austinchimp

Yes OK.

Many people here praise the footage coming out from Panasonic S1, especially the 10 bit h265 422 LongGOP @150mbps
Is there any chance you could include it in the comparison, as well, @Andrew Reid?

ProRes is factually a derivative of MPEG-2, that's why it's so light on CPUs. It compensates its old codec technology through high bitrates, thus the generally good quality.

h264 and h265 will always be better than ProRes at the same bitrates, provided that a decent codec implementation (with high profile and 10bit color depth) is being used.
So the question is whether 400 Mbit/s h265 (in the case of the Fuji XT-4) for 4K/25p video is visually as good as ProRes HQ at 737 Mbit/s for the same resolution and frame rate... 
 
EDIT: The real issue with h264 and h265 are not the codecs themselves, but that manufacturers - treating them as consumer codecs - bake all kinds of overdone image processing (aggressive denoising, artificial sharpening, pushed contrasts) into material recorded with them. ProRes, being conversely treated as a "pro" codec, doesn't get those over-processed images. This is why we think that ProRes is better...

I think you're a consumerist idiot.
Genuinely - if you don't want hyped prices... why cut and paste a YouTube hype piece about it all over Internet forums.
And then say "NOOOOOOOO"
What are you? a 12 years old?
This shill likely trawls this forum for content ideas - This thread being one. Which is why you see his F3 hype piece and smirky expression.
Where do you think he genuinely got the idea for buying an F3 from?
Do you really think he has a single original idea of his own?
Youtube - the gold standard for scientific research 😂
And his stuff is that boring too, I can't get past the first 15 seconds

That's exactly what I did. I kept the X-T3 as it's a lovely camera to use and compact, but the S1 beats it in photo and video quality in every way (except autofocus...)

Exactly. The exposure needs to be motivated. It is difficult to force shots that don't exist, especially if you're trying to match contrast through out an entire piece. This is why shooting log footage without a LUT gets confusing.
Different colors will appear differently depending on how they are exposed, obviously. The Canon, Red, and Arri all make sure green hold saturation even at the top of the image. All the LUTS you will use are probably balanced for a more standard exposure. If you're doing things like pushing highlights and extreme ETTR, you'll run into problems with saturation on certain colors.
Looking at your frames makes me want one of these cameras again. I really love how the footage looks. I owned one 3 years ago. I remember I messed with some of the baked in profiles, those looked really nice as well. Maybe Production Standard? I can't remember. I use the C300 Mk2 now so I get them mixed up. The color seemed a bit thicker than if I shot C-LOG and tried to match what a baked in profile was giving me.
You can do a lot in post with those files but you need to know what you want to do when you get into the edit. With the violinist,  I would assume you'd want to compensate for the under exposure and then maybe throw some sort of "power windows" or gradient exposure on the clouds to keep some of that beautiful blue sky and green trees.
With the portrait test shot / you're essentially exposing for the shadows because of how the light is hitting you. If you opened up to your left slightly and had a bit of diffusion, you could drop the whole image down by a few stops and get a more rich / darker background. As is, the light is kind of a back light / side light.
Here is what I came up with on the two frames. I don't have resolve, this is just Magic Bullet Looks in Premiere Pro. I don't have a color checker, but your WB is great so it's not that difficult to just level it out and tweak a few color with the HSL sliders. I did my best to try to match the two frame just for fun.
 

This is great!

Hey, so I had the Lumix S1 and the P4K for a while and this project was great to test it. I love the image coming out from the S1 (shot everything to V-Log, 10bit), but the BMDraw held up so much better in the grading process. I believe we shot everything to 8:1 RAW, 60fps than conformed it to 24.
All the band performances and non-slowmo stuff was shot with the S1 + Samyang VDSLR lenses, mostly 50mm, wide open at T1.5. All speedramped stuff was shot with the P4K.
The ligting setup was fairly simple:
Band performance: 2x Photo-R COB lights with softboxes + backlight
Jury: Aputuer 300D + Lightdome + backlights
Stage performances: 300D + fresnel (which I regret now a bit, maybe a softer light would be much better) + 2800K rimlights.
We also used prisms to add some sweetness and surreal feel to the image. 
The whole video was shot in one place, in maybe 14 hours with a crew of 4 people (dir, dp, 1st ac, grip).
I edited everything in Premiere Pro than spent weeks and months to grade it with lumetri. By the time I got familiar with resolve, so I exported everything to Resolve and graded it in maybe 2 days. Still not perfect, but still better than what I've got from premiere. 
Anyways, let me know what you think  Don't get confused with the multilingual intro, turn on the subtitles please (we did everything to do a proper translation 😄 ). Cheers!
 

