hyalinejim

I absolutely agree. 10bit 422 VLog is close enough to raw for me.
If you can set up your color correction that exposure, contrast and colour adjustments work consistently across the tonal range of the log curve (for example, Premiere's Lumetri doesn't, but an ACES workflow does) then it's effectively giving you the power of raw exposure, contrast and white balance adjustments without breaking the footage and maintaining a good degree of accuracy. But 8 bit would fall apart. 

I absolutely agree. 10bit 422 VLog is close enough to raw for me.
If you can set up your color correction that exposure, contrast and colour adjustments work consistently across the tonal range of the log curve (for example, Premiere's Lumetri doesn't, but an ACES workflow does) then it's effectively giving you the power of raw exposure, contrast and white balance adjustments without breaking the footage and maintaining a good degree of accuracy. But 8 bit would fall apart. 

I feel the same way about the S5 and VLOG. The latitude that I have with the footage I thought was only possible with RAW or some form of compressed RAW. After you discover 10bit combined with a LOG profile and Davinci Resolve there is no going back. 

I always wondered why they cannot build a "full frame" digi with lens, which is as narrow as a compact film photocamera. Olympus Twin, two lens in on, 35mm and 70mm, narrow, though with a stop or two in light loss between the two focal lengths.

A lot of this is due to 32bit float color space in NLEs. As long as the 8bit has enough to not have posterization the 32bit float will likely be able to fill in any gaps as the image is pushed hard. Grading is much easier for math to fill in gaps than say upscaling an image.
In the case of upscaling new pixels can be averaged but averaging doesn't work for fine details like a hair. Grading however we are trying to prevent posterizing.  That is done through smooth gradients.  Sometimes averaging surrounding values does perfectly.
For example if you have a color of value 200 and another value of 250 its easy in grading to averaging an in between value of 225 which still creates a nice smooth gradient.
Where 10bit is important is making sure the shot is captured well the first time.  Once you have posterization it will always be there and no 32bit float processing can magically make it go away. Visually ion the shot has no posterizing than no matter how hard it is pushed it likely never will have any or pushing the 10bit would show just as much. Thats why 32bit float was created.
10bit is a lot like 32 bit audio or 16 stops of DR that are graded down to 10 stops.  We record more so we have it and can better manipulate it.  Most of the shots above likely would have still looked good with 6 bits. You need a very long and complex gradient to break 8bit.  It can and does happen.  The more noise the camera has the less it will happen because of dithering. I think this is partially why Sony always had such a high base ISO for log.
Finally 10bit never promised to have better color, more dynamic range or less compression artifacts. Thats not what bit depth does.  Its all just about how many different color samples can be used across the image. The single and only real side effect is posterizing. Many computer monitors at one point were only 6 bit panels even if they claimed 8bit.  Most never really noticed unless they did something like use the gradient tool in Photoshop to span a full 1920 wide image. In the case of the clear blue sky image in the article that wasn't even a difficult gradient. Most of the sky was a similar shade of blue. To break 8bit you need to create a gradient going from 0 blue to 255 blue across the full 3840 pixels for 4k video. That means there is a unique blue sample every 15 pixels if you create a gradient like that. So your sky needs to go from black on one end of the screen to bright blue on the other side. Not always realistic but you can shoot Skys around dusk and dawn that spread the values out a lot more than mid day. By comparison 10bit has a unique blue color sample every 3.75 pixels for UHD video.
It doesn't even have to be something that covers the full screen.  If you have a gradient over 100 pixels from 200 blue to 205 blue that still means a new blue sample every 20 pixels.  Even though the screen area is very small. I develop mobile apps and when I add a gradient I run into the same problem trying to do a subtle gradient across something like a button. The gradient needs enough range to cover the area of pixels or it will look steppy. 10bit and higher is a safety net or guarantee to likely never have any kind of posterizing. In the professional world thats important and nobody wants surprises after the shoot is done.

