studiodc

This is, of course, completely gaga. Yes, you can synthesise more levels of detail. But they are a lie and no one wants them. More than that, no one has worked out how to synthesize computer graphics that are convincing on this level. The idea of a Canon 5Dvi actually generating this code is so nutty that you should be wearing an anti-squirrel hat for your own safety.
Two more things about ML and cameras -
1. ML algorithms generally take a long time to run. And the more complex the task and the better the required result, the more time they need - and generally this relationship is a steep geometrical curve. So even if this tech existed, which it doesn't, why the devil would you try to run it at a high frame rate in a portable battery powered device? It's like a man who fell off a bridge in Paris. In. Seine.
2. Camera sensors hate heat - because it equals noise. The best IQ in any reasonable size stills camera comes from the Sigma Foveons and part of the reason is they are designed as radiators and screen resolution etc are compromised to keep heat down. Running a complex ML algorithm at video frame rates would be an unprecedented processor load, meaning unprecedented amounts of heat from the CPU. So even if the tech existed, why would you do it??? Seinely - sorry, sanely - you wouldn't. You'd take nice raws and then compress using this tech on your PC.
..Honestly, "balloon juice" is being kind.

I have upgraded your forum profile to a Super Member so you can edit your original post and generally have mod-like access to the forum.
Thanks for all your efforts so far on the project.

And here it is
 

Which I think is actually a point that speaks against it I'd say... because, will you still be shooting micro four thirds in 10 years? That's especially where people with multiple systems have a hard time picking MFT over Canikon mount lenses.
Within say the next three years there's a chance that atleast one of the following will have something compelling to offer... Be it Sony that might get their shit together... Canon might finally embrace enthusiast cameras with exciting features for consumers, Nikon might enter the mirrorless world and Fuji might continue the good thing they've got going on, they just need to loosen up a little (goes for any of them: less tradition, more forward thinking). We might even see BlackMagic do a handheld compact all-in-one shooter with S35 sensor?
The real benefit of Panasonic then is the size of the lenses that ultimately makes it a compact system. I don't like the Sony system that priortizes fullframe lenses for their camera systems, Canon has a so-so compact mirrorless line-up, Nikon isn't in it and Fujifilm does alright, but a lot of lenses without stabilization and a body without sensor stabilization has become a hard sell. There are speedboosters and smart adapters for MFT, so it's very compatible... the real question is... is it very capable as well? Personally I can move within the boundaries of MFT cameras, but that does mean it takes a lot for you to consider when shooting, that ultimately makes you a better shooter, but it would be so so nice to have some of these restrictions lifted. Like I find dynamic range still a little on the challenging side... of course noise performance has been improved, but ISO6400 would really be nice to have clean. Set stuff is one thing, being out in a city at night or something, you might not have the means to go about it another way. Instead of looking for alternatives that do work, you're then just in the moment without 2nd guessing if it would turn out alright or not. That's a nice thing to have. Also, I do find a Canon, Nikon or Fujifilm a little richer/more organic. Partly color, partly crop, probably just different sensor interpretation making it less videoey.
I'd say that it's likely that in the next few years I'll make the switch to S35.
Also, speaking of stuff that lasts. Although a 1299 lens is epic to have, what if you don't buy the flagship lenses and spend a bit more of your budget on support gear, lighting and audio for example? Or renting a serious camera and some anamorphics.
-- btw, I agree with you that a camera body is probably the least significant thing you can upgrade. Last year I figured that by now I would probably have already replaced the E-M1 and GH4 with their successors, but I find myself not really caring too much about the new ones right now. Guess in summer, when the updates have rolled out, I will upgrade to the GH5 though, but I'm quite liking both GX80 and G80 right now, might not be as productively laid out... but they're troopers when it comes to fun. Really loving sensor stabilization and adapting non-stabilized primes. That Leica 15mm f/1.7 is so neat too... it's super compact, nicely designed (though would've been cool to have had the Olympus manual focus clutch here), Leica mojo, affordable. You haven't checked that one out yet, now have you? And yeah, totally, when it comes to lenses everybody is always so enthusiastic about 'em. Guess it's like people, everybody has their own character, but we can all mutually accept and appreciate one another (well... sorta, the world is a messed up place, guess some people are more messed up than some vintage lenses). Lenses are the canvas, the paint and the brushes all at once. It's what paints the picture. Guess that's why it's gear that perhaps speaks to us the most on an emotional level and why we are so fond of them?

