hyalinejim

AF is snappy enough. Watch when the dancer ducks below frame and pops back up. Focus shifts to the background and then back to her quite quickly. Towards the end the movement increases and she gets closer to the camera.
Rather than having AF constantly on, which I can't really envisage using, I presume there's some function whereby you can press a button to search for AF, and once you hit it you let it go and AF stops? And does touchscreen AF work like this?

If it goes down to minus eleven I'll be happy

I was gonna say for 1080p, 5D3 RAW, with the exception of DR and highlights (though you can do a lot with Adobe Camera RAW if you have the processing time), is the Baby Alexa Deal of the Century...

If it goes down to minus eleven I'll be happy

Because it is perceived as detail. Seeing 4k on a big screen is still a novelty. People are fascinated by it, like under a spell, or hypnotized. The sharpened image makes for a hyper real world, where there is more contrast then in the real world, rendering everything easier to recognise. Having this super vision may give the viewer an elevated sense of security and control.
People see contrast. More contrast makes discerning easy.
Only the smarter people recognise subtle nuance and detail. Lower IQ people only recognise easy to identify, contrasty, things.
Thank you for the question, it moved me to think

Well, by the same token unless you've shot with the GH5
 
 

You're not making sense, Jon. From an epistemological point of view if it's unacceptable, as you claim, for people other than you to make inferences regarding a camera they haven't used it must logically be unacceptable for you to make statements about another camera that you haven't used. I'm not being nasty here. Putting feelings and emotion aside, this is rationality.
Edit: And you're right, I do actually have nothing useful to offer here in terms of a Fuji - Panasonic comparison. This is just a point of order.

Well, by the same token unless you've shot with the GH5
 
 

BRAINWAVE: Wouldn't it be great to have an option to bake in a lut internally? The GH5 can already do a view assist lut - it's not inconceivable that this could be sent to SD card, essentially making the picture profiles of the camera infinitely customisable.
Does anyone have the number for Mr. Panasonic?

I couldn't give a crap about scientific camera tests. 
It's 2017 and every new release is more than suitable to get a great result. 
Rent the camera, buy the camera.
Take it out outside, inside, down the stairs, inside a cave, on a car, underwater, in space. Wherever. 
Keep, sell or return. Stroke it. Kiss it. Crush it. Burn it. 
Canon, Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, GoPro... whatever suits. 
Shoot shoot shoot. 
Learn, and shoot again. Again. Again. Again. Over and over. 
 

awesome!!! looks great i love it!!

At the very least don't you need to wait for the 400 Mb firmware update before you can make and observation on what the camera is capable of?  And yes Andrew as it pertains to comparing a $2000 camera to camera costing $28,000 is a bit .... er .... absurd,
I'll quote a friend who made some observations on a few flaws in the test:  "Canon freely admits they go to great lengths to make fleshtones look good no matter what. Their entire color science is oriented towards that. "  He also said:  "The "vertical aliasing test" is a actually a test of *horizontal* resolving power and aliasing."  He said much more to me but I wont quote that here.

Kept expecting Larry David to walk into frame...

Kept expecting Larry David to walk into frame...

Has this been posted?
 
Not even sure if it's genuine GH5 footage, but it did make me chuckle.

So I know that this thread was mainly a provocation based on the "how much better is the F35" discussion in another thread but I'd like to derail it to actually take up the original post's point.
 
Everything looks amazing and/or shit at the same time. It is borderline impossible to judge color, resolution, etc and if you don't do broadcast/cinema, I start to wonder if there's any point to obsessing over image quality.
Exhibit A to prove my point:

I set up all my entertainment options together with my desktop system that I use for editing/grading/destroying footage and loaded up a video on Vimeo in 1080p at exactly the same point. It is the video "Portrait of Rome" by Of Two Lands which I think is a beautiful video, showing the quality of the BMPCC.
Systems to play back were the following (to satisfy @sam):
iPhone 6s
iPad Pro 9.7"
Lenovo Y700 with 15.6" IPS panel at 3840x2160 px via Nvidia GTX 960M
Connected to my desktop computer via AMD Radeon R9 390:
Dell U2711 with 27" IPS panel at 2560x1440 px, calibrated with Spyder
Dell P2210 with 22" TFT panel at 1680x150 px, calibrated with Spyder (but useless as the panel is crap)
Panasonic Viera TH-42PZ85E 42" plasma TV at 1920x1080px (that's normaly my preview monitor via BMD Intensity Pro 4k IO card)
 