Still such a beautiful  skintone and the dual-gain sensor is lovely.

But ya know, the associated grip and batteries and so on... it'l all massive. 

TBH if I have a production hwere i can have crew i just hire it. If I don't I'll use the S1H, and turn up with nearly everything in a Peli 1510,  it's pretty close in footage looks.

Looks great! Love the colours - how did you grade it? Looks Arri-ish

After firmware 2.0 I see less reasons to do so. Would love some more less cropped high frame rate options.
Overall 2.0 is quite impressive for V-Log.

Magenta tint seems gone
Orange/yellow lights won't burst into noise anymore
Sharpening seems to be turned off
Noise reduction -1 fixes the motion related issues, also much nicer grain pattern which matches the framerate (temporal NR seems to be gone entirely)
 
Here's a small test I did for an upcoming music video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pUW5itKQn2Jjz1pqkqh4sPxB-IgnOWgE/view?usp=sharing

There is a lot of unmotivated 'convinience' camera work out there today.
I am making a 3 legged stand
Tarkovsky would not use IBIS for a static shot
Kubrick would not dump his Steadicam operator for a gimbal and drone.
Some of the gimbal stuff is even worse than IBIS. Movement for the sake of it. No purpose. Tacky. Lazy.

But but but Video IS easy!     So is stills photography.
FILM making on the other hand is very difficult.
I am not now and never will be a film maker.     
Every time I tried, my mind would just be blank (permanent writers block??).
 
  I am (I think) a reasonable photographer and my videos  pretty much consist of bands playing songs live and that is as simple as finding a spot, putting the camera on a tripod with mic facing the band, set camera to suit and hit record and turn off after the song.    From time to time a few very short videos experimenting with stuff as well.      The new little Sony vlogging RX1## camera would be great for me (not that i will get it) I would not use it for vlogging but to do the same as i do with my A7s for recording songs but in a tiny package that would make it even easier.

I can confirm the 1990's and well into the 2000's.  The type of cameraman making a decent living in my corner of the world never required any particularly creative skills.  In many ways, it still doesn't, but if you were a shooter with even a semblance of knowledge and some kind of refinement, you'd be at an advantage because you knew how to run the beast camera systems.  Film cameras, an Ikagami NTSC tube cam, "portable" 3/4" tape deck...that sort of thing.   
However, because you can point a camera obviously doesn't mean squat now that everyone's got 'em.
Yeah, back in the day just getting access to the gear and learning the basics of the craft could get you through.  I could push a GrassValley switcher to it's analog limits and edit quickly and cleanly on any linear tape deck system, so that skill set had value for a time.  But that's the other side of the coin for being enamored with technology and putting your focus on that side of things.  It's always going to change and advance.  Tiger by the tail stuff.
OTOH, the practice of composition, storytelling, lighting. etc.  That's pretty solid.  I don't think the "passive viewer" aspect of story telling is going away anytime soon.  We all still want to gather around the fire and be told stories. 

I completely agree with all of this and echo that same experience.
The worst shot that I took in a Champions League final was always ten times better subjectively to a viewer (and to me too) than the best shot I ever took in a lower league match.
A man jogging along on some grass with a ball at his feet and no one within ten metres of him is a pretty dull shot unless that man was Lionel Messi and that grass was the pitch at the Camp Nou and the people that were ten metres away were part of a sell out crowd of 100,000 people.
I'd also 100% agree about finding interesting subject matter away from that environment and back in the "real" world particularly for someone like me who was into self isolation way before it became mainstream.
I'm partly "all the gear and no idea" when it comes to video but thanks to my somewhat, erm, challenging personality I'm mainly "plenty of lens but not many friends" so lack collaborative partners or subjects.
Its unfortunate but, as you say, best to make peace with it.

