MattH

The main thing that strikes me about Vimeo's policy - is that it amounts to financial suicide by Vimeo.
I see the need for copyright laws but they often seem absurd to me. For instance, I dont see why it is illegal to take a photo or video of the Eiffel Tower at night.
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/photos-eiffel-tower-night-illegal/

Well done @Jerome Chiu @noone @MattH
Leica M9!
Close guess on the 50mm Summicron.
It's the "Japanese Summicron" - Canon 50mm F1.4 LTM (M39 thread to Leica M)
I am amazed such an old 10 years+ CCD sensor and a 60 year old lens gives this kind of image in 2018 - looks pretty modern doesn't it? High contrast. Superb colour and dynamic range. Hardly any noise.
If you have the chance to pick up either one - be it that lens or the Leica M9 - DO IT

Ok. My second go.  I forgot to look at the resolution of the large file.  I guess I assumed it would have been scaled down.  The horizontal resolution of 5212 is exactly the same as a M9 or M9-P, and there arent any other 18 megapixel full frame cameras i dont think.   And the 18 megapixel apsc canons only have a horizontal resolution of 5184 so they are out. 
So the lens was produced in 1957 if its the M9 and 1955 if its the M9-P.     I first thought it was 35mm but now I do think its 50mm.  So 50mm summicron seems correct.
It would have to be the 5cm screw mount colapsible summicron if it was 1955 so it is more likely An M9 with rigid 50mm Summicron as already guessed.     
So that was a nice run around the houses for no reason on my part.  At least I got the exercise I guess.
I presume it is wide open as the depth of field is shallow.  If so, its certainly sharp enough wide open.  I supose thats what this shows.

Ok. My second go.  I forgot to look at the resolution of the large file.  I guess I assumed it would have been scaled down.  The horizontal resolution of 5212 is exactly the same as a M9 or M9-P, and there arent any other 18 megapixel full frame cameras i dont think.   And the 18 megapixel apsc canons only have a horizontal resolution of 5184 so they are out. 
So the lens was produced in 1957 if its the M9 and 1955 if its the M9-P.     I first thought it was 35mm but now I do think its 50mm.  So 50mm summicron seems correct.
It would have to be the 5cm screw mount colapsible summicron if it was 1955 so it is more likely An M9 with rigid 50mm Summicron as already guessed.     
So that was a nice run around the houses for no reason on my part.  At least I got the exercise I guess.
I presume it is wide open as the depth of field is shallow.  If so, its certainly sharp enough wide open.  I supose thats what this shows.

I'd also go for the M9. If so, the lens is 61 years old, i.e. was produced in around 1957. A rigid 50mm Summicron?

My guess is that the reason you are presenting this guessing game is because you were suprised in some way yourself.    So Im guessing its not a new camera.  So its an old digital, but it would probably have to have some significance in order for you to buy it.   So like a 5d mark 1 or something.    Could also be the first micro four third camera with a speed booster, but I'm getting a canon vibe from the image.    It could be an old apc canon.  Ah the 50d!  We know you were already surprised by the fact that it can do raw video dispite not having a video mode.  But because you already have that it would have to be a new lens or lens combination in order to suprise you.  I initially thought it must be full frame.  So I think you are surprised by how large sensor it looks.   Im not a lens expert so someone else would have to work out what fast aperture lens it is.  Unless you have removed the mount and mirror in order to cram a speed booster in.  But thats probably pushing it a bit.
As the 50d is 10 years old, 70 years total would put the lens date of birth at 1958 (the maths confused me for a minute).  Searching 1958 lens brings up the mir 37mm f2.8,  But the feild of view looks wider than 59mm equiv and the aperture looks wider too, so probably not, but then again if it was that I can imagine it surprising you.

