NOC40

I wasn't suggesting it be the only method you use, just that you try it. I think this whole 'test' proves that a trained technical eye can sometimes be as much a handicap as a professional necessity.
 
Very few of us make images for other tech-geeks. We are the illusionists trying to wow the audience, not impress other magicians with our technical virtuosity. If we can't step outside ourselves and see our work without analytical eyes, we just get bogged-down in easily quantifiable stuff like resolution and compression artefacts. It can take away from the bigger picture. I wasn't boasting when I said I could see B was RAW clear as day, immediately. I really could. I honestly thought that everyone was going to follow me and say "easy, B is raw." I was genuinely amazed when people started saying A is raw.
 
If you look at the two images and genuinely forget about the analytical stuff and just ask yourself one question: "which image feels most real", I believe that B is the only answer. 
 
Anyway, well done, you were right too!  :) (thank god)

Yes I'd definitely go for A being video now too. Particularly after reading the other comments ...

But colour distinctness is how I identified the raw image.
 
I wasn't making a technical analysis - I can just see that there is more colour information in B. Regardless of white balance or tonality. It's just there, plain as day. Not just in the red swatches, but everywhere. It doesn't really matter if the WB was off a bit. The hues will still be more varied and distinct.
 
I spent years in art school and grew up in a house full of painters so perhaps I'm more tuned in to colour than the average filmmaker, but I see it all the time in 8-bit video. The Canon C-line is the only 8-bit camera that I can't distinguish from 10 bit (they must do something very clever with compression). Put most 8-bit video next to Prores, RAW, etc, and you can see it straight away. It's not just about what can be done with the image in post, or dynamic range. You can see it as soon as you lift saturation. The colours look alive.
 
This is why I hate that so many talented filmmakers are replacing their ML 5D's with the A7S (spreading 8bits of colour throughout so much DR is just silly). It's the No.1 reason I've bought a GH4, and the reason I don't understand why everybody who owns a GH4 doesn't also own a Ninja Star. It's why I am selling my D5300 and G6 even though they have lovely colours - particularly the Nikon - they just don't satisfy next to my BMPCC. Even downconverted 4K from the GH4 (supposedly 10bit 444) doesn't match the colour fidelity/separation of 10-bit (or the C100!). It looks much better than most 8-bit, and the Samsung does too (the NX1 video colours I've seen look very nice indeed actually, but I suspect that has at least a little to do with the high contrast/low DR).
 
Sorry for the rant, but as you can see I feel very strongly about this. I'm a colour junkie ...   :)
 
I'm getting a Ninja Star for my GH4 as soon as I have a spare £300, and along with my BMPCC I'm never looking back - at least for personal work anyway. Bye bye 8-bit.

Please, everybody. Forget about detail, artefacts, etc, and just look at the colors. Narrow your eyes and let the image fall out of focus. Now compare the colors in the two images. In image A there is very little difference between the hues in each color group (e.g. the reds all look very similar). With image B they are all very distinctly different. I assume this points to greater bit depth...

Hm, substantially different color signatures between the two images. I'm not going to cheat by delving into any kind of technical analysis tools on the images.
 
Some observations: A is warmer, higher contrast, with significantly deeper blue hues. At the same time, A seems to be crushing colors, visible in both the blue and red hues. A is noticeably sharper than B even viewed at 1080p; zoom in to see that color fringing in B is hurting sharpness quite a bit.  Also take a look at the shadow tones - something is off in A, almost some kind of green veiling noisy thing. Zoom in and you'll discover macro blocking in the shadows.
 
My guess? B is the raw image. Better gradation in the colors is my primary motivation for saying so, but the color fringing suggests uncorrected raw CA to me that the processor is dealing with in the graded video image. I also suspect that the green tinge in the shadows is being introduced by the video grading. My first instinct was to pick A for its visibly better sharpness, but that's a mistake as we don't know what the CA correction and sharpening settings are at, and video is more likely to be sharpened than a raw conversion. More subjectively, A just feels like an Andrew Reid color grade with the slight warmth and the shadow tone contrast. B feels like an ACR conversion, with the understated color tones, well preserved gradations, clean shadow tones, and clinically perfect white balance.
 
Going to feel pretty silly if I'm wrong.

Look at colours 37 and 31 in image A (reds, 2nd line down). They look like almost the same colour, yes?
 
Now compare them in image B. I think that is what you call bit depth, yes?

if you have 10bit per channel to convert to 8bit per channel, noise dithering is not the best algorithm, diffusion dithering is better the typical algorithm is Floyd–Steinberg - look at the difference with the noise or "random" algorithm it is day and night :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
 vs 

I think that this video is a bit misleading because there is zero motion. It would be better to see some more motion to get a better idea of VP9 encoding with 4k on normal footage (movies) compared to paint drying videos.

In truth though, it's most likely that the colloquial use, which is related to Apple's marketing will become 'what it means' regardless of science or terminology.
 
So even though it makes no difference at 6 feet away, a retina display will be one marketed at a certain DPI.
 
Eventually the marketing term will die it's own death I'm sure...
 
There's not much point marketing these things though, most people won't buy them for the stats, but they'll buy one if it's all that exists come upgrade time...

Ridiculous statement.
 
It's one of the best full frame cameras in the world with 100,000s of very happy users.

Thanks for putting a thoughtful review into the wild, I feel like this camera has not been as explored in depth online as many others have.
 
I've got to disagree on handling and battery life...I used it on an extremely grueling shoot last Friday after a few days of half assed testing and thing was a joy.  Got heavy in the hand by midnight but other than that...I popped an adhesive z-finder frame on it and just shot...I guess I love the DSLR form factor, so it depends on what your tastes are.  Battery seemed really healthy, and with only two I was able to rotate, never going under half full all day long.
 
I was also amazed at the stills I could pull from the 4K stream, especially at 100 shutter which I cheated up to now and then without affecting my love for the video image.  Still too expensive, not something I can see justifying for either corporate business in Panama or spending the money for cinema applications that could be spent on talent, food, transportation, etc, but I do wish one of these cameras would just fall in my lap, it'd be the only thing I'd shoot on for the next year or so anyways.

Wow this place really is canon bashing central. If you don't like their cameras, simple.. buy something else!
 
Whatever camera, your footage will look way better if you learn how to use it well. Learning to frame and expose correctly etc will make a lot more difference to your images than wasting time slagging off on forums & blogs.