Cas1

@Mattias Burling...I think judging by the footage I've seen you produce on the LS300 and owning both GH2s and GH4s, the GH5 will be a no-brainer for you...the GH4 is the only cam I pre-ordered, and actually thought of pre-order on the Terra 6K, but its for a specific project, and if the funding for that comes through, I might bite the bullet and go for the Varicam LT...will still get the GH5 as a companion camera...I've yet to sell any of my GH camera's...IMO Panny just makes camera that work and I need that reliability on a set...

These kind of videos are... useless. A nice fellow, but he just rehash what we read on the net and did not even bother going to Photokina (not that expensive), as a real journalist should do, and talk to the people from Panasonic there to get all the details and bring something that was not yet said or confirmed. Waist of time, just click bait.

He could even had taken his own videos and photos of the beast instead of relying on other's work... 

Sorry if I sound rude, but I have (now sold) ran a modest tech website in English and French from Japan on Japanese tech and being on the go to cover press event or show like these where our first priority to get something that others were too lazy to get.

Also, things like white balance correction will be much better.  When trying to use a white balance eye dropper on 8-bit, it will almost always clip one of the color channels in some areas.  When it clips, the color changes into a different hue in some areas, and you lose detail as well.
And along the lines of that, any grading tools that shifts the color channel values, rather than apply color) are very limited in their range and function.
Of course we are only talking about 10-bit.  We won't get the range of grading a RAW file from a photo camera, but 8-bit to 10-bit is still a huge improvement.

I purchased the profile and the LUTS. I haven't had a chance to load them onto a camera yet, but I did test the LUTS on Canon LOG 1080p footage from my XC10. They work pretty well. Cine 3 is definitely my favorite so far.
Ungraded Canon LOG from XC10...
 
 
 
 
 

XC10 with Cine 3 LUT, no other adjustment...

Now I need to do a test with a Canon DSLR to see if I can match the look of the XC10 Canon LOG with the EOSHD C-LOG. If so, this opens up a couple opportunities for a 2 camera set up. The XC10 for general shots... the meat and potatoes of a shoot, and a DSLR for any close up requiring shallow depth.

New info
I am told they are indeed using a multi-aspect sensor.
It measures 18.9mm x 13mm in approx. 3:2 aspect ratio
20MP stills but the total resolution of the chip is 24MP
24MP 3:2 is approximately 6000 x 4000 (just like the Sony A6300 in 3:2 stills mode).
Then the 6K photo mode is 3:2 with full sensor readout up to 30fps burst.
The normal stills mode is a 20MP 4:3 crop of the sensor. This is why 43rumours say 20MP sensor.
The 4K video is a 16:9 crop of the sensor using the full 6K width but downsampling on the chip.
Absolutely take this is a rumour until confirmed.
But it makes total sense to me... There is *no other way* of getting 6K photos from a 20MP 4:3 sensor like that featured on the GX8.

I'm not sure jpg has a 10bit mode, but what I do is grab sills from video,  if the video is 10bit than the stills can be 10 bit.  

Interesting discovery!
What I notice is the colour in the back ground. Checking the colours in a photo editor, I see the following values:
top left photo: topside back ground: R 176 - G 180 - B 176 lower side back ground: R 188 - G 198 - B 198
top right photo: topside back ground: R 177 - G 183 - B 177 lower side back ground: R 196 - G 204 - B 204
lower left photo: topside back ground: R 165 - G 166 - B 169 lower side back ground: R 186 - G 192 - B 203
lower right photo: topside back ground: R 175 - G 175 - B 177 lower side back ground: R 192 - G 198 - B 208
If I imagine a flat white back ground, I like the top skin colours a bit too green and warm, and the lower ones much too purple.
When I adjust the white balance for the top left face, I can get a very pleasing result.
Adjusting the WB on the others I can have good result too.
Maybe, to make things comparable, record using the same manual WB settings?
Maybe let the talent hold a colour checker, to measure the differences in the colour profiles, and see what has shifted where?

