Don Kotlos

That's the most exciting news until now!!!

Philip bloom just posted this. New BM 4k pocket cam
 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155176035490426&id=177852000425

Not necessarily it depends on the quality of the monitor and how well the calibration works. It could be still good enough for most things. The previous was just a guess.

Proxy is low bitrate 8bit that is recorded on the SD card along with RAW:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/cinema-eos-c200-cameras/recording

I mostly use two settings :
1. cine2/pro ~+10sat 5red color depth 
2. slog2/sgammut3.cine ~+25sat +5red color depth . That is for high contrast scenes. 
I mostly do manual WB with a boost in warmth for outdoor shots. 
Cine1 is the same as Cine2 but using the full 0-255 range. Cine3 is great for skin but is more contrasty than any other gamma, Cine4 is also pretty good but I feel it needs more adjustments in post than Cine2. Avoid Slog3. 
The nice thing with the Picture profiles is that you can play around with the settings until you find something that works for you and how you like the colors.  I mostly use Pro/Cinema/sgammut3.cine but you can get good results with other profiles as well. 
Here is a brief description:
http://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1420/v1/en/contents/TP0000435736.html
And here is a more detailed one:
https://docs.sony.com/release/Help_C198100111.pdf
 

I mostly use two settings :
1. cine2/pro ~+10sat 5red color depth 
2. slog2/sgammut3.cine ~+25sat +5red color depth . That is for high contrast scenes. 
I mostly do manual WB with a boost in warmth for outdoor shots. 
Cine1 is the same as Cine2 but using the full 0-255 range. Cine3 is great for skin but is more contrasty than any other gamma, Cine4 is also pretty good but I feel it needs more adjustments in post than Cine2. Avoid Slog3. 
The nice thing with the Picture profiles is that you can play around with the settings until you find something that works for you and how you like the colors.  I mostly use Pro/Cinema/sgammut3.cine but you can get good results with other profiles as well. 
Here is a brief description:
http://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1420/v1/en/contents/TP0000435736.html
And here is a more detailed one:
https://docs.sony.com/release/Help_C198100111.pdf
 

Yeah I am pretty sure I could make Alexa footage look like pixelvision, so you’re right. But I’ve always subscribed to the notion, show me the worst footage from a camera and that’s what one should expect from it. It’s one of the reasons I decided against the GH5.
Obviously in competent hands, the GH5 and almost any camera available is capable of great imagery. But the operator should know what they’re capable of and those limitations should be considered when purchasing a $2500 camera, or a $500 camera. 

Yep the footage looks great. 
Most of the time it is the excessive contrast that is problematic. Also another aspect of the dynamic range is not so much the range itself as much as how the highlights (and color) rolloff to clipping. Hard clips with hue shifts are something that you rarely see in cinemas. Sometimes you even have hard clipping in the shadows but that is most often a fault of the processing of a camera and not the sensor. 
Once you have control of the lights dynamic range of the camera is not important. Even for outdoor scenes where there is a strong light from the sun you can use reflectors to balance the shadows. So I would say if someone wants a cinematic look the best way is to learn how to use light cause even 15 stops won't help  
In my experience for everyday use with no control of light, I would be happy with 12 stops and no hard clipping. 
 

"Indicative Retail Price: $33,880 USD"
"This is Google's cache of http://www.z-cam.com/e2/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Apr 1, 2018 19:07:56 GMT." 

While I would love to have a tiny external 4K recorder (my vote would go for a 4K ninja blade with 3D Lut support) , I think what we all also need is better internal codecs. Cameras have already very good screens, SD cards that can support high bitrate recordings, and a battery. Why make it complicated?
There are open source high quality codecs such as Cineform and camera companies should implement them. At least companies that don't have a stake at the professional video market such as Fuji, Nikon or Olympus. 

There are few reasons for that.
First, different input-output curves can compress different parts of the histogram. For example you can have the same dynamic range from HLG or Slog or even a normal jpeg gamma. Slog3 is also worse than Slog2 because it compresses a huge chunk of the histogram even more. 
Then you also have the color space. rec709 is a much smaller area than sgammut and in return you get better sampling & tonalities with rec709 that D750 has for the same colors (sky, skin..). 
Finally, compression (and spatial color undersampling) also affects banding but with the same codec there is not so much of a difference as you get with different color space or gamma. 
So Slog by itself is not problematic. Even slog with 8bits is fine as long as you don't use the original sgammut. For example, with the slog & 8bits you can get excellent results with no banding if you use a slightly reduced color space such as sgammut3.cine/pro/cinema (which are still much larger than rec709), and boost saturation (without any color clipping of course). The problem is that most Sony users don't know that. Even myself when I first got the A7rII, influenced by all the slog hype I set my camera to slog2/sgammut only to kick myself few weeks later for ruining the footage. Sony has allowed so much flexibility that is great for professionals, but they should have be more careful when explaining all these to the average consumer. 

