User

This sentence is rich with things to ponder...  EOSHD forums are The Pub, but now I hear there's a couch recliner??  and that it's possible to leave here as a better adjusted member of society???
I guess you learn something every day!

It depends on the project. You can't create universal rules, because as soon as you do, it's open season for everyone to try to break that rule. Like if you try to define film genres, someone will make a crossover. The only real rule is that you need to be able to watch your own work and evaluate what feeling a tool creates in the specific case of your project. But anyway, here are some examples off the top of my head:
- In Children of Men, there are amazing long takes that show the real-time unfolding of events. Slow motion would be inappropriate as it would eliminate the realism.
- Thor Raganarok uses extreme slow motion at a few key moments to show look like a slightly moving 2D image, like a comic page brought to life. It's a montage use, where we've got Led Zeppelin, popcorn, and are ready to groove with the movie.
- In Leone westerns, like Once Upon a Time in the West, I don't believe any slow motion is used. Instead, the actors move slowly as they feel out each other's defenses in these drawn out duels. And then it's over in the blink of an eye. Slow motion would take away from the blink-and-you-miss-it tension, and would sacrifice that overwhelming tension for visual spectacle
- Hacksaw Ridge used a lot of slow motion in battle scenes. I thought it was a bad choice, as it turned this terrible, violent war into a Hollywood action spectacle. The story is about a pacifist medic, and instead it's like "whoa! look at that explosion! that dude is flying! Yeah, action movie!" It looked cool, but was at odds with the movie's theme.
- Action movies almost always use slow motion for really cool set pieces so we can better see the effects or action. Terminator 2, when the frozen terminator explodes, is a good example. It's entirely about pacing: A single slow motion shot to wrap up an intense action scene, a moment that tells you to breath after you've been holding your breath.

When you down convert 4K 8-bit down to 1080 you get 4:4:4 colour space and depending on a bunch of different factors, you will get a result that is somewhere between 8-bit and 10-bit.
Going into the technicalities of why this occurs will derail the thread somewhat so I'd suggest looking it up and reading about it to anyone that questions this.  

It definitely is my favorite to work with from the Sound Department perspective, is the friendliest of all the ARRIs
 
Never been on set with a F35, is that F35 is a much tougher camera to work with during a shoot.

While the AMIRA at a biiiiiiiiiiiig stretch it could be used by a "solo operator"

Agreed, but none the less I'm glad the new Sound Devices 833 is going to be recording to TRIPLE media!

Granted, a hypercardioid is generally preferable to a shotgun indoors (reflections 'hollow out' the sound of a shotgun; hypercardioids incorporate reflections in a more natural way). One can put up sound dampening material, but it's production time (better to just have a hyper at hand). An MKH50 would have been a better match to the NTG3 methinks, and safer indoors. The SCX1 would be preferable to the average shotgun indoors (NTG3 is exceptional). In a tile bathroom with a deep voice, the SCX1 would have been noticeably richer than the NTG3

+1, I was able to test the C200 before buying one. It has a small learning curve and the exposure is different based on the profiles (WDR, Log, raw, etc.). Definitively need to do some test before shooting for real.
Yes, the DPAF was important for me in my decision to go with Canon but it's not magical neither. Better than all the other Pro cam as this point but it still hunt and breathe in some situation or with older lenses and non canon lenses. But overall, that's a very useable, natural and fast AF system for that type of Camera. The C200 AF is more advanced than the one on the C100 and C300.
Unless you need 60p for slo-mo.
Depends of the use and if you can pay it back quickly. As for 4K, this is not really an issue anymore. I always shoot in 4k even to deliver 1080 footage unless the delivery requires it. 4k footage is not big on the C200 (150mbps like the GH5) and modern computer handle it well. So it's not going to fill up hard drive and create bottleneck on normal editing station.

