bluefonia

Talking about colorgrading: The colorgrading tools in FCP has been much improved in the latest versions. Watch this run through by Denver Riddle:
 
 

H
Hi, - it's been a long time :-).
The short answer to your question: if you want both the easy way and the option to dig deeper get both FilmConvert and ColorFinale.
The long(er) answer: Well, well, - it all depends. As a matter of fact I also have the fairly new CoreMelt LUTx and have demoed the KojiColor. They all have their weak and strong points. If you want good looking results, quickly and  without much hassle - with LUTs - I think FilmConvert is a great solution. It has few LUTs, they are all good though, but FilmConvert can't load thirdparty LUTs. You can dig deeper in ColorFinale - due to the added curves, vectors and the layers, but ColorFinale has no LUTs preview function, - you have to add the LUT to see the result. The new $49 upgrade should include the option though. ColorFinale can load third party or your own custom LUTs
I would say ColorFinale is a much better grading tool if you want to develop your own grades than FimConvert, -  it is really good for both primary and secondary corrections. If it had masking tools it would be close to perfect. I find the color wheels are difficult to adjust though, but that might just be me.
If you want to mess around with lots of LUTs CoreMelt LUTx has great preview options and nice browser functions for organizing all the LUTs in the world. Has also pretty good color adjustment tools. KojiColor like FilmConvert has few but well executed LUTs and some nice color adjustment features. Does not load third party LUTs.
EDIT: If I should choose only one I would take ColorFinale. After spending a great deal of time lately with all the above plugins I think in the feature I´ll try and make my own style of "looks" and for that purpose ColorFinale is a better tool.

Resolve takes a  h e a vy computer to run. How about HitFilm Express - it is even free. Her you go: https://fxhome.com/hitfilm-express/verify?id=55a868cd66c487d75e9c2160

The floaty image-stabilized look has come to define this level of filmmaking. I would like to build out a proper shoulder rig with some weight to get a higher-production value look with unstabilized primes and the x-t3. 

Fallacious arguments and bias party !

Someone here appropriated too much Schopenhauer's  "Art of being right"...


Mixing up facts and opinions, putting forward the "free thinking" and "independent thought" argument, bringing on the "fear" and political correctness that one bravely overcomes to tell the truth, and wish more "sheeps" could access this level of "awareness"...

Congrats. Flat earthers and trendy conspiracy theorists use exactly the same mechanism...

He said that most productions are shot in 4-5.6f, and that is true, so 2.8f m43 is good for S35 anyway, which is true, and S35 is STILL the industry standard.
We shoot some TV shows (which do 16-20% in the ratings, which are very good numbers for our country) with GH5 and 12-100mm and noone have asked for shallower DOF, sometimes I shoot near the defraction numbers to manage to have more things in focus.
Also, amateurs usually have the most complaints and needs. A super fast AF camera that sees in the dark and takes pictures and/or videos of little kids running around in dim lighted appartments birthday parties, which is the most difficult situation anyway..

Update. Just bought a used - march 2018, almost no use and still 1,5 year warranty left - for US$ 380. Very close to half price here in Denmark. Will arrive sometime next week.

Thank you everyone for your inputs. As build in stabilization is a must I will get a G80/85
I have a pretty decent collection of glass - a couple of Zeiss Vario Sonnar's, complete set of Yashica ML primes , a Sigma 18-38 1,8 , a Samyang 12mm and a Panasonic kit zoom, well - and a speedbooster. These cover all my needs ?

Thank you everyone for your inputs. As build in stabilization is a must I will get a G80/85
I have a pretty decent collection of glass - a couple of Zeiss Vario Sonnar's, complete set of Yashica ML primes , a Sigma 18-38 1,8 , a Samyang 12mm and a Panasonic kit zoom, well - and a speedbooster. These cover all my needs ?

Seriously enny?? That is an incredibly clueless statement to shit on Arri cameras because of their resolution. 
Maybe Kino is from Egypt?

