jahwah

How about we just cut to the bone?  Let's see the terrible color science of the BMPPC 4k/6K, versus the sterling results you're getting from the S1H.  And, maybe post your best grade of the S1H material -- something for BMPCC 4K/6k loyalists here, if any, to try to equal,
All that's needed is two identical log shots, both exposed more or less equivalently, at their nominal native ISOs.  It sounds like you've got access to both cameras, and it can't be any more time consuming than contributing to this forum.  And might actually lead to something useful.

Dude, you're talking about everything and anything.  Working backwards:  700 lines is about all you'll get in a movie theater, from a 35mm print  There's a white paper online you can search for, if you're interested, among other sources.  It's not a controversial observation.  "LOL".
There is no ACES transform for the BMPCC 4K in Resolve, so it's not surprising you don't like the results.  Again, your "color science is weak", etc. is typical internet-speak, where unsubstantiated claims vie for attention.  One week it's the BMPCC 4K which is plastic and over-smoothing, then it's the S1H which blurring detail.  Next month, it's the BMPCC 4K which is too sharp, unless you prescription for downsampling is followed.  Or Premiere is 8 bit and Resolve is 32.  Until not.
This stuff never stops, I guess it keeps the forums going.

how about making a series of mockumentries  maybe 2 or 3 minutes long showing just how ludicrous, ( insert your own adjective here ) this is
points are given for creative use of  blur or what other means of censorship you can come up within your video, if it goes viral awesome
as we, the group of people who will most likely be impacted  it's on us to make our point before the idea goes too far.
we have all got video or cinema cameras, we probably spend more time here in the forum than we need too, get outside and use it or lose it as the saying goes
lets start a movement, post to youtube or vimeo maybe create a channel called article 13 or something if we get something going now and people become aware and get onside the sky's the limit
well that's my 2 cents worth, feel free to be inspired or not

Wow.
What I also don't like is the idea that it's ok for advertisers to bombard us everywhere we go, but we're not allowed to photograph it. So, they can fill our mind-space with their products to make money- but we would not be legally allowed to record it ourselves. That's like a one way street.

Sometimes the most interesting and useful insights (like this one from Andrew) require traversing some difficult ground to get there. With this sort of reflection the preceding discomfort is almost always worth the effort. 
To explore Andrew's thoughts here a little further: perhaps in addition to being a rather poor 'facsimile' of life, it seems to me the internet becomes at times a powerful and distorting "amplifier" of people's emotional states, but mostly only of those frequencies that deal with anger, fear, rejection, resentment etc. I don't think anyone is immune from this effect, and I suspect the more invested in a community or issue, the more pronounced the effect.
I agree that the internet's amplifying effects can have far reaching ramifications, especially when taking into account that the responses are preserved in writing, and when multiplied across thousands and perhaps millions of people on any given issue. This must at least be part of the reason for the recent exacerbation in polarisation that we see in politics (uh oh - sorry to mention the "P" word).
But more to the point, perhaps it can help us to simply understand the sometimes difficult dynamics of communication from a human perspective, and especially of online communication where our brains lack the important cues given by real face-to-face interaction. Perhaps the lesson is that in understanding what is happening, it is easier not to put too much importance on the details of what is said, and to recognise that we are all basically the same in this regard. In acknowledging our nature as fragile humans it is far easier to be forgiving on ourselves and others for apparent transgressions, to allow some breathing space for reflection, and then to get back to the task at hand.
So Andrew, in regards to the camera in question, I think that if there are matters about its quality and usefulness you would like resolved, it would not surprise me at all if you do get your hands on it one way or another. And if and when you do, I'll look forwards to your insightful review of it.

"when"
More like "if" it ships?
I wouldn't hold your breath of that. 
Is a very very tough task to develop a camera, Apertus has been working on this a long time. They'll be outgunned by those companies which have a faster development cycle. 
 