Weird move frome Panasonic indeed. I wonder what the improvements would be but probably incremental.
Panasonic has always innovated, always took the lead when it comes to video since the release of the GH2. And I have started using Panny since I first saw footage that compared the GH2 to the much more popular 7D / 5D Mark II at the time. 
I had multiple bodies over the years. First the GH3, bought on the day of release. The GH5 and GH5-S, same story. At first the S1 didn't appeal to me much, because I was shooting with a GH5-s with speedbooster already and the upgrade looked incremental due to a lack of 4k 60 fps in 10-bit. The S1H was too expensive.
But I couldn't resist the urge to go for a better sensor, so after a year or so I sold off my GH5, GH5-s, G7 and speed boosters and lenses. Now I have S1's, an S5 and I recently bought a 2nd hand S1H for a very good price.
It's interesting how I now have zero interest anymore in a new GH-camera. Or even new camera's from other brands that aren't major upgrades with tons of new features. I'm satisfied. I reached the point of 'this is good enough for years to come'. Finally. After all the camera's I own, I now no longer care about gear.
I mean, I can now shoot 4k 50 fps in 10-bit LOG with incredible dynamic range in anamorphic mode with anamorphic preview and even anamorphic compensated IBIS. I got myself a set of Sirui lenses with modified L-mounts and called it a day. In 4:3 mode the sensor crop is slightly taller than the 16:9 s35 crop, leading to a crop factor of around 1.35x when shooting with a 1.33x anamorphic lens. That's close enough to full frame to me. 
And when the project calls for it, or I need to go a little wider, I can change to the 5.4k 3:2 mode. Amazing really. The camera's are a joy to operate. The buttons feel 'right'. The EVF's are brilliant (minus the one of the S5). I got a Sigma 85mm f1.4 DN and a Lumix 24-70 for photography and the AF is very good. More than good enough for the kind of photo's I take.
Why am I writing this? Because I think many people feel like this in 2021. The current gear on the market is so 'affordable' and good and unlike 5 years ago, there is plenty of competition and alternative in the video world.
I honestly can't see what a GH6 would bring to the table to make me enthousastic for even a second. I think GH-folks also underestimate how good the S1-line camera's are these days, especially ater the firmware updates. Much cleaner images. It's just a shame you can't use your GH-glass on the the S-camera's. But I think most of us were on some kind of speedbooster anyway. So nothing changes there. And Panasonic knows it. They can't release a €2000,- GH6 that is worse in a lot of things than their S1 / S5 due to the smaller sensor. And cheaper is probably not viable for Panasonic. They simply aren't as big as Sony or Canon and don't sell that much.
It's funny how good Panasonic has treated us videomakers since forever, but marketingwise they aren't exactly like Apple. The product presentations with the old uncharismatic men. The 'Lumix' brand, which has as much appeal as a Toyota. I feel like they could have accomplished so much more if they had a more established brand. Or if people would take them more serious. And what was that cinema box release last year. Or that G100 'VLOGGING camera'  with shitty AF and no IBIS. Video quality and feature wise, Panasonic always has been on top. And still, the competition (a7sIII / Canon R5) offer no anamorphic modes, overheat and lack a lot of monitoring tools.
How many times I have heard from people 'What is that? A Lumix??'. 'Yea it's Panasonic'. 
And Panasonic is even a known name in the cinema world with their Varicams. The brand Lumix shouldn't have existed. The same goes for 'Micro four thirds'. Which man wants to have anything Micro in life? It always sounded like a compromise. Micro is better, until the 'Full Frame' (as in, the complete picture) steps up. And it has. A S5 or similar offerings from other brands is now under € 2000,-. 
I say it's game over for small sensors. And Panasonic has some work to do with their branding and future releases. Because I fear for their future as well.
But as long as my S-line camera's keep working, I will be shooting 10-bit anamorphic slowmo in LOG with 12.4 stops dynamic range, in body stabilised, for years to come. 
 

Andrew, you're a smart guy.  So I guess you're just pretending not to know the real reason.  Welcome to the WOKE SOCIETY.  No one is allowed to be different anymore.  Free speech?  Not any more!   Still believe in biology?  You MUST be canceled, then. We've come full circle and Galileo is to be locked up in the tower again for daring to be a rebel....a CORRECT rebel at that.  So even though the FP and FP-L are in fact amazing cameras we live in a world of little snowflalkes.... but snowflakes that must ALL BE ALIKE.... even though everyone knows no two are alike.  Boys can be girls, girls can be boys, but don't you dare praise a camera for being unique.  It's the UNwoke camera.  Welcome to Alice in Wonderland where things are backwards and upside-down and common sense makes no sense to so many.  I ran out and purchased an FP months ago in large part due to your excellent review and praise and it's one of the coolest little cameras I've ever owned. It can be a stripped-down convertible or a laced-up high performance racer depending on how I kit it out.  Appreciate your defense of the little guy but they will never "get" it.  "They weren't listening then, they're not listening now.  Perhaps they never will."  - Don McLean

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

I've had a bunch of fun with 35mm film camera bodies, a few rolls of film and my existing lens collection. 
Started with Olympus OM bodies that I used my manual focus Zuiko's on.
Also shot a bunch on Canon EOS bodies with EF lenses. This is autofocus, auto everything, if you want it.
Everyone has a Canon lens lying around, right? Give it a go! It's loads of fun.
You can still get a crappy Canon for almost nothing. Check out the specs at:
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product_search_result.html?t=camera&s=film&s2=eos&a=E&sort=new

