Axel

As for serious CGI (he mentioned that in connection with Jurassic Parc asf.), you have to consider that in 2018 this still involves so-called render farms. Any traditional desktop machine won't cut it. These complexes are so expensive that you need exchangeable parts to keep them up to date. Compact size and design (Apples speciality) are not asked for. 
More and more, the GPUs do most of the job, preferably in realtime (we are on the verge of realtime already, see Blenders EEVEE), and it's paramount to be able to swap graphic cards AND motherboards with no restrictions by the hermetic OS or the undersized housings. 
Once you have successfully built a setup for the software you are working with, the operation system doesn't make a huge difference anymore.
I use an iMac because it's a simple all-in-one machine, not overpriced, if you count the parts and the time needed to frankenstein them together for a Hackintosh.
What I don't get is why anyone would want MacOS for Adobe, where this notoriously performs worse than on Windows 10 ...
 

If it's *just* about money, if the only votes that count are those of the shareholders, this industry is doomed. Applicable to everything. If we are measured by by the degree we can be exploited, our kidneys will be sold and the rest becomes soap. 
Watch The Cooler. The old casino mafia ruled this frivole business with cruelty - and passion. Then the bankers appeared and took over. And the world turned to shit.

Provocative thoughts on IBIS:
Terribly overrated. Nowadays no one seems to be able to conceive a shot without it. The point is that with UHD small shakes and jitters instantly reduce resolution considerably. I know. People want to be able to hold the camera body in their hands - a body that's ergonomically unfit to be held that way -, looking casually on the swing-out display. The switch from traditional camcorders (no one wants to shoot with one nowadays) to DSLRs brought the rig industry into being. 
Rigs never were perfect ootb. You didn't buy a rig and were ready to go. You had to adapt a rig, make it fit in size and angles to your own body and preferred way of shooting (field monitor or rather a bigger EVF?), exercise with it, buy additional parts. There was no in body image stabilization, so designing your personal setup for stabilization was top priority. Additionally, you had to train your muscles and breath (exhale while concentrating). Zen And The Art Of Body Camera Stabilization.
Smart technical solutions to compensate for common problems (not enough light, no patience to focus, those things) make us lazy. I doubt very much that they contribute to better images, rather on the contrary.
Like I said, deliberately provocative. You can also tell I'm considering the GH5S.

Provocative thoughts on IBIS:
Terribly overrated. Nowadays no one seems to be able to conceive a shot without it. The point is that with UHD small shakes and jitters instantly reduce resolution considerably. I know. People want to be able to hold the camera body in their hands - a body that's ergonomically unfit to be held that way -, looking casually on the swing-out display. The switch from traditional camcorders (no one wants to shoot with one nowadays) to DSLRs brought the rig industry into being. 
Rigs never were perfect ootb. You didn't buy a rig and were ready to go. You had to adapt a rig, make it fit in size and angles to your own body and preferred way of shooting (field monitor or rather a bigger EVF?), exercise with it, buy additional parts. There was no in body image stabilization, so designing your personal setup for stabilization was top priority. Additionally, you had to train your muscles and breath (exhale while concentrating). Zen And The Art Of Body Camera Stabilization.
Smart technical solutions to compensate for common problems (not enough light, no patience to focus, those things) make us lazy. I doubt very much that they contribute to better images, rather on the contrary.
Like I said, deliberately provocative. You can also tell I'm considering the GH5S.

https://vimeo.com/208637237
https://vimeo.com/150067275
Mostly handheld, without ibis. Lenses from 12mm to 35mm on the pocket camera.
 

Provocative thoughts on IBIS:
Terribly overrated. Nowadays no one seems to be able to conceive a shot without it. The point is that with UHD small shakes and jitters instantly reduce resolution considerably. I know. People want to be able to hold the camera body in their hands - a body that's ergonomically unfit to be held that way -, looking casually on the swing-out display. The switch from traditional camcorders (no one wants to shoot with one nowadays) to DSLRs brought the rig industry into being. 
Rigs never were perfect ootb. You didn't buy a rig and were ready to go. You had to adapt a rig, make it fit in size and angles to your own body and preferred way of shooting (field monitor or rather a bigger EVF?), exercise with it, buy additional parts. There was no in body image stabilization, so designing your personal setup for stabilization was top priority. Additionally, you had to train your muscles and breath (exhale while concentrating). Zen And The Art Of Body Camera Stabilization.
Smart technical solutions to compensate for common problems (not enough light, no patience to focus, those things) make us lazy. I doubt very much that they contribute to better images, rather on the contrary.
Like I said, deliberately provocative. You can also tell I'm considering the GH5S.

