jcs

The Zoom F4 is indeed much better than the H4n (I have both and both are for sale! (also have a DR100 MKII for sale)). The noise floor is now usable on the F4, though still not as good as Sound Devices. If that's all that matters, then sure, they are close on noise, even more so with highly compressed online streaming listening.
When it comes to sound quality, especially with decent speakers/headphones, any Sound Devices is in another class compared to the Zoom F4/F8! If you can't hear the difference, what headphones or monitors are you using?  I'm using the amazing-deal Focal Listens (closed back) and the best-bang-for-buck Stax SRS-3100 w/ Ultra mod (Socas adapter plates and Brainwavz Hybrid Memory Foam pads (also have thick ZMF Lambskin angled pads, though currently prefer the thinner Brainwavz)). Previously: Sony 7506 and Audio Technica ATH-M50 (old model): both are also excellent for the money (and both still used for recording/location monitoring). Headphone amp is Sound Devices USBPre2 (excellent). These are pretty good demos which illustrate the sound quality differences: 
It's not always about price, sometimes is preference. I always found the RME Fireface 800's mic preamps a bit sterile and digital sounding (harsh). I replaced it with the comparatively cheap Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (over 10x cheaper) which has nicer preamps- smoother, more natural, and more analog like. While the Scarlett has sufficiently quiet and smooth mic preamps, the Sound Devices USBPre2 mic preamps are much fuller and more detailed across the spectrum.
Finally, a professional life-saver feature of the Sound Devices products is the analog limiter- it's basically unclippable. Even if you're very careful and set levels safely (e.g. -12 dB), sh*t happens and you're going to get clipping, especially for live/location/doc work. Using a safety track can help but that's more work in post and still not as good as SD (or higher end) analog limiters.
For the price difference between the F4 and MixPre6, there's no way I'd recommend the F4, even if I was a brand ambassador for Zoom. If one needs more channels and doesn't have the budget for equivalent Sound Devices or similar gear, the Zoom F8 makes sense. For indie/hobby work, digital limiters (or no limiter) recorders work fine, as it can be no big deal to go back and re-record once you have reviewed the recordings and find you've got some problems. If time is important or one is paid by someone else, analog limiters are really helpful.
Regarding Brand Ambassadoring for Aputure: it's cool to promote products one is compensated for, however as others have noted there are some issues with the current Deity: noise floor and off-axis rejection. While it does sound similar to a 416, it's much noisier, and side & rear rejection is much worse than the 416 and NTG-2. I've only listened on YouTube, however this review says the Deity is noisier than a $249 NTG-2. It appears Aputure tuned the Deity with high gain (hotter, more sensitive) and the budget ran out to keep costs and noise low at the same time. It's a fair compromise, and in noisy environments the noise won't really matter, or noise can be removed in post (FFT/spectral or simple expander/noise gate).
Regarding mic placement and usage: there are NO RULES! There are guidelines, however what matters is how the mic and placement actually sound for the conditions- that's it. Mic on camera? Absolutely for run&gun and it can sound great. It's totally fine to use a shotgun indoors in a non-reverberant room. The 416 is also an excellent VO/indoor mic. As long as the room's reflections aren't causing the shotgun to 'phase out' (sh*tty sounding phase effects), they can work great. It only took one time after many years of using the NTG-2 as my main mic to hear nasty reverberant phase effects to finally add a hypercardioid. I picked up both the Audix SCX1-HC ($500) and the Schoeps CMC641 (a lot more). If I 'squint my ears'  maybe I can hear a difference between these two mics. I ended up keeping both to do stereo recordings. Even though they aren't matched, they work pretty well together (all the indoor Cosmic Flow shoots use both these mics as a stereo recording on booms above talent. Can you hear the difference?). At that time I also finally upgraded to the CMIT5U, which works well outdoors, indoors, and on camera too! Someone criticized plugging a Schoeps directly into the C300 II- as if it could only be mated with a Sound Devices or better lol. When I'm running both camera and audio, simplicity and reliability are first priority. For critical location shooting for playing clients, the higher quality preamps and analog limiters of a Sound Devices mixer would totally make sense.
Here the NTG-2 sounds better indoors than the normally excellent Audio Technica 4053b (one of Curtis Judd's favorites): 
The 4053b and SCX1-HC tested for dialog here: http://www.4kshooters.net/2016/06/28/five-affordable-boom-microphones-for-capturing-high-quality-indoor-dialogue/
Cables: Neutrik connectors are great and after using cheaper cables really appreciate Mogami quality.
Over the years I started out with the best low-cost gear I could find (Rode, Audio Technica, Zoom, Tascam) and slowly upgraded to better gear (Sound Devices, Sennheiser, and Schoeps). You really appreciate the quality of the higher end gear after learning on the budget gear. The Audix SCX1-HC is a special gem- fantastic quality for the price. For internet streaming and listening on a cellphone (where most people consume low-budget/indie/free content), the budget Rode and Audio Technica gear is plenty good!