I view this as a kinda good thing, I hope all companies are striving to make their products "obsolete"! (but remember, you can still keep on shooting with "obsolete" products! I still even use my ancient Panasonic GH1 cameras a few times a year)

They say: Never meet your heroes, because they're sure to disappoint you.... I think it's more like: Never meet your heroes, because they're really human just like you and everyone else on the forum.  I hope this forum is big enough for both Andrew and John or John and Andrew, whichever, because I will miss hearing from both of them on a regular basis.  Maybe a vitural hand share over PM could happen and we could get back to obsessing over a camera that most of us have yet to hold in our hands.  

I inserted myself into the discussion last night when I probably shouldn’t have, but I do stand by my opinion that Andrew should have been invited to the Manchester event.
I, for one, never felt that John Brawley was to blame for this and feel that most people on this site have been very thankful for his contributions, not just about info on the upcoming camera but his openness about the inner workings of a Hollywood set and his methods of shooting.
But the disdain displayed to Andrew in this thread is mind boggling. I don’t always agree with him, but the man has wholeheartedly opened his craft and home to a countless amount of strangers for free. There is not one other site in the video community that is completely ad free and he rarely asks for a thank you. I can only imagine the cost it is to upkeep this site. I’d be a liar if I didn’t admit that I find him infuriating at times, but I would never question his devotion to his craft and his readers.
With that being said, I feel JB’s reply to the events was unnecessarily rude. Perhaps there was a breakdown in communication as Andrew has already stated but for every person that felt Andrew could have handled the snub differently, they should equally admit that JB could have handled his response differently as well.
BM was born on the backs of hobbyists and enthusiasts. We paid for the R&D of the Ursa Pro with every Pocket or Micro we bought. As much as we appreciate their inexpensive cinema cameras, they are only available because we decide to purchase them... it’s like a television show, it only exists at the behest of its viewers.
But in the end, they are both artists and artists are passionate, honest and sensitive people... they must be to put themselves and their work out into the world for scrutiny.

This looks really..
 
really.
 
good.

Make it 40... to me this camera doesn’t even exist. 
Eventually we’ll have footage from John Brawley or Frank Glencairn or Noam Kroll and the footage will look amazing. More people will love it but a few will find something wrong with it...
Eventually card info will be released, and more people will complain.
Eventually AF tests will show up comparing this camera to the PDAF of the a6500 and more people will complain.
Eventually low light tests will show up comparing this camera with the GH5s or the a7sii and more people will complain.
At the end, when it’s released, a bunch of people will complain because they hate that they have to use an IR Cut filter and they will complain that they only get 45-60 minutes of battery life and that they wish it had IBIS...
And eventually the usual suspects will be the only people that have the camera and the footage will be absolutely gorgeous.
The End.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, no criticism of you or your test was intended. I meant that you can see the effects of the rolling shutters pretty clearly in your test and at least for me, your results go beyond subjective judgements about motion cadence and into almost defect or definitely artifact territory. I think tests like yours are great, I'm just also (in combination with tests like yours) curious about tests that give the viewer the ability to judge more ambiguous qualities and see what they prefer.  I feel a lot of things like motion cadence are a mixture of actual effects (distortion, artifacts, etc.) combined with subjective judgements (taste, context, etc.). Carry on!

I set up these cams (although more carefully aligned in the actual video) Details and settings are in the YT description.  

I forgot to add "psychology of the viewer" to the list too. When these sorts of tests are done blind the results are often startling to the viewer. All of the camera fan/hater stuff goes out the window and people's minds open and change. Geoff Boyle has done some great tests this way on CML and very accomplished DPs often are surprised by what they like/dislike when they don't know what the tools are that were used to produce the image and have to judge the image alone without any of the tool allegiances/preferences we all carry around.

