Eric Calabros

Any good documentary maker would likely keep on filming too. Many war corespondents will of course tell tales of exactly the same situation, where they couldn't put the camera down but had to pick it up to capture the story even under horrible circumstances (often quite the reverse, as the more horrible it is, the more important it is they report on it!).
Now of course Logan Paul isn't a doco maker, he is a "YouTuber". 
But in a way, that is kinda sort of the "same thing"? As a vlogger he is making a mini documentary, every single day. 

Look on the upside perhaps? He is bringing more attention to Japan's terribly high suicide rates, maybe will do his tiny part in helping open a discussion to do something about it. 

Oh, and as for censorship, I don't believe in any of that. "We don't have free speech to talk about the weather".

If you've ever suffered 5 minutes of Youtube Kids, your "algorithm" statement is completely correct.  Watch Sonic the Hedgehog drive Lightning Mcqueen off a skyscraper 1500 feet onto a farting velociraptor with breasts and Don Johnson loafers...  while "Daddy Finger" repeats in the background. 
I kind of hate that social media has given literally everyone a voice when I see Logan Paul as an example.  -Since feeling special and accepted is an ingrained part of every human being's natural make-up, social media, Youtube, etc.. - keeps us buried in our phones, constantly seeking value in "likes" and whatever trivial bullshit virtual currency there is.  It's a breeding ground for ill-advised priorities and narcissism.   Even if it’s just subscribing, you’re piggy backing a sense of community for the almighty motive - attention.  Everything is literally based on attention.  It drives the motive of most media "outrage" these days with a voice that says "Judge this motherf---er.  It's trendy."   or some idiot's default response to go full LiveLeak on a dead body.  
F'king Nightcrawler.  He's done. 

Whatever pre-production mirrorless Nikon ambassadors are testing right now

A lot of Sony "zombie skin" is from filmmakers using LOG and de-saturated profiles where they shouldn't.  I've tried to be the "LOG police" on the Internet but will give up.  The desire to believe you can get pro-equipment/lighting quality in mirrorless is stronger than the simple fact of the matter--"film quality" (what should we call it?) is now moving well past consumer equipment.  The trend will only continue into 2023.  In other words, many consumer equipment filmmakers will always believe in snake-oil  (LOG, 10bit, rec2020 as a shooting CODEC, etc.)  Of course, all those shooting wild-color music videos and zombie movies will be as proud as peacocks with their mirrorless kits
The epiphany came for me while watching Netflix's "Abstract" series--on a 720 TV.  I thought it was done on something like the Canon C300, or even C500.  Nope, RAW-shootin' Red Epic Dragons with $10,000+ glass.  When this site was in its formative years ER (I believe) shot a whole episode using a 5DII.  It was good, but not as good as the professional equipment of the time (too much aliasing from spread out pixels on that FF sensor).  I believe a 5D4 is no closer to today's professional video cameras--farther even.
Unless consumer cameras shoot essentially RAW quality (and it seems physical power limitations are preventing this because SD cards are now fast enough) then the cameras of 2023 will be as you describe.  Better than today's cameras.  Not as superior to the cameras of 2017 as today's cameras are from 2012.  
All that said, one can get in the game, even with a G6 (what was his name on this forum that championed that camera?) that was IMPOSSIBLE when I was young and even a few minutes of 16mm film was $100 back then (never mind the camera!).  
Some more proof that video has diverged is @Mattias Burling. He used to shoot RAW, now it's 8bit.  So I believe his YouTube quality has gone down, but seems I'm the only one (though it doesn't stop me from watching his videos)!  If mirrorless today is good enough then it should be good enough in 2023.  
Other questions, are, will consumer available video editing/processing software and lighting get powerful enough to do David Fincher type work?  I'm certainly interested in your thoughts there Oliver!   I know this seems left field, but I've heard the iPhone X is selling mostly because of the real-time video emojis it can create using its face recognition post processing software/chips, etc.  That's what I mean about post technology.  Maybe computer visual processing will be more important than whether or not it's 8bit or RAW sourced.