The reason we try to take the tester's ego out of an experiment, is to reduce as many variables as possible in order to learn whatever the goal of the experiment is. For a camera test, our goal is to understand actual differences in the camera systems, vs. the tester's personal preference or bias (ego). This has nothing to do with computers, as human beings would then look at the results of the tests to see if they can see any differences and if so, what are those differences.
That sounds reasonable. A non-biased equivalence test would allow many people to reach their own conclusions.
And Andrew has all the gear and experience to create a reasonable equivalence test showing the differences between these camera systems.

GH5 => 16mm Patina Recipe:
Reduce DR, esp. highlights. Nothing will be very bright Down-res to 720p or so, then perhaps scale back to 2K or 4K to add noise (via Nesting, etc.) Apply really chunky monochrome-ish organic noise (FilmConvert or 16mm film scans etc.). FilmConvert LUT for appropriate Kodak etc. film stock could also help (could then skip (1) & perhaps (2) above) https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/achieving-a-super-16mm-film-look-when-shooting-digitally/

Watched it today. Have a direct comparision to the original, as I have watched it for the first time right before some friends and me went to
the cinema. The original was very enjoyable as was the recent incarnation. Both with similarities but total different beasts in other ways.
2049 is a real cinematic experience like the first one is. The longer and calmer scenes gave it its own rhythm and tension. Some of the deaths felt not necessary nor helpful
for the story and the film itself. The photography is impressive and must be seen on a big screen. The bigger the better. James Bernadellis review describes
the qualities of this film very well. Visually it´s a masterpiece, plot wise it does fine.

As I watched Aronofsky's Mother!, I noted how soft and noisy it was, figured 16mm film (it was: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5109784/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec). Lots of handheld, close follow shots, POV pan-reveals, and overall genius-level unnerving camera motion and editing.
This is probably his best film to date: A+, 5/5 etc. Camera, color, editing, acting, story, lighting, music, sound, VFX, all top level work. He digs deep into the human psyche / ego / control / fear and doesn't let up 'once it starts' (you'll know what I mean when you see the film). For those who haven't studied psychology, it might seem incomprehensible. However while it works as an amazing horror movie even if it doesn't make sense, it's genius on so many other levels! Worth repeat watching to learn more, it's that good. Recommend not reading any reviews beforehand, and hopefully no spoilers are leaked in this thread.
[edit: removed the trailer link, best to see it without any fore knowledge!]
 

Tried the latest release version of Resolve 14 (free version, will probably get the $299 version after this test). Added a bunch of video and audio effects to a Canon 1DX II clip (1080p, full frame):

Pretty impressive performance on a 2010 MacPro and GTX980ti. Close to real time loaded with all these effects (easily realtime with basic effects / grading). Audio when not in the Fairlight panel is still 'clicky' after a few effects have been applied; guessing they're making video a priority and dropping audio samples to 'keep up'. A trivial linear interpolator could eliminate those annoying clicks; hopefully they'll fix that soon. Other than that, Resolve is looking really good. The stabilizer is faster than PP CC, and works much better. Their Film Grain and other locked/watermarked effects looked decent, will test them out after purchasing the app.
1DX II 4K 422 MJPEG also played butter smooth- first time I've seen this footage in real-time on this computer (state of the art PC plays these clips in real-time on GTX1080).
Purchasing: when you click the Buy Now button, it takes you to the web, then shows a list of retail stores. It's also available in the Apple App store, however someone reported that the App Store version won't allow the use of 3rd party OFX plugins? Is there a dongle for the retail/box version? One thing I like about PP CC is the ease of use on multiple computers and OSes vs having to schlep around a hardware dongle and use up a USB port.