Haha, lots of shit films are shot on the most expensive Hollywood/Altantawood/Londonwood/Bollywood level cameras. Good films are the exception.?
But you're point is valid and I would add the relentless complaints about comparisions to Sony's high ISO parade. ?
Then again, $10k body only is not a cheap investment for most ppl either. Yes, it's cheaper than what the 8k Epic costs right now, but the bar is set way higher than even small profesional productions can afford to purchase outright that need to recoupe short term.
Besides, most production shops do not purchase just one unit. Unless they want 14 hour days. 
The article made no mention of any of the addons coming down in price as well. If so, expect serious compromises in build quality and performance. 
$10k puts the RED in the same bracket as the Sony F5, Canon Cxx, BMD Ursa Mini Pro 4.6k, Panasonic EVA-1, etc. This is not exactly a amateur's bracket. 
If RED was going to release a mirrorless prosumer/consumer level camera, then RED should worry. Then again, they're releasing a smartphone this year so are they really THAT concearned? They obviously see differentiation.

On every post I read about a camera (not just Sony!), here or on other sites, there is a comment like this. I'm just not sure what you mean. Can you post a link to a digital video image that doesn't look fake to you and elaborate on what looks "fake" to you in this video? 

+11
I am sick of it!! I go to watch a movie not to be blasted into submission. It's a form of punishment that only the sadistic and the moronic actually enjoy!
Glad someone else spotted this mini-trailer for yet another sequel.
With the crap box office, I hope they cancel it!!

SF is my favorite genre, and perhaps not surprisingly, Blade Runner my favorite movie, but this one never connected with me. That said, my hopes weren't high to begin with. Of the director's previous work, I much prefer Prisoners over The Arrival, the latter which--unlike apparently most critics on rottentomatos--I felt insulted by. Not Elysium insulted, and certainly not Signs violated, but the air of condescension was a bit thick as the credits rolled. But back to this new work. First off, however, I need to send out a message to the film mixers and/or theater owners in this country:
PLEASE STOP TRYING TO BLOW OUR F*CKING EARDRUMS OUT!!!
What's the thinking here? Rattle our bones with Zimmer horns every 20 minutes just to wake us up? Film scores are supposed to help guide us emotionally through scenes, not jar our goddamned teeth loose. My wife was measuring the decibels (from inside her bag--no ambient light a-holes here) in the back row and it was averaging over 126 dBs whenever there was a scene transition. She had earplugs and still had to sit the last 45 minutes in the lobby of the theater. Such a gentleman she's got, I know...
Actually, that's really all I had to say for now. In my youth, I could talk all night about a new movie, but these last few years consuming Diet Coke, I have to watch it at least a second time before I can even approach forming a concise and fair opinion worth the time it takes to listen/read. I do, however, agree with at least one other contributor before me saying the plot was pretty convoluted. To be fair, I think half the plot was already lost on me, because despite the volume set to "sphincter-puckering," all the women not named Robin Wright mumbled their way through half their lines. Not that it would have mattered, because I think the main point for now is that after watching the original at least 200 times, the entire point of the movie was never intended to be that complex: A robot hunts other robots and discovers what it means to be human. Ridley, God bless his heart, was just old school enough to let you figure that last part out for yourself. Wasn't even a twist by then, really. Too subtle for some, never accepted by others, painfully clear to the ones that would go on to subject themselves to a 2nd viewing...and maybe a few more after. The reason I love the original was actually because the story was thin, the theme was heavy, but the visuals made me feel like I was looking into a window into the future. Dystopianland. Yeah, screw it, I'd go.
Anyway, one last detail before I sign off: This film, for all its visual competence, fell sadly short on one movie staple that really would have gone a long way: who exactly is the baddie? Rutger Hauer might not have been a traditional villain, but he was a perfectly compelling foil to Ford, particularly when Ford wasn't onscreen. Luv was a tool, Leto was embarrassingly lame, and as bad as his acting is, I would have preferred keeping Bautista around for at least some degree of physical menace on the hunt. Also, the android physics were wildly inconsistent. Like stupid inconsistent. But nothing that a little Zimmer-induced aneurysm shouldn't be able to take care of.
Despite my critique of the movie, I really don't hate it--I just don't feel much for it. Oh, my God, was that the intent all along..?
 

