kidzrevil

Yep, 5D RAW might still be my favourite looking footage out there, period. 

The paid version of Resolve 15 has a great noise reduction feature in it. But yeah if you are going to buy the 4K BMPCC wait, don't double buy Resolve.
And I think Ethan is right, just the data rate alone makes it worth going 2K or more on YT. 1080 at 8Mbps can be pretty Gnarly at times. But I have seen some damn good 1080p on there, but it might have been down sampled from 2K, 4K.

I pretty much shoot 4K for good 1080p content. 

The short I shot on the Ursa 4.6K I was shot at 4.6K scope 4:2:2

I wish I had shot in 2K 4:4:4 instead. Especially with a 2K DCP delivery. Color and motion over Resolution every time.

On the long run, yes.
Your sky doesn't have a very steep gradient, and you don't move your camera. If you see Annihilation on Netflix (practically only watchable in HDR, for the SDR version lets all the highlights clip, unnecessarily) you'll notice a lot of lights with smooth gradients, and moving. 
Alistair Chapman provided a LUT for the FS7 (and others, the ones that support 10-bit and All-i, see below) to convert Slog3 to HLG, he calls it instant HDR. But he insists that Slog is actually preferable. My own experiences (but others confirm that) are, that Slog3 in 8-bit will make the above situations difficult. The other obstacle has nothing to do with bit depth but with compression. In Slog3, ETTR or not, you will often capture noise, and compressed noise ruins the image for good. Yes, yes, a field recorder. Do I want to use one when it doesn't give me 10-bit? No.
The 8-bit HLG-cameras are promoted by avoiding the difficult shots:
As far as I can see, there are very few highlights above IRE 100, the SDR version doesn't look dramatically different. Reflections on the waves, the medals on the shelf, sweat on the boxer's skin. I dare say that this clip wouldn't have looked better, or different, had it been in 10-bit ...
 

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?

forget about canon

Ok, figured it out.
Here's how to key out the edges and apply any Resolve adjustments to just the non-edges.  This will allow NR without blurring edges (or any other adjustments you want to make).
In the Colour panel create two nodes Add the EdgeDetect OFX plugin to one of them to make it the "key" node (Node 1 below) Connect the video signal like this:
Make the adjustments you want to in Node 2 (eg, chroma NR) Adjust the settings in Node 1 to refine the mask that gets applied in Node 2 (I recommend adjusting Brightness to maximum to get a strong mask) The above setup excludes edges from being processed in the node, but it seems like you can also exclude other areas as well by adjusting the masks in Node 2 like qualifiers or power windows too, so you could (for instance) use the above to de-noise non-edge shadow areas by having the Qualifier in Node 2 exclude brighter areas of the frame.
Enjoy!
I wish I had worked this out before so I could do heavy NR processing without heavily blurring the video!!

@kidzrevil what is the super scale feature? And what program do you use for Chroma Noise? I can usually fight it with ETTR but as I am starting exterior night shots in my film, I’m afraid of that blotchy chroma noise in the shadows.
@squig in that scene you shot for your film where the guy was tied to the chair, did you have a lot of shadow noise? I assume you lit that scene but I remember the scene was designed to have pockets of light and shafts of shadow, were there any issues, or did your lighting design compensate for ETTR and chroma shadow noise?

Thanks!
The ISO noise in the RAW files is a COMPLETELY different beast from the ISO noise when using the same ISOs in Canon stock video mode.  This noise is filmic and soft and, perhaps most importantly, has a fine texture.  That same noise once scaled and compressed in the Canon stock mode is just horrible.
In the above video I did do NR and added some noise before export (on the recommendation from @kidzrevil) but even without that treatment the noise isn't a bad thing.  One thing you might want to do though is to remove the chroma noise (colour noise) which doesn't have that nice feel.

@kidzrevil, i like your saturated flat look...! no idea what this has to do with hdr or rec 2020... i was actually thinking about you when i was using a polarizing filter to kill some reflections the other day, and i was wondering if youve ever used one to get some even deeper colors? ive always avoided them for fear of an unnatural look, lack of reflection/translucency with skin, etc, but the footage i shot for fun had a really great feel to it. might be cool to try ?

The hack doesn't change the usability of the camera - you can use it the same way as without the hack. You can shoot without crop mode with the hack enabled, although it's probably not worth it?
You can shoot all bitrates in raw with sound, but not with lossless raw since that uses the mlv_lite module. However I think someone managed to enable sound recording with the mlv_lite module - worth checking on the magic lantern forum.
In non crop mode the EOS M can only record up to 720p raw (with a lot of aliasing and moire). Using 3x3 pixel binning mode (also non crop) it's still 720p max but at least there's slightly less moire. Regular h.264 is 1080p in non crop mode (with or without the bitrate hack). There's a discussion about that camera here: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/26577-is-the-eos-m-the-digital-super-8-camera/
I posted a video I've done with the EOS M + SD card overclocking on that thread, but reposting it here since that hack is relevant to a number of other Canon DSLRs. Works the same way on the 100D, 700D, 650D and others:
 
 

With such a high amount of shadow lifting and highlight recovery you get unrealistic colors. You have to do proper tone-mapping and get the contrast back. These images might look good if you grade for proper REC2020 ST2084 HDR. Just switch output color space in RCM, and set your levels properly. Dont forget to switch your scopes to HDR in Perferences / User / Color tab. And buy a HDR capable display :D

How wonderful, so pleasant overall pastel quality and blur distribution away of center. And story is so deeply human.

Don't. Own it, I love the look. Watched this earlier today and both the director and the DoP appear to be big fans of using diffusion wherever possible.
 