Well that functionality is essentially built in to raw already.   Your only choices are the physical exposure and the native iso.
Even in prores, the way I understand it is that if you were at iso 100 and you adjusted your exposure so that the sky was just on the edge of clipping, you could increase the iso up to 1000 and the sky wouldn't clip.  Just the average brightness would increase.  So (not that I'm saying you said this) I don't think you would ever gain anything by shooting at one iso and then adjusting it so it resembled another.  It would be preferable if you knew before hand.
But if you are just talking about flexibility, I guess shooting in the middle of the range would make sense.  Probably at the native iso's themselves of 400 or 3200. Then you would have a balance of noise performance and highlight latitude with a little bit of leeway either way. 
But to leave significant leeway to boost the brightness you would have to bake in what looked like an under exposed image and shadow detail would be lost due to insufficient bits in the shadows, or to leave significant leeway to crush the noise out you would have to bake in what looked like an over exposed image and highlights would potentially be clipped.

From what I have seen I think the resolution plays the largest factor.  The lower resolution of the og pocket helps to mask other amatuer/video looking things (lighting, colors, composition).  A slight amount of added blur should soften up the image nicely and eliminate most of the difference between them.  (For the record, this would be for narrative work only, if its a documentary you would leave it sharp. Though luckily this proviso is mostly redundant as most people sharpen anyway).
I also think the og pocket may have had a tone curve that is favourable to highlights.    The pocket 4k has different tone curves at different iso's (shown drastically by the dual native iso) so the discerning user will choose the ISO with a tone curve that matches the look they are going for at that particular moment (narrative/documentary), which is a trade off between highlight latitude and noize performance.  In prores the tone curve is baked in,  while the raw iso increments are only metadata but the native iso comes into the equation even in raw, and the chosen iso will indirectly effect how the user chooses to expose.

Ettr doesn't mean blowing highlights out though. Even doing ETTR on the GH5 to maximize dynamic range with great results. But when I can I center the histogram/waveform to make better use of the baked in gamma curve - which is irrelevant on raw though 

There is a reason it is Half the price. It has Half the the features of a GH5, GH5s. I bet, even on here, half the people that buy a PK4 will have it for sale in the Sub Section in less than 3 months. You are going to have 3 thousand dollars or more tied up in one to make it really work. Right out of the box it is pretty useless for a modern camera today.
And don't give me the ProRes crap. I can buy a 200 dollar Ninja Star and get ProRes on any camera that has a clean HDMI out..
I bet most people on here had the BMPCC at one time and got rid of it. Sure it was a fabulous camera output wise. But it was a Total pain in the ass to use. And the PK4 is not going to be much different. How many people Still have a BMPCC on here. Damn few I bet, and if they do have it they use it less and less.
Hey no doubt it is going to have great output if you are good at getting it and can grade well. But that is not going to be a speed demon at doing it. I just find it would work for me, but I just don't see it fitting into most peoples workflow. More of a toy to be honest for most. But nothing wrong with that. I would imagine we all have plenty of toys among us.

From the zoom in the pictures, it seems that the BMPCC4K has actually more resolution than the GH5S. The perceptible difference that leads us to think the opposite is due to the sharpening process in the GH5S that is not applied in the BMPCC4K. 

ISO 1250 is the WORST iso to choose to test the red clipping issue.    It is pulled 3200 iso, so even properly exposed it only has 2.3 stops of latitude above middle grey.  So of course the highlights will clip and look shitty.  ISO 1250 will be the number one noob trap on this camera.
Im more worried about the wide angle lens blurryness.  Yes, lenses have field curvature that is more aparent wide open and yes the Pocket 4k has a wider field of view that shows more of it, but that alone doesn't account for what the examples in that thread show.  It must be the sensor stack thickness also.  If stopping down to 2.8 doesnt resolve that issue then that is going to be a way bigger deal breaker than red clipping.

I dit another test with a simple domestic RGB led (hence the flickering) to show how the BMPCC4K reacts in the red channel, both in raw and prores. With other colors, when overexposed, there is a gentle roll-off, but in the red, it clips with a very harsh way, and a strange color shifting. There is also much more noise in the reds. 
 