Oh no, Xavier, by story I meant any coherent message that the images speak as a whole, the subtext, the underlying message that talks to us as humans at a higher, intellectual level rather than at a purely sensory (visual/auditory) level. E.g., many interpreted even the little pizza rat clip as an underdog "story." A more obvious example is of the buffalo that saved its calf from lions that clearly has a "story" I'm talking about (a beginning, middle, and end, to use the cliche).
If there was such a message in Watchtower of Turkey, I didn't get it. It seemed to me like a juxtaposition/collage of beautiful images, much like a Victoria's Secret fashion show. E.g., frenetic cuts like that can indicate a frenzy of wild activity, but I don't believe that's what this filmmaker intended for the tourist viewers. What then was the purpose of this kind of cut other than to look cool and generate discussions like this?
Anyway, I sense clear disdain and disapproval of my comments here (talking of subtext, I can easily read "what the heck do you know?"). But guys, rather than immediately push back, please consider what I said and discuss because we're all trying to be better filmmakers, and I for myself might be missing an important point here.

Absolutely fantastic. Thanks @BTM_Pix for the work to make this happen. It's proof that not only is the profile actually loaded in the camera but that it's quite a good one too. I'll be setting this and trying it out under some, er, "trying" conditions hopefully in the next week or so.
@jonpais I have to say that while the Natural profile looks pretty darn good to me when exposure is set I'll definitely concede the point that Cinelike D appears to have higher DR. I'll have to poke at the actual bits to see if this is an actual new mapping of light to bit value or if it's because Cinelike D has a different contrast curve, because that's almost exactly what, to my eye, this looks like (speaking about DR or the appearance thereof, specifically). In other words, I'm curious as to whether the actual 255 maps to an actual higher EV of light, or if we just remap in between the same extremes we were already capturing. One would be increased DR (able to actually capture in a meaningful way brighter brights and darker darks in the same scene), the other would simply be playing with contrast and digital level mapping to give that appearance. 
Of course it's also curious as to whether Cine-D has different NR settings at higher ISO too... 

Absolutely not ideal that its not built in.
However, the way to deal with that though is to use the third C setting as the current working setting and save that before exiting.
So when you initially turn the camera on you would load C1 as a base point to work from if you wanted to use Cinelike D or C2 if you want to use a standard profile.
These would contain the basic stuff like frame size and shutter (which generally won't change as it'll be 180degrees), a base ISO (which again could be fixed and will be probably be 800 on these cameras?) etc so you can get going quickly, then as soon as you've changed your aperture and WB you save it and subsequent changes to C3. If you're using manual aperture lenses of course then that takes care of itself in terms of recalling its setting on power on/off
That way its there when you switch the camera back on as it reverts to the last C setting you were using before power off.
From there on in for that day or whatever you just keep overwriting C3 when you make changes.
Its a lot more intuitive than it sounds !

Kind of but its actually a lot more basic than that to be honest mate and doesn't require any modification of the app.
I've got a really simple way of testing it if anyone wants to have a go themselves?

I'm exploring some permanence using the custom C options to give you a switchable configuration.
By 'exploring' I mean double checking as I already have it working.
I'm just working on this prototype version of making a mic input appear via wifi
 

So, as some of you may know, I've been "experimenting" with having little chats with different Panasonic cameras over WiFi and after whispering in the GX80s ear last night, I may have come up with something quite interesting.
The first image is a grab from a GX80 using its Standard profile.
The second image is a grab from a GX80 that is definitely not using the Standard profile.......

