Bioskop.Inc

I agree 100%. People have been afraid of contrast and saturation for a number of years. As well as the proliferation of Log, I think it has to do with a felt inadequacy of video's dynamic range versus film, where crushed blacks are perceived as a giveaway that something was shot on video. However, as deezid has already pointed out, the blacks here are not "crushed". They are sitting where they are supposed to: at or near 0 IRE.
Again I urge anyone who is concerned with making video look cinematic to study how film has been translated for display on Rec709 devices:
http://blubeaver.ca/
Download some stills and look at them on a waveform.

Remember when the trend was to leave Alexa footage all milky/washed out - it was like they used LOG, couldn't make a grading decision & so just left it (or that's how it seemed). And here we have someone who has actually put some contrast/colour into his images & people call foul - it's a real shame & a very boring position to take. Would hate to see the comments if these people ever watched an old Film Noir....
Yes, the OP is correct - this piece doesn't look like video. Really thought you'd nailed it with the shot when the woman is moving in front of the shops.
The only comment would be that there is a slight colouring inconsistency between the wide & the close up shots with the opening dancing sequence (the close ups are slightly less contrasty, but not much).

There is no simple answer since video editing and codecs span a wide range. H264 1080p can be edited natively with good performance using either Premiere or FCPX on most machines. You don't need a top-end CPU or GPU for this.
OTOH most H264 4k codecs are difficult to edit, even on top-end machines, and often require transcoding to proxy for smoothest editing. Exceptions are H264 4k codecs like Canon's XF-AVC Intra, that is very fast to edit. There can also be a big difference between (say) Premiere and FCPX, especially on a Mac. In general FCPX is considerably more responsive, especially for editing H264 4k. It is about 4x faster exporting to H264 since it uses Quick Sync and Premiere does not. However Premiere has gotten faster the last year or so, even without proxy, which it now also has.
That's the editing; effects are different. No matter how lightweight the codec, a computationally-intensive effect must be calculated for each 4k frame. Effects can be implemented entirely in the CPU, entirely in the GPU or a mixture of both. Some effects like Neat Video allow CPU vs GPU rendering, a mix of both and how many CPU cores to use. 
In general 4k is really difficult to edit. From a CPU standpoint the more (and faster) cores the better. An i7 iMac can be significantly faster than an i5 iMac of the same generation because (1) the CPU clock is faster, and (2) hyperthreading. The current iMac 27 the i7 is about 11% faster just from clock speed. Benefit from hyperthreading varies widely. I used the 3rd party CPUSetter utility to disable/enable hyperthreading on an i7 iMac, and this made about 30% difference in FCPX export speed to H264. For other tasks such Lightroom import and preview generation, it made no difference.
Re Radeon 580, I haven't see any good benchmarks yet. However only certain tasks are amenable to GPU acceleration, e.g, H264 encode/decode cannot be meaningfully accelerated. The core algorithm is inherently sequential and not amenable to applying hundreds of lightweight GPU threads. But in general software developers increasingly try to leverage the GPU where possible. You can't update the GPU in an iMac so I'd tend to get the fastest one available.

There is huge difference now. Do you remember?
Now you can transcode in the background and start editing right away.
Whereas you can import all footage at once and immediately throw it into the timeline with FCP X now (even without transcoding, and, if you are fearless, even with naked files that are left in place!), it's not very smart. In my very humble opinion. This app offers us the best tools to prepare our clips for editing in the browser. In my eyes this is at least as crucial as the efficiency of the magnetic timeline. But I learned to respect the workflows of others. Mine also changes from time to time.

This is all very interesting & it reminds me of when everything changed from SD to HD, the render times on FCP or AVID were very very long - the offset of this was that the BBC had a bar & as an edit asst you'd check in every pint to see how the final render/export was going.
The whole idea of having to transcode footage reminds me of those days - importing took hours & so did the final export.
I still wonder whether we are just expecting too much from computers, and NLEs, with the advent of 4K? Or is it down to us & have we just become a "Now" culture, where the idea of having to wait for something has become intolerable and completely unrealistic? It also leads to the question of whether people have got into bad habits with their workflows or never really learnt good workflow practices? Ask yourself this, when you import your footage, have you already selected your shots or do you simply import all the footage?
Anyway, the good news, according to iFixit, is that the new iMacs can be opened & the important parts (processor, graphics card etc...) are no longer soldered into place - so we can now upgrade the new iMacs...