I can give you a little bit of info on the C200 as I just bought one after using it last week.
The 8 bits footage looks very good. There is really something with Canon footage. The Wide Dynamic Range profile is very easy to grade if you don't want to go all the way to C-log 1 and 2. I probably prefer Canon 8bits footage than Sony 10bits. That being said, it might be a no go for broadcast situation. The lack of middle ground codec is huge dick move from Canon. Usual with this company. And don't expect to record 4k raw/10 bits with an external recorder as the SDI/HDMI out is limited to 2k. The definitive proof that Canon crippled this camera intentionally to protect the C300/C500 line... There is no 4k DCI in 8 bits. Only in raw Raw is very heavy (15 min per 128GB) and the Cfast cards are ridiculously expensive. This is also a dead media. The raw footage is nice but it needs a lot of work, it comes out very grainy and you'll need to denoise which adds more time to the already long workflow. The 120fps footage is crap, DPAF is not available in this mode Overall, the 4k footage is on the soft side. Not bad but don't expect to crop in that much. The C300 will give you the middle ground 10bits codec but you'll loose the 60p
I went with the C200 because it's still a nice package for the price, the camera is relatively small with nice features such as strong ND10 and DPAF. I also have a lot of EF lenses. Low light is good. Perhaps you should rent one before buying it. The C100 is cheap but also cheaply made (eg. horrible EVF).
I'm not a fan of Sony so I discarded the FS5 and FS7. The Ursa mini is not run and gun camera which is what I need. ISO craps out at 800. Finally the EVA1 was very tempting but it's not perfect neither (bad screen, no EVF).

I'll try to upload a couple of 8bits video sample from my C200 when it gets there so you can see by yourself.

Probably lots of us do camera tests, but who does experiments?
Like, make a film:
using only one lens (or with that crazy lens) only looking up / down with no people with only people walking away with only peoples faces only close-ups non-standard compositions (mostly sky and everything in the bottom quarter of the screen) multiple shots at the same time (eg, like Sliding Doors, or 24) strange speeds, like all footage is sped up or run backwards nothing is in-focus no dialogue dialogue without any pauses in-between start with music or soundscapes you've never worked with and shoot something to match them etc and by 'make a film' I just mean take a bunch of shots and put them together, it doesn't have to have narrative or anything.  I guess in a way these might be experimental or even abstract films.
I'm thinking about doing more of these myself, just to do things and see what happens.  Explore new angles and ideas.  Learn how they feel and what they do.  It's only trying new things that we can find things to add to our normal style.

and the EOSHD Nihilist quote of the day goes to..........   *drum roll*
???

I use aperture-priority mode and auto-ISO in combination with zebras.  It does the heavy lifting for me, and if I notice that something is pushing into zebras range (I can't recall if I set zebras to 100% or less) then I will manually lower exposure compensation in order to keep the highlights.  My GH5 has decent DR and I prefer a less saturated look that shows more DR and doesn't crush the highlights/shadows.  To do this I shoot HLG and try to capture the whole DR of the image without clipping and then adjust brightness in post to equalise exposures.  As I shoot in 10-bit I can push the image around quite a bit in post and it's not in danger of breaking, so I have that latitude.
This fits my "capture everything and make the look in post" approach.  If you're trying to get it right in-camera then obviously this isn't how to approach it!

Setup a test scene with some shadows/highlights, some bright colours (a test chart is great but not needed), and some skin tones.  Film it with your camera at varying exposures, I'd suggest "properly" exposed and +1, +2, +3, -1, -2, and -3 stops.  Then in post process the footage so that it's all the same brightness and then look at the images, notice what it does to colour, skin tones, and highlights/shadows.  
This is what professional cinematographers do to "learn" a new camera or film-stock.  They often talk about how a particular camera is a -1 stop camera because they've done the tests and that gives the nicest skin tones or colour or whatever.
I'd also suggest that you play with the colour profile to test things like lowering the contrast (most normal profiles have too much contrast for my tastes) and for each change you make you should repeat the above test.  You will eventually find that you prefer a profile with a certain contrast, a certain saturation, and a certain exposure level.
It's a lot of work, but if it wasn't required then every home video that dad made with a camcorder would be breathtakingly beautiful, and that is obviously not the case.  

I prefer false color over anything else, but you may need an external monitor for that. If I don't have false color, I often use spot metering to check specific locations in the frame. Histogram is okay, but doesn't give enough information about what a specific part of the frame is doing, and is mainly helpful for protecting highlights. An evenly spread histogram doesn't tell you much other than whether you've blown something out. I very rarely use zebras, but I would probably use them more if I did any run'n'gunning.
Whatever method you pick, do a lot of tests before a shoot so you know how your specific camera model and color profile behave. Some cameras do better slightly underexposed, some slightly over. Many cameras have color shifts across the exposure range, so you definitely want to find the range of sweet spots within which you can expose a face (for example) without having color shifts. You never want to be on set wondering whether pulling a face down 2 stops will turn it into a pasty mess.
Don't be so afraid of blown highlights that you sacrifice the subject to protect something in the background. If I have a window that's blown out by 3 stops, I might drop my exposure by 1 stop, and then when I bring up the exposure in post I have that 1 stop to make a smoother rolloff.

Awesome. Watched the trailer first without sound, then with sound. Both worked equally well.
 

