Likewise, most quality audio speakers, which were then designed with calculators and now with software programs, are fine tuned by ear before they're put into production. The reason I bring it up is because the Alexa cameras were fine tuned to resemble film. The dual readout, obviously, helps match the film's dynamic range but there's more. Whether it's the color filter array, the OLPF, the processing power, the internal wiring blocks, etc., the whole thing was designed to resemble film as much as possible. Canon's 1D C, IMO, had a similar approach but was hobbled by its processing to 8-bit. Other manufacturers have tried it and are succeeding to some extent as well. But they could never copy the Alexa formula.
Side note - if one looks at the world top chefs running the world top restaurants, then one has to arrive to a similar conclusion. It's not the ingredients. It is the mix. A competitor can always find the same ingredients but one can rarely duplicate the taste.
So what is it? Well, I recall my days selling mid-high end audio and having a Denon rep tell us that their gear is not about volume, is not about low distortion percentages, it's about music. In other words, Denon amps - and this is going back 30 years - were fine tuned by ear, no matter what the electrical design team had delivered in terms of the pure technology. Likewise, most quality audio speakers, which were then designed with calculators and now with software programs, are fine tuned by ear before they're put into production. The reason I bring it up is because the Alexa cameras were fine tuned to resemble film. The dual readout, obviously, helps match the film's dynamic range but there's more. Whether it's the color filter array, the OLPF, the processing power, the internal wiring blocks, etc., the whole thing was designed to resemble film as much as possible. Canon's 1D C, IMO, had a similar approach but was hobbled by its processing to 8-bit. Other manufacturers have tried it and are succeeding to some extent as well. But they could never copy the Alexa formula.
Side note - if one looks at the world top chefs running the world top restaurants, then one has to arrive to a similar conclusion. It's not the ingredients. It is the mix. A competitor can always find the same ingredients but one can rarely duplicate the taste.
NorBro
Major Contributor
ARRI also made the perfect camera at the perfect time. The perfect system that looked better than everything else, was trusted, and provided a pretty seamless transition from film to digital (a very simple camera to use and understand).
For like the last 10 years the camera decision for 99% of productions was default. No one thought about anything else. You've had your REDs and the others here and there, but the decision for the most part was automatic and a very small part of the decision making that's involved in these monster productions. (There are so many other important things to take care of.)
This is what happens with a modern day-like monopoly; it's very easy to choose something when thousands of people trust it and have chosen it before you. A snowball rolling down a hill.
I feel like it's only now and maybe in the last couple of years that productions stop and say, "Hey, what about this camera?" (The Venice is the biggest threat I have seen.)