jcs

* Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording
So after the '400Mbps' firmware update, 4K 10-bit log GH5 should be good to go!

* Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording
So after the '400Mbps' firmware update, 4K 10-bit log GH5 should be good to go!

* Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording
So after the '400Mbps' firmware update, 4K 10-bit log GH5 should be good to go!

So you've got story and sound sorted and your cologne research can help when they release smell-o-vision.

* Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording
So after the '400Mbps' firmware update, 4K 10-bit log GH5 should be good to go!

* Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording
So after the '400Mbps' firmware update, 4K 10-bit log GH5 should be good to go!

So you've got story and sound sorted and your cologne research can help when they release smell-o-vision.

I agree. For certain cameras, 4k is just the better HD. It should be labelled so. UHD. And I am about to borrow a Shogun in order to pixelpeep the differences. Limiting myself to static tripod shots is not the answer.

Netflix charges more for 4K content subscription access, and thus wants more "real 4K" content. Perhaps the lawyers mucked this up so people (external lawyers, lol) wouldn't litigate? Everyone at the professional level knows that uprez'd 3.4K Alexa footage spanks most of the competition, and most consumers wouldn't care anyways, even those paying for the 4K sub since it still looks way better than 1080p when viewed on a 4K display sufficiently up close.
While a test chart would show truth, I've seen people say crazy things about test chart results, so maybe just sticking with numbers/specs gets them close enough to their 4K goal with the least drama.
Lol what does this say about your post?  

I doubt that Yedlin would disagree with you. I certainly don't. All else equal, bring on the pixels!
In his words he made the video because "I’ve seen multiple situations where filmmakers or studio decision makers are shown something that’s meant to be a comparison and they are being shown this not by a technology expert from their own company but by a vendor who stands to gain by whatever decision is made based on the demo they are giving. That’s not really a fair comparison situation. So these decisions are not only being made with entrenched presuppositions about what makes an image look the way it does, but these false comparisons that are only nominally scientific and actually more of a marketing manipulation."

I guess thats the case -it easy to advertise and promote resolution to consumers compared to better colour/motion/black levels.  If it wasn't we would't have the situation where a Pioneer Kuro from 2006 or 2008 has better motion and colour than the majority of TV's sold today.

As embedded computing power increases, the use of RAW will rapidly diminish. There are still breakthroughs ahead based on generative mathematics- fractals, DNA etc., that will encode information without resolution, allowing any desired output to be rendered.
Here's one example based on machine learning (not clear if they can generate arbitrary output resolution, however the compression quality is very high): 
 

Sure, but at a normal resolution they still look pretty similar. Remember, he's punched in 4X or something by that point and you're watching on a laptop screen or iMac with a FOV equal to a 200" tv at standard viewing distance. So yeah, on an 800" tv I would definitely want 6k, heck, even on a 200" tv I would. But the biggest screen I've got is a 100" short throw projector or something so the only place where I can see pixels with it is with graphics and text.* I've also been watching a lot of Alexa65-shot content on dual 4k 3D IMAX at my local theater and tbh I can never tell when they cut to the b cam unless it's like a GoPro and then I can REALLY tell. :/
Furthermore, I don't think you need RAW video. That's another marketing myth. Anything high end (C300 Mk II, Varicam, Alexa, even arguably the shitty F55 etc.) is a total wash in terms of RAW vs ProRes.
Honestly I'm most impressed that he got the F55 to look that good! And I want that Nuke script!
I think the bigger lesson is that you can't apply logic against marketing. Red staked its reputation on a 4k camera that in practice had a much softer image than the C300 (the original Red pre-MX was softer per-pixel than the 5D Mark III–by a lot! I think the Genesis/F35 was sharper despite being 1080p)... and it worked! Netflix and YouTube are pushing hard with heavily compressed 4k... although at least YouTube lets you use the Alexa. 4k LCD panels are gaining some traction in the low end market where the image suffers from a million other problems and the screens are pointlessly small. It's like the megapixel wars. Most digital photographers aren't even printing, let alone printing wall-sized (and those I know who do printed wall-sized were satisfied with 12MP). But the big number works well for marketing departments, and that trickles up to everyone. No one who matters to marketing will watch this video anyway.
*I thought my projector's LCDs were misaligned until I noticed that what appeared to be chromatic aberration or misalignment was really just sub-pixel antialiasing! I think 4k would benefit a lot for cartoons, text, etc. Anything with really sharp lines. And for VR I think ultra high resolutions will matter a lot. I love my Rift, but the image is 1990s-level pixellated. I'm not big on VR video, though. 