What I do, with FCPX, is create a timeline with the desired stretch format (2048x858 - 2k 2.39:1) & then stretch the footage - as i'm shooting on 16:9, the edges do fall outside the timeline's borders. It all depends on what your NLE will let you do - some might not let you make custom timeline sizes & then you'll just have to adjust the height of anamorphic footage, so you end up with black bars on the top/bottom.
If you still have to transcode your footage to an editable format, then yes, your best option is to do the stretch/squeeze then.
I stick to Cinema DCP standards:
http://unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf

What I do, with FCPX, is create a timeline with the desired stretch format (2048x858 - 2k 2.39:1) & then stretch the footage - as i'm shooting on 16:9, the edges do fall outside the timeline's borders. It all depends on what your NLE will let you do - some might not let you make custom timeline sizes & then you'll just have to adjust the height of anamorphic footage, so you end up with black bars on the top/bottom.
If you still have to transcode your footage to an editable format, then yes, your best option is to do the stretch/squeeze then.
I stick to Cinema DCP standards:
http://unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf

Yes, but if people are stupid enough to donate their money to rich people then that's their problem - they're idiots, but its their money. What also annoys me is when a film crowd sources & instead of saying they'll get a return on their investment, they get offered free tickets to the premiere or a walk on part - that's worse.
However, the real thing that gets my goat is when you hear all these stars saying that there aren't enough female directors. Yes it is true for film & it is a problem, but the solution isn't to give money to movie stars who haven't spent years learning their craft (no, acting in a film is not the same thing) & the end result is an average film - just compare the films of Andrea Arnold, Lynne Ramsey or Kelly Reichardt to say Angelina Jolie or Elizabeth banks. I know which ones i'll be watching!
Now the flip side, is that there are a lot of female directors working in TV dramas (not shit ones, but really good shows), so why don't they get a chance at films? The most recent example is Reed Morano, who directed the first few episodes of The Handmaid's Tale & consequently set the visual & narrative tone for the whole series - it's well worth a watch.
But, you just got to suck it up & realise that this industry isn't about what's fair....it's about who you know & how much money can be made.
 

I got you. She & others have money, so why not use that?
I read somewhere, that Kristen Stewart said she was amazed at how much money she was given to make a short film - she's a multi-millionaire FFS, why didn't she use her own money rather than taking the resources out of the hands of others that really need it?

I got you. She & others have money, so why not use that?
I read somewhere, that Kristen Stewart said she was amazed at how much money she was given to make a short film - she's a multi-millionaire FFS, why didn't she use her own money rather than taking the resources out of the hands of others that really need it?

Yes, but if people are stupid enough to donate their money to rich people then that's their problem - they're idiots, but its their money. What also annoys me is when a film crowd sources & instead of saying they'll get a return on their investment, they get offered free tickets to the premiere or a walk on part - that's worse.
However, the real thing that gets my goat is when you hear all these stars saying that there aren't enough female directors. Yes it is true for film & it is a problem, but the solution isn't to give money to movie stars who haven't spent years learning their craft (no, acting in a film is not the same thing) & the end result is an average film - just compare the films of Andrea Arnold, Lynne Ramsey or Kelly Reichardt to say Angelina Jolie or Elizabeth banks. I know which ones i'll be watching!
Now the flip side, is that there are a lot of female directors working in TV dramas (not shit ones, but really good shows), so why don't they get a chance at films? The most recent example is Reed Morano, who directed the first few episodes of The Handmaid's Tale & consequently set the visual & narrative tone for the whole series - it's well worth a watch.
But, you just got to suck it up & realise that this industry isn't about what's fair....it's about who you know & how much money can be made.
 

Here are a few iscorama pre-36 shots thrown together for those interested - I took my camera and Rama to a local car meetup with this thread in mind. My injured back prevented me getting the low angle dynamic shots and closeups I wanted, but you get the idea. A sunny day with lots of chrome is always a good test to see if a lens has any CA or highlight/contrast edge bloom issues. There is some fine alias/ line buzzing artefacts due to warp stabiliser being used on almost all shots (no tripod and was high on painkillers).
I'm sure the Bolex can match the iscorama (perhaps beat it) on sharpness, but as I've always noticed with the Rama - it tends to simply be as sharp/clean as the taking lens that you use with it. My other kowa lenses with Core DNA attached could have achieved similar results, but not at such wide aperture on 58mm on FF - and definitely not in such a compact and light form factor as the Iscorama. 
 
