ac6000cw

I agree (as someone who has done all my editing for years on either gaming or workstation-class laptops). Generally, decent laptops in both of those categories should have cooling good enough for long-term high CPU and GPU loads, but you do need to choose carefully - and expect them to be noisy when they are working hard!
Also be careful when comparing desktop and laptop GPUs - they can have the same or very similar model numbers, but the laptop version might have different performance specs (and more aggressive thermal management) e.g. :
(info from Wikipedia) The desktop version of the nVidia Quadro RTX 4000 (100-125 watts Thermal Design Power):

...versus the mobile version (60-80 watts TDP):

I understand that a person can look at a larger quantity of footage and notice similarities and themes, but there are still a great number of un-accounted-for variables that can always bite you in the ass if you were to actually get that camera.
The general look that cameras have online is likely to be the default look, partly because most people don't know the first thing about colour grading and mostly because the people who are posting videos and specifying the model number of the camera are likely in the shallow end of the skills pool, so to speak.  The exception is cinematographers doing camera tests, but these have their own issues.
The challenge comes in when you try and change the image in post.  Try to add a bit more contrast and you might find that the image doesn't keep the things you liked about the look.  In fact, the nicer the image looks SOOC or with the default LUT on it, the more fragile the image might be because the more pushed it will be.  The most flexible images are the most neutral, and our brain doesn't like neutral images, it wants ones with the right herbs and spices already added.
There really is no substitute for actually shooting with the camera the way that you shoot, in the situations you shoot in, and then grade it the way you grade it, trying to get the look you want, with your level of skill.
TBH, most of the videos I see that have the name of the camera in them, that are graded with a "look", actually look pretty awful and amateurish to me.  Either this is their lack of skill as colourist to not be able to get the look they wanted, or they did get the look they wanted and the look is just awful, but it's not a promising picture either way.
I wonder how many of them are using colour management.
If a camera is a 10-bit LOG with decent bitrate then the camera is one CST away from being almost indistinguishable from any other camera.  Skin tones are a challenge of course, but when well-shot on capable equipment these are pretty straight-forward.
There's a few principles I think are at play here:
What I hear from high-level colourists is that if a project is well shot on capable equipment (without a "we'll fix it in post" mindset) then you can get your colour management setup, put a look in place, and 80% of the shots just fall into place.  Then the time can be spent refining the overall look, adding a specific look to certain scenes (night scenes, dream sequences, etc), fixing any problem shots, and then you'd do a fine-tune pass on all shots with very minor adjustments.
If it's not well shot to get it mostly right in-camera then you're in all sorts of trouble for post.
  If the client is inexperienced and doesn't know what they want, or they want something that is very different to how they shot the project.  It's very easy to see colour grading make big changes (e.g. shooting day for night) or see the amazing VFX work done by Hollywood etc, and assume that anyone with a grading panel and calibrated reference monitor can do anything with any footage.
  If the client is a diva, or is somehow mentally unbalanced.  Film-making is difficult enough to make almost anyone mentally unbalanced by the time they get to post-production and they're sitting with the colourist and every mistake done at any point on the project is becoming clearly visible on the huge TV in their studio.  Throwing a fit at this point is perhaps a predictable human reaction! One colourist I heard interviewed said that when they were colour grading rap videos in the 80's they had to tell one client who had about 20 people in the colour grading suite that the strippers, cocaine, and machine guns had to go back into the limo otherwise they wouldn't be able to colour grade the project.
Of course, none of this is the fault of the camera.
I'd even theorise that the brand of camera might be a predictor of how much the colour grading process was setup to fail - if people shot something on a Sony rather than a Canon you might find they're more likely to be a clueless and self-entitled influencer etc.  God help the colourists that are going to face a barrage of projects over the next few years shot on the FX3 where the person thinks the colourist can duplicate The Creator in post for a few thousand dollars! 
Also, the stronger the look you apply in post, the more those small colour science differences get lost in the wash.
It's also worth asking, do you think the colourists on reddit are the ones who are fully-booked with more professional clients who have realistic expectations, or the ones out there dealing with the stressed masses and going online to learn and vent?  My experience on the colourist forums is that the most experienced folks burn out from answering the same questions over and over again, and arguing with people who don't want to learn or put in the work, so the people who are there are mostly those early in their journeys.
Only you can know this, because what you love will be different to what anyone else loves.
But don't ask random strangers online, actually try it.... 
https://sonycine.com/testfootage/
https://zsyst.com/sony-4k-camera-page/sony-f55-sample-footage-downloadable-samples/
🙂 

CP16. 
Cinema Products brand…who were also making this new gadget called a Steadicam that’s about to be 50 years old.  
It was a common news film camera.  They also had mag film where the sound was recorded directly onto a mag stripe on the film itself.  It wasn’t as good as the open reel recorder of course.  
 