Well, if you don't want to show the red clipping, by preventing it with your exposure, you can. It is not the purpose of this test. The purpose is to show how the camera reacts specifically in the red channel, by comparison with other colors (and the problem is still there at 3200 iso). And I find it problematic in some situations : a night street scene, with its many red car lights will cause many problems, with disturbing hyper saturated  red blotches all over your image (whereas the greens, the blue and the yellow react normally). You can bypass it if you shoot in raw, but it will affect the entire image if you shoot in prores. 

Shot on: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K (BMPCC4K)
Lenses: Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 and Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4
Resolution and codec: 4K DCI, RAW 4:1, 24P and 60p
ISO: between 400 and 3200.
Edited and graded on DaVinci Resolve 15
LUTs used: BMPCC4K film to extended video (from Blackmagic)
No grain added in post, No denoiser in post
 

Looking forward to a forum that isn't run by a Nazi. Andrew closed the topic I created directing arguments between the GH5 and Pocket4k to another thread. It's his way or the highway here at EOSHD! ?
 

Some threads are starting to read like somebody's personal SMS app. It's ridiculous.
Let's calm down, think before we post, if we haven't got anything new to add apart from 20 pages of chitchat!?! No? Let's not post!
I am fine with some chat but not EVERY PAGE. Deal?

Blown highlights a plenty in this video. And while stylized... the colors look crap. 

He said he is 'not invested' in the conversation, not 'not interested'.   So he's saying he's not realy in the market for the camera but if he was this is what he would think.  I think its a good idea to make a list of all the flaws that could be resolved with firmware.  Someone who has the camera could compile it and post an updated list every once in a while.
Ability to focus by USB would be one thing,
Being able to disable the automatic iris button so you cant accidentally press it.
100% clipping zebras that go off the raw sensor data.

It's probably because a lot of people already have a GH5 so the question is do you get a Pocket 4k instead.  If the difference isn't anything that cant be overcome then the answer for most of these people will be no. (This probably also goes if you already have a GH5s but because its newer, far fewer people will be in this position) 
If you are choosing a new camera from scratch then the Blackmagic starts to make more sense.  But In this second case if things like a flipy screen and viewfinder appeal to you, it's likely that ibis will apeal to you also.   ibis is the GH5's trump card over the pocket 4k.  Get rid of that, like with the GH5s and it struggles to come out on top.

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome to the forum.

Why the hell did he buy it in the first place?  Surely you would realise all this before spending $20,000 dollars on something.  Clearly more money than sense.
Really if he was honest he could sum up his video with "I thought I was a cinematographer but then I realised I was a videographer"
Its pretty ridiculous when you think about it.  Its like a taxi driver buying a Ferrari and then posting an earnest video explaining all of the reasons why it wasn't right for his taxiing as if people would be surprised.
Rich people problems.  
Though you wonder why someone who could afford a Ferrari so casually would continue to taxi-drive.
 

Why the hell did he buy it in the first place?  Surely you would realise all this before spending $20,000 dollars on something.  Clearly more money than sense.
Really if he was honest he could sum up his video with "I thought I was a cinematographer but then I realised I was a videographer"
Its pretty ridiculous when you think about it.  Its like a taxi driver buying a Ferrari and then posting an earnest video explaining all of the reasons why it wasn't right for his taxiing as if people would be surprised.
Rich people problems.  
Though you wonder why someone who could afford a Ferrari so casually would continue to taxi-drive.
 

Why the hell did he buy it in the first place?  Surely you would realise all this before spending $20,000 dollars on something.  Clearly more money than sense.
Really if he was honest he could sum up his video with "I thought I was a cinematographer but then I realised I was a videographer"
Its pretty ridiculous when you think about it.  Its like a taxi driver buying a Ferrari and then posting an earnest video explaining all of the reasons why it wasn't right for his taxiing as if people would be surprised.
Rich people problems.  
Though you wonder why someone who could afford a Ferrari so casually would continue to taxi-drive.