Emanuel

No problem with your findings at all (even though, I guess another picture profile or even higher bitrate through HDMI, as for instance, can bring another outcome : ) I just found it funny enough and very accurate definition BTW ;-) On topic, take a look on this one here: You'll find the same chroma smearing going on with other cameras, take a look on minute 00:46 of that example above. Saturate the colors just a bit and see the ear of the guy. Same effect. So, everything can be controlled either in the camera settings or at post for sure, the more avoidable the possible, I concur though.

What lens? What about tap to focus? Have you tested it for video?

LOL This is "the" joke! Priceless. The best definition of pixel peeper I've ever read ; ) *thumbsup* :-)

The word is, well, there are more than a sole one: the test is quite incomplete *cough cough* Even the guy does (doesn't) believe so! LOL (so... read the comments there : )

Good reason to buy a Speedbooster and go on peaking! ; ) Tap to focus is not a bad idea either... ;-)

Half-half. It does confirm both sides of the coin. Pretty useable, anyways if set up correctly. Speedbooster will operate miracles for sure. The proof is in the pudding, filmmaking is this. Post follows the rule: And here's another interesting sample related to the task... Explanation for that one to close the aperture on the widest end of that zoom lens is beyond me... The reports say is as sharp as a Leica LOL 1-stop of difference is yet half way of light... Maybe the operator didn't find the need for or found the need for deep rather than shallow DOF... : D Hey, this is not full frame! ; ) Distinct perspectives, oh so, we can't all of us share the same scope on reality out there, isn't it? ; )) Noise is grainy, so... filmic? And Dubai's night life is cutely enough cinematic, though :-) The challenge/secret is to know the tools. The capture device is (or assembles) only a set of them.

Who didn't frame St Pauli couldn't arrange a better excuse for a projector lens : ) nice use *thumbsup* :-) Still speaking of 709, here's another anamorphic test here: https://vimeo.com/210491958

Well, more testing coming with and from BMD love... I bet on this one :-)

I guess only on high ISOs, right?

Your karma will refund you... count on it :-) If paid by PayPal, I guess so.

Those 3CCD were magical outside the film world if we can find magic beyond, I'd say.

Indeed. What I find interesting here is the noticeable difference between GH4 and GH5 models.

When have you ordered it?

Choose one for first love... ...and you'll tend to never let other ones to shit her out ;-)

Right. And it just depends on the shooter. People can always go to school and start to actually learn how to set the stuff up and put it out.

Man, your showreel is one of the best GH4 footy samples I and many others have ever seen here or everywhere else *thumbsup* Panasonic should take this in consideration for new releases. You 're Da Man... I already had watched it, just clueless you were posting in these boards. Grading is your surname, pal, kudos to your associates and clientele ; ) E :-)

Matching dramaturgy, Thomas Vinterberg used the clever technique to downgrade the video acquisition down to the point everything else can shine when compared to. Exactly the same effect when shallow DOF seemed high def when wide shots on SD were lacking enough definition to properly resolve anything in the landscape.

Money is a bless of this world, except when people really suffer about it.

We are not all the same, I think that's why :-)

Let's move on, fellas. Nothing really extraordinary to see here. People simply diverge their opinions on each other. That's life! : ) Back to topic, a6500 would be my second choice to follow GH5, only because XT2 ruled out IBIS. Pity that RS, though. 8-bit doesn't help either, even though 4:2:2 output can solve many problems, banding included. :-)

Sorry, not mine. I am at the same side of you. Just share the same opinion, so to have posted the link here :-)