I used one on my first short movie.  It feels very cheap and lightweight but it was a staple.  

Ha!  Look at Tiffen putting all their info on there for a lens shade!!  Talk about padding your part.  How funny!
Could the lens be a 15-150mm T3.1?


 

I very much agree with that - the opposite of someone filling an answer with the latest buzzwords, fashion statements and acronyms to gloss over the fact that they don't really understand the subject.
I've been interested in science and engineering from quite young (the first book I ever bought was about electricity and magnetism). Favourite subject at secondary school was physics, helped a lot by an enthusiastic teacher who really understood the subject and could explain the fundamentals behind it very well. When I went on to study physics and electronics at university, in marked contrast some of the lecturers were terrible at explaining things in a simple fashion.
One lecturer in particular kept pushing his own textbook, which was just as impenetrable as his lectures, so some of us students just gave up and found a book that explained the basics of the subject much better, just to get us through the exam at the end of the year... (and it was a subject that in my subsequent electronic design engineering career I've become much more familiar with - so now I know it's mostly much less complicated than it seemed at the time).
"Simplicity is the essence of good design" I've found to be very true. If things start getting too complicated and messy in a project, it's usually a sign that I didn't set off in the right direction at the 'blank sheet of paper' stage.

It's definitely an Angenieux lens. Here are more shots and there's a Tiffen lens shade with writing on it. Only Angenieux has zooms machined like that. I found some better shots:


I'm fairly sure it's a "version" of the Angenieux 12-120mm, but I cannot guarantee it.
 

If it was a real working 16mm film camera, I don't think it would be an ENG (Electronic News Gathering) lens, as they are designed for professional portable video cameras (which in the late 1970s would have been triple vacuum tube image sensor cameras using a dichroic colour splitting prism, thus having a long flange-to-sensor optical path).
But of course in the movie it's basically a prop, so doesn't have to be a working camera.

I think that if you can possibly manage it, it's best to provide the simplification yourself rather than through external means.   This gives you flexibility in the odd example you need it, and doesn't lock you in over time.
The basic principle I recommend is to separate R&D activities from production.  Specifically, would recommend doing a test on the various ways you can do something, or tackle some problem, and the options for your workflow, evaluate the experience and results, then pick one and then treat it like that's your limitation.
I'm about to do one of those cycles again, where I've had a bunch of new information and now need to consolidate it into a workflow that I can just use and get on with it.
Similarly, I also recommend doing that with the shooting modes, as has happened here:
I find that simple answers come when you understand a topic fully.  If your answers to simple questions aren't simple answers then you don't understand things well enough.  I call it "the simplicity on the other side of complexity" because you have to work through the complexity to get to the simplicity.
In terms of my shooting modes I shoot 8-bit 4K IPB 709 because that's the best mode the GX85 has, and camera size is more important to me than the codec or colour space.  If I could choose any mode I wanted I'd be shooting 10-bit (or 12-bit!) 3K ALL-I HLG 200Mbps h264, this is because:
10-bit or 12-bit gives lots of room in post for stretching things around etc and it just "feels nice" 3K because I only edit on a 1080p timeline but having 3K would downscale some of the compression artefacts in post rather than have all the downscaling happening in-camera (and if I zoom in post it gives a bit more extension - mind you you can zoom to about 150% invisibly if you add appropriate levels of sharpening) ALL-I because I want the editing experience to be like butter HLG because I want a LOG profile that is (mostly) supported be colour management so I can easily change exposure and WB in post photometrically without strange tints appearing, and not just a straight LOG profile because I want the shadows and saturation to be stronger in the SOOC files so there is a stronger signal to compression noise ratio 200Mbps h264 because ALL-I files need about double the bitrate compared to IPB, and also I'd prefer h264 because it's easier on the hardware at the moment but h265 would be fine too (remembering that 3K has about half the total pixels at 4K) The philosophy here is basically that capturing the best content comes first, and the best editing experience comes next, then followed by the easiest colour grading experience, then the best image quality after that.  This is because the quality of the final edit is impacted by these factors in that order of importance.

...and is that a Nagra IV open-reel tape recorder the sound op is using?

I did a similar 1080p to 4k comparison with 10-bit 50p HEVC files from my OM-1 very recently (as a check after I'd updated the FW to the latest 1.6 version). 1080p is nominally 40Mbps and 4k is 150Mbps.
With the 1080p upscaled to 4k (using the FFMPEG zscale 'spline36' filter), at normal viewing distance on a 55" native 4k OLED TV I could tell them apart (as I know what to look for) but it's not easy. A normal viewer wouldn't notice. I've done the same comparisons in the past with files from my G9 with the same result.
As a consequence of this, most often I record in 1080p 10-bit and save 75% of the storage space, unless there is a reason to want maximum resolution/quality e.g. it's an 'unrepeatable' major trip or event, to allow for re-framing or extraction of 4k stills. For the last one (which is handy for wildlife), I often record at 4k 24/25/30p 10-bit as that is sharper on the OM-1 than 4k 50/60p, but use 1/100 shutter speed to reduce motion blur while being reasonably usable as video footage as well.

