hyalinejim

OK, I just popped outside the back door and pointed the camera at a street light at night at base ISO 250 and DR Boost 2000 and there was no streaking visible in the viewfinder.
Honestly, it's such a non-issue. Don't let it put you off. Like I said, I had totally forgotten about streaking until now, because I simply haven't seen it since the time I succesfully attempted to reproduce it.

Yes, the oversharpening is definitely showing with every kind of lens I tried.
I really hope for a lower sharpening setting with a newer firmware update. Already talked to Panasonic about this issue.

These slashcam charts really show how bad it is
GH5 II


GH6



The GH6 looks quite crispy despite the lens I'm using. Not great, especially with skin, hair, foliage etc.

Based on my limited experience with the camera I would say that in daylight you will probably not get streaking but that at night you might. I think that it arises when you have a clipped highlight area adjacent to a shadow area. A clipped area adjacent to a midtone area is probably (and I don't know 100% because I haven't done tests) not enough to show streaking.
In daytime you're not really going to see so much of bright whites against dark blacks, but at night you certainly will. I haven't shot at night, only in daytime so far.

LOL! Don't tell anyone, but that's the secret!!!

I wish every time I encountered a terrible shot I could just turn 90 degrees and get a Vermeer!

I'm talking about the kind of situation where the walls are dark, the window is in frame, the subject is in the room and is backlit by window light only. Here, you're likely to see streaking. But it's just not a very attractive shot anyway so it's not one that I would take, so I don't need to worry about streaking.
But if I had to then the best solution would be to light the room. Then the brightness of the room comes up relative to the window and then streaking is not going to be noticeable. As part of this strategy you could ND the window. But I like to travel light and make things easy for myself and in this case I would rotate the camera-subject axis by 90 degrees and shoot so that the subject is side-lit by the window and now the result is like a Vermeer and there is no streaking.
I know there was an influential video that showed streaking and it was a black studio with white strip lighting. Yes, here you'll see streaking because you have bright whites adjacent to dark blacks. But again, this is not a situation I normally encounter. I have seen streaking on my camera when I've sought it out to test if it was there - it is. But I've yet to see any streaking in my normal usage of the camera, which is reassuring. That's not to say it will never happen. But I had actually forgotten about it until yesterday, reading this thread 😂

Well, it's certainly true that the GH6 has not made the same kind of splash that the GH5 did. Personally, I don't find M43 to be too much of a burden when shooting with a 0.64x Speedbooster. It's kind of a sweet spot of boosted light for exposure and manageable DOF. For me full frame has too little when shooting wide open with fast glass and I think that approximately APS-C or Super35 sensor size is pretty good. M43 is too small, but with a 0.64x speedbooster it's actually "bigger" than APS-C at 1.28x crop relative to full frame.
Here are a few clips shot wide open with an Iscorama 36 on an Olympus OM 50 1.8 manual lens. Talk about making life difficult for myself with an Iscorama shooting wide open - swapping diopters between almost every single shot! A lesson in patience! Oh well, it's worth it for the bokeh and the flares I guess 😂
 

I'm talking about the kind of situation where the walls are dark, the window is in frame, the subject is in the room and is backlit by window light only. Here, you're likely to see streaking. But it's just not a very attractive shot anyway so it's not one that I would take, so I don't need to worry about streaking.
But if I had to then the best solution would be to light the room. Then the brightness of the room comes up relative to the window and then streaking is not going to be noticeable. As part of this strategy you could ND the window. But I like to travel light and make things easy for myself and in this case I would rotate the camera-subject axis by 90 degrees and shoot so that the subject is side-lit by the window and now the result is like a Vermeer and there is no streaking.
I know there was an influential video that showed streaking and it was a black studio with white strip lighting. Yes, here you'll see streaking because you have bright whites adjacent to dark blacks. But again, this is not a situation I normally encounter. I have seen streaking on my camera when I've sought it out to test if it was there - it is. But I've yet to see any streaking in my normal usage of the camera, which is reassuring. That's not to say it will never happen. But I had actually forgotten about it until yesterday, reading this thread 😂

I regularly have a talking heads interview shot in an interior where a window is in the frame. This is the situation where you'd expect to see streaking. But the difference in stops between inside and outside necessary to see streaking is so huge that I would never choose to shoot in that location regardless, because there would be too much backlighting with or without streaking
Other than that, high DR scenes I shoot would be daylight exteriors in full sun. I've never seen streaking there. You only see it when very bright areas are adjacent to very dark, I think.