You can already see on the first view that color is different between all systems, so no matter how much effort you put into your color correction, it's completely random what your viewers will see. But what was also blatantly obvious in this quick and unscientific comparison, but not visible on the foto above, is that even the resolution and scaling of the 1080p video was all over the place.
iPhone 6s -> probably streamed in 720p from the Vimeo app, but the screen is tiny so everything nice and sharp
iPad -> looked good
Lenovo laptop -> scaled great, which is no hard accomplishment from 1080p to 2160p, combined with the 15.6" screen size it was really sharp and nice
Dell u2711 -> totally horrific. The video scaled in an ugly way, there was quite some pixelation. Total no go.
Dell u2210 -> Doesn't scale really well but it's ok, as it downscales anyway. Can live with.
Plasma TV -> I hear angels singing! Image is perfect, no scaling, everything smooth and soft.
I'm not sure what I learn from this, as it kinda makes all my efforts to make my material look its best futile. My main screen is the U2711 and that one makes everything look bad, I feel like 1080p just doesn't scale well to QHD, considering that the material looked way sharper on the even bigger Plasma TV. It's somewhat better with really sharp & detailed 1080p material downscaled from UHD but still a big dip in quality.
So how do you handle this? What are your thoughts about producing for the web with zero control what people will see?

I'm sure you've already read the thread. Bottom line: XC10 is a great camera in good light. You won't regret its purchase for daylight shooting and it feels great in the hand. For low light, try to stick to the wider end to keep ISO down as the image starts to fall apart from 1250 plus, especially if underexposed. 
 

What did you shoot on? Can't speak for other cameras, but for Magic Lantern Canon footage ACR has the edge on Resolve in terms of colour, noise reduction and highlight reconstruction.
I've found Cinelog to be a great solution for an ACR to AE workflow, retaining all tonal information in a log format. It's available for a range of cameras. 
To get back in to ACR in AE, select clip in project panel > Interpret Footage (ctrl alt G) > More Options

Testing Cinema EOS Std. in a place full of dead animals. ISO from 500 to 1600 in HD. Some shots are mush at anything over 2000, some shots are still usable, like the 2 girls with the spooky skellingtons at ISO 5000.

 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 

@funkyou86
You don't have to compare the GH5 or other Lumix devices with a 15K camera to talk about color science. You only have to compare the Pannys (NOT camcorder or pro devices) simply with am Nikon D750, which is cheaper than a GH5. No chance for the Panny to reach the pleasant Nikon colors OOC (with correction / grading in post, of course).
And don't say, it's in the eyes of beholder...I made some A/B tests with real people (not with woolly-minded gear heads living in a parallel universe) and a vast majority prefer the Nikon color rendition (OOC) over the Panny one. ;-)
In my eyes Pana still got better in the last two years in handling color science OOC. Just take a look at some pieces of face studies of @jonpais with his GX85...When comparing it with OOC Pana footage from two years ago, you will realise a substancial difference...

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, 444 Log masters is the answer.

So much love for the 5D3.
If they ever get the preview fixed for crop mode 10bit (which enables 2.8k 24p continuous recording with a 2x sensor crop), I don't think I'll buy a camera for another 10 years.
Being able to whack out a perfectly sharp 2k DCP from a 444 10bit source with beautiful colour is all I need.

Not sure if there are any concise and up to date videos @fuzzynormal, as things tend to be a bit fluid in the Magic Lantern world. But this is a quick and easy workflow, once you get it set up:
1. Virtually mount MLV files with MLVFS  (this is just takes a few minutes)
2. Import resulting CDNGs directly into Resolve for immediate editing - OR transcode to Log 444 masters and edit elsewhere. Resolve transcodes very quickly.
I'm finishing up a 17 minute short doc from 6 hours of footage using a similar method to this, except I use After Effects to transcode. This is the slow method that you might have used before. The debayering in Adobe Camera RAW through After Effects is slightly better than Resolve. My doc is destined for festivals so I want to squeeze every last drop of goodness out of the files that I could. But if I'm doing a corporate job with a fast turnaround I'll let Resolve do the transcoding. The quality loss is minimal - Camera Raw just has slightly different colours, better noise handling, better highlight reconstruction and lens corrections. You'd want to be looking fairly hard to spot the difference.
Hey, if you want to mess around with an MLV to test it out and don't have a ML camera to hand, here's a file that's just a few seconds long:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cgtnim7zwfmj71/5d3%20ML%20samples.zip?dl=0

Many people can, and do. Myself included.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, 444 Log masters is the answer.