kidzrevil

Firstly, the short video clip you posted looks good, @jonpais
The sticker for me is what is meant by "cinematic," since it is a word bandied about so often.
Firstly, I don't think it is specifically dynamic range of a camera per se that is the main concern. (As someone pointed out, some of the more popular film stocks had limited dynamic range).
I would say that - in terms of brightness and darkness - cinematic in part to me means "controlled lighting" or maybe something more like "well managed lighting."
But that is just one part of the recipe for cinematic for me.
And "well managed lighting" could be everything from using a cheap foam board reflector to using fill lights to shooting in open shade to shooting at the right time of day to using a camera with more stops of DR.
So in essence, I think we might be barking up the wrong tree if we look at it as just "how many stops of DR are needed."
Getting back to the nice sample footage you posted. As someone pointed out above, not a whole lot of DR in those shots.
What would have made it look more cinematic???
Maybe some of these MIGHT make it look more cinematic (maybe or maybe not - I am not implying at all that you SHOULD do these things, just saying that some people might feel your footage is more cinematic if you were to do these things, although others might not):
- gelling your key light
- shallower depth of field
- epic sounding background music
- using a diffusion filter
- more base makeup on the talent
- stronger grading of the footage
- adding film grain
- adding audio from the environment.
~~~~~~~
Man, I ramble on a lot. I guess it boils down to - in terms of dynamic range - managing your lighting, which you did well in the clips you posted.

We've hit the point where there is NO excuse for not shooting cinematic footage with even a $1000 camera. Everything from now on will just be nitpicking features to make things easier/quicker/efficient.

+1
And, its hard to explain to someone - what you are seeing and why its cinematic  
I honestly believe that it has a lot to do with what we've seen in the past... we are just used to it....
I'm guessing that the newbies that watch all their content on 240Hz HDR screens are going to find that cinematic.... but thats the progression of life... watch any current movie say the Revenant, then rewatch Scarface and you can tell that times have changed and what people consider cinematic (then versus now).
BUT... there is a clear way of distinguishing video-ish vs. cinematic.
Grab an old consumer camcorder (the VHS & DVD variety) - film random sh!t with it. 
Put the footage that you take side-by-side with your favorite movie - presto, voila! Instant comparison. 
The best possible result is if you try to emulate a scene from your favorite movie with the consumer camcorder, that way you have a direct comparison.
Now, you have 2 extremes.... one side it will be the video-ish look and the other side is the cinematic look. Now, it is your job to take whatever tool you have (or want to invest in) and make it more cinematic - so you will have to travel away from the video-ish look and move towards the cinematic look.
 
 

Wouldn't it depend on what was being shot?
15 stops in a really dark night scene might look as poor (for different reasons) as 7 stops in a really well lit colourful flower garden.

When I look at what is suppose to be 13 stops on a BMPCC, seems like enough to me. But a Sony A7s is suppose to have that much, maybe more, and it doesn't look like enough. And like has been said when it is delivered in Rec. 709 at around 7 stops hmm, heck I don't really know what is good. But no doubt more IS better.

My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'.
Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look.
If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).

I feel that its gotten down to a point where now we are all nitpicking.
 

I know exact number! It is 8.5 stops - that's how much supposed to have GH2 while shooting Upstream Color (here at 720p)...
 

There are IBIS and IBIS... But something which puzzles me is the fact when we focus on the cons rather than the pros. We all know there's no perfect world out there, only on forums' wishful thinking lists :X
No one is also praising to see our neighbors to always pop up pointing the flaws of our children and be quiet about theirs, isn't it?
A bit of equity at least should be mandatory before any forum comment. BTW, no personal agendas of any kind and attacking the deepest bias of our own too...

IBIS is not a miracle but a tool for shaky hands. We know some of users would like to have a toaster all included, seems unlikely to happen though ;-)

Yes it all started with a comparison I made, where I tried to do anti-aliasing on a heavily aliased X-H1 120p footage. I did it in avisynth since Resolve has nothing that can help here. The feature you recommended does nothing when you post your 1080p120 footage to an 1080p timeline. It only helps when your footage's resolution does not match timeline resolution, that whole section in the project settings page is for scaling only.

