Chrad

It only takes ONE product flop (such as shipping a camera with a 20 minute battery life, if you switch on all the features) to harm the entire product line's image. 

You'd get countless mindless idiots telling other idiots "don't buy Panasonic because they have poor battery life", when the exact opposite is true! (for all but one)

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

I say this until I'm blue in the face.  I'd add how a good Gaffer shapes "good" light.  Day-for-night is an example of how cinematographers used good light to get the look they want (as if night) instead of a super grain/noisey image they'd get if they shot in real night.  Another way to say what you're saying, is the only difference between an A7S/GH5S in good light shaped to look, say "romantic" and an A7D/GH5S in low light which is naturally "romantic" is the second will be full of noise.  Both can look equally "romantic" if the gaffer knows his stuff.  Shooting in low light should ALWAYS be avoided at ALL COSTS unless NOISE is what you're after.  I understand most people will use these cameras outdoors, or indoor where they can't control the light.  For those purposes, those cameras fit the bill!  But for studio/set work?  Put your money in lights and modifiers--control light/noise so your camera DOES NOT STRUGGLE, don't become a slave to the camera's signal/noise ratio    

I doubt we'll see a GH6s for two years. 
GX95 this year, GH6 and G10 year after, GH6s year after that.
I bet GH5s will be as nice paired with the GH6 as with the GH5. I think it will fill its niche for a good while to come.

No, when you move away from a base/native ISO, you lose dynamic range the further away you get. With the GH5S, the dual native ISO reclaims those lost stops at 2500, that you would have lost on the GH5 if you were just gaining up from the native ISO 400. So a GH5 at ISO 2500 will have less dynamic range than a GH5S at 2500. But put them both at ISO 400 and they will both be the same. That's the thing many are missing about the dual ISO function. It's less about noise, and more about maintaining equivalent dynamic range at two ISOs.

I doubt we'll see a GH6s for two years. 
GX95 this year, GH6 and G10 year after, GH6s year after that.
I bet GH5s will be as nice paired with the GH6 as with the GH5. I think it will fill its niche for a good while to come.

It sounds like a beautiful camera. I don't have a Sony and I've long wanted a low light specialist but I'm very invested in M43. With other cameras to do what this can't (e.g. IBIS, long battery runs) I think it's a great addition to the kit.
It's a specialist camera for specific uses - the richest looking 4K images for controlled productions, and a cam that sees into the darkness on a sticks. Given the power draw of the dual ISO (making the camera only slightly more energy efficient than the GH5, down specifically from the GH4 largely due to IBIS), I can believe that IBIS was cut for heat and energy efficiency reasons. 

THis is getting crazy. ANd this camera is as good as a A7s mk ii until 25,000 and even at. Who gives a shit about ISO 200000, 300000!
 
This camera is made with no IBIS because Pros DON"T want IBIS. It is jittery as hell with it; You can never turn it off.

Well up to about 12800 it would seem that the GH5S does in fact have the edge. The Sony retakes the lead beyond that point. So it really depends on where you will be shooting. Another consideration is that the added DOF might not be desirable on the Sony as it can make focus more challenging.

It´s the best ISO 3200/6400 image, if you are after a cinematic image, not last resort kind of images seeing into the nolight areas. At lower ISOs it´s up there with the big boys, which the Sony is very far from being so. At lower ISOs the Sony has an image I can can reproduce and better easily with a 350 dollar Lumix G7.

Yes, when read this back the firmware  update came out I thought it was only for the Micro Studio (which is of zero interest to me).
 
Nah, that is nonsense. 

Even the GH5 is is better than the a7S mk2! (come on, ten bit internal! Or 4K 60fps, or waveforms monitoring! So much goodness there)

Am skeptical if the a7Smk3 will catch up with the GH5 original, and the GH5S is a leap ahead! 

Plus the a7Smk3 is guaranteed to cost more. 