Both Smallrig and Hondo Garage make a variety of rod adapters that function beautifully as a standoff for this sort of situation when you don't want to run the rods, and of course are useful for rods when you need 'em. 
I never liked the look on Cinelike D and found that shooting natural or standard, with a few modifications (actually quite similar to Jase) worked the best on the GH4 and still work fantastically on the GX85. Of course, I colour with either Colorista IV or Resolve, depending on the shoot, so that might have an effect on the ability to pull the grade out of the final image - colour maths really differ widely between apps and plugins. That plus a little Magic Bullet Denoiser III and you're good to go. I'll be picking up the professional Resolve 14 when it's on sale, no question, and checking out if it's denoise is as good. I like Denoiser III as much as what I've seen from Neat Video (and better, in some cases) but for sure it's FAST and does the job. I always liked a little grain in my images, and the GX85 actually has a fantastic noise structure - very fine and almost filmlike already, as long as you're not into the smudgy super-high-iso stuff where in-built NR kicks in. 

Just to be clear, I've got nothing against Cinelike D, when used properly. On my GH4, I preferred it to V-Log, at least with internal recording. The dynamic range is great. I did find, however, that in changing lighting conditions, it was non-linear with colour (especially skin tone) in a manner that made it very difficult to grade shots to match. Tracking white balance on a partially cloudy day with roving patches of daylight, for instance, either in manual mode or in AWB (I prefer not to shoot in AWB), just seemed to be smoother and easier to match when I didn't use Cinelike D, for instance. Since that's 90% of the stuff I'm using the GX85 for (and the G85 is already bulkier than I like), the lack of Cinelike D isn't a huge loss for me. That said, more options are better and it would be amazing if I could use the GX85 for more controlled shoots and get maximum quality out of it too. 

Just to be clear, I've got nothing against Cinelike D, when used properly. On my GH4, I preferred it to V-Log, at least with internal recording. The dynamic range is great. I did find, however, that in changing lighting conditions, it was non-linear with colour (especially skin tone) in a manner that made it very difficult to grade shots to match. Tracking white balance on a partially cloudy day with roving patches of daylight, for instance, either in manual mode or in AWB (I prefer not to shoot in AWB), just seemed to be smoother and easier to match when I didn't use Cinelike D, for instance. Since that's 90% of the stuff I'm using the GX85 for (and the G85 is already bulkier than I like), the lack of Cinelike D isn't a huge loss for me. That said, more options are better and it would be amazing if I could use the GX85 for more controlled shoots and get maximum quality out of it too. 

I spent about 3 hours reading through a good portion of this fantastic thread...
John, after reading the many posts and seeing your video clips, I feel like I know you! thank you for the awesome contributions.
I wanted to share my settings and thoughts about the camera as I recently purchased it.
I use either Natural or Portrait profile dialed to -3, -5, -5, -5 -- either profile gives me a pretty gradable image in Premiere. I also set -5 on the highlights, but leave shadows at 0. I really wish we had the Cinelike-d profile that the G7 and other Pana cameras get as that profile does show to have more shadow data (there's a good video sample on youtube showing GX85 Natural vs G7 Cine-d where you can clearly see more detail in shadows of a tree/bushes). I feel that Pana really arbitrarily ripped that profile out of this camera without a good reason (other than to perhaps move more people to buy the G85?
I use the Zoom H1 for audio and that is the best solution so I don't even complain about no mic input ... the evf is better than no evf, but is far from good, so i find myself using the screen on the back most of the time.
I currently have the 25mm f1.7 and kit 12-32mm, but am thinking about the 15mm f1.7 as another lens to get. This is my first m43 camera and I chose it over the A6300 (used to have the old NEX-6 at one point and moved away from the NEX/E-mount series due to handling issues). I am not a big fan of the image noise at higher ISOs... Fuji has spoiled me on that front... but it aint that bad.
My biggest gripe with the handling of this camera is the annoying strap mounts, especially the one on right side, which presses against the middle of my finger whenever I am holding the camera. I almost want to cut that thing off entirely (I removed the annoying little strap clips already).
Anyway, great camera overall, I've been very happy with it, especially the video, which is why I purchased it in the first place.