I just want to say that this is the first footage I've seen in ages that makes me want to brush the dust off of my anamorphic lens for the first time in seven years and take it out for a spin. And I have never seen anything from a GH5 that I've liked so much -- I am usually put off by footage from that camera. Really lovely. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, the dynamic range appears to be slightly lower than the GH5 when shooting at non-DR Boost ISOs. And using DR Boost gives appears to give an extra highlight stop, cleaner shadows but noisier midtones (as outlined above) which is a bit weird. For video, I've realised that both the GH5 and GH6 have enough dynamic range for me. I normally favour an amount of contrast that delivers approximately 7.5 obvious stops with a roll-off into whatever is above and below - so the 10 or 11 or 12 stops of the GH5 or GH6, depending on how you count them, is plenty for me and leaves room for accidental over and under exposure.
But for photos, I never even think of using a GH5 or GH6. I know they can take photos as I've taken one or two when I was absolutely stuck. I'd much rather reach for my long-in-the-tooth 5D3. I'd say its dynamic range is probably roughly similar, so it has more to do with the fact that it's familiar to use and I trust its autofocus. But I can understand how the message that "dynamic range is worse than its predecessor" would turn photographers away from the GH6. There's little attraction in investing in a new body where a fundamental spec is going backwards, rather than forwards as it should.
Mine has it and I know because I went looking for it, but I have yet to see it in any of my clips that I shot in "real life", if it makes you feel any better!

Lol! The combination of taking lens + Iscorama + diopter + vari ND = so many layers of glass that focus peaking doesn't even work anymore, even on the highest setting you just see nothing 😂 
I did another video the same day (more for the model than for me): slo-mo, vertical format, AF tracking with the Leica 12-60 (which worked most of the time btw) .... you know the kind of thing. It's fine, but it doesn't have much in the way of atmosphere.

Very nice!
I'm glad to see that at least one person on the internet hasn't forgotten how to put some feeling into their images!
Almost all videos these days look like a lens sharpness test that's been graded as a sharpening-in-post stress-test...

Well, it's certainly true that the GH6 has not made the same kind of splash that the GH5 did. Personally, I don't find M43 to be too much of a burden when shooting with a 0.64x Speedbooster. It's kind of a sweet spot of boosted light for exposure and manageable DOF. For me full frame has too little when shooting wide open with fast glass and I think that approximately APS-C or Super35 sensor size is pretty good. M43 is too small, but with a 0.64x speedbooster it's actually "bigger" than APS-C at 1.28x crop relative to full frame.
Here are a few clips shot wide open with an Iscorama 36 on an Olympus OM 50 1.8 manual lens. Talk about making life difficult for myself with an Iscorama shooting wide open - swapping diopters between almost every single shot! A lesson in patience! Oh well, it's worth it for the bokeh and the flares I guess 😂
 

Well, it's certainly true that the GH6 has not made the same kind of splash that the GH5 did. Personally, I don't find M43 to be too much of a burden when shooting with a 0.64x Speedbooster. It's kind of a sweet spot of boosted light for exposure and manageable DOF. For me full frame has too little when shooting wide open with fast glass and I think that approximately APS-C or Super35 sensor size is pretty good. M43 is too small, but with a 0.64x speedbooster it's actually "bigger" than APS-C at 1.28x crop relative to full frame.
Here are a few clips shot wide open with an Iscorama 36 on an Olympus OM 50 1.8 manual lens. Talk about making life difficult for myself with an Iscorama shooting wide open - swapping diopters between almost every single shot! A lesson in patience! Oh well, it's worth it for the bokeh and the flares I guess 😂
 

