tupp

Sounds like small camcorder with a decent rocker zoom and manual capability would be ideal.
Markus Pix recently touted the Sony CX405, but it would be smart to look at offerings from other brands:
 
Tell your friend to put all the cameras side-by-side before shooting, and then to white balance them simultaneously off of the same white/gray card.  Additionally, your friend should shoot a short clip of the white/gray card with each camera -- just in case!
 

Robust Video Matting appears to be open source, licensed under the GPL-3.0.
If that is so, there isn't too much to worry about -- the source code is open for all to scrutinize.
 

Sounds like small camcorder with a decent rocker zoom and manual capability would be ideal.
Markus Pix recently touted the Sony CX405, but it would be smart to look at offerings from other brands:
 
Tell your friend to put all the cameras side-by-side before shooting, and then to white balance them simultaneously off of the same white/gray card.  Additionally, your friend should shoot a short clip of the white/gray card with each camera -- just in case!
 

This is somewhat off topic but the software has been mentioned here. 
 
I want to use Background Matting V2 professionally; it is very impressive. Essentially it used AI to perform rotoscoping of a subject, allowing you to “green screen without a green screen.” My concern however is privacy. The successor to this project, Robust Video Matting, has the following on its GitHub page: that it was developed at ByteDance Inc. I know this company owns TikTok and are known for storing user data on Chinese servers. My question is, is background matting v2 safe to use? I mean the developers seem like fine people, but the lead developer worked at ByteDance for a while, and just seeing that text I’m the GitHub description I guess got me a little worried. Should I be concerned?https://github.com/PeterL1n/BackgroundMattingV2 
https://github.com/PeterL1n/RobustVideoMatting

Okay, for those who find this kind of stuff interesting, here is a comparison of Cr channels (with added contrast for easy visualisation) from the C70, X-T3, and X-H2s:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pbfjdx4c2zxhhzq/chroma_compare.mp4?dl=1
C70 is C-Log3, 100Mbps
X-T3 is F-Log, 400Mbps
X-H2s is F-Log, 360Mbps
There is definitely an improvement over the X-T3.
(I only received this files from someone, so I can't do other comparisons.)

I just had a chance to take a look at some X-H2s originals shot in F-Log and F-Log2 in H.265, and it seems to me that the chroma smoothing is way less aggressive in this camera. It's still there, but it won't cause problems I think. This is just my first impression, not a deep analysis. And now you can completely get rid of the smoothing by shooting raw to an external recorder, I tested this with a ProRes RAW HQ clip. What I couldn't test is ProRes internal.
I also noticed that the H.265 files are now tagged with the BT.709 matrix coefficients instead of the BT.601. This will definitely solve some interpretation issues. One small downside is that the files are no longer full range (at least the F-Log and F-Log2 originals I received), they only use the limited range, so we lost some precision here.
 

So that was the post to which I was responding.
 
 
I wasn't referring to the patent.
 
 
As someone who's name is on one or two patents, I would suggest that such arbitrary claims indicate that a clueless patent examiner possibly rejected/challenged some of the claims.
 
At the date the RED patent application was filed, there was absolutely no novelty nor innovation in specifying internal or external recording, so it was meaningless to do so (and even detrimental to RED), unless they were trying to appease an examiner who had no clue.
 
There is another reason that specific, arbitrary claims sometime appear in patents, but I don't think that is the case here.
 
I sense that the patent is weak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be successfully defended.
 
 
Ha, ha!
 
I briefly scanned the claims of the patent that you linked earlier in the thread.  I might have to take another look at it.
 

Yet another Blackmagic Super35/APS-C camera with an EF mount...

Compiled ML builds are only around 2MB-3 MB.  It appears that one of those files is the git repository (possibly many MB).
To install ML on your EOSM, follow the instructions at 03:14 in this video by @ZEEK:
 
  
 
A lot of the ML documentation is way out of date.  It's best to find recent online tutorials and/or post questions at the ML forums.
 
I don't know where one can find the older builds.  Perhaps post the question on the ML forums?

As far as I know, 1080p Raw runs continuous on the 5D Mark III. I've gotten as much as 10 minutes.
If you need 30 minutes... buy a camcorder.