What I think some people are missing is that there are three main modes of image stabilization.
1. The default "stabilization" is 5-axis IBIS - as in, physical mechanical movement of the sensor to compensate for unintended camera motion.
2. The "dual-IS" modes use the physical stabilization of the lens (usually 2-axis) plus additional stabilization of the sensor (usually the other 3) to accomplish the same thing, but because the lens handles some of those axes optically the correction can appear more natural. 
3. E-stabilization is nothing more than applying something like 'warp stabilizer' to the footage coming off the sensor digitally, just in-camera. As a result, all of the issues with that sort of stabilization (including the crop and focus issues, if you're pulling very tight focus) are going to be present, because you aren't physically moving the sensor.
This is true for all Panasonics with 5-axis IBIS in-body.
Combining e-stabilization with physical stabilization is not usually a good idea, as it can introduce these artifacts. On the other hand, if you absolutely need the centre of your shot to be as steady as possible, combining the two may do that in some cases (but I can guess, though I don't have proof, that in some other cases it might make the problem worse). 
Usually the only time you really want e-stab is when you are turning OFF IBIS, e.g. because your lenses have a very small image circle and the IBIS exceeds that. In that case e-stabilization can be better than nothing, although honestly most of the post solutions are likely to be more effective and allow you the option of choice of stabilization method before baking the image into your file. 

Switching from Premiere CC/Resolve to FCPX is the best decision I ever made. Over the last year I must have saved at least six months in editing and render times
(Btw, today I downloaded a 30 day trial of Capture One Pro 10. Took me about 20 minutes to realize that it's time to dump Lightroom as well. So, "Buy buy Adobe. Loved you from CS5 to CC but you have lost the mojo.")
 

I just tested the Akitio Node. Everything run great, easy to setup and no problems what so ever.  At the end I returned it, but only because I preordered the Mantiz Venus. 
If you are interested for an egpu solution then there is a very helpful community at https://egpu.io/ . You can find all sorts of combinations of GPUs/Cases/Computers. 

Thanks again. Then I won't buy the 30mm, because gimbal bumble is the only time to switch to AF for me. I already know. I will (again) make the camera "ENG-style":
> put a big soft eyepiece on the excellent EVF, like I did with my GH2 (Zacuto replacement part, € 16):

> instead of a rig-diculous rig, I'll buy a grip like this:

> I'll re-buy only one lens for the start: the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 for Nikon G. For Nikon, because then I get a MB speedboosted manual aperture ring, which I find more intuitive. And I am used to the direction of the focus ring.
> I'll buy two adapters: Novoflex MFT<Nikon. This makes the Sigma a 36-70 @f1.8 (FF equivalent). Then a Metabones speedbooster (don't know which one works yet, don't know how much stops it will boost), with, say, crop-reducing by 0,7 I would have the Sigma be ~ 25-50mm and faster than f1.4.
> for a small AF lens, I am not sure. They all seem to shout 'sterile video'! Might then be the cheap and very light 14mm pancake, or should I really spend $1500 for Leica Summi-something?
 

Can't say for the G85, and I just got my GX85, but on a 4K camera I never shoot in 1080p unless I need slomo and in that case it's not a big deal if it's a little soft as the slo-mo I shoot (unless I'm renting a seriously capable rig) is going to be for dreamy stuff anyway. 
If you plan to work in 1080p, do yourself a huge favour, shoot in 4K and use something like EditReady to transcode to 1080p ProRes as part of your ingest step (possibly applying Andrew's excellent LUTs at the same time). You'll end up with roughly equivalent to 4:4:4 colour and the downsampling will increase sharpness and decrease noise by a lot. You get basically 4x oversampled 1080p (2x horizontal, 2x vertical) for your trouble, and not horribly greater file sizes. 

