In camera processing - bigger screen?

cantanima bis said:

Cliff Fujii said:

Xshooter said:

So Vic, will I be able to successfully connect my X-Pro2 to an external monitor via a HDMI and still be able to do in-camera processing? I know the X-Pro doesn't support tethering but this external connection to monitor may be different, I don't know.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, connecting to the HDMI port is a read only connection. The image on the HDMI cannot be manipulated. It's just an enlargement of what you will see on the camera's LCD when you press the playback button. I use this setup to review my day's take when I'm on a trip. If I need to do some editing or forwarding, I have to connect the SD card to my Surface Pro and work with the image that way.

Click to expand...

As I wrote above, I process my photos all the time via the HDMI port (albeit hooked up to a TV; I don't see why a computer monitor should be any different). Just hit the menu, select Raw Processing, and have at it.

Maybe I misunderstand what you guys are talking about, though.

Click to expand...

If I read the OP correctly, he wants to use his big screen to view image modifications while he is making in-camera changes. With tethering on the X-T2, this is allowed interactively while with the X-P2, you have to create a JPG first then you can view the changes. I think what you are doing is viewing the image after it is saved as a JPG.

Cliff, OP here. Yes that is what I was hoping to do with my X-Pro2. Why oh why did Fuji prevent tethering on the Pro2? Surely it can be added via firmware update?

Xshooter said:

Cliff, OP here. Yes that is what I was hoping to do with my X-Pro2. Why oh why did Fuji prevent tethering on the Pro2? Surely it can be added via firmware update?

Click to expand...

I think this has become described as more complicated than need be. It's very simple, with a micro HDMI cable connect the camera to the display, switch on display and camera and press the cameras playback button and there you are. The camera display goes black and the current image is displayed on the external display, be it raw or jpeg, press the menu button on the camera and the menu for playback mode is displayed on the external display, press the raw editor entry and do the editing, finish with Q-button and the edited image will be displayed on the external monitor. And all is very fast.

About calibrated monitors, on my ASUS I can select sRGB-mode that works fine for me, I'm not too picky though.

Oh, one more, if you playback video you also get the sound over HDMI, for what it's worth.

I agree, this is exactly as I described in my earlier post.

What you get is a big screen version of what you would normally see on the rear LCD. It works, and that's what the OP asked for...Quote from OP "Is it possible to conduct the in-camera processing while somehow connecting the camera to a larger external screen..."

My earlier post "...The HDMI outlet ports the camera's playback output to a screen capable of taking a HDMI signal...It doesn't give a "live" view as you have to create the JPG in order to see the outcome. But it's quick and gives the desired outcome".



The in camera processing isn't live you make parameter changes, create a JPG. If you like the JPG you OK and keep it, if you don't like the JPG you cancel and leave the editor or cancel and make further adjustments. You do this process on the camera's screen or connect a large screen via HDMI and do exactly the same process on a large screen. It's exactly what the OP asked to do.

Doug Pardee said:

The topic came up in some other postings in this thread, but rather than keep digging down, I started a new top-level response.

"Calibrated screen" isn't really a thing. A calibrator is used to make a computer/screen system calibrated. Most, often all, of the actual color correction is done in the computer... mainly in LUTs (Look Up Tables) that are loaded into the computer's video processor. Some more can be done by color-space-aware software running on that computer, which then handles the color-space rendering from the (usually wide-gamut) working space into the LUT-corrected monitor color space.

Sometimes, some monitor adjustments are made at the start of the process, to bring the monitor closer to the desired response so that the LUTs don't have to make such large changes. With LCD screens, this is less common because LCDs don't always respond well to the changes -- they sometimes do some funny things with color casts.

To the extent that monitor adjustments are made, yes, this can improve the color response from your HDMI input. But it doesn't make the monitor "calibrated."

--
Co-founder of the open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

Click to expand...

Interesting information. First I must state that my color vision is far from perfect, I don't kow the english words for my disability but in swedish it's called blu-yellow colorblindness. And in addition to that living at 60º north we don't have very vivid colors around us most of the time. We've just survived another winter solistice but we got some snow yesteday, that lights it up. But most of the time it's mostly grey.

In this case we don't use the computer, or the camera is the computer and there's not much to do to the output from it.

The monitor I use is a couple of years old by now, it has some modes to choose from, one is sRGB and this mode is locked there's no way to make any changes to it. I do like the output in that mode but more important is that I get consistency this way. I googled this when it was new and found a lot of disapointment over this mode, from gamers, for God's sake ther is a gaming mode!

I have noted there are new monitors coming out now, they have found that the blue light from the LEDs is harmful to the eyes, not very surprising and scary considering how much time young people spend viewing LED displays. I'm too old to care for myself. Has anyone seen one of those new displays, how true do they display color?