Rokinons are flimsy plastic lenses with glass ranging from okay to mediocre. I'll use them if they're all that's available, but they're right near the bottom of my list.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but Leica R, Contax Zeiss, Minolta Rokkor (converted to EF), and Voigtlander lenses will provide superior image quality, smooth mechanics, and the ability to travel with you to all future cameras. Won't cost much more either, depending which versions you go with. 
Rokinons are cinema lenses in name only. They're not optimised mechanically or optically for video, beyond the cheap gearing. Invest in something that'll last.

On Digic 4 cameras the 10bit/12bit raw mode is corrupted in full sensor mode, every other image is pink. reddeercity in ml forums is working hard to solve this problem with his 5D2. In crop mode all of the cameras are working in 10/12bit, they just need a little black level adjustment with exiftool (or maybe this is solved with the last MLV DUMP?)
The secret of the 5D3 4K is not just the 10/12 bit mode but the new lossless raw compression feature. It's possibile to use 14 bit raw mode with 54% compression rate which is more effective then the 10 bit mode alone. It can be combined with 12 bit to get even smaller file sizes (or higher continous resolutions). The strange thing is with 10 bit the compression is not that effective.
The downside: the live view is unusable right now if you use compression, and the recording could stop if the image information exceeds the card's max write rate. So the efficiency  of the compression level is flexible. 3,5K continous recording is possibile if you are using higher ISO values (lower dynamic range, less steps in the highlights, more compression possibile) with the 5D3 such as ISO800+
The MLVFS just updated few weeks ago to handle to compressed raw
The compression is an original canon feature and it could work with any camera from 5D2 through 600D but it's in the alpa stage in development right now.

I see a lot of you have been taken in by this guy.
It's sad.
Thread closed.

Wait, @lucabutera I never attacked you. Not once. If anything I agreed that the kid should have shown his cards. And I never defended the kid either. I was as skeptical as the next guy. But I also didn’t care because I never thought it was likely to begin with, nor would it ever affect me because I have no interest putting good money into a dead camera system. However I do love Raw video. But just because I was interested in watching this play fully out doesn’t mean I thought you were wrong. 

Exactly...
I'm not letting this fly.
He is not getting the attention he is seeking, off my back, that's for sure.
And I know 100% it is bullshit, and if by any chance it isn't, he's free to post the raw recording mod / firmware binaries anywhere he likes on the internet.

I got an email from Mr April Fools himself...
"As promised, I will send you (download link) the footage of my Proof of Concept on time (01. April 2018) for evaluation. It would be very nice, if you could share your opinion honestly with me - after testing the maleability and behaviour, even when you do heavy grading. Please consider, that I will be not online from 01.04. at about 14:00 European time up to 04.04. in the morning, so I can NOT answer YOUR questions. I will try to write down most settings and as you are a very experienced technician, you will not have any problems with handling, for sure."
Since it is pretty clear what's going on here, Arikhan has been banned from further participation in this forum, because he's a time waster.

Yeah nobody is going to say Fuji doesn't have their Color Science right LoL.Even me. Jesus just too many good options out as of late. If you had some glass for one would be hard to turn it down. I am still not sold to start from scratch for a APSC system. And for Photo stuff I Need good AF. But I have no clue how good it is for that. I know in video it could be a lot better, but same with the GH5.

uh oh

What a colossal fuck up of self-fulfilling prophecies. And the blame should be shared by every one. This never should have been preannounced. He never should have named a surrogate to speak for him, especially since the surrogate admittedly knew only a little more than we did and is fairly new to the forum.
 If anything, he should have taken this to Andrew Reid before bringing it to anyone else. And we all probably should have given the kid the benefit of the doubt... at least for a coupl of days. But grand claims require grand proof and instead of providing adequate proof, he got angry and defensive. But at the end of the day... who gives a shit what some nerds on a forum think or say?

Just for you.
 

@kidzrevil
Yes, I'm approaching that "problem" from the side of history of art - for a pretty long time studying works, reading (and writing) essays about painters and their oeuvres...
BTW From my little theory about Fuji's color scheme should be such outcome - that usual subjects of your signature shots will not be so beneficially distinctive in rendering because of darker skin tones.

@kidzrevil
Very likely... but it opens, I think, some other relevant topics for thinking and discussion... One could be, maybe: how similar - or, quite contrary, maybe in fact not - are Canon's and Fuji's color schemes... or, maybe it has to be firstly defined what is "pleasing" and if that notion could be universally accepted, etc.
