kidzrevil

Yes we had capable HDR cameras for many years. The important step is to be able to store more than 10 stops in either log or RAW. 
The only thing that was missing was the capability of monitors to display such a large contrast. Once we got that NLEs supported a HDR pipeline.
Having HLG in camera is meant for delivery purposes. If you are a heavy grader then Log or RAW still is the way to go.
Creating a LOG to HLG LUT should be fairly straightforward. You just have to be careful of banding if you are working with limited bits.
 
 

Right now there is absolutely no need for HDR. I am cooling down my self, concentrate on my 8 bit stuff and workflow, and wait for the next big wave to happen. We got at least the whole 2018 to think things through. It is not advisable to be at the tip of the spear (or the edge of the razor, the peak of the iceberg etc); except you have plenty of money to waste, or you are at least 80% positive of your "investment". In anyway, the HDR dust hasn't settled yet, let them (or the market) decide on most standards and specs, and we go from there. But I do agree that HDR is a big deal, anyone can see that is much better than HD, they just can't truly see it yet!

I wasn't aware there was any doubt, in anyone's mind, that HDR technology is buggy, in the real world   I also can't believe anyone on this forum would doubt that you shot what you said you shot.  They're just reporting what they see. I mean, even in this late, mature state of PHOTOGRAPHY one can print/view someone else's JPG that will look all F'd up!  Even using color calibration systems I have found them to create unsuspecting problems in software that doesn't recognize them.
So don't get down, Mark!  I'm looking forward to looking at your stuff when I have HDR equipment.

It's a taste thing, right, trading color saturation for greater dynamic range.  We certainly wouldn't want HDR if it did that because people who favor saturation over DR would then be left with inferior images.  We need both.  When I say "saturation" (and maybe someone can give me a better term) I mean the amount of color information we need to discern all colors within the display gamut.  Banding is the clearest example of what I mean.  As I mentioned elsewhere, if you display, say 20 colors (saturation) of yellow on an 8-bit, 6DR gamut display, you will see banding, because your eye can tell the difference.  Here are some examples I created.  
The first is all 255 shades of green an 8bit image, which should render "bandless" on a 6DR screen

I can already see some banding, which tells me that the website might re-compresses images at a lower bit-depth.
Here's a version where 18% of the colors are removed, let's call it 7-bit

And now for 32% removed, call it 6-bit

The less colors (saturation information) there is, the more our eye/brains detect a difference in the scene.  HOWEVER, what the above examples show is that we don't really need even 8bits to get good images out of our current display gamuts.  Most people probably wouldn't notice the difference if we were standardized on 6bit video. But that's a whole other story   
How does this relate to HDR?  The more you shrink the gamut (more contrast-y) the less difference you see between the colors, right?  In a very high contrast scene, a sky will just appear solid blue of one color.  It's as we increase the gamut that we can see the gradations of blue.   That is, there must always be enough bit-depth to fill the maximum gamut.  
For HDR to work for me, and you it sounds like (I believe we have the same tastes), it needs the bit-depth to keep up with the expansion in gamut.  So doing some quick stupid math (someone can fix I hope), let's say that for every stop of DR we need 42 shades of any given color (255/6 DR).  That's what we have in 8bit currently, I believe.  Therefore, every extra stop of DR will require 297 (255+42) shades in each color channel, or 297*297*297 = 26,198,073.  
In 10bits, we can represent 1,024 shades, so roughly, 10-bit should give us another 24 stops of DR; that is, with 10bit, we should be able to show "bandless" color on a screen with 14 (even 20+) stops of DR.
What I think it comes down to is better video is not a matter of improved bit-depth (10bit), or CODECs, etc., it's a matter of display technology.  I suspect that when one sees good HDR it's not the video tech that's giving a better image, it's just the display's ability to show deeper blacks, or more subtle DR.  That's why I believe someone's comment about the GH5 being plenty good enough to make HDR makes sense (though I'd extend it to most cameras).  
Anyway, I hope this articulates what I mean about color saturation.  The other thing I must point out, that though I've argued that 10bit is suitable for HDR theoretically, I still believe one needs RAW source material to get a good image in non-studio environments.
And finally, to answer the OP.  I don't believe you need any special equipment for future HDR content.  You, don't even need a full 8bits to render watchable video today.  My guess is that any 8bit video graded to an HDR gamut will look just fine to 95% of the public.  They may be able to notice the improvement in DR even though they're losing color information because again, in video, we seldom look at gradient skies.  For my tastes, however, I will probably complain  because LOG will still look like crap to me, even in HDR, in many situations   10bit?  Well, we'll just have to see!
 