I've had a bunch of fun with 35mm film camera bodies, a few rolls of film and my existing lens collection. 
Started with Olympus OM bodies that I used my manual focus Zuiko's on.
Also shot a bunch on Canon EOS bodies with EF lenses. This is autofocus, auto everything, if you want it.
Everyone has a Canon lens lying around, right? Give it a go! It's loads of fun.
You can still get a crappy Canon for almost nothing. Check out the specs at:
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product_search_result.html?t=camera&s=film&s2=eos&a=E&sort=new

I was thinking of a constant correction that you could just apply to all clips and forget about it.
For my GH5 I use a lut I made that mimics Portra 400 film. It works fine on the S1 too as long as the input is V-Log V-gamut in a Rec709 colour space. It's quite contrasty so the signal might need adjusting before the lut to bring the image within range (grading should be done on the VLog signal before the lut, not after).
But skintones should be very nice:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WC3uiROs7-088UeBHwPpwPLQxsuzZPju/view?usp=sharing
 

I agree with all of your post, but I have found that film's colours are generally less true to life than contemporary digital video.
 
Absolutely agree.
I often blur photos, particularly if I add grain. Otherwise it doesn't look right. 

You should try shooting a roll of 35mm still. The skin tone, color, and look are you get from film are absolutely amazing. It just looks right.
I would imagine the guys on that colorist forum are likely a lot of veteran colorists that most likely value work flow over everything. 
I know this dude grades a ton of stuff shot on 35mm. Beautiful work. 
https://www.company3.com/artists/stefan-sonnenfeld/

Film being difficult to work with doesn't make it undesirable in terms of the final outcome. Of course it changes from film stock to film stock but traits of film are what good digital cameras do as well. This is of course talking about film that has been properly shot and developed.

Natural and true to life colors with a pleasing skin tone. Pleasant motion cadence. A detailed image that doesn't look like its been digitally sharpened. Soft roll off into highlights and shadows. Digital is still a relatively new medium and Arri is the only company to really have it down to perfection or at least very close to it.

Weird motion, jello shutter, sharpening, moire, aliasing, aberrations, poor or odd color science, digital clipping, digital noise, compression artifacts, poor color depth, line skipping, incamera noise reduction, are all things brought into being by digital cameras.

 

For me it takes the edge of of reality. It’s a visual pretense that tells you what you’re watching is a bit of a conceit. There’s some real psychological power in that. Assumptions and biases are made by the viewer. These are good things depending on what narrative you’d like to present. 
 
As for YT’ers. They’ll often mess up the shutter speed regardless of the frame rate, so I wouldn’t base any decisions about one’s video settings from random content creators. 

Great topic. I've never really looked into anyone else's workflows, but it's nice to learn what I've read here.
I'm currently filming a documentary where I've imposed some minor limitations. The one which is having the most impact is only shooting between 2 and 6pm on the same day every week. This started out as a scheduling limitation, but I've come to really embrace it. I make sure I'm 110% focused for those short hours, and since the whole film is outside, the light and scenery has changed dramatically since I started in August. I won't be able to finish it until the start of next summer, so there's still a lot more change to come.
For personal stuff, I can basically echo @kyeExclusively hand held, natural light, a 35mm lens. I love it.

Great topic!

For me its an neverending ongoing process. The usage of natural light by lubezki, unnatural light usage by Darius Khondji. Found it also interesting that they filmed "call me by your name" with a single lens, not that the movie looked that spectacular, but it was a great film(due to the performances). Lately I was massively inspired by the visual style of the safdie brothers. The use of long tele lenses for basicly everything. But it isnt really that easy shooting that way where I live where spaces are quite small and tight (and dont have the funds for decent anamorphics, which offc would help)