Over at BMCuser, someone posted that they dropped their Mini 4.6k, it landed on the handle & cracked the casing, causing damage to the mother board inside - BM wouldn't repair it! However, it does produce lovely images, if used by someone who knows what they're doing...
I personally think that they'll keep going, but will revert to smaller packages (box like cams) - if they can figure out how to heat sink in a smaller package (the same user took his Mini apart & the majority of the camera is dedicated to the heat sink module). You've got to remember that BM cameras are budget cameras & they will have to cut corners in quality/build to keep the prices competative & low.
You've got to admit that the images coming from these cameras can be awesome & I hope that they struggle through, just like RED did at the beginning. I believe that in another 10yrs time, we'll be talking about BM cameras in the same breath as RED & maybe ARRI.
The biggest problem that they have at the moment is lack of user knowledge & this is due to the low price of some of their cameras - for every great user, there are at least 10 numpties whose lack of filming knowledge gets exposed as soon as they pick one up. They are not DSLRs & shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence, let alone compared to them.
If you don't get this, then DO NOT buy one, because you're probably the type of person that hasn't the time or patience to learn how to use them.
Just look at all the [stupid BS] hate aimed at the Pocket camera: poor battery life, bad screen etc... 45mins time limit for battery & SD card whilst filming PR. The screen is by a country mile not the worst i've ever used & I seem to manage very well nailing focus - I wear glasses, which adds an extra dimension of difficulty to the whole thing. 
And these same people talk about wanting to replicate a filmic image, just imagine them using a film camera that has a max filming time of 12mins - people with no skill or patience to learn will complain about anything if you let them, it's how they cover up for their short comings. It's a crying shame, but it's their loss........

Not right :-). Final Cut got markers.

Maybe I should add to this whole subject, that I don't always need or seek the newest tech solutions.
Below is my current "focus assist". As everyone clearly can see this is as low-tech as can be. A cheap $20 loupe, a piece of cycle tire rubber and some velcro. (An old picture with my G6, but I still use it on my GH4). You just wipe the rubber around the monitor and you are ready to go . Works like a charm, diopter enlarges x3 and yes I see pixels and the cheap diopter distorts quite a bit, but I can nail focus every time and that's what matters. 
The thing is, I´m afraid that the monitors hinge will break some day.

There is an easy way to always have a reference shot - and not a still image, but a live piece of footage - open in FCP when you want that.  
You make/grade your reference shot(s), put them in a library (which you could call "ColorRef") within your working event. Then just open the event viewer and put your ref. shot in there. Then you have a constant reference  to the left in the event viewer and can compare the rest of your footage to that in the player to the right,
It would be nice to have nodes. The best way for me to "copy" this in FCP is to save a preset including the different plugins and their settings for the reference shot. Then it is pretty easy to make these settings available for all shot in the timeline and make adjustments when nessecary.
 

Maybe I should add to this whole subject, that I don't always need or seek the newest tech solutions.
Below is my current "focus assist". As everyone clearly can see this is as low-tech as can be. A cheap $20 loupe, a piece of cycle tire rubber and some velcro. (An old picture with my G6, but I still use it on my GH4). You just wipe the rubber around the monitor and you are ready to go . Works like a charm, diopter enlarges x3 and yes I see pixels and the cheap diopter distorts quite a bit, but I can nail focus every time and that's what matters. 
The thing is, I´m afraid that the monitors hinge will break some day.

I see where you are coming from. My kind of thinking was along the lines that when monitors reach a certain quality level of sharpness/resolution/contrast and so on, we reach some point where we don't need more of that sharpness/resolution/contrast and so on. Well, maybe we have not reached that point yet. About the outdated tech, - yes, I have been around that too.
In fact I have considered the new Aputure VS Fine, which- as you say - has much better resolution than the old one.
I'm thinking along the same lines. I would indeed prefer a 5" for its small size, but I¨m afraid it will not fulfill my main purpose being a great tool for focusing,