I always use the hack. Big improvement, especially in 120p. I feel like it holds fine detail in the shadow areas a lot better, but where I really notice it is on a gimbal, with a wide angle and deep focus... I mainly shoot weddings, so that means lots of trees, fountains, small, detailed and busy backgrounds with lots of movement. At the much lower stock bitrate (especially on the NX500, which only offered 60mbps as opposed to the nx1's 80mbps pro setting) there is a huge, noticeable difference for me. 
I always shoot my b-roll without sound anyway, since it's all 60p or 120p and I know I'll slow it down, so I usually shoot at 200mbps, and drop down to 180 or 160 with sound when I shoot interviews and talking heads. The files still aren't that big. Why not use the best image quality possible, all the time? 
That's my advice though. If you really want to see the difference, point the camera at a fountain, or run down a road with big, leafy trees gently blowing in the wind, and I'm sure you'll notice a difference. 

In static scenes you will not see much difference - maybe only in shadows details. But I always shoot 4k/30p in 160Mbit:
I remember one situation in past when I have recorded  video with my NX1 (withou any hack that time) was poiting on building against sun (so building was in shadows), there were trees, waving branches in the wind, moving grass, chaning brightness ... that image was full of macroblocking and absolutely awful to me. 
However I saw also macroblocking on the sky in static landscape shots too so I will never return back to 80Mbit.
Below are frame grabs from 160Mbit footage - all done from gimbal in movement (so there is also some motion blur), no grading - just "converted" from 0-255 to 16-235 in Premiere (I am Ok with 8bit colors ;-)), Vivid settings with some tweaks, MBL 0.
I have not tried 80Mbit but details would not be so detailed and there would be much more macroblocking - I think image would fall apart completely without hack. You will see macroblocking even here (face, road ) if you will take closer look (I should push it at least to 180Mbit but I was worried about frame drops).
If you plan share footage on YT then it is completely different story
 

Yeah Fuji is nice. I read Noam Kroll’s blog and although he shoots mostly with cinema cameras now, this past summer when he decided to get a dslr/mirrorless, he went with the X-T2 over the GH5.
The G9 seems okay. I still think the GH5 makes more sense since they’re essentially the same price now. But I understand you’re reasoning behind the G9.
My friend picked up his first 4K camera the other day, the E-M10 Mark iii and even with its measley 4 stops of IBIS, I found it better than the GX85’s. And the color was fantastic... so organic. The E-M1 Mark II has 5.5 stops, so that camera will probably have IBIS as good, or better than the advertised 6.5 of the G9. Olympus IBIS is pure insanity. I saw a video from it and it looked like steadicam footage even while walking.
These cameras are crazy now. As you know I love my 5D3 but I am contemplating a cheap Olympus or Fuji. Even the 1080p out of the E-M10 Mark II looks pretty damn good and for $400 would be perfect for the hybrid hobby use I want a second camera for. 

So, video on the G9 comes up a tad short compared to the GH5.  The video specs ain't as elaborate.  However, as far as I'm concerned, the claimed improvement of G9's IS to 6.5 stops might mitigate those perceived shortcomings.  If the G9 could perform closer to what Olympus offers in IS, then that alone makes it slightly superior for actually acquiring footage than a GH5.  Of course, that's my perception/preference based on how and what I typically shoot.
Personally, I'd take better IS over anything else.  Intense pixel peeping is for folks that want to do that.  So LOG and high bitrates for them is great.  I do think that with dslr shooters there's just way too much over-emphasis on the IQ minutia, and not enough practice of just plain old good shooting/composition.  I really doubt that I'll ever have a client in my world that complains about 12 stop vs. 13 stop dynamic range.  And, as long as it's the ballpark, they sure don't give a crap about skin tone either.  That sort of discrimination among low-budget productions is just unrealistic.  They will, however, recognize that a poorly shot video with crappy b-roll is a poorly shot video with crappy b-roll.  Bad shooting aesthetics is what it is.  If you can't manage to get the footage, and tell a good story with it, then what's the point if it's technically pristine?
The G9's auto focus is supposedly improved too, but that doesn't matter to me.  I shoot manual glass.
I'm more interested in what a camera is going to be able to do for me and my way of shooting while I'm in the field.  This is why I've always had a soft spot for my old Olympus EM5II.  Not great on specs, but just a good field camera that allowed me to do some insane stuff completely handheld.  While I appreciate Panasonic's attempt at IS and OIS, it's not near as good as what Olympus offers.  And, to be clear, IS isn't the end-all-be-all for shooting.  It's a tool and a preference.  Sometimes I like shooting handheld without IS; just depends on the project. 
These tools are cheap, so it comes down to "what can you offer me right now?"  I'm not really projecting using any camera beyond a year.  Why would I worry about some HDR tool if that's not even something I need to consider?
Now, as a current GH5 owner, I'm only using the GH5 within the same specs range as a G9.  No GH5 LOG modes or insanely high bitrates for me.  Thus, a G9 looks like a rather decent camera IMHO.  I'm not in the market for a camera right now, but if I was I'd give the G9 serious consideration...along with whatever Olympus can put up against it. 