I haven't read this thread, so I have no idea what the needs/wants of the OP are. I am only replying because I was added to the discussion...
I really don't understand why people on this forum keep saying that the 5D Mark III with ML Raw is unreliable? It is a hack, in a way, but it's more of a separate OS for the camera that can go back to the factory firmware at any time.
The settings and workflow are a bit convoluted, but I have NEVER heard of anyone bricking their camera with ML Raw. Is it possible? Well, the ML team says it is in their disclaimer, but it's common knowledge that's just a disclaimer so they aren't held responsible in case something were to happen.
Once all of the settings are figured out, the camera literally works like any other camera, other than the ability to play back and watch your files. It was a bit scary at first to not have that option, but once you shoot with it, you just trust that you got the shot. Otherwise it turns on and you're in Magic Lantern's menu and off you go. The only other downside is that you have to format your cards on a computer to exfat. The 5D3 is different than other models because it has an SD card slot and a CF slot. You install the firmware onto the SD card and record onto the CF. Other models require you to load the firmware onto the same card you're shooting on. With the 5D3, you load the firmware to the SD card once and leave it in the camera.
With that said, this information is only based on my experience with the 5D3 using a stable nightly build. I've never used the 5D2 or the eos-m. I did you use the 50D once and that was a hot mess until you got the footage into the computer and saw the image. It's what got me hooked on ML Raw.
And with that said, when asked if somebody should get the 5D3 for ML Raw, I usually say NO. 9 out of 10 times, people don't like the extra workflow and are intrigued by the experimental higher resolution modes which are finicky. For full frame, 1080p 14bit Raw... the camera cannot be beat!

Ok, guys. How do I set this thing up? I download two files: crop_rec_4k_mlv_snd_raw_only_2022May30.EOSM202 and Dannephoto-magic-lantern_jip_hop_git-fd976067652d. Ones is 1.7 and the other 67 MB.
I read the FAQ but still confused. Should I just read it again or is there another instruction manual, outside the depths of the ML forum?
Also, the files are date to the 30th of May. Where do I find older builds, esp the one from 22nd of April which zeek was recommending for 2.5, 2.8K recording, which @webrunner5 posted above?
thanks and cheers:)

Wow! Awesome! What a beutiful post and answer! Thank you very much! @tupp

It sounds like you are experiencing a known issue inherent in the first few models of the EOSM (and in some other Canon models) in which the exposure simulation feature is disabled in still photo mode, when manual lenses are mounted.
Without using Magic Lantern, there are two hardware hacks that will allow the LCD screen show a usable image (but that might not be accurate in regards to exposure):
Mount a smart lens (Canon or other brand) and open the aperture as wide/bright as it will go.  Then, swap out the smart lens with your manual lens. Get a "preset aperture," lens chip (as shown in the below video) and touch it to the lens mount contacts of your EOSM (or to the contacts on your smart adapter), then mount the manual lens:   
It appears that the Magic Lantern "stable" build has an exposure simulation setting within the "Exposure" tab under the "LV Display" title.
I'm using a nightly build, and the exposure simulation setting is in a different place within the "Exposure" tab.  I can't get the exposure simulation setting to change from "Movie" mode.  Also, I can't get the ML menu to appear when the top dial on the EOSM is set to manual photo mode.
The ML menu does appear does appear when that dial is set to the green full-auto mode, and I see the Canon "Exp. Sim." symbol appear on the screen.  However, even in that mode, I still cannot change the exposure simulation setting in the ML menu.
Magic Lantern "stable" build also offers an "LV Display Gain" setting under the "Display" tab, that evidently  only appears or works in photo mode.  It's may not provide an accurate representation of exposure on the LCD screen, but it should allow framing and focusing.  One can then check the histogram on the recorded images to progressively dial-in the exposure.
Of course, one could use a light meter to more quickly arrive at the proper exposure.
 
By the way, a few days ago, @ZEEK released another super16-oriented video on using Soviet/Russian lenses on the EOSM:
 
 

It sounds like you are experiencing a known issue inherent in the first few models of the EOSM (and in some other Canon models) in which the exposure simulation feature is disabled in still photo mode, when manual lenses are mounted.
Without using Magic Lantern, there are two hardware hacks that will allow the LCD screen show a usable image (but that might not be accurate in regards to exposure):
Mount a smart lens (Canon or other brand) and open the aperture as wide/bright as it will go.  Then, swap out the smart lens with your manual lens. Get a "preset aperture," lens chip (as shown in the below video) and touch it to the lens mount contacts of your EOSM (or to the contacts on your smart adapter), then mount the manual lens:   
It appears that the Magic Lantern "stable" build has an exposure simulation setting within the "Exposure" tab under the "LV Display" title.
I'm using a nightly build, and the exposure simulation setting is in a different place within the "Exposure" tab.  I can't get the exposure simulation setting to change from "Movie" mode.  Also, I can't get the ML menu to appear when the top dial on the EOSM is set to manual photo mode.
The ML menu does appear does appear when that dial is set to the green full-auto mode, and I see the Canon "Exp. Sim." symbol appear on the screen.  However, even in that mode, I still cannot change the exposure simulation setting in the ML menu.
Magic Lantern "stable" build also offers an "LV Display Gain" setting under the "Display" tab, that evidently  only appears or works in photo mode.  It's may not provide an accurate representation of exposure on the LCD screen, but it should allow framing and focusing.  One can then check the histogram on the recorded images to progressively dial-in the exposure.
Of course, one could use a light meter to more quickly arrive at the proper exposure.
 