Well, it's certainly true that the GH6 has not made the same kind of splash that the GH5 did. Personally, I don't find M43 to be too much of a burden when shooting with a 0.64x Speedbooster. It's kind of a sweet spot of boosted light for exposure and manageable DOF. For me full frame has too little when shooting wide open with fast glass and I think that approximately APS-C or Super35 sensor size is pretty good. M43 is too small, but with a 0.64x speedbooster it's actually "bigger" than APS-C at 1.28x crop relative to full frame.
Here are a few clips shot wide open with an Iscorama 36 on an Olympus OM 50 1.8 manual lens. Talk about making life difficult for myself with an Iscorama shooting wide open - swapping diopters between almost every single shot! A lesson in patience! Oh well, it's worth it for the bokeh and the flares I guess 😂
 

Well, the first thing that's worth mentioning is that I got USB power bank that I can hang from my tripod in its little bag. Now I can shoot all day (from a tripod!) without changing battery or getting into rigging. So that's cool.
The other thing is that I had been shooting a bit in DR Boost in order to get extra highlight range and to help with shooting indoors in natural light. BUT! I noticed the midtones were quite noisy so I did a little investigation. I shot a step wedge (from +1 to -8 in whole stops) at various ISO levels, slapped on the VLog to V709 conversion and looked at where the noise is, in a bid to figure out whether I should be aiming to shoot at 250 or 2000DRB in general
Here is ISO 250 and it's a familiar noise pattern. Midtones are clean, shadows are a bit noisy:

 
Compare this to ISO 2000 with Dynamic Range Boost on:

The extreme shadows are cleaner up to around stop -4, where noise is similar to ISO 250. But from stop-3 all the way up to stop +1 this is clearly much noisier than ISO 250! It's noisy in the midtones and clean in the shadows. Weird! And it looks a bit weird when you see it in a real world clip.
For comparison's sake, here's ISO 2000 without DR Boost:

Right around the midtones, from stop -1 to +1 the regular old ISO 2000 is cleaner than with DR Boost. Below that point the shadows get noisier in a way we are used to seeing.

So what's the conclusion? Well, I use some colour treatments that really push visible noise a bit, especially chroma noise. If I'm going to shoot with DR Boost on I get some distracting looking midtone noise. It depends on the shot but sometimes it's really quite shitty looking. NeatVideo's temporal settings do a good job of cleaning it up, though. So my conclusion is that I'm going to start using a bit of noise reduction again, when I need it.

DR Boost is not simply "one stop extra in the highlights" and that's that. It comes at the cost of noise in the midtones.
PS: all shots were long GOP

Well, the first thing that's worth mentioning is that I got USB power bank that I can hang from my tripod in its little bag. Now I can shoot all day (from a tripod!) without changing battery or getting into rigging. So that's cool.
The other thing is that I had been shooting a bit in DR Boost in order to get extra highlight range and to help with shooting indoors in natural light. BUT! I noticed the midtones were quite noisy so I did a little investigation. I shot a step wedge (from +1 to -8 in whole stops) at various ISO levels, slapped on the VLog to V709 conversion and looked at where the noise is, in a bid to figure out whether I should be aiming to shoot at 250 or 2000DRB in general
Here is ISO 250 and it's a familiar noise pattern. Midtones are clean, shadows are a bit noisy:

 
Compare this to ISO 2000 with Dynamic Range Boost on:

The extreme shadows are cleaner up to around stop -4, where noise is similar to ISO 250. But from stop-3 all the way up to stop +1 this is clearly much noisier than ISO 250! It's noisy in the midtones and clean in the shadows. Weird! And it looks a bit weird when you see it in a real world clip.
For comparison's sake, here's ISO 2000 without DR Boost:

Right around the midtones, from stop -1 to +1 the regular old ISO 2000 is cleaner than with DR Boost. Below that point the shadows get noisier in a way we are used to seeing.

