tupp

How would you say it compares with the old Cinestyle profile for Canon? I always found that while it made grading easier, the bitrate just wasn't there to support it and so there were too many artifacts.

Pity. Very promising tool.

ML isn't dead hahaha, it's the same as always.
Yes. It's not a port any developers are working on. You need to have that specific camera and want to invest time in it, right now no one has taken that task up.

I will try mine. It is usually a bit marginal on Olympus bodies. The XL fits on my E-M1X though so maybe we'll have some joy on the smaller cam.
I would see if you can go for an E-M1 II on eBay for a bit more BTW, it's worth it.

Cinema5D made a good video (with settings explained), although the color grade is not of my tastes.

https://***URL not allowed***/olympus-e-m10-iii-sample-footage-and-exclusive-first-impressions/

Raw, really raw, footage when (trying) to walk the dog:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3oaq7mi3ih7a2lw/AAADf0DOxJiBbdiKOdOulsbJa?dl=0
Kinda all over the place sorta stuff.   Some with variable ND. Some not. Some auto WB, some not. Some modern lens (oly 12-40 2.8) some not. Some auto focus, most not. 24p, 30p, 60p. 4K, 1080.  200 ISO, 3200 ISO.  You get the idea. It's a hodgepodge. 
Its all shot with "natural" setting tho. 

On the contrary, ML is thriving.  You can't go by that nightly build page, as that is not where the action is. Most of the nightly builds that everyone uses are not official.
 
To see the current activity, go to the main forum page, and scroll down to the bottom section titled, "Recently Updated Topics."  After a brief scanning of just a few of the top messages, I see the following active developers:  Danne, masc, cmh, Levas, ilia3101, reddeercity, 2blackbar, critix.
 
Our own @ZEEK is active with ML and MLV-App instructional videos.

On the contrary, ML is thriving.  You can't go by that nightly build page, as that is not where the action is. Most of the nightly builds that everyone uses are not official.
 
To see the current activity, go to the main forum page, and scroll down to the bottom section titled, "Recently Updated Topics."  After a brief scanning of just a few of the top messages, I see the following active developers:  Danne, masc, cmh, Levas, ilia3101, reddeercity, 2blackbar, critix.
 
Our own @ZEEK is active with ML and MLV-App instructional videos.

The MagicLantern project is pretty much dead - the last nightly builds are from July 2018:
https://builds.magiclantern.fm/
There are only some (or just one?) individual developers who keep hacking individual camera ports and offering their own builds off-site.

Most editors that I know don't edit camera files -- they use lower-quality, uncompressed proxies and/or transcode the entire project to an NLE-compatible, high quality format.
 
Not only can using compressed camera files slow down the NLE and cause problems with effects, but grading compressed files can also cause discrepancies with the rendered look.  My editor (and color-grading) friends usually grade with a high quality format after they have edited with proxies.
 
Another trick when working on narrative projects -- use multiple drives to speed things up.  For instance, in a two person dialog scene, put all of Character A's shots on one drive, and then put all of character B's shots on another drive.  This will allow cutting between different drives instead of cutting within a single drive.  Likewise, one could put close-ups on one drive, the medium shots on another drive and all of the wide shots on yet another drive.

Aren't MLV raw files are "raw?"  If so, such files have the same initial linear contrast as Canon h264 does, before the in-camera processing.  Thus, with the proper post processing, one should be able to duplicate the contrast of the h264 files (combined with a given picture style).
 
I have dabbled a little with MLV files and MLV-App.   It seems one can output images with an exceedingly flat contrast by merely using one of the log profiles, if one wants to grade in a program other than MLV-App.
 
On the other hand, ML instability and full res capability are understandably important concerns.

Yep.
 
Again, you don't necessarily need a separate clamp -- you could just bolt an L-bracket directly to the cage.  Of course, using Arca-Swiss clamps or other quick-release system makes the changeovers faster (and adds height to the camera).

I think most L-Brackets take 1/4-20 threads on both sides, so you might not even need a separate mounting clamp -- Arca-Swiss or otherwise.

