Fujifilm X-T4 camera rumored specifications : 6k60p video and 10-bit internal

I think the X-T3’s 4k being downsampled from its 6k sensor is one of the primary reasons it does so well image-wise (and also part of why the 4:2:0 subsampling internally holds up better than it should).

4k 4:2:2 internal recording would be a big deal though.
 
With this one, IBIS or better AF. Maybe a photo-video mode resolution bump.

No one changes much these days; just rewraps models with small [but major for some] additions, half of what should have been offered years ago (even for a higher price).
 
Grug said:
I think the X-T3’s 4k being downsampled from its 6k sensor is one of the primary reasons it does so well image-wise (and also part of why the 4:2:0 subsampling internally holds up better than it should).

4k 4:2:2 internal recording would be a big deal though.
Click to expand...

Is it definitely 6K? I've also read 5K but I don't know which is true?
 
Grug said:
I think the X-T3’s 4k being downsampled from its 6k sensor is one of the primary reasons it does so well image-wise (and also part of why the 4:2:0 subsampling internally holds up better than it should).

4k 4:2:2 internal recording would be a big deal though.
Click to expand...

This explains a lot. I have always noticed more details in the highlights of faces compared to other brands. I thought it was their color science, but in fact it actually is more detail.
 
Grug said:
4k 4:2:2 internal recording would be a big deal though.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm doing green screen I've never figured out why I need 4:2:2. It's not as if cones in our eyes are neatly arranged subway tile shapes. I mean I guess it's slightly more color resolution - chips instead of squares. But aren't you forcing your compression algorithm to deal with more color and therefore not doing quite as a good of job with luminance? I'd rather have more bits for luminance. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Erik Naso said:
Haha. So true. The S1H is a pretty loaded camera. I just don't think manufacturers, in general, want to over-invest in very expensive hybrids. That market is probably smaller than we think. I'm all for it but I just don't think we sill see many options. At least now we have a few so that's a good thing. I use mirrorless cameras all the time. Very handy for all the reasons stated. I have high hopes that the X-T4 will be a killer camera. The slightly larger body and a bigger battery alone is huge. Add all the Fujifilm goodness and it's sure to be a winner. It won't have TC jamming I bet.
Click to expand...

Why won’t they commit to a video first design? The S1H feels like a hybrid, as good as it is, i almost felt the 1DC was a more elegant video camera, as it didn’t bother trying to be a hybrid. Sort of weird to say that, as the 1DC took some muscle memory pretending buttons were video first controls. These hybrids are for who? They don’t even really function as a hybrid, they’re just stills camera with extra buttons and features that make it clunky.


I agree with Dan and Brett in that mirrorless cameras can be a big advantage. But the size of an FP, XT3, or A7 seems to prevent proper cooling. The S1H is very close. In a professional environment, the size difference between a 1DX and an XT3 is usually not important, unless rigging, hiding, or trying to be very inconspicuous. But as far as A Cam goes, it is nice to be able to hold something and have comfortable button layouts and adequate i/o connectivity.

Sorry xt’ers. I picked up on the random convo and ran with it. I am just surprised by all the misses in the camera manufacturing industry. Just baffling.

The XT series has huge potential. Will be interesting to see how the Fp develops. And the S2H juuuust may end up being a perfect camera.

Does feel like we are seeing improved design choices in the mid to high end. And these mirrorless cameras are maturing. Just with how slow things improve, i’d still be happy shooting on a dvx or 5dii, because other than some image improvements, yet still looking digital and crappy in the highlights, these cameras haven’t really changed my quality of life or love of shooting. Until entry level cameras are better than an Alexa LF, i feel like i am playing with half a piano. Always avoiding highlights. Soft light, vintage lenses. Ah well, crappy cameras keep us employed. If cameras were any better, why would people hire us, i suppose. Alright, one more upgrade, here we go. At least mirrorless is cheap.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I wish Fuji would make a digital cinema camera that is small, light, designed to work with their MKX lenses, with all of the imaging goodness of the XT-3/4, add in some 4:2:2, XLRs, TC i/o. I'd buy that over a Kinefinity or ZCam in a heartbeat.
Shoot straight to CFExpress or SSDs. Put in all of the film sims for fun but come out with an even better Log (F-Log 2?). I know they could do it. Make it inexpensive to compete with the ZCams and newly down priced Kinefinity line.

I am beginning to wonder if a new $5k camera needs RAW? People will piss, moan and whine if it doesn't, but if the color science and latitude are great, who needs RAW? To me, RAW is just a way to squeeze a bit more DR and detail out of a camera. But how many Arri
owners shoot ARRIRAW? You don't need to. So why not make low end cameras like that, great color science and latitude and get rid of LUTs and RAW? Maybe Fuji could do that? I like shooting RAW with the C200, but the storage and media management are a pain for long form.
 
Canifujikony should have you help design a camera.