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress:
- Global shutter,
- 4k 60p
- 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording
- Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k
- NX1 level of focussing + tracking.
- Auto iso in manual mode
- + 1 stop in DR and iso.
- 5x IBIS would be nice too.
I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor.
A cinema lens set would be cool too.
Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

But they are. A FF f2.8 lens will capture the same amount of light over the image as a m43 f1.4 lens (both wide-open). That also means you get the same shot noise (which is most of the noise in the image). You need to increase the ISO on the FF camera by 2 stops to get the same exposure. However that doesn't affect the noise as (i) most of the noise is in the light and changing the ISO won't change that and (ii) the sensor read noise will usually fall a bit with increasing ISO, so the total noise will be lower if anything. (Think of it this way... at the same illumination level if a f1.4 lens puts 1M photons onto a m43 sensor then a f2.8 lens will put 1M photons onto a FF sensor. Of those photons on average 1,000 will be the shot noise, in both cases.)
Increasing the ISO isn't a problem as the FF sensor will be able to capture around 4x the electrons of the m43 sensor due to its greater size. Increasing ISO by two stops knocks about a factor of 4 off that so it will be about the same as the m43 sensor and not saturate if the m43 sensor doesn't.
Also remember a 50mm f2.8 lens has the same diameter entrance pupil as a 25mm f1.4 lens (17.86mm) so the DoF will be the same at the widest aperture. The FoV will also be the same. Diffraction softening will also occur at the same DoF (it goes with DoF, regardless of format). Hence the minimum and maximum amounts of available DoF are the same.

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress:
- Global shutter,
- 4k 60p
- 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording
- Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k
- NX1 level of focussing + tracking.
- Auto iso in manual mode
- + 1 stop in DR and iso.
- 5x IBIS would be nice too.
I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor.
A cinema lens set would be cool too.
Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress:
- Global shutter,
- 4k 60p
- 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording
- Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k
- NX1 level of focussing + tracking.
- Auto iso in manual mode
- + 1 stop in DR and iso.
- 5x IBIS would be nice too.
I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor.
A cinema lens set would be cool too.
Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress:
- Global shutter,
- 4k 60p
- 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording
- Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k
- NX1 level of focussing + tracking.
- Auto iso in manual mode
- + 1 stop in DR and iso.
- 5x IBIS would be nice too.
I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor.
A cinema lens set would be cool too.
Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress:
- Global shutter,
- 4k 60p
- 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording
- Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k
- NX1 level of focussing + tracking.
- Auto iso in manual mode
- + 1 stop in DR and iso.
- 5x IBIS would be nice too.
I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor.
A cinema lens set would be cool too.
Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress:
- Global shutter,
- 4k 60p
- 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording
- Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k
- NX1 level of focussing + tracking.
- Auto iso in manual mode
- + 1 stop in DR and iso.
- 5x IBIS would be nice too.
I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor.
A cinema lens set would be cool too.
Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

Dreaming for dreaming we should take into account the revolution in sensor technology
which is at our door step.  Pioneered by Panasonic and Fuji-film four years ago
it is called OPF (organic photo sensor). **
The ida is to separate a very thin continuous light-sensitive  layer
(a compound of carbon, arsenic, and rare earth),
from the silicon pixels which only play as electric charge collectors
and gates to the output ; no more as light sensors.
Panasonic announces a 3 stop increase in DR, twice the sensitivity, global shutter,
and last but not the least sensitivity control (like the ISO choices offered by silver halide films).