Tried the latest release version of Resolve 14 (free version, will probably get the $299 version after this test). Added a bunch of video and audio effects to a Canon 1DX II clip (1080p, full frame):

Pretty impressive performance on a 2010 MacPro and GTX980ti. Close to real time loaded with all these effects (easily realtime with basic effects / grading). Audio when not in the Fairlight panel is still 'clicky' after a few effects have been applied; guessing they're making video a priority and dropping audio samples to 'keep up'. A trivial linear interpolator could eliminate those annoying clicks; hopefully they'll fix that soon. Other than that, Resolve is looking really good. The stabilizer is faster than PP CC, and works much better. Their Film Grain and other locked/watermarked effects looked decent, will test them out after purchasing the app.
1DX II 4K 422 MJPEG also played butter smooth- first time I've seen this footage in real-time on this computer (state of the art PC plays these clips in real-time on GTX1080).
Purchasing: when you click the Buy Now button, it takes you to the web, then shows a list of retail stores. It's also available in the Apple App store, however someone reported that the App Store version won't allow the use of 3rd party OFX plugins? Is there a dongle for the retail/box version? One thing I like about PP CC is the ease of use on multiple computers and OSes vs having to schlep around a hardware dongle and use up a USB port.

@fuzzynormal Isaac Asimov wrote a short story called "The Last Question" which is relevant to your comments and this discussion: http://multivax.com/last_question.html (full text here, just a few minutes to read).
@Kisaha it's super cool that Nintendo put shrooms (Amanita muscaria) in Super Mario Bros. The 'enlargening" isn't physical in real life with shrooms, it's mental/spiritual  
These kinds of conversations ultimately affect how we treat each other. It doesn't matter what each of us thinks individually. It does matter when we physically interact with the world and each other. Omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent: that's what all humans connected via the internet compose. Quantum physics experiments show that consciousness effects experiments, and Princeton's experiments show further intriguing interactions with thought and physical reality. Thus there may be some truth to visions on DMT/shrooms that we are all connected in a metaphysical way*  and collectively co-create reality together (where consciousness is primary). If that's all "true", what does that make us?
*related to entanglement in quantum physics and the Big Bang (everything emerging from a single point of unity)

Agreed about the close ups. Any smaller scale formats really shine in this setting. The extreme being Super 8 or Polaroid film. Portraits on polaroid look like they've already been airbrushed. 
On the discussion of 16mm. Stuff I have shot with the Bolex has just been the most rewarding for me. The colors, skin tone, and overall feel are very hard to replicate. 
I think someone saying they can easily copy the 16mm look with filters, is the same as saying the GH5 can look like an Alexa or a F35. I suppose there's different traits that people would to copy. To some people that would mean analog inconsistency; film burns, grain, jumping gate, etc. There is a huge difference in the film stocks alone. 
These first two frames are 1080p scans on the Shadow. This is a 10+ year old scanner. The 3rd frame is a 4k scan from a Scan Station. This is just cheap c-mount glass. I've n ever used Zeiss on a bolex, but I am sure the results would be very nice. 
I've never seen this but the trailer looks good. I'll be checking that out this week. 



 

As I watched Aronofsky's Mother!, I noted how soft and noisy it was, figured 16mm film (it was: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5109784/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec). Lots of handheld, close follow shots, POV pan-reveals, and overall genius-level unnerving camera motion and editing.
This is probably his best film to date: A+, 5/5 etc. Camera, color, editing, acting, story, lighting, music, sound, VFX, all top level work. He digs deep into the human psyche / ego / control / fear and doesn't let up 'once it starts' (you'll know what I mean when you see the film). For those who haven't studied psychology, it might seem incomprehensible. However while it works as an amazing horror movie even if it doesn't make sense, it's genius on so many other levels! Worth repeat watching to learn more, it's that good. Recommend not reading any reviews beforehand, and hopefully no spoilers are leaked in this thread.
[edit: removed the trailer link, best to see it without any fore knowledge!]
 