It is a good film, but so what? Technically perfect but cold and soulless movies abound these days (see also; Arrival, Alien:Covenant, the new Planet of the Apes trilogy). Proper descriptors: clinical, cold, respectable, lifeless. Gosling is bland, and as in The Force Awakens, Harrison Ford is effortlessly the best thing in the movie. It's not about how someone looks, it's about charisma and Ford has it, Gosling doesn't. I think it will be remembered about as well as 2010, the sequel to 2001. It too is a perfectly good movie, but like I said, so what?

A lot of current screenwriting suffers from too much exposition and not enough spectacle.
It was exactly the case again here.
Which is perhaps why I feel so cold emotionally to it.
SPOILER ALERT...
- When your replicant lover is recreated, it's never going to be the same as the original.
- Yes, they did try a different look and cinematic language this time out, but like in Arrival which has a very similar tone, I'm sorry but it leaves me cold.
- Tarkovsky did a similar slowly paced style far better with more spectacle and less talky talky
- It's not a bad film, it's a very good one but it's highly hyped and overrated by the critics and not a patch on the original in any area apart from Roger Deakins

"Shown vs Told"   They SHOWED us a lot of graphics.  Ok.  But plot wise, we were TOLD more than SHOWN.
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!
 
"This breaks the world"  they TOLD us.  No it doesn't.  Didn't really SHOW anything close to that.
"You bought a war" thanks for TELLING us.  Where?  Didn't SHOW us.
"You've never seen a miracle" thanks for TELLING us.  We didn't SEE it either, but HEARD about it.
"You do not know pain", they TELL us, then SHOW us a scene with almost no connection.  So?
"I'm the bad guy, but my story falls away completely, and nothing will happen to me until the sequel's sequel"  Ok, I adlibbed here, but why even watch this???
I enjoyed the 3D too.   But it is not for everyone.
Just disappointed they kept TELLING us how "important" everything was, but not SHOWING us.  I felt nothing for most of it.
 
 

I have no idea at all why you think someone writing an article that technical doesn't know what a curve is just because he doesn't discuss them in an article where they are largely irrelevant to the point being made - which is that Bayer sensors, film and Foveon have different highlight behaviour, and the last two are more organic. Ditto white balance. 
..If everyone writing an article about anything stopped to point out every possible related point, no matter how obvious... Well, it might help some people, but it would be a drag for the rest of us.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

Haha... the earth is flat too

Adding my voice to the don't quit chorus. More voices are always better, especially when they add to the discussion.
What's weird to me about all of these discussions about a technical issue is basically, who cares? I'm not trying to be flip about it, but ask yourselves, who cares? If it informs your choice of cameras and when to use them and how, then great, but other than that... the GH5 10 bit unusable? Hardly! I regularly see cases of aliasing and other more obvious problems on shows I dearly love that are very successful, but it doesn't matter. The writing, the directing, the acting, everything else (god even the cinematography in these shows the rest of the time) are fucking great! So I don't care, nor do the millions of other viewers who also love these shows. Focus on writing, focus on directing, focus on creative shots and impactful story based cinematography, focus on finding other creative people to collaborate with and make something that you give a shit about with whatever camera you can get!
Rant done, thanks.

Adding my voice to the don't quit chorus. More voices are always better, especially when they add to the discussion.
What's weird to me about all of these discussions about a technical issue is basically, who cares? I'm not trying to be flip about it, but ask yourselves, who cares? If it informs your choice of cameras and when to use them and how, then great, but other than that... the GH5 10 bit unusable? Hardly! I regularly see cases of aliasing and other more obvious problems on shows I dearly love that are very successful, but it doesn't matter. The writing, the directing, the acting, everything else (god even the cinematography in these shows the rest of the time) are fucking great! So I don't care, nor do the millions of other viewers who also love these shows. Focus on writing, focus on directing, focus on creative shots and impactful story based cinematography, focus on finding other creative people to collaborate with and make something that you give a shit about with whatever camera you can get!
Rant done, thanks.