Thanks, jonpais. Important to know that with bright outlines you need to pan slower. I am a fan of slow pans anyway. As for the example with the silver buttons in the lowkey scene: can't you just subdue these highlights through grading?

A crash course in HDR (and how the major studios make as many as 400 different types of deliverables).
(

Here is part III of my workflow for grading HDR in FCP using the Ninja Inferno. This part is a little sketchy, but it's getting late, so I'll have to double-check everything and maybe even call customer support in the morning if I can't figure it out. But we're getting close to our objective.
Part III

Demo-reels, "test shots" featuring once new technology is always cringeworthy in retrospect. On your comparison of B&W with Technicolor: in one of his docs on cinema history Martin Scorsese shows that color was used creatively early on. They learned to hold back very quickly.
2D projection had to be 50 nits peak (15 foot lambert). With brighter projection, you'd lose contrast again. The blacks never had been very convincing in cinema either. It's true that particularly analog film (but digital cinema packages also) can hold more stops of light. More than could be shown. 
This whole HDR affair is about new display technology more than about camera technology. Cameras that can record 10-15 stops in 10-bit or higher are with us a few years now. Only that until recently most of it was "lost in translation" for distribution.
The downside will probably be that HDR will be less 'forgiving'. Many affordable cameras were just a tad better than what the 8-bit rec_709 Youtube clip they were bought for demanded.
I was among the 4k skeptics. Resolution is not about image quality. The trek moved in the wrong direction. If 4k was sharper than HD, it was because it hadn't been true HD before. And for the sake of more pixels everybody was happy to allow heavier compression. Although storage costs have become so low (I have to think about John Olivers How Is This Still A Thing?) and in spite of the warnings that compression artifacts degrade perceived image quality the most (see Yedlin again). 
But I wasn't "opposed" to 4k. To those who feared problems with make up and the like, I said, why would it make a difference? Would I light and frame differently? No. Why? I had been shooting DV. Did I avoid long shots with lot of background detail? No. Why?
The same with HFR. We've been discussing this ad nauseam. I had reservations. But I could name the reason. The comparative lack of motion blur takes away momentum. If you know about that, you can shoot accordingly. As I see it, you can still shoot 24p in UHD. The resolution goes down as the camera moves? So be it. If you are fixated on resolution, you will eventually stop motion altogether. No more fights, car chases. Pristine calendar stills of the graveyard, soon with a 1000 nits sun playing behind the headstones ...

I was skeptic about HD as well. Saw it first in autumn 2004 on a trade show with the then-new Sony FX-1. Worries were unsubstantiated since the images were seen on SD TVs then. I wasn't impressed.
The first time I saw UHD was on a trade show again. Some JVC camcorder, stitching four HD videos together. Horrible colors, terrible edge-sharpening. The best part was where they showed a fish tank that was supposed to look real. The audience was impressed. I said, no, the fish look dead. I have a more convincing screensaver ... 
Groundhog day. 

I was skeptic about HD as well. Saw it first in autumn 2004 on a trade show with the then-new Sony FX-1. Worries were unsubstantiated since the images were seen on SD TVs then. I wasn't impressed.
The first time I saw UHD was on a trade show again. Some JVC camcorder, stitching four HD videos together. Horrible colors, terrible edge-sharpening. The best part was where they showed a fish tank that was supposed to look real. The audience was impressed. I said, no, the fish look dead. I have a more convincing screensaver ... 
Groundhog day. 