I love slider shots. And it feels like today there is an obsession with gimbals. Honestly the shots most people do with gimbals looks boring now a days, and even when trying to keep the gimbal steady, the camera obviously looks like it’s floating.  I like the look of a slider. It looks like a gimbal moving, but without the “floating in the air thing.”  They aren’t used too much, and one can make beautiful camera movements with one. There is something about the camera being locked down and moving compared to a gimbal where the camera is “floating and moving.”

I always think that shooting video is like having to think in 5 dimensions at all times - particularly as a one man band. You're thinking about the 3 physical dimensions you're occupying with your body, your equipment, the physical space of your subject, your environment, where is the light, is the sound ok..
You're also thinking about movement  and time - where is something coming from, where is it going, how long is the shot. And you're also projecting part of your mind to the edit, where future-you, or an editor, is sitting down to view your rushes and working out how it all goes together. Added to that any interaction with the subject in a documentary setting where you're also trying to chat, ask questions, capture something real. Yes, it's really hard.
Most of the youtubers, for obvious and understandable reasons, create content in environments where they are in control - whether that be standing with a long lens on a tripod where you can pick off shots from a distance, or in their bedrooms.
What, for me, it all boils down to is this: The craft and technique and equipment are 2%, and what is happening in front of the camera is 98%. That's why you're probably frustrated if you're reading this with thousands of dollars worth of top equipment around you but nothing to point it at. There are very, very few people who can shoot mundane things and make something great out of it. Not many Dziga Vertovs or Ron Frickes around.
An amazing tornado or once in a lifetime sporting play captured on a shit camera is worth 1000x the most beautifully crafted shot of your cat. Perhaps one of the problems is that there are so many people with cameras now in the world, and in actual fact so little of the world is 'cinematic' or lends itself to being filmed. That's not to say there aren't great stories everywhere, but not everything works well on screen.
Likewise the reason we enjoy professional movies and tv isn't because they have the best equipment and budgets, although that obviously doesn't hurt. It's because there's millions of dollars in value in front of the camera - the greatest and most beautiful actors, spectacular scenes, great scripts and stories that have taken years of man-hours to craft. Without that, the best DP in the world would have nothing.
My final comment on Phillip Bloom - not everything he does is my cup of tea, but he's certainly very skilled and knowledgable. He's had the bravery to put his face and name out there on the internet, and also you may criticise his work for being mostly slow mo shots of people doing nothing shot with a 100-400mm, but to me the fact that it's usually watchable and evocative to some degree is pretty great. As we've all seen in this forum, that's a hard trick to pull off.
I've worked solidly for 15 years or so now shooting and editing big sporting events internationally, and doing some corporate, and honestly while I think I'm ok at what I do, if I wasn't shooting something with millions of dollars of value flying past my lens, my work wouldn't be interesting. I'm not what makes it interesting. I try to do personal work sometimes and I find it a struggle and it's never something I'd share here, just memories for my family and friends mainly, or tests for myself. I don't think my daily life is that cinematic or interesting to people on the internet. I've tried to make peace with that.