I haven't done that specifically, but the concept is sound.
The challenge in your situation would be ensuring that there's enough clearance for the QR plate (both female and male) and the camera to fit under the top part of the camera rig.
I've invested a bit into QR plates and mounts to make my equipment interchangeable depending on what I'm doing.   I have a tripod, monopod, Gorillapod 5K, Manfrotto Pocket and a Peak Design Capture, which are either designed to receive QR plates or I've added them.  Then I have my GH5 and Sony X3000 action camera with QR plates from Peak Design on them, so either camera works with any mount.
The QR plates from Peak Design are the best I've found as they're well made and are super-small and low profile.   I've even put a wrist strap on the one on my GH5 for when I'm hand-holding it (which is common for me) and the strap doesn't stop it being mounted in a QR mount.  

@tupp thanks for dropping a reply. I appreciate it and confirms my thoughts as well. I might as well take the plunge and find out.  Makes sense to have a camera with an arca L-Bracket incase there is a need to shoot vertical videos. 

@kye 
Thanks for your feedback. I was looking at the height dimensions as well and might need to see how well a medium sized cage fares including in portrait orientation as well. 
 I have heard about Peak Design having a very low profile but need to check it out in person now that I have your feedback. 
@tupp
see attached screenshot taken from Wooden Camera's instruction booklet, so it should be possible to mount a arca-swiss clamp
 

Not familiar with the Wooden Camera cage, but most Arca-Swiss clamps have standard 1/4" or 3/8" female threads or have a counter-sunk hole.  So, if the cage has a way to attach cameras/plates with those threads/hole, then it should be easy to find an Arca-Swiss clamp that works

Thank you, appreciated! Regarding your question:
ML footage comes out a little bit contrasty compared to the VisionColor CineTech picture style I'm using (which is my favorite of all I ever tried, and it has more dynamic range than even Technicolor Cinestyle or Miller's C-Log). Being contrasty, it means it's more difficult to manipulate MLRAW footage. For that reason, while I own three EOS M cameras that are capable of ML RAW, I still use the M50, with just 32 mbps h.264 bitrate at 1080p. It works well enough. I'm planning on buying the new M5 MkII in October, that reportedly has IBIS. The 4k on the new M cameras has 120 mbps, and while 4k is 4x the 1080p resolution, the 4x bitrate is actually like 8x (it's how perceivable quality works). So h.264 at 4k at 120 mbps is more than enough to do a good job, without the need of the unstable ML RAW. Even at 8 bit, the kind of grading I do does not destroy the footage. If someone doesn't need IBIS, I'd highly suggest the M6 MkII, that already has proper 4k with AF, without crop and without the massive rolling shutter of the M50 in 4k mode.

Bokeh can be made to look anamorphic but the thing these anamorphake lenses don't reproduce is the differing look in the foreground compared to the background (or in focus vs out of focus areas). This is where true anamorphics (especially those with bigger squeeze such as 1.75-2x) get a lot of their look. Bokeh shape is part of it but it's not everything.

This is the closest we will ever get with spherical lenses. There are a few more tricks to play though, like adding anamorphic lens distortion, as I have done so above. Overall, it's close. If you look at some modern anamorphic lenses, they lack the character of the old anamorphic lenses too. 

Γεια σου πατριώτη!
Nice footage! You're not supposed to decompress anything on a fake anamorphic recording though. It's still square pixels. So when you shoot with Magic Lantern, you should not tell it that it's anamorphic recording, but rather normal recording. Then it will appear correctly when editing.
Here is mine from today (Canon M50, Helios 44-2, Viltrox Speedbooster, Vid-Atlantic anamorphic aperture filter). I also have a modded Helios 44-2 (that doesn't require the Vid-Atlantic filter to get anamorphic bokeh) in the mail, coming soon:
 

A couple of my local camera shops are clearing out their Wooden Camera demo units and I want to pick one of these up. However, my issue is that I primarily work as a photographer and use the same body for video work.
My video work is in the early stages and I spend about 1-2 hours a week shooting, mainly documentation work on construction sites. 
I saw Gerald Undone talk about the small rig's QR cage,  and I like the quick release built into the cage body.  I haven't pursued SmallRig due to delivery from China and with covid,  I don;'t know how long it will take to get to me.
I'm throwing it out there to see if anyone has attempted to add an arca swiss clamp to the Wooden Camera Unified Body's base where normally the camera's bottom goes? Or if anyone know that is even possible? 