After the ISSCC (International Solid-State Circuit Conference)
held in San Francisco Jan 31 - Feb 4 2016, Albert Theuwissen wrote:
" Sanshiro Shishido (Panasonic) presented a paper on the global shutter version
of the organic photo conductor sensor. The top plate of the photo conductor
 is made out of ITO and needs to be biased to larger voltages.
The overall light sensitivity of the organic photo conductor depends strongly
on the exact voltage on the ITO gate.  A lower voltage on the gate
lowers the light sensitivity and actually 0 V on the gate makes the sensor even blind.
 In this way one can create a global shutter functionality to the sensor \..\
(and) has the option to modulate the sensitivity during the periods
the sensor is sensitive by means of adapting the high voltage set to the ITO gate."
 
This is a real ISO modification which can control the charge accumulation
into the silicon pixels to prevent clipping,
There is no longer a need for any kind of neutral density filters, ever !
(note that the so called  ISO sertting in current CMOS sensors only
modify the pixel preamplifier gain but is located much too late in the chain.

I would consider the 'Phase AF', '5 axis IBIS' and this 'Physical Sensitivity Control'
as the 3 must have features signaling a next gen camera from old timers.
Panasonic has an ace in his hand
 
** InVisage with its Quantum sensor is running in the same race.

Can there be a movie without political messages?
The 'global warming' and hate 'white men', as well as 'do not use resources' etc memes are destroying my enjoyment of extremely well crafted pieces of art.

Saw it yesterday on the IMAX. I used to be really into Malick, Herzog, Tarkovsky and probably any other slow, elegiac-landscape director I could find (Sokurov springs to mind) but these days I have little patience for such films. If I want to enjoy the beauty of nature and life I go outside and open my eyes. The Revenant though was something else. It really impressed me in a serious way. It was sooo beautiful to watch on that huge screen - not just the images but the camera movement as it connected to the story. I'm even considering going to see it at the IMAX again because it will never be the same for me again. Even 4K on a 60" TV or projector won't cut it I don't think. I could talk about the film for ages but suffice to say I can't remember the last time I was so hooked on the actual physical experience of being in a cinema. Truly a work of art. I can't think of a better experience in terms of just soaking up cinematography (& not just pretty images but connected to the story). 
Really worth traveling to an IMAX to see before it's too late IMO. 

I've just come back from cinema... Seen this film in 4K on big 11 x 4m screen. It was breathtaking. Every scene was thoroughly made. Composition, colour grading, dynamic range, even lens flares was pleasant to watch. Long one shot scenes, slow cut, stunning performance... Finally, I'm glad for visiting cinema!

Can there be a movie without political messages?
The 'global warming' and hate 'white men', as well as 'do not use resources' etc memes are destroying my enjoyment of extremely well crafted pieces of art.

Like it or not, entertainment doesn't work like the real world. Millions ride on the creative talents of often deeply flawed individuals.
Ultimately, it's the BBC 's call, but they likely knew what this guy was about and looked the other way because he was making them millions.
This kind of reminds me of the whole "Duck Dynasty" dust up here in the States, that ended with Phil Robertson keeping his job after A&E pretended they had principles. Don't get me wrong, the BBC has no principles, or they wouldn't have let it get this far. They just wanted to stick their heads in the sand and make money. They just don't want to come clean that all they care about is money, like A&E eventually did.
 