As I watched Aronofsky's Mother!, I noted how soft and noisy it was, figured 16mm film (it was: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5109784/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec). Lots of handheld, close follow shots, POV pan-reveals, and overall genius-level unnerving camera motion and editing.
This is probably his best film to date: A+, 5/5 etc. Camera, color, editing, acting, story, lighting, music, sound, VFX, all top level work. He digs deep into the human psyche / ego / control / fear and doesn't let up 'once it starts' (you'll know what I mean when you see the film). For those who haven't studied psychology, it might seem incomprehensible. However while it works as an amazing horror movie even if it doesn't make sense, it's genius on so many other levels! Worth repeat watching to learn more, it's that good. Recommend not reading any reviews beforehand, and hopefully no spoilers are leaked in this thread.
[edit: removed the trailer link, best to see it without any fore knowledge!]
 

GH5 => 16mm Patina Recipe:
Reduce DR, esp. highlights. Nothing will be very bright Down-res to 720p or so, then perhaps scale back to 2K or 4K to add noise (via Nesting, etc.) Apply really chunky monochrome-ish organic noise (FilmConvert or 16mm film scans etc.). FilmConvert LUT for appropriate Kodak etc. film stock could also help (could then skip (1) & perhaps (2) above) https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/achieving-a-super-16mm-film-look-when-shooting-digitally/

GH5 => 16mm Patina Recipe:
Reduce DR, esp. highlights. Nothing will be very bright Down-res to 720p or so, then perhaps scale back to 2K or 4K to add noise (via Nesting, etc.) Apply really chunky monochrome-ish organic noise (FilmConvert or 16mm film scans etc.). FilmConvert LUT for appropriate Kodak etc. film stock could also help (could then skip (1) & perhaps (2) above) https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/achieving-a-super-16mm-film-look-when-shooting-digitally/

@Don Kotlos:
Abstraction is an understatement for this film! Pi and The Fountain were a little abstract, Mother! takes abstraction to a whole new level. I think that's why the reviews are polarizing. If one views this movie literally or at face value, it's a bizarrely terrifying horror thriller and ultimately makes little sense.  When viewed as an abstraction, paying attention to the symbology, it works as quite an amazing experience. I was laughing during many parts of the film because I saw what he was doing, and it was amazing. Looking around others were horrified or puzzled. My fellow philosopher / psychology enthusiast friend, she was also giggling and got what he was doing.
On one level some scenes appear to be absolutely surreal and absurd. However he's doing an expose on materialism, narcissism, selfishness, control freaks, introverts, extroverts, police-military power / powerlessness, insanely dysfunctional families, cults, mob mentality, and religion (mother nature & God, Adam & Eve / Garden of Eden, Cain & Abel, great flood etc.). And perhaps most importantly, it's all illusion, especially romantic love and how psychopaths, who have no natural ability to love or have empathy, take advantage of deep empaths, who have deep ability to love and get taken advantage of by psycho/socio-paths. And ultimately he's making fun of Hollywood!
After watching the Fountain and Mother!, it appears Aronofsky has deeply studied psychology, religion, common (illusory) social constructs, and especially concepts of attachment and suffering from Zen/Buddhism. Truly a brilliant work with so many concepts compressed into a 2 hour film.

He said the following at the Toronto Film Festival: 
"But with 16 you have an immediate patina, an immediate abstraction, an immediate thing that makes it a piece of work"
And I wonder, could it be that this "immediate patina & abstraction" almost dictates a frame of mind and actually helps in the creative process? 
At least thats how I felt back in the day when shooting with T-MAX 400, and I guess a similar feeling could exist when shooting jpegs with the various film styles of Fuji or Olympus. Shooting RAW has its advantages but I see myself enjoying the process less and less.  
Every movie from Aronofsky (other than Noah), left a lasting impression so I can't wait to get my eyes on mother. 

As I watched Aronofsky's Mother!, I noted how soft and noisy it was, figured 16mm film (it was: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5109784/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec). Lots of handheld, close follow shots, POV pan-reveals, and overall genius-level unnerving camera motion and editing.
This is probably his best film to date: A+, 5/5 etc. Camera, color, editing, acting, story, lighting, music, sound, VFX, all top level work. He digs deep into the human psyche / ego / control / fear and doesn't let up 'once it starts' (you'll know what I mean when you see the film). For those who haven't studied psychology, it might seem incomprehensible. However while it works as an amazing horror movie even if it doesn't make sense, it's genius on so many other levels! Worth repeat watching to learn more, it's that good. Recommend not reading any reviews beforehand, and hopefully no spoilers are leaked in this thread.
[edit: removed the trailer link, best to see it without any fore knowledge!]
 