Yep the footage looks great. 
Most of the time it is the excessive contrast that is problematic. Also another aspect of the dynamic range is not so much the range itself as much as how the highlights (and color) rolloff to clipping. Hard clips with hue shifts are something that you rarely see in cinemas. Sometimes you even have hard clipping in the shadows but that is most often a fault of the processing of a camera and not the sensor. 
Once you have control of the lights dynamic range of the camera is not important. Even for outdoor scenes where there is a strong light from the sun you can use reflectors to balance the shadows. So I would say if someone wants a cinematic look the best way is to learn how to use light cause even 15 stops won't help  
In my experience for everyday use with no control of light, I would be happy with 12 stops and no hard clipping. 
 

Well even if you don't account for the nonbox shape of GH5 the BMPC is double the volume. 73 vs 144 cubic inches. 
Don't think is there is much hostility, just the fact that these cameras are meant for different things. Sure you can make the BMPC work handheld with something like this but the general advice is not to   .
It would be easier to rig up the micro studio with an external recorder, or if you don't need IBIS or high resolution stills go with the GH5s instead. 
 
 

In camera. But again, you have to be careful and not clip any colors and probably leave some extra space just in case. So depending on the scene you need different saturation values. For example with cloudy sky you can saturate more, but if you are shooting bright colored lights during the night you want to bring it down. 
So in post you would add minimal saturation and use rec709 LUTs for stylization. 

I can't say I am convinced with this camera. I am really disappointed by the internal recording quality. They should have downsampled from 4K as in A7s. And unless BM releases a ninja v2 with 4K, recording externally makes it as large as any other camera. The M43 conversion looks interesting but again ~$1400 is too much for this. 
 
 

There are few reasons for that.
First, different input-output curves can compress different parts of the histogram. For example you can have the same dynamic range from HLG or Slog or even a normal jpeg gamma. Slog3 is also worse than Slog2 because it compresses a huge chunk of the histogram even more. 
Then you also have the color space. rec709 is a much smaller area than sgammut and in return you get better sampling & tonalities with rec709 that D750 has for the same colors (sky, skin..). 
Finally, compression (and spatial color undersampling) also affects banding but with the same codec there is not so much of a difference as you get with different color space or gamma. 
So Slog by itself is not problematic. Even slog with 8bits is fine as long as you don't use the original sgammut. For example, with the slog & 8bits you can get excellent results with no banding if you use a slightly reduced color space such as sgammut3.cine/pro/cinema (which are still much larger than rec709), and boost saturation (without any color clipping of course). The problem is that most Sony users don't know that. Even myself when I first got the A7rII, influenced by all the slog hype I set my camera to slog2/sgammut only to kick myself few weeks later for ruining the footage. Sony has allowed so much flexibility that is great for professionals, but they should have be more careful when explaining all these to the average consumer. 

With linear encoding like in RAW files, the bit depth determines the upper limit of dynamic range.  jpeg or log use non linear encoding which can map higher dynamic range in a limited bit depth. Thats how jpegs can typically have ~11 stops of dynamic range and log profiles >12. 
The problem is that the more you compress the dynamic range of an image into limited bit death, the more you under-sample the color space and the more limited tonalities & increased banding you get. 
Bitrate has nothing to do with dynamic range. 

Yeah, the ProRes is gorgeous. I started shooting ProRes when I had my Micro and I was astonished by how clean it was. But I did notice a slight difference with textures. I live on the edge of the woods, so trees are prevalent in a lot of my shots and the Raw footage definitely would pick up the texture of the bark a little better than the ProRes would, but moire isn’t as bad with ProRes, so that is what I mostly used... not to mention better storage. Plus I edit on FCPX, so it was great to just copy the files or bring them right into FC without any transcoding.
I had the opportunity to buy another Micro right before Christmas for $450. The guy only used it once. I am kind of annoyed that I didn’t. I am very happy with my 5D3, but I wouldn’t mind some slow motion ProRes/Raw options for the toolbox, for various projects.
I am not that great of a colorist, and the Micro was the first time I shot with a camera (other than my old Canon days) where I knew what it was like to get a cinematic image. I think I might be on the lookout for a used one and try to build a manageable rig for less than a grand... hopefully way less.

When I was shooting the pocket I found little difference between RAW and ProRes once the exposure and WB were correct. Thats what I really liked about it, the amazing quality of the compressed codec. Beautiful grain & color without any compression artifacts. 

It reminded me of a spot I did recently. This is the Micro w/SB, Sig 18-35mm, Hoya ProND. I think your actor may have been calling mine

 

It could be any combination of the following:
- Well lit houses with plenty of light coming from the large windows 
- Using lights to bring the inside/outside closer
- High dynamic range camera with log/Raw 
 
For example in my house, I can achieve this effect with fairly large and plenty windows + slog2 with A7rII. 

