Jaime Valles

This is pretty cool: the OFX plugin architecture used by Resolve (and other high-end tools) is relatively simple and clean (unlike Adobe AE/PP, which is a unfortunately a mess (at this point, disaster is perhaps a more accurate description)). Third-party developers can have empathy for Adobe's in-house developers who have to work on the core product: it's no wonder there are so many bugs and development progress is slow. For years I had asked for example HW acceleration examples from Adobe which show a basic plugin which can directly access GPU memory, run GPU code, then store the result in GPU memory. All that was ever provided was a pointer to ancient/obsolete code which used OpenGL, and required copying the video frame from CPU RAM to GPU RAM and back (which makes the whole thing just about worthless). In 5 minutes of googling I found an example OFX plugin which does everything I had asked: processes everything from GPU RAM (no copies to CPU RAM and back), has complete examples for both OpenGL and CUDA, and the overall code is clean and relatively simple. Very cool!
https://github.com/baldavenger/SoftClipV2.1/blob/master/SoftClipPluginV2.1.cpp . https://github.com/baldavenger/SoftClipV2.1.
This is exactly what I'd found for plugin development for AE/PP: https://www.eehelp.com/question/gpu-accelerated-the-development-of-ae-premiere-pro-plugin/ (bold emphasis mine):
This is a joke, and explains why third party plugins for Premiere never ran anywhere near as fast as Adobe's internal plugins/effects.
Premiere and After Effects are at least 10 years past due for a complete rewrite. It's kind of impressive they've kept it clunking along all these years, however they'd be better off (if they haven't already started) doing a from-scratch rewrite, just like Apple did with FCPX. Maybe even switch over to OFX for plugins/extensions. Keep the clunky version of AE/PP around while the new version is beta released and developers port their code over to OFX (unless it's somehow possible to make a compatibility layer and load old plugins (probably not worth it given the ancient convoluted design)).

Yeah and also thanks to Canon EOSHD is still relevant 

anyone know if it's a 1080 screen like the 502? or is it 720 maybe?

@Neumann Films I spent over $5K on a new computer to edit C300 II 4K footage smoothly in PP CC. I knew back then (December) that the 'old' 2010 12-Core Mac Pro with GTX 980ti was more than powerful enough (way more than powerful enough) to easily edit multiple 4K streams in real-time, let alone just one. I knew it was Adobe's software holding back performance since FCPX ran rings around PP CC for 4K footage in real-time on the same hardware. Now four months later, PP CC can edit 1-2 4K streams well enough that the new machine purchase could have been avoided, saving $5+K. The new machine is still useful, as it is much faster, however it's no longer required to do basic 4K edits.
The latest release may have also increased rendering export speed (didn't notice until recently, 2x real-time 1080p on the old machine). It also looks like they may have improved Ultra Key (fine hair detail seems to look better).
@SuperSet since the GH5 footage edits fine when rewrapped into MXF (don't transcode! waste of time and quality loss; solution posted on this site for PC users), the GH5 fix for Adobe is trivial as far as code changes. However, the QA process takes a long time for something as big, monolithic, and ancient as Adobe's code base. I've done everything in software from development to executive management. It's absolutely not up to developers what gets done. It's up to executive management (who are typically given filtered info from middle management). Unless the executives are code-savvy and technical (surprisingly rare in tech companies, believe it or not), getting things fixed and the right features added is sometimes very difficult for large companies. What other large company is doing better? Apple? Microsoft? Google's software is terrible, lol, not even a contender. Why? Internal politics and they are making so much money from Big Data sales it doesn't really matter.
I too used to get into a 'rant state' with software vendors (probably the most with Microsoft in the past), now I just figure out (and share) solutions to work around the issues since there really aren't any other options.
Adobe's code base is so old it's very hard to work on it. They really need an all-new ground up rewrite (as was done with FCPX). The challenges are many. First, great software architects are very few. Most of them aren't working for big companies, being smart enough to know they can make way more money in a startup (of which they are part or sole owner). Only when there's a truly drop-in replacement which can compete with Premiere will Adobe be forced to make big changes due to lost revenue.  Resolve could do that someday, but they are currently far away in performance let alone feature parity. FCPX on OSX is decent, but still a ways off in features (especially color grading without add-ons; even so still prefer Lumetri in PP CC).
For now, use the MXF rewrap tools for GH5 footage- no loss in quality and as fast as a file copy. The issue is with Adobe's format importer. The MXF code path can handle the GH5's (industry standard, nothing new here) 10-bit H.264 (the MP4/MOV importer code path cannot; probably a simple 'one-liner' code change to fix it by the way (perhaps as simple as a switch to handle the FOURCC format type for the video stream). It might even be possible to drop on the appropriate DLL (and perhaps a config file) from the prior release to fix it...

The swivel mount is a brilliant addition. Can't believe nobody else thought of that before. This looks mighty interesting...

I just had an "on the record" conversation with the a canon rep today on the show floor and brought up the whole "lack of 4k across the board" issue. They told me that the Japanese corporate people just don't get it but now are seeing some serious impact from Panasonic and Sony. He said their philosophy is that people who buy 77d and t7i don't need 4k but I said the 80d is a great video camera and they should add 4k to that model. He said a 90d with 4k would make sense but not to get our hopes up. 
I also spoke to a Panasonic rep today who told me that he was on the airplane sitting next to a Canon rep and the Canon rep told him "you and Sony are eating our lunch in the lower end and the a9 is a serious hit to our high end." The Panasonic rep said this is the first year that Canon reps have the humility and lack of ego/ pride that they normally do. 
Also, I spoke to the Canon rep about the c100 mk3. He said it does exist. It's just not here and he couldn't tell me when we will see it. He couldn't confirm any specs. I'll try to dig more on them tomorrow  

They should put a touchscreen on it to make its DPAF more useful. Add 4k and also improve the screen and EVF and it'll be good. 