As I watched Aronofsky's Mother!, I noted how soft and noisy it was, figured 16mm film (it was: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5109784/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec). Lots of handheld, close follow shots, POV pan-reveals, and overall genius-level unnerving camera motion and editing.
This is probably his best film to date: A+, 5/5 etc. Camera, color, editing, acting, story, lighting, music, sound, VFX, all top level work. He digs deep into the human psyche / ego / control / fear and doesn't let up 'once it starts' (you'll know what I mean when you see the film). For those who haven't studied psychology, it might seem incomprehensible. However while it works as an amazing horror movie even if it doesn't make sense, it's genius on so many other levels! Worth repeat watching to learn more, it's that good. Recommend not reading any reviews beforehand, and hopefully no spoilers are leaked in this thread.
[edit: removed the trailer link, best to see it without any fore knowledge!]
 

Nice chickentones  

Note that pretty much no one could guess the right camera order in the A7S II, C300 II, 1DX II side-by-side test on EOSHD:
And even on the more 'working professional' oriented dvxuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?346890-1DX-II-A7S-II-C300-II-Compared-Side-by-Side
I'm currently selling a bunch of gear, GH4, A7S I, Panasonic and Sony lenses... These posts have me seriously thinking about selling the A7S II (along with Speedbooster and MB IV adapter), and getting an 80D or 5D4 as the light/travel camera to replace the A7S II.
In this 80D vs. Alexa demo: 
 
I have a pretty good idea how to get the 80D looking more like the Alexa with a custom picture style and WB offset. The 80D looks a lot more like the Alexa than the A7S II, it has DPAF, and can use all my Canon lenses natively (with AF). The 5D4 might make more sense if the 1080p is similar to the 1DX II (color/look is more important than the 4K crop).
If the A7S III has something close to Canon DPAF, it will be worth a look (especially since they'll likely improve color quality and IBIS as well). Until then I might let the A7S II and Sony lenses go too...

Netflix Originals are most likely Sony or Red because of the "4K" requirement (which seems like a political thing against ARRI domination, and perhaps a reason behind Steve Yedlin's recent resolution test. Alexa 65 is rental only and not widely available). Sony pro video cameras have been traditionally more reliable vs. Red (which in recent time is also pretty reliable), and thus Sony is a good guess. And then I looked it up ;).
Watching again on the desktop with a high-end 32" calibrated 4K Dell display (vs. on my iPhone when originally replied), it does have that Sony video look. It's suppressed mostly by using low-contrast/glow lens filters (see glow on very bright areas), expert lighting, and expert grading.
The recent Sony camera which doesn't have that inherent video look is the F65. Using the F65 for a Netflix production is probably too expensive (storage) and maybe the camera size itself is an issue (It's dumb, but people choose gear based partly on how it looks. The F55 is a lot sexier than the F65. This was pointed out by Lucy's DP when they chose the F65 vs. ARRI and Red based purely on image quality (Red used for some shots)).
Can I get results I like with Sony, sure, with a lot of work in post (A7S II):