I have no idea even though I'm shooting on an em10iii now. John Brawley is a cinematographer that is familiar with Olympus cams. You can ask him directly as he might know. 

HDMI seems to always carry the bright green battery symbol. I’ve been through the manual and forums and can’t find a definitive answer. Anyone using this e-m10 iii with an external recorder or capture card? I’m trying to go into a BM ultrastudio 4K and there it is, bright neon green battery symbol. Is there a fix? Thanks in advance!

Thank you ! I love this camera.
Ok so following feedback I got from the magic lantern forum, I did another test. This time, I am testing the highlight detail retention capabilities of different bit depths.
First the variables :
Canon 5D Mark II 2.1.2 w/94k actuations
Canon 35mm F/2 IS
VAF 5D2 AA Filter
SanDisk ExtremePro 32Gb UDMA 7 160MB/s CF card
magiclantern-crop_rec-3k_Updated_Center_4.20pm-5D2-eXperimental.2019Nov14.5D2212 from Reddeercity
100 ISO
1866 x 1044 1.00x Crop @ 23.976 fps 1/50s
Methodology :
I started with a very over-exposed sky and brought down the exposure by 1/3 ev using the aperture.
Test starts at f/6.4 and using the raw zebras as mentioned in the thread. I then pulled back two settings in ACR, exposure and Highlights. Exposure is brought down relatively to the aperture setting so that the resulting image is the same exposure across the board. Highlights are always pulled back @ -100.
I did two rounds, first at 10-bit and the second at 14-bit. Something that I encountered however during the recording is that the RAW zebras did not show while recording 10-bit footage. They were displaying fine while looking at live-view without recording, but as soon as I started recording, the zebras turned standard.
Here is what I am talking about. First image is while recording 14-bit, second while recording 10-bit.


Here is a reference picture of the scene I made with my iPhone 7 Plus :



Onto the test itself.
Here is the 14-bit :

And here is the 10-bit :

Don't forget that you can click on these images to view in full resolution.
Can you tell the difference ? 😛

Here are all my files from the test, DNG's, xmp profiles created in ACR, PSD files, exported JPEGs and everything in between.
Conclusion :
It seems that both 14-bit and 10-bit depths handle high exposure detail very, very well. Both can be ''metered'' about the same for the highlights. From what I can tell, we lose detail in the clouds at f/6.4 and f/7. We start seeing consistent detail in the clouds at f/8. Coincidentally, f/8 is when the black bars in the RAW zebras don't appear anymore. I would conclude that using zebras for exposing and looking for an exposure just before black bars is a great way of getting all the highlight capacity of the sensor. I had trouble seeing the difference in this scene from 10-bit and 14-bit. In my eye, they both seem equal. I did not test 12-bit because the difference was marginal compared to 14-bit in the first test. 
The bulk of the difference that I wanted to expose is between the two extremes. This does support my hypothesis in the first test that highlight detail seems unaffected by bit depth. 
I also took the good exposure picture (f/8) and pushed the shadows to 100%. I looked for areas where I could see differences. Here is another example of the green cast in the shadows when pushed to the extreme (Shadows -100) :

You can see what I am talking about in two places : the back of the stop sign and the window frame. In the 10-bit portion (left) you can see some green cast in the recovered shadow areas, but the cast is much less severe than the initial test. There is however much more grain. Its especially visible in the window frame section in the middle.
Conclusion of the conclusion :
10-Bit seems AS GOOD AS as 14-Bit for highlight detail retention @ 100 ISO. For shadow detail when pushed up +100, 14-Bit still holds an advantage, albeit less than previously thought.