Well then, I stand corrected! Here's looking forward to tomorrow!

Yes. There was a leak. I am not saying anything and I didn't post this. I may or may not have heard something tonight at a party  
It may or may not have been a reputable source but from what I was told it sounds like the perfect camera. We will see tomorrow 

Here they are dealing with someone who's asked for a mirrorless D5
 

Has anyone heard any rumors about a C100 III? I'd love it if something got announced at NAB, but I feel there would have been some leaks here and there these past few weeks, no?

I'm tempted to register there just to reply to him that the only way we'll definitively know if Canon are ripping us off is if we have to pay by Western Union and Canon tell us their mother is posting the 5DMKIVs back.

The nerve of Canon. Telling a lie, and ripping people off. The later is the worse of those to things.
Ebrahim is such a slut.

Believe the random DPR commenter!

Well I have to confess... this pisses me off. Not only did they not fix the crop, but they also pretty much gave a big FU to the owners of the 1DXMkII. A camera that many have argued needed C-Log from even before launch. The annoying thing is the hardware in these cameras is more than capable of producing 14 bit raw at 24p, or 60p. It is simply a neutered in order to protect the Cinema line. Personally, if my intention was only to shoot video I would not choose the DSLR form factor. And I believe the same is true for most of us. Crippling the capabilities of these cameras is pure BS. I feel like the only real threat to Canon is Sony. It they can somehow fix their color science and perhaps increase their bit depth to 12 bits... as I'm not certain 10bits is a huge difference. Then they will have a real winner on their hands. But it cannot be in the A7 series... it must be in the larger A9 series. As a larger battery is needed. Also there needs to be ample space to allow for heatsinks to dissipate heat.
 
Dam you Canon... 

No love for the 1DX-II?
They deserve some serious rage if they overlook that camera.

Just checked Whois - www.craftcamera.com is registered to: E.Saawadi, Mansoura, Egypt
Yep, I'm just kidding.

Also, I have almost no doubt their current path has a better chance to be more lucrative and notorious than the one I'm on, but the style of content-creators is not one that I personally would find creatively fullfilling or artistically worthwhile.
I like traditional movie-making too much  
"Content" will have a place, but I think overall it's probably just not for me.  

Here's my take:  "Content" is its own word. "Filmmaker" is a different one.  The latter needn't concern themselves too much about the former. 
I respect content creators for YouTube --as I don't have the motivation to do it, but "content" is not really art; it's not really filmmaking, is it?

On my walk to drop off some gear at the rental house, I ran into 5 teenagers filming.
I of course wanted to ask what they were up to, camera, lens etc, and it ended up being a very enlightening experience (15mins of).
They are vloggers and instagramers here in Finland with over 100 000 followers/ subscribers in each medium. 
I, indeed, was the old fart (all 37 of my years on earth) they were humouring but they were super pleasant and made my day.
But to the point, all they had as 'gear' was an olympus, native pancake lens, and a tiny plastic tripod. Their main goal was to walk around the city and produce content.
I metioned I had some stuff like the Zhiyun Crane, like it was impressive... but it turns out that kind of stuff was arbitrary to their interests.
These guys were content machines.
It made me think. Have I been getting it all wrong?
Yes, I script, I storyboard, I know my way around a manual cinema camera and traditional lighting techniques...
But who cares anymore?
These kids are the future and they did not care a toss about dynamic range or bitrates. They wanted everything auto so they could focus on actually enjoying a shoot.
Something to think about...

@TheRenaissanceMan + @kidzrevil
Yeah...Modern AF cameras and generally electronic driven devices are for girlies and mollycoddles only. "Real" filmmakers shoot only with old sovjet cameras for max. 150 USD bought on Ebay. 

Yes gimbals is one of the reasons you need good AF. 
Personally I find AF very useful when I have to use deep DoF. Because with shallow DoF you can easily tell from the LCD with or without focus assist where the focus is, but with f/5.6 and above it becomes pain in the ass to accurately estimate the focus point  unless you have a large external monitor. So many times I have ended up with slightly blurred footage because I though I focused correctly. I say no more, and its my belief that for a consumer video oriented camera proper AF is a must. 

Hahahahahaha 
get out of your cave man. The "MF is for pro, AF for small hobbyists" is a thing of the past. 
Not so long ago we used MF in photography. Do you know many pro photographers shooting weddings photography in MF??
Nope. For video we are right at the curve now. In 5 years from now, 5% of pros using A7S like bodies will shoot MF in video. 
When you have used a Canon DPAF system you know it's the real deal, not only making your life a lot easier, but opening your creativity allowing shots impossible before (or very difficult for a one man operation).
Good luck run and gunning with swallo DoF with a DJI Ronin gimbal and your Manual focus camera mounted on it. 

I think "the large portion of video shooters that never use AF" is not because people don't want to but because the tech/cost isn't there.
If every camera had dual pixel video AF from the year 2100 you can bet almost everyone would use it.  I barely use continuous AF in video not because I don't want to, but because it's just not very viable on most cameras.  Can you imagine if there was very good object tracking and almost perfect AF?  Would be amazing for gimbal and run and gun.