I always think that shooting video is like having to think in 5 dimensions at all times - particularly as a one man band. You're thinking about the 3 physical dimensions you're occupying with your body, your equipment, the physical space of your subject, your environment, where is the light, is the sound ok..
You're also thinking about movement  and time - where is something coming from, where is it going, how long is the shot. And you're also projecting part of your mind to the edit, where future-you, or an editor, is sitting down to view your rushes and working out how it all goes together. Added to that any interaction with the subject in a documentary setting where you're also trying to chat, ask questions, capture something real. Yes, it's really hard.
Most of the youtubers, for obvious and understandable reasons, create content in environments where they are in control - whether that be standing with a long lens on a tripod where you can pick off shots from a distance, or in their bedrooms.
What, for me, it all boils down to is this: The craft and technique and equipment are 2%, and what is happening in front of the camera is 98%. That's why you're probably frustrated if you're reading this with thousands of dollars worth of top equipment around you but nothing to point it at. There are very, very few people who can shoot mundane things and make something great out of it. Not many Dziga Vertovs or Ron Frickes around.
An amazing tornado or once in a lifetime sporting play captured on a shit camera is worth 1000x the most beautifully crafted shot of your cat. Perhaps one of the problems is that there are so many people with cameras now in the world, and in actual fact so little of the world is 'cinematic' or lends itself to being filmed. That's not to say there aren't great stories everywhere, but not everything works well on screen.
Likewise the reason we enjoy professional movies and tv isn't because they have the best equipment and budgets, although that obviously doesn't hurt. It's because there's millions of dollars in value in front of the camera - the greatest and most beautiful actors, spectacular scenes, great scripts and stories that have taken years of man-hours to craft. Without that, the best DP in the world would have nothing.
My final comment on Phillip Bloom - not everything he does is my cup of tea, but he's certainly very skilled and knowledgable. He's had the bravery to put his face and name out there on the internet, and also you may criticise his work for being mostly slow mo shots of people doing nothing shot with a 100-400mm, but to me the fact that it's usually watchable and evocative to some degree is pretty great. As we've all seen in this forum, that's a hard trick to pull off.
I've worked solidly for 15 years or so now shooting and editing big sporting events internationally, and doing some corporate, and honestly while I think I'm ok at what I do, if I wasn't shooting something with millions of dollars of value flying past my lens, my work wouldn't be interesting. I'm not what makes it interesting. I try to do personal work sometimes and I find it a struggle and it's never something I'd share here, just memories for my family and friends mainly, or tests for myself. I don't think my daily life is that cinematic or interesting to people on the internet. I've tried to make peace with that.

Yes, video is very hard. The difference between, for instance, wedding video and photography is almost ridicilous. 
I have seen photographers literally just burst firing away at the wedding cake whilst moving the camera. One of those 30 pics should be alright, not? 
And if not, you just crop and enhance the 30 MP 14-bit raw image until it looks good, with a bunch of downloaded Lightroom presets. Also, the shooting is done on auto iso, auto focus, auto shutter speed, etc. The difference couldnt be greater. No audio, no capturing complete stories or scenes,  no camera movement, no keeping the focus, no 'shit people might move in front of my camera soon', just recompose and burst away. And yet they earn the same or more. And girls drool over them. The last one was a joke. But not really. 
But then, lets talk about actual film making. I just finished my first feature film script. Jesus christ, i have a lot of respect for writers now. What a task, to do it properly. And it's never finished. There is always room for improvement. Of course I wrote something that needs a big production budget and a lot of visual effects... Impossible to pull of without major funding or a production company. But then, i will probably not be given the chance to direct. Difficult. 
But working on proper film productions is the only way forward. No more messing around with cheap and soap like short films. Or test video's. Cat video's. Travel video's. They were interesting when i started out, but also because camera's were just getting better and content was interesting just because it was shot with a certain camera. Those days are over. Every modern camera looks good. Its a done deal. 
Also, there a literally millions and millions of video's online now who do the same thing. Everyone seems to do the same. Billions of GB's of test video's, flowers with shallow dof, their girlfriend in slowmo in the park, their last holiday with a cheese voice over to make it look like there is a narrative, city shots without meaning, etc. 
I cannot look at it anymore. It's the 'easy' version of film making. You point your expensive big sensor camera at random stuff and expect that people will want to watch your 'film'. There is no story, no narrative. Also not when you add a voice over in post. Or music you ripped from another youtube video. 
Yes i am very harsh. Also on myself. I want to make real films. I am talented, but i'm not sure i have enough of it. And i will ever make the high end narrative stuff that i appreciate from selective other people. 
And... If i will ever fully enjoy it. Because film making is indeed hard. Long, exhausting days on the set. The stress. The constant 'will this even work'. 
But, when you finally do create something which has story, performance and production value and it all comes together and actually does work, it is the most beatiful form of art that exists. 
When you blow the audience or your clients away, in retrospect it was all worth it. 
Or was it? 
 