AFAIK, the GPU in the 'Ice Lake' CPUs has hardware decoding for up to 10-bit 4:2:0 HEVC i.e. 'Main 10' profile, assuming you have a Retina MacBook Air - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air_(Intel-based)#Retina_(2018–2020)
Any higher HEVC profile e.g. 10-bit 4:2:2 has to use software decoding on those machines.
Not surprised.
I often upload stuff to YouTube as 4k 50p using HEVC at 15-30 Mbps (using 'constant quality factor' encoding). I used to use higher bitrates, but decided it wasn't worth the extra storage space/upload time. HEVC is generally a very efficient (quality versus bitrate) compression codec.

Below is an approximate comparison of transfer curve for various Log and Sony's three versions of HLG.
From the Bolex PDF above:

The three versions of HLG that Sony cameras support (from https://xtremestuff.net/sony-and-hybrid-log-gamma-hlg/ ) - HLG3 (upper curve) is the closest to the Rec. 2100 standard :

A chart of various Log formats from https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64243940 (note the 3 EV spread in the high EV limit between the various curves). The highest DR curves look to be C-Log2, S-Log3 and V-Log - but of course they do that by being flatter in the important mid-range area i.e. fewer levels per EV, increasing the chance of banding if pushed too far in post. Note this chart is -10 to +10 EV vs. IRE 0 to 110%, the other two are -8 to +8 EV vs. 10-bit digital code values.

Definitely - it's why I like the way Olympus/OMDS IBIS operates on the OM-1 & E-M1 iii. When I use proDAD Mercalli for stabilisation in post I usually choose the 'Glide Cam' option, which gives a floatier feel with lower warping artefacts (and less cropping) than the default 'Universal Cam' setting.

I agree (having owned 10 of their hybrid cameras and 2 camcorders in the last 15 years).
Panasonic has a long heritage in professional video (going back over 60 years) and it shows. I think the GH5 became a very popular camera for video because it was a good all-round, reliable, video tool in most situations, rather than excelling in any particular area at the expense of others or having a specific SOOC 'look'. 
For a bit of fun, this is 9 year old, basically SOOC, FHD 50p video from a Panasonic LX7 'enthusiast compact' with a small 10MP 1/1.7" sensor. There's some obvious aliasing/jaggies and I think the reds/oranges in particular are exaggerated. But for a camera launched in 2012 that fitted in the palm of one hand and weighed 270g I think it is reasonably decent (and could be improved in post). SOOC video from a G6, GX85 or G80 would leave it in the dust though, having much less aliasing and better balanced colours.
 

I agree (having owned 10 of their hybrid cameras and 2 camcorders in the last 15 years).
Panasonic has a long heritage in professional video (going back over 60 years) and it shows. I think the GH5 became a very popular camera for video because it was a good all-round, reliable, video tool in most situations, rather than excelling in any particular area at the expense of others or having a specific SOOC 'look'. 
For a bit of fun, this is 9 year old, basically SOOC, FHD 50p video from a Panasonic LX7 'enthusiast compact' with a small 10MP 1/1.7" sensor. There's some obvious aliasing/jaggies and I think the reds/oranges in particular are exaggerated. But for a camera launched in 2012 that fitted in the palm of one hand and weighed 270g I think it is reasonably decent (and could be improved in post). SOOC video from a G6, GX85 or G80 would leave it in the dust though, having much less aliasing and better balanced colours.
 

Sigma have announced that they are releasing a range of RF mount lenses, indicating that Canon have softened their “no 3rd party lenses” stance.
I say softened rather than abandoned as, whilst these lenses are fully licensed by them, they do not include any full frame lenses.
At least for now.
The initial offerings are the two f2.8 zooms and four f1.4 primes from Sigma’s Contemporary range that have been available in other mounts for a few years now.

The 18-50mm is the first one that will be available but it is not until July and the others will follow in the Autumn.
No word on prices but they are usually similar in different mounts so you can take that as a rough guide, although maybe there will be an additional cost on top for the official licensing from Canon.
Good news for owners of crop RF cameras to have different options and also for people using the KOMODO (or maybe we should call it the NIKOMODO now).
Full details here 
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/contents/sigma_rfmount_lenses/