Demo-reels, "test shots" featuring once new technology is always cringeworthy in retrospect. On your comparison of B&W with Technicolor: in one of his docs on cinema history Martin Scorsese shows that color was used creatively early on. They learned to hold back very quickly.
2D projection had to be 50 nits peak (15 foot lambert). With brighter projection, you'd lose contrast again. The blacks never had been very convincing in cinema either. It's true that particularly analog film (but digital cinema packages also) can hold more stops of light. More than could be shown. 
This whole HDR affair is about new display technology more than about camera technology. Cameras that can record 10-15 stops in 10-bit or higher are with us a few years now. Only that until recently most of it was "lost in translation" for distribution.
The downside will probably be that HDR will be less 'forgiving'. Many affordable cameras were just a tad better than what the 8-bit rec_709 Youtube clip they were bought for demanded.
I was among the 4k skeptics. Resolution is not about image quality. The trek moved in the wrong direction. If 4k was sharper than HD, it was because it hadn't been true HD before. And for the sake of more pixels everybody was happy to allow heavier compression. Although storage costs have become so low (I have to think about John Olivers How Is This Still A Thing?) and in spite of the warnings that compression artifacts degrade perceived image quality the most (see Yedlin again). 
But I wasn't "opposed" to 4k. To those who feared problems with make up and the like, I said, why would it make a difference? Would I light and frame differently? No. Why? I had been shooting DV. Did I avoid long shots with lot of background detail? No. Why?
The same with HFR. We've been discussing this ad nauseam. I had reservations. But I could name the reason. The comparative lack of motion blur takes away momentum. If you know about that, you can shoot accordingly. As I see it, you can still shoot 24p in UHD. The resolution goes down as the camera moves? So be it. If you are fixated on resolution, you will eventually stop motion altogether. No more fights, car chases. Pristine calendar stills of the graveyard, soon with a 1000 nits sun playing behind the headstones ...

Revised cost alert. ? Any pro videographer shooting V-Log or HLG with the GH5 should probably own the Inferno anyhow, since it unlocks 4K 60p 10 bit. So if like Mark and Ron, you already own an HDR smartphone, the investment is only $145.00 for a converter. hehe
And in no way, shape or form am I denigrating the work of Art Adams and the dozens of others who generously give of their time to share shooting, monitoring, grading and delivery recommendations - it is invaluable information - but it’s often so technical that it is likely to scare off some who get dizzy just reading all the terminology. Many shooting today, if they’d read so many technical considerations about SDR - about color gamuts, bit depth, learning to read scopes, how dynamic range and color depth are compressed, chroma subsampling, gamma, log curves, debayering, color volumes - would never even pick up a camera. Remember, when 4K arrived not so long ago, there were just as many, if not more, dire precautions against such things as shooting close-ups of talent, concerns about the additional diligence required of makeup artists and costume designers, and outright dismissal because of the absence of 4K projectors in theaters and 4K televisions in the home. Is it just a coincidence that the ones here most vehemently opposed to HDR are the very ones who insist on 1080p and diffusion filters? ? Do yourselves a favor and watch an episode of Chef’s Table on Netflix in Dolby Vision.
Rather than reading pages and pages about taking extra care with specular highlights and large bright areas when on set, why not just go out and shoot some tests yourself, and you’ll quickly discover some of these  precepts on your own. Then, there’s a lot of hand-wringing about how the video will be viewed in the home or at the theater - but this is something that has plagued filmmakers and colorists from day one! I shoot 4K, and I usually make my titles small because I don’t like chunky titles and I expect my work to be viewed on a 27” or larger display - so for sure anyone watching my stuff on a 5” ipod is going to be squinting. ?
The same  applies to highlight roll off when grading HDR10. Should you deliver for 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 nit displays? Realistically, most HDR sets today fall anywhere from around 500-1,000 nits, so the answer should be pretty obvious, at least for those of us who aren’t shooting for theatrical release. Fifty years down the road, when every suburban housewife has a 10k nit display on the refrigerator door, you can go back and deliver the project in 10,000k nits. Some may not be aware of this, but studios already make several trim passes - deliverables for the myriad distribution options - which is how I’m able to enjoy a Dolby Vision program on a 600 nit display. For professonals, SMPTE has come up with the Interoperable Master Format (IMF), whose purpose is to make versioning simpler by wrapping all the versions in one container. Should YouTubers and wedding photographers be concerned with all this? Probably not. 