I recently re-watched a great video on the visual style of Alfonso Cuarón and collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki, and in delving into this more deeply, was reminded how the pair imposed their own limitations when shooting Y Tu Mamá También and how limitations can help focus the creative process and also keep costs down and allow amplified creativity.
Who else does this in their own work? 
We likely all have limitations imposed externally, considering we're not world famous with infinite time and money, but even for those who are operating with limitations, how many of you are either consciously shaping your process in order to fit within your limitations, or even imposing more when you don't need to, in order to simplify and increase creativity?
I have found that the limitations that Cuarón/Lubezki impose fit well with my own.  They shoot only wide angle lenses, exclusively hand-hold the camera, use natural light, and feature the characters relationships to each other and to their wider surroundings.  Further, the camera movement is deliberate and has a 'character', they use long takes at the climaxes in order to further the sense of reality of the situations.  
I shoot my families travel and the occasional event, shooting hand-held with a 35mm prime (and only changing lenses when a specific shot is called for), shoot only in available light, feature the moments of my family and friends interacting with each other and the environment we're in, and because i'm behind the camera and have a relationship with my family my movement and framing will take on that character.
It almost seems to me that there will be a range of famous directors, DoPs, cinematographers, and other visual artists that will align well enough with your own style and preferences that we can learn a lot from it.
Who else is studying the visual styles and processes of others to learn?

I think another factor is that the expectation for quality is also dropping. It's become so easy with cell phones that anyone can do it so now the "viral" photos are based on who is in the image vs. the skill that was required to create the image. A horribly lit and composed cell phone picture of Kim Kardashian will get 50M views yet a photographic masterpiece that took weeks of planning and years of experience to create will barely get seen by 1,000 people. Another factor is no one prints anymore, so even if a camera were to advance by the magnitude of a decade or two....the typical viewer would never be able to tell the difference because it would never be viewed on anything other than a cell phone.
The same thing can be said for video....who needs 8K raw when the average viewer is going to watch the final video on YouTube using their cell phone? If your client can't tell (and isn't going to pay for) the difference in quality between a $15K camera and a $2K camera why would you buy the $15K camera?  I have to face these harsh realities each time I consider my next equipment purchase, I would love to own the Inspire 2 but my clients are not going to be able to tell the difference between the Inspire 2 and the Mavic Pro. Likewise the C70....why bother buying the C70 when my clients are going to pay me the same if I use the S5 instead. Thanks to cell phones which are "just good enough" for most people they are less and less willing to pay for quality.

Before you invest in a Sony or Canon (which is recommended for better autofocus) it's worth trying a couple of things with the GH5 to see if the autofocus behaviour improves:
 
1. Update to the latest firmware as AF behaviour has been improved, slightly
2. Shoot at 60 or 50 frames per second (60p or 50p) instead of 30p or 25p
3. Experiment with AF speed and sensitivity in the AF menu
4. Make sure focus mode is set to "continuous"
You might need to consult the manual to figure out how to do some or all of these things.

Before you invest in a Sony or Canon (which is recommended for better autofocus) it's worth trying a couple of things with the GH5 to see if the autofocus behaviour improves:
 
1. Update to the latest firmware as AF behaviour has been improved, slightly
2. Shoot at 60 or 50 frames per second (60p or 50p) instead of 30p or 25p
3. Experiment with AF speed and sensitivity in the AF menu
4. Make sure focus mode is set to "continuous"
You might need to consult the manual to figure out how to do some or all of these things.

Here are some frame grabs from my first feature length film Bad Decisions. I started on the GH4, then shot some scenes on the GH5. I will finish this next year with the S5 and S1H if COVID-19 doesn't turn into COVID-20. 😬 I'm probably going to go straight to Amazon Prime. My budget thus far has been $10K and I have another $3K or so for the last two scenes. 
As so many of you know, no ifs, ands or buts about it; filmmaking is fucking hard!  This is probably why this is my last one. I've been discouraged so many times that I had pretty much decided to delete the whole film and just quit altogether. But looking at these grabs, and knowing that I lit that, I blocked that, I wrote that, I shot that and I directed that gives me the courage to complete what I've started. It would be nice if I break even, but even if I don't, I can say that "Hey, I did that!" And boy I didn't do that alone! I had so much help from friends, family and complete strangers that it's too much to even count! They were angels, there just when I needed them, and for not a moment longer,
There was one scene, that I was shooting straight guerrilla style. I needed to shoot on three city blocks at night, and I had to light it, and there was a gun scene that kinda made me nervous for the safety of the cast and crew. We have no permit process in my city, so I went to the police department, and explained what I was doing that night, and they were like "Ok".
As soon as it got dark around cast and crew call time was at 6pm. We went to the neighbors houses and let them know what we were doing. We started blocking, and laying down markers for lights tripods and actors. It got dark at 9pm, and we started shooting. We were shooting in moving cars, had special effects, and every scene was lit. We even faked a window getting shot out. We wrapped that scene at 5am the next day, right before the sun came up.
Do you know for the entire time we were shooting, not a single car drove up any block visible? It's like we rented 100 homes, paid everyone to stay inside and blocked off the area for a 1/4 mile radius! God was most definitely on my side that day, and it was one of the best scenes in the entire film!