For $299 these work pretty well for 1080p (I added the heat sinks mentioned in the comments (just using rubber bands to hold on): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I16VQOY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00
For 4K and USB 3.0, this works well with the A7S II and GH4 in 4K: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01H3Y3IL8/.

You can also rent self-propelled sound blankets

I don't see anything which can't be done with a GH5 or even 4 (external V-Log) in these clips tbh.
Crushed blacks are almost standard in every movie since the beginning of cinema and honestly - I like it.
The Highlightrolloff in the third clip isn't that great, her skins turns yellow in some scenes with direct sunlight.

screen grab from a sequence I shot last week (last airbender fan film), it will have quite a bit of vfx once finished

You can also rent self-propelled sound blankets

You can also rent self-propelled sound blankets

Also, "active busy restaurants" have enough bodies, coats and other stuff to cut reflections anyway! Human bodies are very good to kill sound and light waves. Not radiation so much! CS3e is a special mic anyway. 
Sound blankets are a good tool to help a bit.

I'm with you all the way on this one - I've had the Marantz PMD661 for many years now, it's hands down excellent & still is.
One option people haven't thought of, if you're on a budget, is to get an old analogue field amp & then plug it into a small digital recorder - you'll get the the benfit of professional grade Limiters, Pre-amps etc... & you'll be recording to digital. Also, when/if you ever get to use a camera with XLR sockets, you can just plug straight into the camera & get perfect sound for editing.
Personally I'd think long & hard about getting something from ZOOM or TASCAM - you're buying into a name & not quality.
SONY doesn't appear anywhere here but they do some good small recorders, but probably not as cheap as Z or T.
Sound Devices have been at the top for some time & it doesn't look as if anyone will ever catch them - if you can afford it, don't look anywhere else. On a budget, you can get your hands on their analogue 2 channel field mixer (about £200-300), it'll be small & then you can get a small digital recorder to go with it - professional grade at a really decent price!
As far as mics go, old doesn't mean bad: you can pick up a Sennheiser K3 or K6 power module & then add an ME series Mic capsule (£200-300 for both) - again professional quality.
I've recorded plenty of sound from an analogue field mixer into the apparently hopeless Mic input of BM Pocket & got excellent results - everything is handled by the field mixer & then the camera just acts as a digital recorder.

I will always throw the Marantz PMD661 into threads like this. No question Zoom's has got the market cornered with their name and features. And I will say their pre-amps have gotten consistently better over time (I was down with Zoom for a minute. Had the original H4 and then the H4N), but they still don't have sh*t on the 661. 
Basically if audio quality is your priority then imho the Marantz PMD661 (Version 1 or 2) is a hugely slept on option (unless you need more than 2 XLR mics). I think it's mostly because it came out before the indie/DSLR revolution, but the PMD661 is still kind of the standard in the public radio broadcast world where audio quality is really all that matters (it's the standard recorder at the CBC in Canada, and I know This American Life and other PR shows swear by it).
Anyways, just my 2 cents but the PMD661 (for what you get in pre-amp quality, IN/OUT options and overall sound quality) is hugely slept on in the indie video world, and available used nowadays for $300 easy (just sold one of my units for that price). AND if you're lucky enough to get one of the OADE Mod'ed units, you're taking that thing to a whole other level.
https://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-661MODS.html
It's also bigger than a lot of the newer recorders out there, but realistically I don't see how it's size is really an issue beyond the optics of it being `bigger than' as opposed to it actually being big.

Starting on a budget I'd not look at any of the suggestions to be honest - here's my take;
Best sounding starter sound recorder IME is the tiny Sony PCM-M10 which can take self powered mics via the 3.5mm jack. Can be mounted on a hotshoe, 2 AAA batteries last for ever, tiny put in your pocket take anywhere recorder you will still keep even when you buy more expensive gear. 
When you have saved up for better phantom powered mics then the best and cheapest option is to get hold of a used Fostex FR2LE - it's pre amps are not far off the SoundDevices 7 series i.e if you can't get good enough sound for your film with it then it's not the fault of the recorder. ( sometimes wonder why I upgraded......)
Spending a bit more  or simply an alternative  would be a SoundDevices mixer pre to combine with a Sony M-10. 
Beyond this you are really getting into the realm of being a  dedicated sound recordist and we are not even talking about the real tools of sound - the microphone.