Give it a couple of years, yeah. That's reasonable. I won't try to shoot a wedding in HDR now or in summer. I do, however, have some more ambitious shorts in planning. The visual quality of which concerns me now. 
In short: I think so.
My iMac display is *not* HDR, but it has ~500 nits. LCD, means blacks are grey. I have it backlit with a 6500°K LED bar for perceived contrast. Can't stand to watch Netflix on my ~4 year old Samsung TV - anymore. In comparison, all images look muddy and faded. Once it is replaced by an HDR-TV, it's clear to me that I wouldn't want to invest any effort into producing rec_709 images any further. 
There are two sources that discuss HDR vs Resolution vs Brightness in detail: 
1. the Yedlin "Resolution Myths Debunked" video. The bottom line of which is, with true 1080p, we have passed a threshold. We won't be able to see individual pixels at reasonable viewing distances. What is more, since all images are scaled - always! - an upscaling on a device with bigger resolution will improve the perceived resolution dramatically. HD on a UHD display looks better than UHD on an HD display. Fact. 
Resolution is only good if you can't see (or rather feel) it's limits. So resolution must be "invisible". 
Resolution is often confused with perceived sharpness. Beyond the said threshold, contrast adds more sharpness, brilliance, clarity than more pixels. 
2. The lectures on rec_2020, which include 4k (UHDTV1), 8k (UHDTV2), HFR, WideColorGamut and HDR. This is complicated matter, but all engineers agree that an extended dynamic range contributes most of all factors to perceived image quality. 
As a side-note, regarding resolution: it's an indisputable *fact* that 4k @ standard frame rates is only HD for moving images. 4k demands bigger pictures (interchangeable with shorter viewing distances, as in retina display), and the motion blur then diminishes the spatial resolution. 50/60p for 4k, 120p for 8k. Like it or not. You can't be a pixel peeper and resolution fundamentalist and at the same time insist on cinematic 24p.
We have to define the word benefit here. At the present point, it may not be reasonable or economically advisable to buy the hardware. If these were generally accepted arguments, EOSHD would probably die.

Give it a couple of years, yeah. That's reasonable. I won't try to shoot a wedding in HDR now or in summer. I do, however, have some more ambitious shorts in planning. The visual quality of which concerns me now. 
In short: I think so.
My iMac display is *not* HDR, but it has ~500 nits. LCD, means blacks are grey. I have it backlit with a 6500°K LED bar for perceived contrast. Can't stand to watch Netflix on my ~4 year old Samsung TV - anymore. In comparison, all images look muddy and faded. Once it is replaced by an HDR-TV, it's clear to me that I wouldn't want to invest any effort into producing rec_709 images any further. 
There are two sources that discuss HDR vs Resolution vs Brightness in detail: 
1. the Yedlin "Resolution Myths Debunked" video. The bottom line of which is, with true 1080p, we have passed a threshold. We won't be able to see individual pixels at reasonable viewing distances. What is more, since all images are scaled - always! - an upscaling on a device with bigger resolution will improve the perceived resolution dramatically. HD on a UHD display looks better than UHD on an HD display. Fact. 
Resolution is only good if you can't see (or rather feel) it's limits. So resolution must be "invisible". 
Resolution is often confused with perceived sharpness. Beyond the said threshold, contrast adds more sharpness, brilliance, clarity than more pixels. 
2. The lectures on rec_2020, which include 4k (UHDTV1), 8k (UHDTV2), HFR, WideColorGamut and HDR. This is complicated matter, but all engineers agree that an extended dynamic range contributes most of all factors to perceived image quality. 
As a side-note, regarding resolution: it's an indisputable *fact* that 4k @ standard frame rates is only HD for moving images. 4k demands bigger pictures (interchangeable with shorter viewing distances, as in retina display), and the motion blur then diminishes the spatial resolution. 50/60p for 4k, 120p for 8k. Like it or not. You can't be a pixel peeper and resolution fundamentalist and at the same time insist on cinematic 24p.
We have to define the word benefit here. At the present point, it may not be reasonable or economically advisable to buy the hardware. If these were generally accepted arguments, EOSHD would probably die.

Here are the steps you need to take to work with BMD's UltraStudio Mini Monitor on a Mac. I've got to take my Mac back into the shop again, they screwed up, so I can't say how or if the Ninja is working yet! (when they put my Mac back together, the Thunderbolt ports weren't aligned properly or something, so I can't plug anything in them)  
 

Thanks again.
One questions, hopefully a simple one: what kind of Thunderbolt port is that? The reviews for the BM device date back to 2013. Will an adapted connection allow it to suck power from the Mac? Nowhere on the german seller's sites is specified if there are different versions for different ports (and neither on the BM homepage).
With taxes, I could get the Ultrastudio AND a Flame for ~ 1000 €. Now I'm spoilt for choice whether I should spent 300-400 € more for an Inferno, since it may turn out that my A6500's 8-bit (which is also limited to 30p @ UHD) turns out to be unsufficient.
jonpais, invaluable information!