So what's the conclusion? Well, I use some colour treatments that really push visible noise a bit, especially chroma noise. If I'm going to shoot with DR Boost on I get some distracting looking midtone noise. It depends on the shot but sometimes it's really quite shitty looking. NeatVideo's temporal settings do a good job of cleaning it up, though. So my conclusion is that I'm going to start using a bit of noise reduction again, when I need it.

DR Boost is not simply "one stop extra in the highlights" and that's that. It comes at the cost of noise in the midtones.
PS: all shots were long GOP

Well, the first thing that's worth mentioning is that I got USB power bank that I can hang from my tripod in its little bag. Now I can shoot all day (from a tripod!) without changing battery or getting into rigging. So that's cool.
The other thing is that I had been shooting a bit in DR Boost in order to get extra highlight range and to help with shooting indoors in natural light. BUT! I noticed the midtones were quite noisy so I did a little investigation. I shot a step wedge (from +1 to -8 in whole stops) at various ISO levels, slapped on the VLog to V709 conversion and looked at where the noise is, in a bid to figure out whether I should be aiming to shoot at 250 or 2000DRB in general
Here is ISO 250 and it's a familiar noise pattern. Midtones are clean, shadows are a bit noisy:

 
Compare this to ISO 2000 with Dynamic Range Boost on:

The extreme shadows are cleaner up to around stop -4, where noise is similar to ISO 250. But from stop-3 all the way up to stop +1 this is clearly much noisier than ISO 250! It's noisy in the midtones and clean in the shadows. Weird! And it looks a bit weird when you see it in a real world clip.
For comparison's sake, here's ISO 2000 without DR Boost:

Right around the midtones, from stop -1 to +1 the regular old ISO 2000 is cleaner than with DR Boost. Below that point the shadows get noisier in a way we are used to seeing.

So what's the conclusion? Well, I use some colour treatments that really push visible noise a bit, especially chroma noise. If I'm going to shoot with DR Boost on I get some distracting looking midtone noise. It depends on the shot but sometimes it's really quite shitty looking. NeatVideo's temporal settings do a good job of cleaning it up, though. So my conclusion is that I'm going to start using a bit of noise reduction again, when I need it.

DR Boost is not simply "one stop extra in the highlights" and that's that. It comes at the cost of noise in the midtones.
PS: all shots were long GOP

Well, the first thing that's worth mentioning is that I got USB power bank that I can hang from my tripod in its little bag. Now I can shoot all day (from a tripod!) without changing battery or getting into rigging. So that's cool.
The other thing is that I had been shooting a bit in DR Boost in order to get extra highlight range and to help with shooting indoors in natural light. BUT! I noticed the midtones were quite noisy so I did a little investigation. I shot a step wedge (from +1 to -8 in whole stops) at various ISO levels, slapped on the VLog to V709 conversion and looked at where the noise is, in a bid to figure out whether I should be aiming to shoot at 250 or 2000DRB in general
Here is ISO 250 and it's a familiar noise pattern. Midtones are clean, shadows are a bit noisy:

 
Compare this to ISO 2000 with Dynamic Range Boost on:

The extreme shadows are cleaner up to around stop -4, where noise is similar to ISO 250. But from stop-3 all the way up to stop +1 this is clearly much noisier than ISO 250! It's noisy in the midtones and clean in the shadows. Weird! And it looks a bit weird when you see it in a real world clip.
For comparison's sake, here's ISO 2000 without DR Boost:

Right around the midtones, from stop -1 to +1 the regular old ISO 2000 is cleaner than with DR Boost. Below that point the shadows get noisier in a way we are used to seeing.