Simple camera-specific things that help make an image 'filmic or cinematic':
High color fidelity: lots of colors and color variation. For the final 8-bit render, lots of color/tonal variation is used and maximized. This is especially important for skintones. If we remove color and view the image in grayscale, we look for tonal variation in light & shadow, and texture detail, especially in skin. High intensity white is rarely if ever seen. In a sense, filmic tends to be lower dynamic range than real life. Highlights don't clip very often, and when they do, it tends to be a smooth effect vs. a hard clip. Noise adds texture and even when it's subtle does something to make the brain think the experience is more organic, more analog, vs. digital. Perhaps acting like temporal dithering in a way. Motion cadence and motion blur- more subtle, though people notice differences in motion, some cameras are more pleasing than others. Then we can add low-contrast/glow filters, lighting (most important), color grading/look, story, performance, sound (especially ADR and Foley), etc. to get the full filmic/cinematic experience. Shallow DOF is not filmic per se, as some directors love deep DOF, and ultimately depends on the story and emotion of the shot.
ARRI, Red, and Canon (in that order) tend to produce the most filmic look with the least effort (Black Magic is getting there, and once reliability and quality improves,  will be a contender). Sony and Panasonic don't look like ARRI, Red, or Canon (F65 and Varicam come closest).
We've all seen studio tests where a bunch of cameras are graded to match and it's hard to tell them apart. For actual productions, the cameras that produce the best results with the least effort, are the most forgiving of errors (exposure etc.), ultimately produce the best results over time. And we can see why ARRI dominates, and why ARRI in general looks better than all the rest. It just takes the least effort. Red looks pretty good lately but still hasn't matched ARRI (and also takes more work in post). In the next tier down, Canon takes less effort than Sony or Panasonic. When the C300 II was priced higher, the FS7 got a brief boost because of the slomo craze, however now that the C300 II price has come down, that's not the case anymore. Look on eBay and see all the FS7's for sale (a bunch last I checked) vs. C300 II (none last I checked). You can also see true value by studying used prices. The 5D3 held it's value for a very long time (and still does relative to similar Sony and Panasonic cameras). 5D3 raw looks better to me than the F55 (but not the F65!).
So if you're letting us know the mystery camera was the F55, then all I can say is wow! A fun exercise would then be, how do we intentionally make footage look like video?
Use 'bad' lighting- low CRI/TLCI, unflattering light positions etc. (low CRI/TLCI will help with (4) below) Clip the highlights and/or blow out the whites frequently, especially in skin Go crazy on noise reduction- little or no noise, especially in skin. Reduce texture as much as possible to get that plastic look Massively reduce the color space. Imagine an RGB cube, representing all the possible colors. Now compress/crush it so many original colors are now mapped to the same color (quantized). This is especially important for skintones: the less color variation/tonality the better. Underexposing and/or shooting in very low light and using aggressive in-camera NR can also help (both (3) & (4)), then bring it back up in post: low noise/detail and low color variation! Enhance Magenta/Green instability. Meaning, make the highlights tend toward magenta and the shadows tend toward green. Make it impossible to get natural skintones without needing advanced / secondary color correction Produce a motion cadence / motion blur that makes 24p look like 30- or 60p That said, really "old" video, as in tape, has a fun look of its own, as with Kung Fury:
Still looks great, was shot on Canon 5D3 and Sony FS700 (slomo). The FS700 footage needed less "work" to look like video  (again, had one for a few years, great slomo, (internal) color was a challenge (external recorders look better)).
While I agree that just about any camera today can be made to look filmic/cinematic, ARRI, Red, and Canon (and even BM) make it easier than Sony or Panasonic. We each have our own priorities, and for me number one is skintones. I still use the Sony A7S II when I want to use something small and light (the 1DX II is really right there for usable low light with the A7S II). However, SOOC the A7S II footage will look more like video than the 1DX II (esp. with my custom Filmic Skin profile). In the studio with high quality lights, the A7S II, C300 II, and 1DX II can match fairly closely (would need secondary CC to fix A7S II lipstick):

As mentioned many times before, comparing Canon (or ARRI) to other cameras that one thinks looks good, is a useful exercise. Using a Canon camera as a reference for Sony is what led Andrew to start making picture profiles for Sony to match Canon. If Canon wasn't 'better', why bother?
ARRI and Canon aren't perfect, however so far they are tools which provide the most pleasing color/look (esp. skintones) vs. the other brands for the least effort. Is anyone selling Red, Sony, or Panasonic looks for ARRI or Canon cameras?  
 
 
 

Yeah, crazy how the tools in cinematography can change over time, it is so fast that sometimes is hard to keep up with all the new tools. 
 
I was aiming for Hero 6 then I found out about Fusion and now I am in confusion. 

What makes it cool is ease of use for these advanced effects. Lots of creative possibilities! Next they'll add depth sensors so we can simulate any camera/lens in post   

I am usually not that excited by 360 cameras but the OverCapture mode of Fusion got my attention. Imagine how this can be used for event type shooting, like weddings. Expensive but exciting! 
 

It is true that in most cases we don't need 4K, HD should be good enough. But to get proper HD, we need oversampling and therefore we need 4K. 

Haha, good one! Wait, are you seriously taking Wes Anderson seriously?