Is 8bit HDR or HLG a "joke"? Here is an HDR HLG video shot from the same camera (Sony FS5) using its internal 8bit 420 Slog2 XAVC and Slog2 recorded externally from 14bit RAW to 10bit ProRes HQ (Atomos Shogun). So the 8bit is heavily compressed (100 Mbps), the 10bit is not (950 Mbps!). Totally unfair to the 8bit. But, let's see...
Same scenes - for each the first version is from Slog2 ProRes 10bit, the second from XAVC 8bit SLog2 placed on the same timeline. The video was rendered in HLG 10bit DHxNR HQ in Resolve Studio and sent to YouTube. No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

The video has plenty of blue sky, ripe for banding. And lots of detail, and high contrast with those pesky white clouds ripe for blowouts.

There is a difference. But does it matter? Is it fixable? A laughable joke?
 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 

Finally, why do we care about this? ALL Sony mirrorless cameras and camcorders less than $8,000 that have log gammas (Slog2/3) and/or HLG only shoot 4K in 8bit 420 - the RXxxx series, the A7xxx and the A6xxx series, and the FS5. If shooting in log or HLG at 8bit to make 4K HDR videos is a joke, that would call into question what Sony is trying to sell, and what anyone should consider buying (note, the GH5 can only do 10bit 422 in 4K30p, not 4K60p). No Canon cameras/camcorders do 4K 10bit below $8,000 either I think. And they have log gammas. Is this a big deal?

I am talking specifically about this market, which is quite limited, so we know most things about most things. GH2 "revolution" never happened here. People started caring about Panasonic with the GH4 and on, and there wasn't any mainstream music video clip happened in the GH4 that I know.
A lot of people still use Canon 5D iii AND ii, Canon and Sony are huge here.
Alexa is a tier of its own, Red is supposedly under Alexa, and it seems to be hurt by these newer cheaper cameras.
The above are relevant to this specific market.
 

Actually I have much worse experience with dust & DSLRs than I had with mirrorless. Most people don't realize that dust enters the space between the mount and the sensor no matter whether there is a mirror or not. These dust particles will then go on the sensor and in the case of DSLRs can also go to the mirror, the ground glass &  the AF sensor. Cleaning the DSLR is NO FUN and very hard to do when not on top of a clean desk. The flange distance has nothing to do with the dust or any harm to the sensor, if anything it makes cleaning it much easier. You can easily spot the dust particles and remove them with the tip of a cleaning cloth in a matter of seconds while hand holding the camera. No way you can do that with the DSLR. This whole argument sounds like it is coming from people with very little experience with both systems. If people actually searched around they would find that this is a myth and actual users report the opposite.
Here is an example: https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr
"Movement of Air: as the mirror flips up and down, it moves plenty of air inside the camera chamber. And with air, it also moves dust and other debris around, which eventually ends up on the camera sensor. Some people argue that their DSLR cameras are better suited for changing lenses than mirrorless cameras, because there is a mirror between the sensor and the mount. There might be some truth to that. However, what happens with that dust after the mirror moves inside the chamber? All that dust will obviously circulate inside the chamber. In my experience shooting with a number of different mirrorless cameras, I found them to be actually less prone to dust than any of my DSLRs."
That is my experience as well and I have been using these systems for years. 

Actually I have much worse experience with dust & DSLRs than I had with mirrorless. Most people don't realize that dust enters the space between the mount and the sensor no matter whether there is a mirror or not. These dust particles will then go on the sensor and in the case of DSLRs can also go to the mirror, the ground glass &  the AF sensor. Cleaning the DSLR is NO FUN and very hard to do when not on top of a clean desk. The flange distance has nothing to do with the dust or any harm to the sensor, if anything it makes cleaning it much easier. You can easily spot the dust particles and remove them with the tip of a cleaning cloth in a matter of seconds while hand holding the camera. No way you can do that with the DSLR. This whole argument sounds like it is coming from people with very little experience with both systems. If people actually searched around they would find that this is a myth and actual users report the opposite.
Here is an example: https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr
"Movement of Air: as the mirror flips up and down, it moves plenty of air inside the camera chamber. And with air, it also moves dust and other debris around, which eventually ends up on the camera sensor. Some people argue that their DSLR cameras are better suited for changing lenses than mirrorless cameras, because there is a mirror between the sensor and the mount. There might be some truth to that. However, what happens with that dust after the mirror moves inside the chamber? All that dust will obviously circulate inside the chamber. In my experience shooting with a number of different mirrorless cameras, I found them to be actually less prone to dust than any of my DSLRs."
That is my experience as well and I have been using these systems for years.