Watched a DVD projection on a 9foot projection screen. Looked awesome. "Coffe and cigarettes". Awesome BW photography. Looked as good as any streaming from netflix. @User Yes, the horror of pixel and tech race. The rants about segmenting tech and about these awefully short product cycles and redundant products are more than justified!

At EOSHD we like to ask the important hard-hitting questions on glamorous Italian TV shows.
Read the full article

I do not want to participate but a specific someone is playing us like a fiddle for 15 pages now. Drags people into the nonsense abyss and single handedly destroyed the P6K thread for everyone that is trying to learn anything at all about this camera. Also, is the individual attacking most people on the smaller amount of time I have ever seen here.
Stop feeding him and please try to not completely loose control of the thread, any thread.

I suggest you carefully read my post again - many of your points are arguments against points I didn't make, but you obviously thought that I did.
Also, I'm aware that GH5 files aren't 6K RAW, but the logic you're failing to recognise is that a 4K crop is to 6K the same that a 150% crop of 4K is to straight 4K.  The argument goes that if you're outputting 4K and are going to crop in by 150% then you need 6K, but what the logic fails to recognise is that you can scale 4K by the same amount and if you add a small amount of sharpening then it's practically indistinguishable from the straight 4K file.  Therefore the argument that 6K is required for reframing and keeping similar image quality doesn't really stack up.
It's funny when discussing things like this - you and @thephoenix both went to the extreme and then criticised that.  That is called a 'straw-man' argument, and although neither of you did it explicitly, you both reacted like I had said things I didn't actually say.
Let's examine the title of this thread and break it down: "6K RAW is over-rated. Here's why..."  
6K RAW
I'm not really talking about compressed 6K.  If you're delivering 4K it will likely be compressed.  If you're shooting compressed 4K then grading it and then re-compressing it to deliver codec then that's a lot of damage to the image.  If you're shooting 4K RAW then you're already miles ahead of compressed 4K.  6K RAW is miles ahead of that and yet apparently it's "argue on the internet" levels of critical, despite that 4K RAW is already miles above the compressed 4K files that the world is awash in. overrated
This is a key point - I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying that it's overrated.  To break this down further, I'm saying that there's a rating of some kind (in the direction of shiny-thing mania), and that that level of rating is above what rating it should have.  Not that it should be zero, just that it should be below what is has. Here's why
This is where the arguments live, and I don't mean people fighting, I mean rational points designed to explore and explain thinking. In terms of context, yes, it depends on what you're shooting and what it's for, but if I was a betting man I'd bet a serious amount of money that you're not delivering anything in 6K and couldn't tell a 2.5K crop upscaled to 4K from a 4K source in a blind test.  

It still seems like you haven't fully understood. The Netflix 4K requirement is for productions made by Netflix. I can use whatever I want and if it's good enough they will accept.
To this day almost half of all the movies at the Oscars etc are shot on film or HD. And they all go on Netflix.
Netflix even still pick up TV shows shot on s16.
This has been talked about to death on this forum in the past. So let's get back to the real subject.

A 4K micro with or without a 3.2" LCD and a NPF battery mount would've been a much more attractive proposition. Who needs 6K? I just made the leap from 1080p to 4K and the first thing I did was slap a Black ProMist filter on it to take the edge off.

I can understand your frustration and you raised many valid concerns but what's the point? Nowadays we have so many options to choose from: Sony, Panasonic S or GH series, BMPCC4k, Fuji, Nikon Z, etc.
The video DSLR revolution was all about creativity for the masses (amateurs, indie and small prod). This is what triggered the inception of this blog I believe. That's it! We have everything we ever dreamed of: anybody can spend $3 or $4k and get an excellent 4K60 camera with decent lenses and add a drone on top of that. All of which fits in a backpack.
But where is the film-making here?

You shouldn't be getting duplicated frames unless your shutter speed is actually slower than your frame rate. You should be able to shoot 1/38 shutter with 24p just fine. So that's probably not it.
You didn't transcode the footage at any stage, did you?
If you are 100% sure of the camera settings, 23.976 fps with 1/38 shutter, then my guess is that there is something wrong with your computer playing the files. If you can upload an original clip from the camera, we can verify.
Edit: Is your footage interlaced? Could it be a problem with deinterlacing?

Is your timeline frame rate also 23.976?

That would explain your two in every three frames then, must have been 60fps.  

what frame rate were you shooting? It sounds like you were shooting at 48fps and it that were the case the duplicated frames would be because the shutter is opening at a slower pace than your sensor is capturing frames; thus duplication. 

That band is just crazy.      I don't mind the Dandy's.