I really can't believe all the faeces being slung in this thread, can we be clear on one point here, what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct. (Unless, you are working on a cure for cancer according to horshack, then it is one rule for you, apparently, because that's how moral crusaders roll). Neither was he saying that assault or abuse is on any way ok. I mean he literally, directly stated that.
I believe he is saying the following, and I agree with all points:
1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation.
2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes.
3) When people make mistakes, deal with it appropriately.
How can I justify supporting these statements in the context of work place assault?
1) Come on. There was a clear ulterior motive to the BBC going public with this in the way they did and with the wording they used. They deliberately presented a very one sided point of view at a time when they had not even started investigating. The investigation was clearly a scam, a con, a public display of fairness when in reality the die was set from the moment they decided to go public.
2 & 3) Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself. Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated. Plenty on "lawyers" on here have been talking about the law in absolute terms in this thread, well how about this little nugget of British legislation: The employer has a duty of care towards their employees. Clarkson and Oisin were both employees, and the BBC have absolutely failed in their duty of care towards them both. They failed to help Clarkson with his problems, which they had a duty to do, and in failing to do so, they failed Oisin by putting him in direct contact with a man who had the problems and placed them both under stress by working them hard all day. What did they expect to happen? They could have stepped in at any moment, got Clarkson the help he quite clearly needs and never have had this happen. When a human being is suffering the problems that Clarkson is, the cowardly thing to do is to turn your back on them, get rid of them, cast them out of your group. The brave thing to do is to help them, to accept that "there but for the grace of God go I". In this case, Clarkson is even making the BBC so much money that paying for the help he needs would be a drop in the ocean - but that is a particularly cynical view, that a group of humans should only help another human if they are worth it.
All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset. A corporation is a human construct, one designed to gather and horde money. It is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Any human being who turns their back on another human in need of help to protect this capitalist machine is in my eyes, scum. They are stating loud and clearly "This machine created and designed to gather money is more important to me than the health and well being of any person, even one who has given their talent to help that machine gather money." Any person who has said, it doesn't matter, the BBC has plenty of talent who can do the job are saying "People are replaceable, we don't need to look after them properly. When we break one, we will put another in their place". And you're doing this under the banner of being a caring human being, you care about Oisin, so this monster who bashed him must be cast out. But you are brainwashed by the corporate culture we live in. Dystopia is here already, money, and the ability to gather it chooses our politicians and our laws which it happily ignores, it dictates what you eat, drink and how you will be treated if you are ill. Every single part of our lives is dictated to by faceless entities, using friendly names, reaching into your wallet to take your money from you. I once attended a conference on how to price your product - attended by someone I was making a documentary on. In the audience was a man who represented a baby food company. I watched as he cheered and hollered to the devious ways the presenter was showing them to raise the price of your product and I thought of my sister who had to choose at the time whether to buy food for her baby or for herself. I thought of this man cheering and hollering as he took so much money from my sister that she couldn't eat properly. That is capitalism. That is what you defend when you tell me that the BBC was correct to fire Clarkson.
So what should have happened? Simple, Clarkson should have been cared for by the BBC. They have a legal duty of care towards him. He is a human being and you are arrogant if you assume that you could never behave like that, all that means is that you have never been put under the kind of stress that would make you behave that way. You know that fame is not pleasant or enjoyable right? Today, I sat behind a camera as two people in front of it agreed that they hated the red carpet experience. This was not an isolated view, I am yet to meet any person for whom fame has been a positive to their mental health. Yes Clarkson makes a lot of money, but all the money in the world does not matter if you are under so much strain and pressure that you have serious problems. Time is the only currency with any meaning, as we have a limited amount of it. I don't care how many nice cars he buys, he has lost time to this stress and pressure that he will never get back. The BBC have chewed him up and spat him out when they felt they didn't want the bad publicity anymore. And what suffers? As has been rightly pointed out, not Top Gear, they will slot in a new cog, and start grinding them down with ridiculous hours and stress. Not the BBC, he's gone. Done and dusted. Not their responsibility any more. Not even Clarkson, this may actually be very good for him. It is the art of what we do and create that suffers. Like it or hate it, Clarksons Top Gear was. And art existing is important, even if you don't like it, even if you refuse to accept that it is art. Diversity in art is what makes it so important. I can't stand Tracy Emin, but if she stopped shitting in tents, the art I do like would be poorer because of her demise. For art, TV, cinema, literature, music et al to be healthy, it needs diversity. Without diversity and with corporate interference, you end up with bland, homogenized art/TV/cinema/literature/music made for the widest audience, in the safest way without risk. And this won't affect us, we grew up in a world where Clarkson entered out lives, gave us an opinion on the man, whatever that opinion was, it helped shape us. The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson, one less strong figure to be opinionated over, one more element of bland BBC security in the world.
Today was a bad day for the industry.
As for Oisin, he is the product of a millennia of genetic refinement, his ancestors have survived fire and ice, starvation and poor nutrition to pass his genes on. They hunted, gathered, became warriors to fight for their freedom. He'll get over a little split lip. He'll be absolutely fine.
And since when did we stop being annoyed at people who clog up hospitals with cuts and scrapes that can't be healed any quicker by having a doctor or nurse look at it?