Brilliant Hankse and HumanAspect, well explained for me. Mini HDMI to HDMI cable just ordered, will try on the TV first before deciding whether I need a smaller dedicated monitor. Many thanks.

Xshooter said:

Brilliant Hankse and HumanAspect, well explained for me. Mini HDMI to HDMI cable just ordered, will try on the TV first before deciding whether I need a smaller dedicated monitor. Many thanks.

Click to expand...

Hold it, I wrote micro HDMI and I think that's the correct size for X-Pro2, mini is for X-E2. But I'll look it up in the manual too.

hankse said:

Xshooter said:

Brilliant Hankse and HumanAspect, well explained for me. Mini HDMI to HDMI cable just ordered, will try on the TV first before deciding whether I need a smaller dedicated monitor. Many thanks.

Click to expand...

Hold it, I wrote micro HDMI and I think that's the correct size for X-Pro2, mini is for X-E2. But I'll look it up in the manual too.

Click to expand...

Yes the manual says micro.

Excellent informative thread. Thanks to the OP for starting it and for the great explanations from all who participated. I don't really need to do this myself but I will give a try simply because I never put my trust in using the camera's raw process on a small screen but would like to see how it works on a large one.

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

Xshooter said:

Cliff, OP here. Yes that is what I was hoping to do with my X-Pro2. Why oh why did Fuji prevent tethering on the Pro2? Surely it can be added via firmware update?

Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of is product separation. I'm really baffled by this decision that Fuji made. I come from the FX DSLR world so the X-T2 was a natural but if you are a rangefinder type, I can see why the X-P2 is more attractive.

Micro HDMI to HDMI ordered instead

Xshooter said:

Micro HDMI to HDMI ordered instead

Click to expand...

I picked one up at Radio Shack today. The package calls it 'HDMI A to HDMI D Adapter'. 2780044. I can confirm that the X100T works.

HumanAspect said:

I agree, this is exactly as I described in my earlier post.

What you get is a big screen version of what you would normally see on the rear LCD. It works, and that's what the OP asked for...Quote from OP "Is it possible to conduct the in-camera processing while somehow connecting the camera to a larger external screen..."

My earlier post "...The HDMI outlet ports the camera's playback output to a screen capable of taking a HDMI signal...It doesn't give a "live" view as you have to create the JPG in order to see the outcome. But it's quick and gives the desired outcome".

The in camera processing isn't live you make parameter changes, create a JPG. If you like the JPG you OK and keep it, if you don't like the JPG you cancel and leave the editor or cancel and make further adjustments. You do this process on the camera's screen or connect a large screen via HDMI and do exactly the same process on a large screen. It's exactly what the OP asked to do.

Click to expand...

Yes. Precisely.

What surprises me is that more aren't using the X-Pro2's HDMI port. It's as "live" as any flat screen monitor that you'd attach to your notebook computer or tablet. Think of it as a gigantic EVF. Everything you do in the camera's playback mode is projected "live" onto the larger screen. I thought that everybody did this from time to time. It's a nice alternative to computer-based post-processing. Works better if you set your monitor/TV to a lower contrast mode (so the blacks will not be clipped).

There is no difference between the X-T1, X-T2, and X-Pro2 functioning when connected via HDMI to a large screen.

bowportes said:

HumanAspect said:

I agree, this is exactly as I described in my earlier post.

What you get is a big screen version of what you would normally see on the rear LCD. It works, and that's what the OP asked for...Quote from OP "Is it possible to conduct the in-camera processing while somehow connecting the camera to a larger external screen..."

My earlier post "...The HDMI outlet ports the camera's playback output to a screen capable of taking a HDMI signal...It doesn't give a "live" view as you have to create the JPG in order to see the outcome. But it's quick and gives the desired outcome".

The in camera processing isn't live you make parameter changes, create a JPG. If you like the JPG you OK and keep it, if you don't like the JPG you cancel and leave the editor or cancel and make further adjustments. You do this process on the camera's screen or connect a large screen via HDMI and do exactly the same process on a large screen. It's exactly what the OP asked to do.

Click to expand...

Yes. Precisely.

What surprises me is that more aren't using the X-Pro2's HDMI port. It's as "live" as any flat screen monitor that you'd attach to your notebook computer or tablet. Think of it as a gigantic EVF. Everything you do in the camera's playback mode is projected "live" onto the larger screen. I thought that everybody did this from time to time. It's a nice alternative to computer-based post-processing. Works better if you set your monitor/TV to a lower contrast mode (so the blacks will not be clipped).

There is no difference between the X-T1, X-T2, and X-Pro2 functioning when connected via HDMI 5to a large screen.

Click to expand...