H
Hi, - it's been a long time :-).
The short answer to your question: if you want both the easy way and the option to dig deeper get both FilmConvert and ColorFinale.
The long(er) answer: Well, well, - it all depends. As a matter of fact I also have the fairly new CoreMelt LUTx and have demoed the KojiColor. They all have their weak and strong points. If you want good looking results, quickly and  without much hassle - with LUTs - I think FilmConvert is a great solution. It has few LUTs, they are all good though, but FilmConvert can't load thirdparty LUTs. You can dig deeper in ColorFinale - due to the added curves, vectors and the layers, but ColorFinale has no LUTs preview function, - you have to add the LUT to see the result. The new $49 upgrade should include the option though. ColorFinale can load third party or your own custom LUTs
I would say ColorFinale is a much better grading tool if you want to develop your own grades than FimConvert, -  it is really good for both primary and secondary corrections. If it had masking tools it would be close to perfect. I find the color wheels are difficult to adjust though, but that might just be me.
If you want to mess around with lots of LUTs CoreMelt LUTx has great preview options and nice browser functions for organizing all the LUTs in the world. Has also pretty good color adjustment tools. KojiColor like FilmConvert has few but well executed LUTs and some nice color adjustment features. Does not load third party LUTs.
EDIT: If I should choose only one I would take ColorFinale. After spending a great deal of time lately with all the above plugins I think in the feature I´ll try and make my own style of "looks" and for that purpose ColorFinale is a better tool.

I have both the plugin and the standalone version.
The color wheels part of the plugin GUI I find much to small and very hard to adjust. Then if you want to use the wheels to adjustments for many cuts, I would use the standalone version. In my normal workflow first of all I edit my footage to get the story right, then adjust exposure/levels and colors/saturation to my liking. Then I make secondaries, - masks for separate areas and so if needed. Sometimes I make compound clips for parts of the film. As the last part I add LUTs/looks - or make my own grading - and film grain if needed. This last step I normally do on an adjustment layer and this is where Filmconvert can be used the best as a plugin imo, - and it does not involve a lot messing with the color wheels.
If you don't have too much footage- or have reviewed and sorted the footage -  and you know for the most part before editing how you want the finished filmgrade to look, you might import the footage in FC standalone, make the grade and import that into FCP.  Some people import the final edited film into FC and do the grade. I guess there is no right or wrong here, it all depends on your on preferred workflow, - and on the power of your Mac it seems :-)
For some reason I like to stay in the same application for all steps of my editing and grading.

Its all mine
Felth good to unbox instead of the used review unit.

Yes, of course. Both mercer and I are getting CoreMelt products for free for the rest of our lifes and unlimited bank accounts on Cayman Islands. 

Looks good....
I just made a quick test too. Here is a frame grab from some GH4 V-LOG test footage: the original ungraded log-file and a very quick grade. This plugin has a very fast workflow and you get nice results very easily even without using all the features.
I have imported the luts I already had, - Impulz, Osiris and  WLTBAP - into LUTx. Works flawless and they also appear in the preview- and swipe feature in LUTx, - nice. 
So, - I just send $29 to CoreMelt...

I have played around with the trial for a hours time now. So far I like it. The adjustments for the lows/mids/highs are indeed nice, but what I like almost the most is the swipe function (the white cursor that appears in the player window) for checking before and after LUTs and other adjustments. This I find extremely helpfull as it helps you not to overdo any adjustments.

It is a dangerous world out there....

Here is the link: http://www.coremelt.com/products/lutx.html?utm_source=CoreMelt+Subscribers&utm_campaign=0ffe0c1015-LUTx&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_01ba29c9ef-0ffe0c1015-366352285&goal=0_01ba29c9ef-0ffe0c1015-366352285&mc_cid=0ffe0c1015&mc_eid=549ff42fce
It has some really nice features, - among them is the best preview and before-after function I have seen until now. Includes camera specific LUTS. Can import LUTs form other vendors too. And it is cheap, - intro offer $29.

If you need a vari ND, Genus Eclipse - one of the best ones - are on sale right now, can be found $129. I use it for travel shooting and have had no serious issues so far.