So basically, if you've got a camera that shoots RAW or LOG, for around the cost of the GH5s, you can get yourself a Ninja Flame or Inferno, a BMD UltraStudio Mini Monitor and the best 55" OLED TV on the market and begin creating and enjoying HDR videos that blow the socks off anything today - less noise, macroblocking and other compression artifacts, crisper images and several stops more dynamic range.

What exactly is the point of advertising that the Ninja Inferno is also able to serve as a portable editing solution if the required converter costs triple or quadruple what you paid for the recorder/monitor itself? But that’s exactly what Atomos is claiming. I was on the phone with Atomos technical support in Melbourne this afternoon and was told that the only compatible converters are the AJA I/o 4K and Blackmagic Design Ultrastudio 4K Extreme – devices which run around $3,000 USD – more than I paid for my 2017 27″ 5K iMac for crying out loud! And in Vietnam, the BMD Ultrastudio Extreme 3 with Thunderbolt 3 interface will set you back an astronomical $3,600.00. As if that weren’t bad enough, I want to begin shooting 4K 60p V-Log Lite right away, but Atomos distributors here in Vietnam don’t even carry full HDMI 2.0 cables. At this point, you might legitimately wonder why I’m so eager to jump on the HDR bandwagon when hardly anyone even owns an HDR television – and lately, I’ve been questioning my own sanity as well. The reason is that, even setting spectacular dynamic range aside, when viewed on YouTube, HDR video is incomparably cleaner and crisper looking than SDR. Shadow areas that are smudged and overwhelmed with macroblocking and artifacts when viewed in 4K are, if not immaculate, greatly improved when uploaded in HDR. Textures that were faint become palpable as a result of the insanely higher local contrast of a true HDR display. So much so, in fact, that I’d argue that the difference in apparent resolution is more appreciable than between 1080p and 4K.

Workflow, FCP X v.10.4

Look, what bothers me most is not that Apple missed a bug here (though it's not exactly awesome that this slipped their QA). It's the reaction of the FCP X fanbase, among them famous Ripple trainer Mark Spencer, who openly denies that something is wrong. Despite clear evidence. By some individuals, Ubsdell was treated like a traitor, and I find this contemptible. I'm not one of these blinded. I still think FCP is best for editing.
And still, even if the new CC tools all worked as expected, Resolve is faster for serious grading. Nodes are more appropriate for organization, there is an easy wipe/splitscreen mode, and I love the still store. I can have best of both worlds, fortunately, because I find the roundtripping very easy and reliable.

So you need to use the Colour Board for Rec709 & the Colour Wheels for Rec2020 - both are affected by whatever Apple have done. But if you read through some of Apple's advice, it does state that if you're using Log clips then you should use the Wide Colour Gamet selection - so does that mean that you CC in Rec2020 & then export in Rec709? I've found the colour board almost useless if you try to bring back Log footage, since you really have to ramp everything up to levels that the old version didn't require you to do. Therefore, it does appear that they've really messed things up & they really need to address this in an update.
The other new additions to FCPX are really great & it still is the quickest NLE out there. So DaVinci Resolve here i come.....

On Creative Cow, someone has found that indeed in a 2020 project the Color Wheels work properly (and really well), whereas in 709 they are a mess. Best advice would be: stay away from the wheels if you are grading for rec_709! Nobody knows what happens when in the next update this gets fixed. You very probably lose all your rec_709 CC for existing projects ...

Yes, Don, you're right. It's just funny that everybody raves about the long-awaited wheels without noticing that they offer less than the iMovie-ish Colorboard. Or without admitting it. I asked Mark Spencer in the comments to his Ripple Training, and he answered: "All color adjustments are iterative." 
Maybe over time we all realize the ingeniousness of those wheels, because getting it right in many time-consuming increments is possibly the most precise way to do it. This reminds me of a children's book of mine, in which two guys want to share a sausage. The smarter guy says, it's not exactly half, let me bite off the difference. In the end, of course, he has consumed the whole sausage.