You can actually count to 10 bits (or much higher, even) with just your 10 fingers !   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_binary

@mercer I think we're all in agreement that it exists, if in perception only. It may mean different things to different people. Personally, in the (admittedly unscientific) studies I've done on the subject, it's got to do with things like precise frame timing, proper frame exposure (there was a bug in the original C300 - not sure if it's still there, I haven't shot on that camera in a while - where footage shot as 24p would always have a 1/60 shutter speed, reducing motion blur from the expected 1/48 by enough that was noticeable - it made all the footage feel slightly less "smooth", for instance), and of course ensuring that playback was at a matching frame rate. For others, it's got more to do with colour, for others, bokeh or lack thereof, film grain or noise "feel", and the anamorphic effects, etc. etc. and of course any/all of these in combination. This subject has been beaten to death and we could still talk about it, but I think it really comes down to how you, personally, define it, and whether or not you can, in post, create that effect or if it's purely the result of the in-camera hardware and encoding. 
That said, I'd argue you could make stuff that very nearly everyone except a small percentage of other filmmakers finds entirely "cinematic" or "filmic" with nearly any decent video-capable camera these days, and that it's not as much of a hardware thing as people think. Can you do it on all cameras, straight off the card, in available light? Not easily, and certainly not with as much success. 
My personal perspective on the whole thing is that we've failed to carry forward actual cinema production technique and style and values. The importance of lighting and light modifiers. The use of colour for symbolism and message. The practice of motion. The importance of DOF (not low-DOF) and when/how to use it. Traditional framing versus unconventional. The language of editing. The incredible contributions of the art dept. (even if it's just one person) and wardrobe/makeup. Having a good colourist. To me, these contribute FAR FAR more to the feeling of "cinematic" or "filmic" than any of the gear you shoot with or what LUTs you slap on the footage, and my own eyes, in blind viewings, have held that up so far.

Agreed, I'm curious too. The GH4 has always had a very filmic motion cadence in 24p 4K if you ask me, and I've been crew and DIT on productions with Alexas and C300.

Hey, Merce! Now I am getting exited to check that baby out! Should be in my hands next week. Yes 2 cam set up sounds tempting.
On dpreview 1080p looks of much lower resolution than LX100 though. But always good to test ourselves.
Wow! What an awesome compliment. Thank you! Not sure if I fit that bill.  
I enjoy to shoot short pieces with the tech I got at my hands. I uploaded 
a fun video I did with my great ladyfriend and student collegue. We filmed and acted together, only us two with my G6, with the boosted 28mm FD and a cheapo 60dollar rig- and a cool blue bike. Gotta have a blue bike:)
Originally we met for a coffee and then she suggested we should film a bike race. So we did without any planning.
Was very happy with Panny colors again after the grade.
Think GX85 will allow me more of this kind of spontaneous work.
 
 

Shot on the GX85
 

@mercer I think we're all in agreement that it exists, if in perception only. It may mean different things to different people. Personally, in the (admittedly unscientific) studies I've done on the subject, it's got to do with things like precise frame timing, proper frame exposure (there was a bug in the original C300 - not sure if it's still there, I haven't shot on that camera in a while - where footage shot as 24p would always have a 1/60 shutter speed, reducing motion blur from the expected 1/48 by enough that was noticeable - it made all the footage feel slightly less "smooth", for instance), and of course ensuring that playback was at a matching frame rate. For others, it's got more to do with colour, for others, bokeh or lack thereof, film grain or noise "feel", and the anamorphic effects, etc. etc. and of course any/all of these in combination. This subject has been beaten to death and we could still talk about it, but I think it really comes down to how you, personally, define it, and whether or not you can, in post, create that effect or if it's purely the result of the in-camera hardware and encoding. 
That said, I'd argue you could make stuff that very nearly everyone except a small percentage of other filmmakers finds entirely "cinematic" or "filmic" with nearly any decent video-capable camera these days, and that it's not as much of a hardware thing as people think. Can you do it on all cameras, straight off the card, in available light? Not easily, and certainly not with as much success. 
My personal perspective on the whole thing is that we've failed to carry forward actual cinema production technique and style and values. The importance of lighting and light modifiers. The use of colour for symbolism and message. The practice of motion. The importance of DOF (not low-DOF) and when/how to use it. Traditional framing versus unconventional. The language of editing. The incredible contributions of the art dept. (even if it's just one person) and wardrobe/makeup. Having a good colourist. To me, these contribute FAR FAR more to the feeling of "cinematic" or "filmic" than any of the gear you shoot with or what LUTs you slap on the footage, and my own eyes, in blind viewings, have held that up so far.