 

Should have bought one of these too - still kicking myself!
If flares are your thing, then look for vintage lenses with a golden coating.
Also, check out http://forum.mflenses.com/
The only place to get great ideas for vintage lenses!
Heres a Bokeh thread (some truely amazing stuff in it): http://forum.mflenses.com/bokeh-only-t69142.html

As far as the Meyer Optik lenses go - I've seen the new ones & they really come at a price! All their old lenses had that Soap Bubble Bokeh effect, it's just the Trioplan got all the attention. The good news is that they are cheap & really good lenses - made in the same place that made Zeiss lenses.
My personal favourites & the pick of the bunch are:
Lydith 30mm f3.5 - has a preset (fluid stepless) aperture ring at the front & loads of blades.
Orestor 100mm f2.8 - aperture ring at front (not stepless) & loads of blades (there are 2 versions, so get the one as described - the other has aperture ring at back).
Orestor 135mm f2.5 - nicknamed the Bokeh Monster, enough said!
You can pick up a Lydith for £30, but the Orestor is harder to find. Also, the original Trioplan is coming down in price now, due to these new versions.
Make sure they are M42 mount & not Exakta

As far as the Meyer Optik lenses go - I've seen the new ones & they really come at a price! All their old lenses had that Soap Bubble Bokeh effect, it's just the Trioplan got all the attention. The good news is that they are cheap & really good lenses - made in the same place that made Zeiss lenses.
My personal favourites & the pick of the bunch are:
Lydith 30mm f3.5 - has a preset (fluid stepless) aperture ring at the front & loads of blades.
Orestor 100mm f2.8 - aperture ring at front (not stepless) & loads of blades (there are 2 versions, so get the one as described - the other has aperture ring at back).
Orestor 135mm f2.5 - nicknamed the Bokeh Monster, enough said!
You can pick up a Lydith for £30, but the Orestor is harder to find. Also, the original Trioplan is coming down in price now, due to these new versions.
Make sure they are M42 mount & not Exakta

Really good test, I got it - so thanks for doing this, it was helpful for us normal people.
As for the negative/stupid comments - people on the internet are dicks most of the time, but we all know this.
Give them their F**KING CATS the next time!

Really good test, I got it - so thanks for doing this, it was helpful for us normal people.
As for the negative/stupid comments - people on the internet are dicks most of the time, but we all know this.
Give them their F**KING CATS the next time!

Really good test, I got it - so thanks for doing this, it was helpful for us normal people.
As for the negative/stupid comments - people on the internet are dicks most of the time, but we all know this.
Give them their F**KING CATS the next time!

Really good job, watched all of it & loved it!

Really good job, watched all of it & loved it!

This is my debut work, that took me 2.5 years to finish. I've learned so much from this community, that I just had to post it here.
This is a music video for the band where I sing. Shot on BMMCC with contax glass, rangefinder and isco s8 2x. Big shout out to @Tito Ferradans @richg101 @ken and @Hans Punk. You guys are all listed down in credits for providing so much help with getting into the whole anamorphic thing. I was making those credits in hurry and totally forgot to include @Bioskop.Inc so a special thanks and an apology goes to you!
 
 

Well he did write/co-write his early films & this shouldn't be forgotten - he can tell a story & has.
Of his American films the pick of the bunch are Enemy & Arrival, but one shouldn't ignore his Canadian films Polytechnique & Incendies, which are excellent.
The thing I find troubling with him is that he tends to jump around a lot & this makes for a lot of Hit'n'Miss films - I found Sicario to be very dissappointing & not worthy of all the praise it was getting.

Yes me too...I never finished watching the film..and it's rare that I do that...the direction felt clunky...none of the characters felt convincing....I found the firefight scene with all the cars parked in line at the border crossing ridiculous...although all the actors were first rate...so I think the blame has to fall on him....of course a lot of people liked Sicario...just did not work for me.

Well he did write/co-write his early films & this shouldn't be forgotten - he can tell a story & has.
Of his American films the pick of the bunch are Enemy & Arrival, but one shouldn't ignore his Canadian films Polytechnique & Incendies, which are excellent.
The thing I find troubling with him is that he tends to jump around a lot & this makes for a lot of Hit'n'Miss films - I found Sicario to be very dissappointing & not worthy of all the praise it was getting.

Deakins is declining to go into much detail until the film is released, but in every question ha has answered he has emphasised that the looks were achieved on set in the camera and that virtually no post manipulation was used. I can well believe this.