If it is the same old 24/28mpbs bitrate for HD in 24p to 60p, then for video the GH5 would stay the "no brainer" film camera for me. Even more, if HD is not at least up to par with G6 or G7 HD, as GX85 was two steps backwards in that regard.

Depends on your need. I guess for 95% of filmmakers, GH5 is definitely better. 

I am in the market for a 4K60p small camera and not more than $2K. The pros of GH5 over G9 for video you mentionned: 
VLOG: I do not use it in 4K60p 8bit
HLG: N/A in 4K60
ALLI and 10bit : N/A
Unlimited recording time: I never record for more than 1min
6K anamorphic: N/A for 4K60p 
Master Pedestal: never used that 

G9 on the other hand has Better AF / Better IBIS and less expensive. I will take that any day thanks. 

Again, depends on what you need. 

 

yeah man! Just looked up my order receipts.
The most I paid was $268 for the 90/2.8
 
I got them on KEH, which the prices are normally good, but if you wait, every month or two they'll do a 15% off or so sale, which really helps on the leicas.

I've also bought they cheapest ones you can really get, which means they have odd filter thread sizes because they're mainly series 6 and 7 filters.

I was able to find step up rings for all of them though, and have gotten out of it pretty cheap and really really like them so far.

They're built like tanks, they're hefty and heavy as hell and all metal, but god damn they're smooth and look great.

I'll get some footage together this weekend and post it early next week

One of the the most beautiful rendition of Voigt's that I found - in spite of being upload just in 720p. Actually, what me personally impressed with Nokton Voigt's, is the fact that any of other lenses (IMO) don't render so wonderful even at 720p. As they don't need bite-me sharpness to made an impression. Proof for their high-end microcontrast, roll-of and intrinsic color-science in general?
 

I think Jon looks for different things in a lens than some of us, which is perfectly fine of course. Seems he likes a perfect lens, he has a track record of owning and shooting with some of the best lenses for the system, incl. the Panasonic 12mm f/1.4, 42.5mm f/1.2, Olympus 75mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.2, Sigma DC DN 30mm f/1.4, Veydra Mini Primes etc, where it's all about resolving power and sharpness, where they are absolutely smashing it, you can't really argue that.
It just doesn't seem he 'gets' people that put character first however (which is funny itself because he didn't feel Phil A's footage had any, but okay)... like shooting a 17.5mm f/0.95 wide open or using anything vintage. Takes offence himself when people find a lens to render 'boring', meaning not that he himself has shot something boring, but that the lens has a reliable and clinical look of perfection to it (maybe that is the sort of 'character' he wishes to see, to me that's prefering a vodka over a whiskey, where as well, nothing is wrong to put one over the other, personal preference and all). To that person. Yet you know, it's okay if people aren't on the same page, an opinion is something subjective, there's no one true way... and one should really be accepting of that and letting others do their thing. To me it matters more that someone is having fun shooting and makes great content in terms of mood, composition, 'story telling' however limited applicability perhaps. If you have blinders on and can only tell if someone's work is good by pixelpeeping, then you might be missing the point (but atleast you'd have every pixel). So I personally was able to appreciate said video and post, because it isn't always the main goal to capture something pixel perfect, but to capture something that elicits something beyond that. And Jon's said it before himself... he might've shot and uploaded a video with the white balance, framerate or audiosync off... and never finds anyone in the comments complaining and pointing it out. That's all because they look through the pixel peeping and rather just focus on the essence. If your content is good, it's probably good because of the bigger picture, not just the individual pixel. And even if you don't see it that back with someone else's work the least you could do is give them some constructive feedback... the lowest thing you could do is dismiss what they've done altogether and regard it as someone clowning around (discouraging them to ever post something again). A bit of mutual respect goes a long way.