There's one reason: to double the battery life. IBIS is a massive power hog. 
It's kind of ironic that the ultra low light performer (if that's what this camera is) that one would therefore think of as a 'run and gun' camera, may not have IBIS, and the one that's going to be relegated to controlled lighting situations for those with access to this one will have it.

There's one reason: to double the battery life. IBIS is a massive power hog. 
It's kind of ironic that the ultra low light performer (if that's what this camera is) that one would therefore think of as a 'run and gun' camera, may not have IBIS, and the one that's going to be relegated to controlled lighting situations for those with access to this one will have it.

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

This thread is taking a bizarre turn.
The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

This thread is taking a bizarre turn.
The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

The unethical part is the personal gain over another one's loss. Both the clown and the company are at fault here. 
The clown did it for clicks which gave him more money. 
YT also works on clicks. More moderation --> less people visit --> less money from advertisers. I would even put more blame on YT since it affects many more people than one lousy channel. And if you believe YT can't do much, think of how quickly & efficiently they blocked all copyrighted content. 
And you can't argue against the widespread traumatic experience of showing content like that.  If you even believe that this will make people less suicidal, then you have it all wrong since psychological studies show that it only makes things even worse. 
At the end, they both exchanged money for f*cking other people. 
You can clearly see the difference between quality content and plain click-driven-shit when you compare the front page of Vimeo to the one of YT. 

This thread is taking a bizarre turn.
The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

This thread is taking a bizarre turn.
The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

The best case scenario is that the video draws people attention to Japan's suicide rate and the tragic reality of suicide increasing around the world. 
The worst case scenario is that the video furthers the social isolation of the suicidally depressed. Older, successful role model Logan Paul sends a message to impressionable youngsters that people who commit suicide are a joke and encourages a lack of empathy for them. 

I think it's really important that there's been such a backlash, and the morals and ethics that our entertainment reflects are very important - particularly when it's targeted to still developing minds.

Bullshit. 
Laughing at a dead body for views is not a beneficial way to raise awareness of suicide rates, and Logan Paul's vlogs constantly cross outside of the ethical boundaries of documentary filmmaking, so he can't be defended under those terms either. Seen as a journalist, he is lower than a joke. 
Censorship? It's not censorship to reject an entertainer who was violated the trust and morality of the community. If he was a TV star, this would lose him his job. Sponsors etc pulling out isn't censorship... "it' s just business." 

Well, you have every right to ngaf about that movie. Unfortunately, it was the one that created a lot of the cinema vocabulary we still use.  
I suspect other films would've come along and done the same eventually. (Eisenstein really cranked it up a notch) It's too bad BOAN was that one to lead the way. 
In that regard I'm not sure you can say there were other films to reference. 
As you're aware, history is often defined with endless bad actors and disturbing human cruelty. It's truly a shame that early cinema has that stain, but nevertheless, there it is. 
BTW, that racist kkk culture was aggressively invigorated by the post civil war backlash of egalitarian reconstruction.  Bad mojo feeding off a noble progressive effort. 
...more examples of humanity's sad ying/yang dance. 
But if a shit cultural movie like BOAN can get made and we can scrape some goodness off it's shoe, better that than to pretend it never existed. 
I know you don't want to talk about BOAN, but I'm aiming at a higher concept. Indulge or ignore it, as you wish.  
BTW, take ear plugs to BR2049. Seriously. 

If you're in a green screen studio, it's perfectly fine. On green screen shoots whatever isn't the person you're filming is cut out anyway, so as long as you put the footage in a 16x9 sequence not a 9x16 you're golden. Only you will know how it was filmed vertical. I'd say go for it, you'll have more flexibility in post too 

And, beautifully, 1080p is perfect 1080p resolution, even seemingly better than C100/300 and it keeps that quality up to 60p, with some detoriation up to 75fps and from thereon
going downhill until 180fps. Would have been awesome to have pixel perfect HD up to 120 or 100 fps.

I'd rather watch a David Lynch film shot on DV over anything made by anyone on this board. But that's just my opinion.