Yeah I heard the original question, and I think that while the posts diving into complex grading are fascinating and useful to those of us who do post, I know that getting good color SOOC is a separate question.
One big point about your question is that it doesn't break down by manufacturer. Not all REDs look the same, not all Sonys look the same, etc. I think the Sony FX6 looks fine, but I dislike the FS7. Also, most cameras have different profiles. Sometimes, there is greater  difference between profiles on the same camera, than between normal/natural/standard/default/whatever profiles on many different cameras. And even within a profile, you'll have totally different results based on how many controls you leave on auto (such as WB) and your lens.
SOOC and minimal grading are completely different. SOOC excludes log profiles, for one thing.
There is budget as well. Best SOOC ever? Alexa 35, probably. Under $10k? C500mkII gets my vote. Under $2k? Nikon Z6 is solid. Are you including lenses in your budget? I like the color out of my Canon L 24-105 better than that of my Canon 50 1.8 (tested on Sony A7rII). Though I have also used terrible lenses for specific scenes, specifically to make them less appealing.
If you want a specific answer or even a specific discussion, ask a more specific question because your original question is extremely open ended--which is fine to start with! But it's probably more useful and interesting to narrow the parameters a bit.

My feeling is that H quality would be better than the lowest available bitrate in the camera (20mbps H.264 8bit) as it's 12mbps H.265 AND 10bit. I think the compression is about the same but with more color information. I haven't really tried the M quality- the compression seems massive in that though. It would probably depend on the scene. The quality of the H Proxy really looks quite acceptable. The L quality was a huge step down though. I'll need to try the M setting tomorrow.
Concerning the EOIS at the wide lenses and vlogging style videos, it seems rather unnatural (as the video above indicated). Sure, it the background looks stable, but the subject seems to bounce around everywhere like a pinball. I think it's probably better as a traditional gimbal replacement where the camera's a little further from the subject and the operator is carefully walking. I have the Panasonic 70-300mm lens and it has great Dual IS 2. I haven't really noticed an improvement to already one of the most stable setups on the market. In face, I'd say the EOIS interferes with the OIS of the lens. Again, I need more testing.

For my own stuff, I prefer it to be as 'faithful as possible' to the original scene, within the limits of the tools I've got and the amount of time I'm prepared to spend fiddling with it. I don't care what someone else wants to categorise that as, but I suspect it would come under your 'video' category.
Personally the parts of the production process I find most interesting are being out-and-about recording the content, the basic editing (the clip choice, 'flow' and the cutting) and getting the best out of the ambient sound. Adjusting the image doesn't usually get much more advanced for me than brightness, contrast, saturation and sharpness, unless there's a clip that's particularly 'off' what I think it should look like in the lighting conditions at the time.
But I'm perfectly happy respecting and enjoying other peoples artistic choices, including abstract art (which is inherently non-realistic). But nobody likes every piece of art they view...

...and another one (I quite like his style, plus he's a Panasonic micro43 and Sony user as well):
 

...and if they had picked one up and shot with it, they might like or dislike it for reasons unrelated to the video it can produce (like where the buttons are, how the menus work, battery life, monitoring options etc.).

For general video, I prefer a small amount of 'float' in the stabilisation - it looks more natural.
For handheld or monopod long telephoto video, I need all the stability I can get, so it's Panasonic 'IS Boost' or Oly/OMDS '+1' level stabilisation in that situation for me.

To be fair, I vaguely remember the OP stating at some point that he/she likes to have discussions about gear. And let's be honest, this forum is primarily a gear forum. Perhaps the OP should mention that this discussion isn't necessarily about a decision he's currently planning on making and instead it's about learning and gathering information.
With that said, @kye has a fair point. These cameras are only tools for creative endeavors. These cameras will not make the film or  color grade your film or make your film good. At the end of the day, story is king.
I would suggest to the OP that they take some time and go back and look what people were creating when the DSLR revolution began. Look at t2i and GH2 videos to see what was possible with limited resolution, DR and resources.

One of the reasons that people are getting frustrated is that you're "asking basic questions," but then basically ignoring a lot of the answers.  It's like you keep asking what saw makes the best cabinets.  When people tell you that you need more than a saw, you start asking people to compare brands of saws.  
Which cameras has the best color and in-camera noise reduction?  All of them.  Also, none of them.  Go to NAB and ask 100 people on the floor.  Every one of them will be completely correct.  Every one of them will be completely incorrect.  How do you know?  Ask almost any of the others.
It is also a bit frustrating that you are asking questions that seem like you are trying to choose which camera to buy and after you receive a bunch of answers, you shift your focus and start asking again.
If you want somebody to yell at you about which camera has the best colors, go to YouTube.  There are dozens of people shouting about how the camera that they bought is the best camera ever.  Then just try to ignore the other videos from all the people saying it's the worst camera ever.  Heck, there are already dozens of videos just about the Pyxis talking about how it's the best camera released in years or the most ho-hum camera announcement so far this year.  Bonus: almost none of the people with those videos has even seen a Pyxis in person, much less actually shot with one.

Not at all surprised - doing that is far more complex and creative than the simple documentary stuff I normally produce.