@kidzrevil well said! I also think the desire to shoot with wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses hindered the lasting power of earlier cameras in the DSLR Revolution. I knew within minutes of shooting my first DSLR (t2i) that wide angle shots didn’t render detail very well, but with shallow depth of field, the image looked beautiful.
I’ve been watching some a7ii videos lately and for close ups with shallow depth, it has a brilliant image... but anything wide angle with any pattern, the image turns fast. 
Point is, we’re not shooting with Alexas or Reds, so instead of complaining about the limitations of these older cameras, for a very cheap price, many could just work around those limitations and get beautiful imagery for next to nothing.

Digital Bolex has an incredible analogue look and fantastic CCD skin tones.
1D C produced amazing thick files, chunky 500Mbit 4:2:2 4K, with Canon's trademark clean low light and great colour in a small body with a massive sensor. I recently saw one go for under £2000 for first time. It's a steal.
C100... Meh
BMCC 2.5K is a cinematic beast, I am still amazed by the dynamic range in 2.5K raw it produces even today. The huge touch screen was nice too. Rest of the camera not so much
Special shout out to the Samsung NX1. Canon colour in a high-end mirrorless camera, with an image that completely floors whatever the C100 can do.

I recommend David Lynch's Inland Empire. Shot on Sony PD-150s with noise and blown highlights everywhere, but it works for the surreal horror vibe of the film and shows that the ugly imperfections of DV can make for a pretty special look. 

I've always loved the DVX100. It was the BMCC of it's day. I shot many things on it for about 5 years, including my first feature:
Before the DVX, my first "big boy" camera was the Canon GL2. Here's a short I shot with that camera:
These cameras are definitely "retro" now, which is weird to think of.

I'm seeing a lot of awful images on Instagram shot on film. The people who know what they're doing like Dana Gonzalez and John Chema obviously have stunning results, but I look at accounts that are great with digital cameras and their film prints are cringe worthy.

The most hype man in fashion this year, Virgil Abloh (who recently made headlines after being appointed creative director of Louis Vuitton) held a fake press release for his collaboration with Nike, shot on throw away point & shoots and retro digital video cams:

 
..on the right there is the Canon XL2 series zoom, released in early 2000s. always loved the look of that camera from shape, ergonomics to color scheme..

Had some pretty cool features as well for the time including 3CCD, 24p, cine gamma & even film grain feature!
https://youtu.be/tsz4asyrmjs

I wonder if the modern digital camera manufacturers are missing a trick here. It seems the desire for a more 'filmic' look for video is fairly universal. However if I go through the 10 picture profiles on say my Sony, I basically find an odd mix of either 'digital video' looks or 's-log' which is really an attempt to give you as much leeway in post to create your own look (which isnt a lot with an 8 bit file.)
What I dont see is much attempt at creating 'creative profiles' that match what would be considered a 'filmic look' straight out of camera (or with limited tweaking.) Seems this is the route that Fuji has gone down with the x-h1 and the Eterna profile and it has been generally well received.

I think what makes film and retro games popular are specifically the flaws and artifacts. 
To that extent, I think it's more likely that old point and shoots, cell phone cameras, vapor wave, Simpson wave, anything really really technically bad but with its charms will become associated more with a classic digital look.
A band I knew in college used to be into the idea of how heavy generation mp3 compression was the millennial's equivalent to vinyl hiss (though it looks like millennials gravitated to vinyl hiss, so maybe it's the next generation that will gravitate to low quality mp3s). 
I agree still cameras haven't progressed that much since Nikon introduced the D90, and even video is leveling off now.
But I think the "classic" look will be associated with the bad, not the good.

yeah, how do i do 60p?? ?
also: guys i got verified on this site by a former member who has been bullied a lot so he doesnt want to reveal himself but pm me if u wanna do it. the western union fees killed me but it was sooo worth it

This is a portrait I took with the Voigtlander 17.5mm and GH4 a couple of years ago. With all these cool M43 cameras out/on the horizon I wish I'd kept the Voigty set now. . . and added the 10.5.

You don't rig an Alexa to film your kid eating with a spoon the very first time, you usually want something you have available, and full AUTO, because you have to live the moment too.
I am not sure what ( @kye ) is your problematic here. My experience and impression is, whatever camera you have, if you are with your kids and you take photos of them, no one cares. If you are on a nudist beach with a 500X zoom camcorder, then you are suspect of something! Why do you think that a camera attracts too much attention on a zoo?! I have been to a lot of European ones with long lenses and no one ever asked me anything. I am scheduling one such visit in May and I am expecting to take one of my NX1's and the most tele zoom I have (50-200mm).
For most people, vastly majority, a a6000 is more than enough, and that is why those cameras a6xxx have sold so much the last few years - cameras which I detest using, I seriously dislike them, but for an amateur, why not? Even my barber has a a6000 with the 30mm/2.8f, and he was asking me for a portrait lens today (55mm/1.8f was my proposal)!!
Quality is good enough for most people (like 98% of the population, us, we, are such a very small group, while the whole world are billions!), and smartphones are getting there too, top mobile phones are good enough for most people already, you just have to pay top money, at the moment.
No one cares for sound, as long as you can hear your kid's first words, or whatever (usually those cameras are shot with an -in your face - approach, so mics are really close to the subject), and most TV's, if not all, have crappy sound anyway, with tiny speakers facing your wall, and you hear the reflections, really.
As I said, a phone, or a cheap mirrorless/compact, with a Chinese gimbal is what everyone wants, and really needs. Technology is already there.
@BTM_Pix I am following closely this category, and I believe it is the future, it is just not there yet. My impression is that 8K is mandatory, there is just too much information, for small 1-2 lens-ed, low bit-rate and resolution, cheap mobile cameras. I have played a little with the Samsung ones, and they were really useless. The 8K will happen, and will push this specific category of cameras. It is inevitable.