"Dynamic Range" is such a misused phrase.  It's the MacGuffin of filmmaker dreams and fantasy.  When someone writes the camera could have 15+ stops of DR my head explodes.  Measured how?  I'll try another way to explain how I see it.  In an 8-bit DATA space (which Panasonic is probably shotgun married to in its electronics), you only have 16 million color values.  If you shoot in 6 stops, you have 16/6=2.6 million colors.  If you shoot in 15 stops you have 1 million colors.  The data "word"/bit size is what sets the maximum colors you can capture.  So after the camera comes out various camera experts will show on YouTube/Vimeo how you can see 15 white/gray bars, each exposed 1 stop away from the other.  So yes, if you're shooting white bars you have 15 stops of dynamic range.  However, change each bar to an individual color chart and you will see banding because you can't spread color out in 15 stops in 8 bit without seeing it in many situations.  Again, you want 2.6 million colors at each stop, or 1 million?  10bit full color compressed video is not the same as 10bit single-channel RAW, not even close.  Arggggghhh!
What's so mystifying to me--the million dollar question--is why Panasonic can't offer RAW.  A GH5 with RAW output would be a game changer.  I'd buy one immediately! Anyone?  As for the focus stuff.  I agree with the above.  Sony and Canon invested in low-level tech that can't be done without changing manufacturing.  No one wants to hear this, but Panasonic is married to the wrong sensor size.  Might have been one of the points @Don Kotlos was trying to make.  Yes, there are many tricks that can be done to improve the image.  But GROSS Dynamic Range?  As they say in cars, "there's no replacement for displacement"   If Canon can get 4K on its consumer cameras Panasonic will be in very serious trouble.  That's my thoughts on their desire to keep announcing.

I deal with it by living in Berlin where the sun don't shine!!

of course its better, but not taking-up-2.5x-more-storage-space better. 

in regard to camera gears at least none of us is conservative, let alone alt-right. in regard to social/political matters, its always expected independent content makers reject popular culture, and in our time many liberal/left ideas have become part of the popular culture. 

Most of the discussion in this thread proves my point that climate change isn't up for debate and very good science will be ignored as a result.
As a liberal creative person I can't even so much as ask a damn question, let alone consider arguments outside my liberal bubble, without the finger pointing of moral condemnation from fellow liberals.
When the simple act of considering some related issues and problems is considered "denial", followed by a lot of frenzied arm-waving idignation and accusations of being alt-right, that is a major problem - and we see it in our politics every day.
This is really unhelpful if the human race is to solve the issues of managing our climate and understanding it better.
Today, we either fit in one camp or the other. To satisfy a consensus you have to either flat out deny climate change exists, or claim that it is all proven, settled and we know everything. Anything else is heresy.
The fact is we don't know it all... we aren't considering some related issues and problems with clean energy sources and impact on agriculture, farmers, food and lives.
This is too complex a problem to pledge allegiance to one of just two opposing dumb football teams and attack it with a tribal mentality.
It's sad to see people do so on this thread without even having watched the film.

The D850 is very closely matched to the Samsung NX1 in 4K for detail.
D850:

NX1:

I have no worries over the sub-sampling.
How else were they to get 4K off a 46MP full frame sensor? 8.2K readout?! Imagine the rolling shutter on that!

Dude, the resolution in 4K of the D850 is as good as the 1D X Mark II / 1D C...
https://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=nikon_d850&attr29_1=canon_eos1dxii&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=c4k&normalization=full&widget=555&x=-0.585179526355997&y=0.08446496469310162
What's not to like.
I don't tend to quibble over small resolution differences at 4K on charts anyway....Why? At this level, resolution is already so more than you really need even for cinema screenings, yes, and even in 2017. I don't care whether it is effectively 4K or 3.8K or even 3K. At 1080p, I can quibble all I like! (Oh and 1080 on the D850 is superb by the way).
The D850's 4K resolution is nothing to be sniffed at. There's some purple false colour on the D850 chart (like ALL the other Nikon cameras, funnily enough) but the actual level of detail and especially real-world detail is a match to the 1D C. Yet on the Nikon you are getting more for your money and fixing the lovely 1D C's biggest downsides (lack of articulated screen and unworkably large file sizes). The colour and white balance are superb and the image pipeline, processing and codec are top notch, as good looking as the Canon. You're getting a smaller form factor, lighter body, better stills, articulated screen, cheaper price and 4K file sizes that are actually practical... The 1D X Mark II only has two advantages and certainly not the codec - it is less rolling shutter and of course Dual Pixel AF yet films have been shot with manual focus since the start to the present day and there's a reason for that. AF still isn't bullet proof or organic looking enough... It's nice to have, it's practical and convenient for run & gun, but it isn't cinema and you don't actually need it for most cinematography.
What's more you need to put chart tests into context. If there's some purple false colour on very fine black and white circles and lines at DPReview, but these things never occur outside of charts, then what is more important is that A) it looks nice when you point it at REAL STUFF and B) it does 4K from an 8K sensor!! - a huge technical achievement and gives you the benefit of 46MP stills, which the Sony A9 and 1D C simply cannot compete with.
Then there is the Nikon flat profile and colour science, which is superior to Sony, and even superior to Canon in terms of some subjects.
A9 does not have a C-LOG-like profile nor can you add one. No S-LOG. No EOSHD Pro Color. Just the standard crap Sony colour.
The codec is also very good on the D850... Higher bitrate than the Sonys and cleaner shadows, smoother to edit and better looking grain.
There is also the fact that low light performance is excellent considering the 46MP count sensor and superior ergonomics to all the Sony cameras, superior to the A99 II as well, which I actually liked more than the A9. The D850 is a much better stills camera than both of them.
Oh and it is full frame... So that look, in the real world, trumps anything minor that appears on a fucking chart.