So what's the conclusion? Well, I use some colour treatments that really push visible noise a bit, especially chroma noise. If I'm going to shoot with DR Boost on I get some distracting looking midtone noise. It depends on the shot but sometimes it's really quite shitty looking. NeatVideo's temporal settings do a good job of cleaning it up, though. So my conclusion is that I'm going to start using a bit of noise reduction again, when I need it.

DR Boost is not simply "one stop extra in the highlights" and that's that. It comes at the cost of noise in the midtones.
PS: all shots were long GOP

Well, the first thing that's worth mentioning is that I got USB power bank that I can hang from my tripod in its little bag. Now I can shoot all day (from a tripod!) without changing battery or getting into rigging. So that's cool.
The other thing is that I had been shooting a bit in DR Boost in order to get extra highlight range and to help with shooting indoors in natural light. BUT! I noticed the midtones were quite noisy so I did a little investigation. I shot a step wedge (from +1 to -8 in whole stops) at various ISO levels, slapped on the VLog to V709 conversion and looked at where the noise is, in a bid to figure out whether I should be aiming to shoot at 250 or 2000DRB in general
Here is ISO 250 and it's a familiar noise pattern. Midtones are clean, shadows are a bit noisy:

 
Compare this to ISO 2000 with Dynamic Range Boost on:

The extreme shadows are cleaner up to around stop -4, where noise is similar to ISO 250. But from stop-3 all the way up to stop +1 this is clearly much noisier than ISO 250! It's noisy in the midtones and clean in the shadows. Weird! And it looks a bit weird when you see it in a real world clip.
For comparison's sake, here's ISO 2000 without DR Boost:

Right around the midtones, from stop -1 to +1 the regular old ISO 2000 is cleaner than with DR Boost. Below that point the shadows get noisier in a way we are used to seeing.

So what's the conclusion? Well, I use some colour treatments that really push visible noise a bit, especially chroma noise. If I'm going to shoot with DR Boost on I get some distracting looking midtone noise. It depends on the shot but sometimes it's really quite shitty looking. NeatVideo's temporal settings do a good job of cleaning it up, though. So my conclusion is that I'm going to start using a bit of noise reduction again, when I need it.

DR Boost is not simply "one stop extra in the highlights" and that's that. It comes at the cost of noise in the midtones.
PS: all shots were long GOP

Sorry to hear that Andrew. I lost one of my best friends, a great filmmaker, to cancer last year. He was in his mid 40s. I guess there's nobody in the world that this disease doesn't affect in some form or another. It's heartbreaking when it's someone so close to home.

Shit! It's Mr. Creosote!!
 

I mostly lurk here but I got the X-H2S about a month ago. Because I got it together with the Tascam XLR adapter, my order was delayed significantly so I missed the chance to use it on most of the gigs I had lined-up originally.
 