FWIW I think you should try Andrew's Pro Log S. There's a certain "depth" that it has which SL3 just doesn't have. I'm seeing the same thing in your vids, @kidzrevil: in the SL3 shots there's less separation between people and background as with SL2. If anything, shoot how you want with SL3 to preserve code values in the shadows and then use a conversion LUT to transform it to SL2 and regrade and I'd be interested in seeing you share the results. I want to see if it's the increased contrast of the curve or if maybe the extra shadow codes are actually too much... not sure what it is.
(I have a comparison video I made for Andrew at https://www.eoshd.com/2017/09/user-reviews-test-films-eoshd-pro-color-pro-log/)

Thanks again. I will look into that link. I appreciate all the help.

Could be useful on the GH5 then......

Cool. Yeah I'm beginning to think that SL2 got a lot of bad rep when really it was SGamut the whole time! Here's a guy that really helped change my shooting and post process: https://vimeo.com/user23501770
I like the poster frame with the new grade, but in general think your manual grade was WAY better
BTW, @Gregormannschaft, do you think a 1/8 would have been better? You've convinced me to get one.

I only bought the filter after reading all your posts on here. Has made a HUGE difference. For me it basically simulates the look of higher end productions, improves roll off, tonal graduation. Really top stuff. 
 
You're totally right. There's some macro blocking on the wall behind that's very noticeable if you zoom all the way in. But for a smaller sized project where you want good images on a low budget I think it works well. This was a very small setup.

Figure I'd upload a few screengrabs from a recent project using the SLOG2 + SLOG3.cine combo we're talking about here. I used a DeLUT as a starting point to grade - most aren't great but I love Downton Alt. Tends to give very natural colours without doing too many weird things with grain or colour blocking. These were all shot using a Tiffen BlackPro Mist 1/4, which at times was possibly a bit much. But when it works I really love the effect it gives.

 

Nice grade. Skin's looking good. So are you liking the SL2/SG3.C combo? @kidzrevil

I'm also using primarily vintage glass - I find that with 4K you want as much character as possible in the image, even if it's not technically perfect. So I have a few FD lenses, a lovely Zeiss Jena 35mm and the cheapest lens I have which is probably my favourite - a 50mm Zeiss Tessar f2.8 which I picked up for 20 bucks. So that's what I'm working with, and I've found that -3 is probably my limit in terms of in camera sharpening. I eventually settled on -4 as a happy medium for vintage glass. It could be slightly lower on the A6500 but might be worth a shot. Even -5 made a noticeable difference.

By defending these sorts of films you are legitimising them & their racisit narratives/ideologies. It's very sad in this day & age - what's worse is that they probably don't consider themselves to be racist, but are quite happy to find excuses to defend racism. If you dig a little deeper into what Griffith said about why he made the film, he stated that he wanted to bring to light the injustices of the Reconstruction Years that followed the Civil War - apparent injustices towards Whites by Blacks. Laughable really when we look at the suffering & degredation that slavery brought down upon a people whose only crime was the colour of their skin. 
I think visually the new film is more stunning than the original, but that might be because it isn't embued with that gloomy darkness of the original. I suppose this difference can be seen as a direct correlation between the themes that lie behind the narratives of the 2 films: the first is a dark & gloomy film (more akin to a film noir type style) that signals the end of an era in replicants; whilst the new one is brighter presenting a more hopeful vision, a new beginning for replicants maybe.

Interesting. That "mushy" feeling was exactly what I've always experienced. When I brought it up to about -4, I found a bit of structure was brought back to my images, especially helpful for uploading to YT or Vimeo. But your footage looks really nice, very organic and sharp. Perhaps on the A6500 it's not such a bad thing to have -7, as you're already downsampling 6k footage. On the A7SII you don't have that. 
 
I've also really enjoyed using Geoff's GFILM settings, might be worth a shot trying out for yourself. I'd be curious what you could do with it.

One discriminating characteristic of log curves compared to negative is that (on most of them) there is no shoulder. (Well, the shoulder on Vision3 series films is very high, so not much of a practical consideration unless you overexpose severely.) An effect of this lack of shoulder is that you can generally re-rate slower without messing up color relations through the range, as long as clipping is accounted for. Arri's Log-C has so much latitude over nominal mid gray that rating it at 400 still leaves tons for highlights. I don't think any other camera has similar (or more) latitude above the nominal mid point? Pretty much all the other camera manufacturers inflate reported numbers by counting and reporting the noise fest at the bottom in the overall DR. No wonder that a camera with "more" DR than an Alexa looks like trash in a side-by-side latitude comparison.

Great job @kidzrevil do you mind sharing your S-LOG3 settings with us, or is it just 'straight out-of-the-box'