Actually, I'd like so much if here could be more discussions or reviews about personal analytic observations of that kind... how and why someone find some color scheme being more "cinematic", what concrete details and aspects find distinctive or so... in other words, I'm here interesting for learning and widening my perception.
Personally, although actually I'm in love with colors in general so equally positively curious for every choice of manufacturer's contribution  - I'm little bit struggling with application of Fuji's chosen color scheme for longer shots... as with too long exposure to intensive  beauty of Burn-Jones canvases
BTW very interesting sentence - "How the camera sees color sucks in comparison to how we remember color" - I'll think about that formulation.

This video concludes some clue of my thinking about "color science"... isn't it actually some sort of predefined color grading? Above of all questions about Fuji I was/am interested (of course) in phenomenon of its unique color. So, after inspecting samples, I think that, roughly speaking, there's always some color amplification/saturation precisely at the areas of color and tones around spectre of lighter complexion skin - and, proportionally, muted color in darker or equally precisely predefined color-oposite areas... That's make impression of pop-ing humans from background - as it were always made secondary corrections involving just that areas of color... When in the scene there's no similar distribution of tonal contrast, for my eye at least Fuji lose its distinctive uniqueness of "look" - to the level that low light scene are least distinguishable from comparative shots of other cameras... Especially in this example, it could be nicely seen (I think) because of many changing light conditions where "secondary-corecting-favorized" area disapeared. Moreover, here we have competing area of similar or identical color in background, so pop-ing impression is lowered... In a word: I came to (maybe interesting or bizarre) conclusion - that Fuji's subtle-contrasting color science is tempered as with the role-model of some prominent Pre-Raphaelite painters in mind, with similar technique used for making impression of slightly inner illumination: Edward Burn Jones before all...
 

Here's a bit of a review after using the X-H1 for about two weeks, both in a hobbyist/family setting and in my more professional workflow (video production is part of what I do for a living). As a caveat, I wouldn't consider myself a pro video guy, though. I'm a hobbyist who turned video into part of my full-time income. I started a company called 'Worship Tutorials', and a youtube channel is a big part of it - I do a lot of video work (probably 3-6 uploads a week to YouTube), so while I'm not doing work for clients, and I don't have a pro background, video quality is important to me. I also realize that the limitations I encounter are almost purely coming from me, not the gear.
Background
I've been using Sony bodies for about the past 2 years. Before that, I used Blackmagic stuff - Studio 4k bodies, and then an Ursa Mini 4.6k. That was overkill. My church used to use those, and I loved what they could do, but the workflow for me (working on my own pushing out that many videos) just wasn't good. So I sold all of it and jumped to Sony. First with an a7S ii, then the a7R ii (as a 2nd body), then I sold both of those and went with an a9 + a6500. The colors on the a9 are far, far better than the previous gen. a7 stuff.
My frustration with Sony is color. And it's a huge deal to me - I believe color is one of the primary emotional pieces of video. And I hate the way Sony handles color. I do realize, though, that the IQ is there - plenty of people create beautiful work with Sony a7-series bodies, and I finally got good enough in post to make stuff that I thought looked great. But it's always a struggle for me - I feel like I'm always fighting for the colors I want. Then I started reading about the X-T2.
So I rented (and then purchased) an X-T2, and honestly I loved it. I loved the handling, the physical controls, and especially the colors. Even still images in Lightroom were easier to get what I wanted (with the Sony raw images, I still felt like I was forever fiddling to get the colors I wanted). In video the image was just more pleasing to me. But it lacked things I really wanted - 120p slow motion, IBIS, smooth gradients from different light sources when ISO was set to auto, better auto-focus, etc. The Sony system was just better spec'd. Plus by this time I had invested in the 24-70 G-Master and the 70-200 G-Master lenses from Sony. These lenses are incredibly good. I returned the Fuji, but I've missed it.
So another year of fighting with Sony footage, and then X-H1 is released. Again I rented one, and now I've purchased one (along with the 16-55 f/2.8). Several of the key features I wanted have been implemented - IBIS, high frame rate, etc. But to me, again, the killer feature is color, and with the introduction of Eterna, Fuji's color superiority is even better.
Pros/Cons - Fuji vs Sony
Over the past two weeks, I've shot a lot of video and stills side-by-side with my a9. Here are a list of thoughts...