The one time I've used it for video, it was the Wide of a three-camera interview setup (with R5Cs as the CUs) feeding an ATEM Mini ISO. Lens was the XF 23mm f/2 (set to f/4) with AF-C / Face Detect-on. The R5Cs were set to 4K/S35 mode and one had an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (set to f/4) while the other had an RF 24-105mm f/4.
The Good:
Color: The X-H2S was set to Astia and the R5Cs were set to EOS Standard Profile and their footage was relatively interchangeable (this I already knew from my previous experience mixing Canon and Fujifilm cameras).
Video autofocus: The X-H2S autofocus is significantly better than my previous X-T3 -I didn't notice any focus hunting during the multi-hour shoot which is something I can't say for my previous X-series bodies in similar setups.
Keeps going: It records for longer than 29.99 minutes! That's all I want in my hybrid cameras since my main moneymaker is long form documentary.
Formats: ProRes! h.265! h.264! I've always appreciated the level of control Fujifilm gives the operator over file output. Anyone who's used a BMPCC will know the frustration of being format-limited by resolution and vice-versa.
CF-Express -as much as I hate that I'm back to cameras that have non-matched dual card slots, at least they're the same type as what I use in my R5Cs. And GB for GB, CF-Express is cheaper than SDXC UHS-II. But holy hell do they get hot.
The Bad:
The button and dial layout is significantly different from my other X-series cameras and it drives me nuts. One of the main reasons I skipped the X-T4 was specifically because they altered the layout and this has the same problem. I can re-map some of the functionality to standardize with my other X-series bodies but there are wholly deleted buttons and switches (the drive-mode and exposure-mode are two glaring examples) that is going to force me to change mindset whenever using the X-H2S with another of my X-series cameras. I might have to sell all my older bodies and just get another X-H2S (or the 40MP model) so that I don't get annoyed.
The fan works and I'm glad I have it. The problem is, as I type this... I can't remember where I put it. It can only be attached when you're using the camera, as it prevents the screen from closing/cannot remain attached permanently. It also has two sets of rubber covers that are easily lost if you're frequently attaching/detaching it. It's a very dumb implementation and is probably going to get lost and re-purchased. I wish they had just gone the route that Canon did and elegantly integrated into the body.
No anamorphic view. I have three Sirui anamorphics for XF-mount and I still have to use my Atomos Ninja Inferno.
No Waveform - I come from a "traditional" video production background so I was so excited to get these back into my workflow on my R5Cs when I don't want to attach a larger monitor. At least the Zebras on the X-H2S are still well implemented...
HDMI frame stuttering -this is something that happens on my X-T3 frequently, and I haven't had a chance to really figure out why it happens (is it thermal? is it a framerate mismatch? etc...). I noticed it happening to the feed coming from X-H2S but, again, I've only used it once so I can't rule out user error here, either.

The Jury is still out:
Photos: My other money maker is photography. One of my main clients is a symphony and so I'm constantly shooting in fast-moving, high contrast scenarios using electronic shutter. The X-series cameras I own (T2, H1, T3) have been as-good-as the R5C in all aspects except resolution, autofocus and extreme high-ISO. Previously, choosing a body has been a trade-off between auto-focus performance vs rolling shutter artifacts. I'm hoping that the X-H2S solves both those issues but I know there's a shadow recovery penalty with the new stacked sensor. The new season starts in about a month so only time will tell if it's actually going to be problematic.

Video autofocus: I haven't had a real-world opportunity to test the X-H2S's video autofocus against the R5C's. Hopefully, it'll be as good as the R5C -which is a low standard :-). Honestly, I was surprised by how inferior the Canon cinema implementation of DPAF is compared to the non-cinema version. Tracking moves I could do with robotic automation on the 70D/80D/5D4 I wasn't able to do with the R5C. It's made food documentary and product video capture more... annoying than it should be.
Conclusion:
I'm still stuck in the value-conscious mindset I was in a few years ago -when it would definitely have been an either/or situation- so, I'm kind of torn on whether I wasted $3000 USD on the X-H2S or $5000 USD on the R5C. If only one or the other existed, I'd probably be happy but since they both exist and they both have respective strengths and weaknesses... it's weirdly still a toss-up. I am happy that I have enough work to justify owning both.

After re-reading what I wrote above (and how non-committal I still am), I will say this: the X-H2S is what I wished the BMPCC 6K Pro would have been. It is definitely more expensive when kitted-out equivalently but it does almost everything better.
If $5000 USD is within your budget and rolling-shutter isn't a big deal, the Canon R5C is the better tool versus the X-H2.
But at $3000 USD (base+TASCAM audio unit) the X-H2S is the only hybrid camera that does all the things it does, and does them well.

JP

Take this with a pinch of salt but the GH6 won Best Photo/Video Camera at the 40th anniversary EISA-who-I've-never-heard-of-awards
https://eisa.eu/awards/panasonic-lumix-dc-gh6/
I've used it on a few jobs now and I do like the camera. I still miss the 1080 2x crop but find the battery life OK. I have a power bank on the way and plan to charge batteries in my bag as they die.
I do love the red box when recording, punch in while recording and generally tidier onscreen graphics. It's a good video camera.