Zoom H6 is what I am using but will probably upgrade to SD mixpre 3 or 6.  
 
Really depends on your clientele but much of the time I just use a juicedlink direct in unless it's a sit-down interview.  The people I work for usually do the audio and they are still using the original zoom h4!!! (And a cheapo no name wired lav!). They seem to be doing great with their clients too!
 
The moment you start using a backing track the subtle nuances that cost $$$$ to record go out the window and completely unnoticed to most clients on the low to mid end.  
 
If you are doing corporate interviews it's amazing how low on the totem pole you can go with your gear before anyone notices.  
 
I am not advocating for cheap or expensive gear, just saying the requirements are vastly different depending on what you are doing.  From what I've read the old dr-680 does great as well, although the SD stuff will really make life easier with the actually decent headphone and camera returns.  The lineouts on the zoom and tascsm stuff aren't as good.  Can't wait to get the mixpre! 
 
 

Wrote up a little guide for people new to this and looking to buy their first recorder. And is the way I see the world of low budget recorders is they're ranked like this (starting from worst/cheapest to best/expensive):
Tascam DR22WL / Zoom H1 (I'd suggest skipping right over this tier of recorders! But hey, my first ever short film I did years ago was with a chinese shotgun running straight into a Zoom H1!! :-o Shocking but true... everyone starts somewhere!)
Tascam DR60D mk2 (the DR60D mk1, before the mk2 came out, is what I myself started out using for no budget shorts as a budding location sound recordist)
Tascam DR70D (the *minimum* I'd recommend for a location sound recordist, even if you're just a student / no budget guy. Although in desperate cases, you could scrape by with getting the DR60Dmk2, but doing the opposite and stretching for an F4 is very worthwhile. Certainly, I could travel back in time I'd just have gone straight for the Zoom F4 from the starts! *Except* the F4 didn't come out until a few years later...  you live in a very lucky time with so many wonderful options to choose from!) or Tascam DR680 (these can be found at bargain prices secondhand, which is what I did before I then later on purchased a Zoom F4 once that came out & I spotted an F4 at a good price)
Zoom F4 / Zoom F8  / Sound Devices MixPre6 (I skip right over the MixPre3, as the MixPre6 is very similar yet does so so much more at only a relatively small extra cost. Also I regard the three of F4/F8/MixPre6 as all on broadly the same level to each other, just varying slightly from each other in one area or another that ones might have a small lead over the other one. This is the tier where I'd see you're now reaching the semi-pro level)
Sound Devices 633 / Zaxcom Maxx / Sanosax SX-R4+ (finally you have now got up to the "industry standard" when it comes to recorders people use for small shoots, especially when mixing from the bag. If you're doing this full time as your job or hiring someone who is, then likely this is what is being used. Either that or similar gear, or even something better above this)
And if you considering ones priced above those last three....  you're surely doing this full time as a sound recordist and getting a healthy income from that, so why are you asking us here on Frugal Filmmaker? ha! :-P But yes, tonnes and tonnes more options exist at the higher end as well!
Finally, if you're considering something in the budget range within what I just covered, but isn't one of those that I mentioned, then it probably is *not* a good idea to buy if you're intending to be a location sound recordist. 
Something else only might *maybe* make sense if you've got in mind some other purpose for it, such as perhaps you want to record a band in a studio (which has very different needs / constraints), or you're the rare exception which proves the rule, or you are getting lucky finding some amazingly priced deal which can make an otherwise bad purchase decision then make sense if "the price is right".
For instance I didn't include the Roland R88, as I feel it is extremely poor value for money in 2017! However.... there was a time at the end of 2016 when the Roland R88 got a huge price drop because it was being discontinued. Even with that massive price drop, the Roland R88 probably still wasn't a smart purchase vs the Zoom F8, but the big drop in price at least made the R88 a somewhat competitive option worth mentioning in a round up of all the various choices. However, that sale is now long since ended, and the prices I see on eBay for a Roland R88 is even higher than what you used to be able to buy it new from B&H Photo! Clearly those eBay sellers are dreaming. 
Anyway, that was just one example which might have been applicable but isn't now, so I don't rule out the possibilities of something like that perhaps popping up again in the future especially if you very keenly look around for secondhand deals. But for over 95% of people reading this, that won't be applicable, and just stick to going with one of the main ones I mentioned earlier.
 
http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-recorder-to-buy-a-guide-to-various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/