You don't show it.

The science is far from settled, for example on the topic of renewables and the management of food, land and the agricultural economy. Further research is needed there to gauge the impact losing all that land to wind farms will have on food supply. Furthermore, it's interesting to hear what Freeman Dyson says in the film about the computer models - that they are a good tool for understanding the climate but a bad tool for predicting it.
I'm no climate change denier but the discussion is getting way too dogmatic on both sides of the fence.

Meanwhile, in the real world:




(All full frame. Flat profile. Sharpness on zero)

You're completely missing the bigger picture, literally.
The A7R II Super 35mm is fine, but it isn't full frame. The GH5 is not full frame.
The D850 is full frame 4K and much better than the A7R II's full frame 4K, better horizontal res and less moire, it's better even than the A99 II full frame 4K which I am very happy with and which was an improvement on the A7R II's image.
The codec and colour science are superior to the Sonys.
The sensor size and stills are superior to the GH5.

Hard to argue with Slashcam's results but you will notice in 4K FX the horizontal resolution is very good indeed. This counts for a lot in the real world.
This is not a moire camera. It may show some on a chart, yes. All do.
I very much doubt it is line-skipping. The results would be much worse if it was.
The difference in real-world resolution between the full frame FX mode and Super 35mm is tiny.
The other advantages over Sony outweigh the difference in res anyway... better codec for starters.
D850 FX 4K:

5D Mark IV 1.7x crop 4K:

You will see that the D850 actually out-resolves the 1:1 full pixel readout of the 1.7x crop 4K on the 5D Mark IV horizontally...
And that the Canon 4K has worse moire issues... even without binning or line skipping.
So whatever the D850 pixel binning is doing from 46MP down to 8MP for 4K it is doing it well enough as to not be noticeable in the real-world vs a 1:1 readout... Very impressive.
Let's throw in the A7S II, 1D C and GH4 as well...
1D C... Soft, and moire patterns especially horizontally....

A7S II full frame 4K... Still moire. Oversharpened PP settings used though.

GH4... Moire present again!

These all look worse than the Nikon's 4K in this test and as we know, in the real world they offer some of the best images around.
https://www.slashcam.de/4K-Kamera-Vergleich-u-show_von-i-49-u-mode-i-docompare.html

If Samsung could see the potential

If Samsung could see the potential

If Samsung could see the potential

Ok, so how does that all add up? Simple, I started reading Andrew's site a few years ago and learned everything I needed to know about the Samsung NX1 and SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33x adapter. I decided to use them on our first feature film. After numerous film festivals and special events our film, Black Luck, signed an International distribution deal with Indie Rights. Yes, we probably would have done the film without this knowledge, but I'm not sure it would have had the same look or feel. The camera and adapter worked amazingly well and proved that a no budget indie thriller can still have a high production value. I can't thank Andrew enough for educating me and so many other filmmakers about the possibilities of shooting a feature film with these great tools.
Cheers!
David 
P.S. If you want to check the film out, it just launched on Amazon Prime. Read the reviews as well. This isn't some masterpiece of cinema, but it is a satisfying movie created with passion. 

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Luck-Garrett-Sheeks/dp/B0764KD2K8/ref=sr_1_2?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1507185936&sr=1-2&keywords=indie+rights
 

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me
 

http://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-gosling-blade-runner-2049-harrison-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/
I've just seen it.
Definitely not a fast paced action film. It's slow, brooding and very very tense. Roger's cinematography is his best work ever, and he'll get a Oscar for it. So many deft touches and changes mid scene to serve the story. It's a stunning looking film. Dennis Villeneuve slowed down the pace, focussed on a study of the characters above everything else. I'm still not 100% a Villeneuve fan but this is far more entertaining than Arrival.
I am more impressed with the story and screenplay... It has many good ideas. Some genuinely original and untried. I think it will stand up to repeat viewings, it has the depth to go down as a bit of a modern classic.
I just wish I was more a fan of the overall cinema experience of people munching stinking nachos in your fucking ear whilst talking constantly. (To be fair this isn't as common in Berlin as some other places but I lucked out and got to sit next to a dirty old corporation man on a date with his 18 year old intern)

We don't need global shutter anymore. When Sony switch to smaller node (16nm?) and bigger DRAM, the scan speed will reach to mechanical shutter. Even Nikon's upcoming mirrorless DX camera is rumored ditching the mechanical shutter. 

How many DR stop remain at that ISO? 1.5? 

How many DR stop remain at that ISO? 1.5?