Nope, as I have said, everyone does something that everyone doesn't like. So there would be literally zero communication, because if all tv was gone what next? Get rid of all the people who have once in private said something I don't like from acting in movies. Bang, no movies because we have no actors. Then what, stop them from writing. Bang, no writing ever again. Then ban them from speaking in public and singing. Bang, no-one can use their voice in front of anyone, because literally every human who has ever existed, in their brief, fleeting time on this earth, including your own past self, have said things and done things that you at this instant in time don't like. I think you exist in this "Mr Tumble" type space where everyone is either Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, with no nuance, no reasons, no expatiation and no grey areas. It must be nice to have such a simplistic, ignorant view of the world, but I wouldn't want to go back to that.

​Yes, you have - to some people in this world, not using derogatory terms for black people absolutely is "that reprehensible". But to move away from extremes, how do you drive on your way to work? Yesterday I mortally offended a group of cyclists because I dared pull over to use my phone, causing them to have to go in single file past me. He screamed through my window that the "fucking road is empty, why couldn't I take my call while driving like every one else". But when I see people on mobiles while driving, I get angry. So which do you do? Answer your mobile while driving, or pull over safely to answer it? Either way, you're going to piss someone off, to the point of screaming abuse at you through your car window. And yes, I did scream abuse at someone through their car window once as they were on a mobile driving. They had clipped me with their wing mirror. 
We're all different, what makes you such a special little flower that your sensibilities are the ones we have to adhere to? You're trying to be objective about subjective stuff, and while I admire that on a shallow level, you believe you are trying to make the world a better place, what you are really doing is trying to make the world a better place for you, fuck everyone else. Trust me, your own parents have said and done things you would find disgusting. I promise it's true, and you know what? It's OK. 
Some people find the idea that white people can say the word "nigger" a problem, some people do not. This is a matter of personal opinion and while you've made yours perfectly clear, you really do seem to be trying desperately to tell others who believe differently that their opinion is wrong. People who tell other people that the opinion their brain has formed based on chemistry and the release of hormones that a person is unable to control or influence in any way what so ever are trying to censor freedom of expression. You're asking them to say things that they do not believe to satisfy your own hormones, which is why this behaviour is so ridiculous. The brain chemistry will not change unless that person changes the nodal link pattern in their neural net. One way that can happen is through saying words that prompt an "epiphany" in a person. (If the epiphany is caused by a fundamentalist who convinced someone that murder is a good thing, we don't call it an ephiphany, we call it brainwashing.) If your words are not doing that, then that is not the targets deficiency, it's your inadequacy. Maybe you can explain what harm a white middle aged man saying the word in a private context, that is not meant to be seen by anyone but his cronies and deleted promptly actually does. Me, I'm saying the person who actually caused the harm was the person who published that white man saying the word to a global audience. You publish it, you take the responsibility, simple as that in my world. Us of all people know how you can edit the same data to tell two wildly different stories. I can never watch any video of anyone and assume that I know anything about that person. I can make judgements as to what the person who published the video wanted me to think, however, which tends to make me ask questions like "Why do you want me to think Clarkson is racist". When people try to control what you think, it's usually down to them trying to use you to get more power, money or make themselves more attractive to a potential partner.
By the way, why do Clarksons detractors constantly bring up his personal wealth and reference their own in a negative way, this isn't all rooted in jealousy, is it?