I would buy that camera.
 
puredrifting said:
Personally, I wish Fuji would make a digital cinema camera that is small, light, designed to work with their MKX lenses, with all of the imaging goodness of the XT-3/4, add in some 4:2:2, XLRs, TC i/o. I'd buy that over a Kinefinity or ZCam in a heartbeat.
Shoot straight to CFExpress or SSDs. Put in all of the film sims for fun but come out with an even better Log (F-Log 2?). I know they could do it. Make it inexpensive to compete with the ZCams and newly down priced Kinefinity line.

I am beginning to wonder if a new $5k camera needs RAW? People will piss, moan and whine if it doesn't, but if the color science and latitude are great, who needs RAW? To me, RAW is just a way to squeeze a bit more DR and detail out of a camera. But how many Arri
owners shoot ARRIRAW? You don't need to. So why not make low end cameras like that, great color science and latitude and get rid of LUTs and RAW? Maybe Fuji could do that? I like shooting RAW with the C200, but the storage and media management are a pain for long form.
Click to expand...

As an owner of an Alexa Classic, the only reason I chose to occasionally shoot RAW is for the resolution/sharpness bump, but otherwise Prores 444 is more than adequate and not terrible differently looking than a RAW file. However, I recently shot a short fashion film with both the Alexa and the X-T3 fed out to a Ninja V with Prores 422HQ (FLOG) and I was surprised to find a better seperation of tones on the Fuji than the Alexa. I was using the MKX lenses against my Cooke 20-100 and the Fuji definitely won in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc. However, where it fell down was the rendering of certain colors and of course the DR in the highlights (but the Fuji still had highlight detail, just not as much). The reds on the Alexa were excellent. Perfect. The fuji reds were a bit orange and needed a secondary correction and this is where the value of 444 was really missed.
 
brettsherman said:
Unless I'm doing green screen I've never figured out why I need 4:2:2. It's not as if cones in our eyes are neatly arranged subway tile shapes. I mean I guess it's slightly more color resolution - chips instead of squares. But aren't you forcing your compression algorithm to deal with more color and therefore not doing quite as a good of job with luminance? I'd rather have more bits for luminance. Maybe I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

It’s all dependent on the requirements of your grading. If you don’t need secondary colour corrections and aren’t pulling mattes from colour tones within the frame. The extra compression of 4:2:0 won’t matter much. If you do, it does.
 
Maybe a good 10-bit codec would be good enough, but for me the jump from a good 8-bit codec (sony a7 and a6xxx lines) to compressed RAW (p4k) felt absolutely huge, and I don't think it was the bit depth, I think it was the compression scheme. The main difference I'm finding is that colors in dark areas are well preserved: on the p4k I can raise them and push them and they still look good, whereas on the Sonys I could raise them but then any push would bring up blocky noise. I don't think 10-bit with the same compression scheme would solve this: you'd probably need both 10-bit AND a better compression scheme. Or I can just keep on shooting RAW on my p4k, since that's definitely an option.
 
Samuel H said:
Maybe a good 10-bit codec would be good enough, but for me the jump from a good 8-bit codec (sony a7 and a6xxx lines) to compressed RAW (p4k) felt absolutely huge, and I don't think it was the bit depth, I think it was the compression scheme.
Click to expand...

I think the combo of 10-bit with a better compression scheme is the key. I don't think RAW is the only way to get there though. This year I'm shooting everything with my XT-3. Now, I'm not the super picky type, as I was mostly happy with C200 150mbps, but didn't feel I could push it as much as I wanted. And the Sony's were certainly very bit-starved at 100mbps. On the XT-3 shooting H.265 10-bit at 400kbps is all I feel I need. And it's still considerably less than C200 RAW light. Plus, I can switch to 200mbps for interviews where I tend to use very little on-screen, but eats up tons of space. Not everyone has the storage space concerns I do though.
 
James0b57 said:
I agree with Dan and Brett in that mirrorless cameras can be a big advantage. But the size of an FP, XT3, or A7 seems to prevent proper cooling. The S1H is very close. In a professional environment, the size difference between a 1DX and an XT3 is usually not important, unless rigging, hiding, or trying to be very inconspicuous. But as far as A Cam goes, it is nice to be able to hold something and have comfortable button layouts and adequate i/o connectivity.

And the S2H juuuust may end up being a perfect camera.

Does feel like we are seeing improved design choices in the mid to high end.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this industry sort of chases fads. Right now it's all about full-frame. Does anyone NEED full-frame? Not really, do all movies made before the last couple years suck? No.

The form is obvious. APS-C size sensor to reduce heat and needed space in body. Increase body size, make it more cube shaped to allow for proper cooling, necessary ports and audio hardware, and bigger battery. If the body gets too big it doesn't work because then you start pushing the limits of what you can handhold and you might as well go shoulder mount at that point. I don't think you can get there with full-frame, but that's all it seems anybody wants to do now.

I've thought about sketching out my ideal camera, but then I think what's the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top