Not sure whether this forum here is the right place for this video...

However nice the cameras may be, I have no idea how Panasonic plans to make a success of this system. The most likely target market is high-end Nikon and Canon shooters, but they’re used to their respective brands, have a stable of lenses, and want autofocus that works. Micro 4/3 shooters moving up? Maybe a few, but there’s no interoperability between systems. They could just as easily move to R or Z mount, or even Fuji. That leaves video shooters, but are there enough to make this viable? 

I feel the same way about the comparison between the S1 and the XT3. I tried so hard to love the XT3, and I do love its form factor and many things about it, but the image quality of the S1 is far superior in both video and stills. In fact, I'm always amazed by how many people rave about the XT3 in reviews. I'm assuming there have been no IQ improvements in the XT4.
The XT3 dynamic range is quite lacking in some situations, and the image fidelity - the detail - is kind of mushy and almost phone-quality at time. The biggest deal breaker was the photo quality in raw, which I find to be smeary and lacking in detail. I've used all the raw converters, C1 etc but didn't find anything that got really clean and sharp images. Maybe because I'm comparing APS-C to full frame? The S1 photos are 100% more detailed, although the fuji colour is great.
In video the S1 detail, cleanness, dynamic range and colour is in a different league. I'd say the S1, along with the S1H (which I tested for a couple of weeks) is the best video image quality I've seen from any hybrid, and I've tried and owned many. For reference, the best absolute video image quality I've experienced is the Ursa Mini 4.6k which I owned for a year or so. I preferred the image to the Red Epic Dragon. I also had the ZCam E2 for a while which was great, but ultimately I wanted a hybrid camera. The S1 quality in 25fps is as good if not better than the E2 in prores. E2 slow motion - 50fps 4k and above -  was far better though.

I feel the same way about the comparison between the S1 and the XT3. I tried so hard to love the XT3, and I do love its form factor and many things about it, but the image quality of the S1 is far superior in both video and stills. In fact, I'm always amazed by how many people rave about the XT3 in reviews. I'm assuming there have been no IQ improvements in the XT4.
The XT3 dynamic range is quite lacking in some situations, and the image fidelity - the detail - is kind of mushy and almost phone-quality at time. The biggest deal breaker was the photo quality in raw, which I find to be smeary and lacking in detail. I've used all the raw converters, C1 etc but didn't find anything that got really clean and sharp images. Maybe because I'm comparing APS-C to full frame? The S1 photos are 100% more detailed, although the fuji colour is great.
In video the S1 detail, cleanness, dynamic range and colour is in a different league. I'd say the S1, along with the S1H (which I tested for a couple of weeks) is the best video image quality I've seen from any hybrid, and I've tried and owned many. For reference, the best absolute video image quality I've experienced is the Ursa Mini 4.6k which I owned for a year or so. I preferred the image to the Red Epic Dragon. I also had the ZCam E2 for a while which was great, but ultimately I wanted a hybrid camera. The S1 quality in 25fps is as good if not better than the E2 in prores. E2 slow motion - 50fps 4k and above -  was far better though.

I decided to stick with my S1 instead of upgrading to the S1H or switching over to pocket 6k or zcam f6. 
The S1 for web delivery is basically identical to the S1H minus the 6k. Again, one has to factor the devices for most people viewing your content. Most dont even have 4k monitors and limited to 1080 on their phones. 
Second, for paid gig, a Ninja V is almost required anyway for monitoring plus ease of editing of prores /dnx files. 
 
The AF is not great, but for its usable for certain shots. The 24-105 kit lens is also the most versatile kit lens with the macro capability and being parfocal.
 
I was thinking of getting the XT4 but as I go back to my f log XT3 files vs vlog S1 files I just get reminded how great the S1 image quality is. I use a black pro mist to soften some of the sharpness

@jgharding just keep using the emotive color Luts, they're not an exact match like they are with the GH5, but I use them on the S1 all the time and it looks awesome. Can get both cameras to match quite easily with minimal tweaking