By the way, a few days ago, @ZEEK released another super16-oriented video on using Soviet/Russian lenses on the EOSM:
 
 

@tupp and others. i got a question, now that I got a lens adapter and played around a little bit. Liveview in photo mode is completely off on my camera. In video mode it shows right exposure on the monitor. In photo mode it was way too dark. How do I change that? I also had to make sure to enable shooting without a lens. I pressed and pressed the shutter release and nothing happend. Imagine that, duh! 🙂

Thank you. @stephen I would like to give it a try without ML first. Liveview in video mode is correct in photomode it is way too dark. Testing was one 500th second in video and one 50th sec in photo. 500th in video was the correct exposure. How do i get the same correct liveview in photo mode, which i am getting in video mode? checked all the menues a dozen times. Thanks!

Sorted. Literally.
Bridge was the answer!
I knew it would be simple... 🤪

...or perhaps I'm just being a bit stoopid, but hit something I have never come across previously.
Last week, I decided to shoot a couple of jobs back to back on 2 identical cameras.
Nothing odd about that and normally, using a piece of software called Photomechanic, I sort pics (stills) into time order as both cameras are in sync in that regard. Then I just rename them whilst they are in that order and go from there.
But video clips, from 2 different cameras, never tried that before and the best I seem to be able to get is date order?
Well that's useless as it has clips from Set A in time order, but then all the clips from Set B are below in time order, ie, in 2 different blocks...but I want them in the same folder, mixed up into time order.
I use Premiere to edit and can't see an option to display all files in the Media Browser in time order?
Googled it etc but not come up with the answer...
The answer would be appreciated, even if it means sorting the footage in another piece of software prior to Premiere.
But no, I am not ditching Premiere and changing editing software mid-season!
Thanks in advance.

How/where do I do a batch rename?
In 'File Explorer' (Windows), I can get them in order, but go to rename and it only allows me to individually rename each even if I have the whole lot selected?
I'm missing something here...
It's probably really obvious but like so many really obvious things, not actually that obvious until you know how/where!

Saw the lens today at CineGear:

Didn't ask if it's parfocal or completely focus-by-wire, but the rocker-controlled motorized zoom and focus is cool.
On the other hand, It's doubtful that anyone will be hitting focus marks with the focus rocker switch.
 
 

So?
It isn't relevant to the patent though.
You go off and argue with the judge about it if you like.
"Objection!"
"It is a relevant prior invention because.... It was mentioned on a forum in the same thread!"
*Sigh*
Have you even noticed that external recorders are allowed to do compressed RAW without violating the RED patent?
The patent only covers internal compressed RAW recording where the hardware is all integrated in-camera.
Having an off-board recorder makes the system outside the scope of the RED patent.
We're not talking about 4K uncompressed externally recorded RAW.
The RED patent is not about 4K uncompressed externally recorded RAW.
Have you actually RED the RED patent?
I suggest you give it a RED!

100% relevant, as it doesn't take a genius with a crystal ball to one day see that offboard recorders would get integrated into a camera body itself. 
That's not at all worthy of a patent. 
Exactly! 
16fps (and later on, 18fps) was the standard fps for 8mm films. 
Again I'll say the difference the between 23fps and 24fps is pretty arbitrary, any significance you attach to the magical number "24" is sociological.
24 is not filled with special mystical properties that makes it inherently totally different to the number 23, or the number 25. 
What if some company had a patent for exactly the same but only 24fps and not anything higher? Could RED then have got a patent for "25fps and higher"???
Did RED says their patent only applies for clips of "2hrs length" (or longer), or some other arbitrary length or longer?
 

Our own @Mattias Burling recently showed what one can do with a 6.3 megapixel, 19-year-old Canon 300D:
 
Gunpowder!

But that's not at all what I'm saying. 
I'm saying their patent for 24fps should not exist, just like if they had tried to patent 9fps (or 23fps, or 25fps, etc.. the number they used doesn't matter! Any number would be wrong) that also should not exist.