Auto-focus: The a9 (and presumably the a7 iii) is better with AF. Much better. But honestly the Fuji isn't bad, and it's good enough for what I do. This may be a make/break feature for some, though. High frame rate recording: Sony is better here again - the 120 and 60p footage is cleaner. But I've shot a lot of it with the X-H1, and it's certainly not bad. If you avoid things that you know are going to give you aliasing and moire problems, you'll be fine. For me, it will work. Dynamic range: Again, the nod goes to Sony, but it's very close. Especially if you use the 200 and 400% settings on the X-H1. Low Light: Sony wins here. Full frame, plus their magic with high ISO is hard to beat - honestly does anybody beat them? The X-H1 is acceptable, though. Honestly at 10,000 ISO it's a pretty useable image. We are spoiled with ISO performance. Five years ago (and especially 10 years ago), ISO 3200 was the top you could go, and many cameras looked like crap there. IBIS: Fuji is better in my opinion. Handling/ergonomics: I like the Fuji better - a lot. One thing I do like about the Sony cameras is the ability to set up custom presets for 4k 24p, 60p, and 120p (that's how I set mine up, anyway), and be able to instantly recall shutter speed, frame rate, and aperture in one move. On the X-H1, it's a 3 step process, although it's very fast after some practice. Lenses: Tie (but not if you consider how much they cost). The G-Master lenses I have are awesome. But they are very expensive, and big/heavy. Fuji lenses are very good and very affordable. And finally, the most important things - for me, personally...
Image Quality: Fuji, by a lot. Now I agree with Tony Northrup's assessment of the 2x IQ thing, regarding stops. I get that technically, the Sony sensor is able to resolve more light, etc. I get that I can shoot at lower ISO's with the Sony, so from a noise-perspective it's cleaner. But when I look at footage shot side-by-side from both cameras, I pick the Fuji every single time. Especially when shooting with Eterna. It's not even close. Workflow: Fuji wins. Because the image is so much better out of the camera - for my tastes - the workflow is much faster. And at the rate that I make videos for my business (as well as candid home videos of family, etc), it makes an enormous difference for me. Even things like render times are way faster, because I'm doing much less manipulation to the image. Emotional impact: Fuji wins. I love using the Fuji system more. Because of my experience with the X-T2, I think I can say it's not a honeymoon thing, too. Although the a9 is a ridiculously awesome camera to use. I really do love it. The other emotional impact thing is the image quality - and I think the fuji wins here, too - because of color. Final thoughts
The 'best camera' doesn't exist. Some are better technically than others, some produce a certain look that users may or may not want. Some lack features or have an abundance of features, but honestly the quality of work that is produced is going to lie with the person creating the work. These days cameras are so good that I don't think it matters what brand or model you use.
The Sony stuff (especially the current gen stuff like the a9, a7R iii, a7 iii) is better on paper than the X-H1. There's no question. Is it better in actual use? Depends on who's using it. Personally, I think I could create the same quality work with either system, but I'm convinced the X-H1 will get me to the end goal faster. For you, it may be the other way around.
Finally, I think the internet can be a toxic place for people who are looking to buy gear. People come into these discussion with biases, or they are far more concerned with spec's on paper than anything else. Personally, I'm actually kind of upset at myself for even considering switching from my Sony gear to Fuji - at some point I/we just need to ignore all the hype with new stuff and just make content - and get better at using the gear we have.
Having said that, I'm probably going to sell all my Sony stuff and invest in Fuji, although I still have about two weeks where I can return the Fuji and keep my Sony gear.
Sample Work
Here's a video I just produced using the X-H1. I did about 6 takes of this song from different angles (which is why I need at least two cameras for what I do - three would be better). Edited/graded in Resolve. I shot it in Eterna, and honestly I did very little to the image. Just a tweak with white balance and contrast/saturation to taste. With my Sony cameras, this would have required 4-5 nodes using a LUT, color manipulation to lows/mids/highs, skin tone isolation/correction, etc.
Another video I made with the X-H1, more heavily graded:
Here's a very similar project (to the first one) using the Sony a9 and the a6500 together: It's a bit different look, and I like it. But it took a lot to get there.
Here's a video I shot with the X-H1 - again using Eterna, and graded in Resolve:
And another with the a9, also graded in Resolve:
I know there are lots of people probably trying to decide between the X-H1 and the a7iii. I'm one of them, so hopefully my experience can help you make that decision.