"Live" in this context meant seeing the changes as you make them as you would in LR. The in-camera processing requires you to change the parameters (one parameter or many) without seeing the effect until you press OK, then you see the effect of the changes all at once.

It's no big deal, it's quick to do, and quick to go back tweak a parameter and redo. But it's not live in the sense of sliding a slider and seeing a change live "before your very eyes".

Is there not going to be an issue using the in-camera processing but on a TV, which will be calibrated to show TV and film, rather than correctly colour calibrated as per a screen calibration tool for a monitor? How will one judge if the colour film simulation is what is most appropriate when it may show up differently on a TV colour screen than on an external colour calibrated monitor?

Xshooter said:

Is there not going to be an issue using the in-camera processing but on a TV, which will be calibrated to show TV and film, rather than correctly colour calibrated as per a screen calibration tool for a monitor? How will one judge if the colour film simulation is what is most appropriate when it may show up differently on a TV colour screen than on an external colour calibrated monitor?

Click to expand...

Depends on the individual. As I mentioned previously I tried it, it works, I don't use it anymore. If I convert in-camera I use the camera's rear LCD screen; presumably equally as un calibrated!

I've never calibrated anything, if it looks good enough to me why would I bother. It's a simple facility provided by Fuji, why worry!

It's entirely up to the individual. Doesn't work for you? Don't use it.

HumanAspect said:

Xshooter said:

Is there not going to be an issue using the in-camera processing but on a TV, which will be calibrated to show TV and film, rather than correctly colour calibrated as per a screen calibration tool for a monitor? How will one judge if the colour film simulation is what is most appropriate when it may show up differently on a TV colour screen than on an external colour calibrated monitor?

Click to expand...

Depends on the individual. As I mentioned previously I tried it, it works, I don't use it anymore. If I convert in-camera I use the camera's rear LCD screen; presumably equally as un calibrated!

I've never calibrated anything, if it looks good enough to me why would I bother. It's a simple facility provided by Fuji, why worry!

It's entirely up to the individual. Doesn't work for you? Don't use it.

Click to expand...

Take the following with a grain of salt, you see I'm partly color blind.

Of course a TV is not optimal for this kind of work, unless you can switch it to different modes. Myself I use an ASUS VE248 monitor, it's a couple of years old, but it has a factory calibrated sRGB mode which I have found useful for my needs. I don't expect it to be of professional quality but good enough. I have a Samsung monitor too, a couple of years older, and the ASUS looks far better to me, especially in sRGB mode, the Samsung doesn't have anything similar to it.

The Samsung is connected over HDMI and the ASUS over DVI, this way I can have the HDMI cable connected to the ASUS all the time and select HDMI only when I connect the camera.

hankse said:

About calibrated monitors, on my ASUS I can select sRGB-mode that works fine for me, I'm not too picky though.

Click to expand...

I use my ASUS MX259 in sRGB mode all the time when I edit photos. Not completely color-correct, but close enough for me.

I have a X-E1 which uses a HDMI-Mini connector. It works well when connected to this monitor via an adapter cable, and I can process raws in-camera. The monitor doesn't like it, telling me to set up (the camera I believe) for 1080i or something, but it does work.

My guess is this will work on all later versions of the cameras. Why Fuji later went with a HDMI-Micro port is the only thing I wonder about, since I have the HDMI-Micro port on my X30.

I do all my processing in my laptop, and seldom use in-camera raw processing.

There are some small but good portable HDMI monitors out there that could be useful.

Xshooter said:

Is there not going to be an issue using the in-camera processing but on a TV, which will be calibrated to show TV and film, rather than correctly colour calibrated as per a screen calibration tool for a monitor? How will one judge if the colour film simulation is what is most appropriate when it may show up differently on a TV colour screen than on an external colour calibrated monitor?

Click to expand...

No because there are high quality computer monitors that have HDMI inputs. The only issue I have found in the past is that some pro monitors limit the color displayable on the DVI and HDMI channels. If you want to see the max numbers of colors (from a palette of over a trillion) use Display Port. Unfortunately that won't work with the Fuji HDMI display connection.

--
Cliff

Xshooter said:

Is there not going to be an issue using the in-camera processing but on a TV, which will be calibrated to show TV and film, rather than correctly colour calibrated as per a screen calibration tool for a monitor? How will one judge if the colour film simulation is what is most appropriate when it may show up differently on a TV colour screen than on an external colour calibrated monitor?

Click to expand...

These HDTVs usually have menus of numerous picture adjustments and you can use these to get a pleasing result. Of course when you switch back to using it as a TV you might have to reset all these so it looks good as a TV. All this varies between TVs, since there are no standards.

Monitors generally have far fewer adjustments like this, but again it depends on the individual monitor.

--
Tom Schum
Every day a new image.