PannySVHS

I'd say they are in hands of different people nowadays or those ones have transferred themselves somewhere else... ; ) LOL

As written earlier, it's natural because the use is basically in hands of casual shooters.
The focus should be centered here on the capabilities of the features and performance of the device itself, not the skills or goal of the individuals behind. Let alone the question of taste outside now.
I haven't bought one yet but it is something I won't be able to ignore. This doesn't mean it is a replacement for anything other than the segment it is.
Some other trouble I am used to read over these same pages is to compare apples to oranges. It doesn't make sense at all to me. You cannot compare a bike with a car.
:- )

It is a bit of mystery, especially with the option of the magnetic mount anamorphic lenses and ND filters.
Feels like there was much nicer stuff being made with the first one but you could argue that the GH cameras have followed a similar curve in absolute terms.
 

Absolutely.  It's like people have forgotten what the images in the cinema actually looked like, or that they were 35mm film.  I say that because people who apply a "filmic" or "cinematic" look seem to apply a film emulation at about 284% of what is realistic.
This is a scan of (IIRC) Kodak 200T (source) :

The video above is:
too sharp too heavy split-tone very heavy-handed diffusion ridiculous halation etc It's like they got a film emulation plugin and put some sliders to 0% emulation, and others to 350%.
In colour, "if it looks good then it is good" definitely applies, but it doesn't seem to have a look of its own, it's just got a bad film emulation on it.

You could just imagine Lindybeige, in a pub, on his own, having a good old chat with himself. About anything.

From what I know, Canon C70 should be image quality champ for under 4000 Euro by a larger margin, A7S3 is unpredictable under lower light conditions when it comes to mush. S1H looking a bit dull under average daylight without dedicated grading efforts despite its awesome processing pipeline. The humble og BMPCC looks beautiful with basic grading skills under same conditions.
So I figure that colour science is still making a difference in my use cases for video. Knowing the limits and strengths of chosen cameras narrows the differences in colour quality under certain light conditions regarding quality and quantity.

Yeah, small unassuming kit and crew can be much more productive than the opposite when doing doc production.  
I can bear witness to this.  Anyone else willing to testify?
As for me, if someone told me a GH2 was all I had to make something, I'd shrug and do fine with it.  I've done it before.  Moreover, it would be fun and nimble.  Okay by me. 
Yeah, I'm kind of done with fretting about perfect colors and resolution when it's much more important to get decent well shot coverage.
I swear to god, I wish I had footage off a GH-ONE in the hands of a competent shooter for this current doc edit I'm doing --rather than the piles of sloppy handheld crap from an ARRI "cinematographer" that I'm trying to stitch together.
Oooooooo, your pile of shit footage in my edit bins has more dynamic range? You got to play with a bunch of neat-o gear in the field for a year?  Hooray, you used a jib.  You had a portable video village?  A PA?  You broke out the steady cam?  Your prime lens package cost more than my car?  La dee daa. 
All your footage sucks and doesn't cut together. 
Great.
(just spent the day in the editing room)

From what I know, Canon C70 should be image quality champ for under 4000 Euro by a larger margin, A7S3 is unpredictable under lower light conditions when it comes to mush. S1H looking a bit dull under average daylight without dedicated grading efforts despite its awesome processing pipeline. The humble og BMPCC looks beautiful with basic grading skills under same conditions.
So I figure that colour science is still making a difference in my use cases for video. Knowing the limits and strengths of chosen cameras narrows the differences in colour quality under certain light conditions regarding quality and quantity.

All modern cameras have good colors. It's all comes down to filming and post production.

It's a big "it depends", based on lots of factors:
Some scenes are more difficult technically to capture than others Some scenes are more difficult aesthetically to reproduce than others Some differences can be compensated for in post easily (e.g. small WB differences, skin tone hue rotations, etc) Some differences can't be compensated for (e.g. skin tone smoothing, quantisation issues like 8-bit log codec, lots of non-linear processing) The stronger the grade you're going to put on it the less it matters The more skilled you are in post the less it matters The more powerful the tools you use in post the less it matters The better the cameras colour profiles are the less it matters The less picky your audience is the less it matters The less saturated the final image the less it matters Etc The problem with discussing it is that on the open internet, the only two opinions anyone seems to understand is "it is the only thing that matters" or "it doesn't matter at all", and those who dare to look in the middle ground can't tell which of the strange things in the test images belong to which camp - easy or difficult or impossible to fix.

I think the color science that happens in camera is really important. I'm also a believer that the image nearly always needs to be "developed" in post, but that development is largely power or constricted by the color science out of camera.
 
That being said, I think all the major camera companies have good color science these days. Any nuances between Canon, Sony, Lumix, or Nikon can be easily massaged out in post if the starting image is good. 

True.
I would like Panasonic to resurrect the brand name of Varicam and call their flagship DSLM something like Varicam VH1, with internal electronic vari ND, SDI, Dual Gain sensor, a cinema camera the size of a S1H. It could also be used to take photographs.:) Signal processing as pure and raw as of the og S1H. The DOP of the S1H Cannes film used a Sony Venice on his current Cannes 2024 entry. S1H was Bcam. So a traditionalist to the craft, but an open minded one to the tech and art of cinematography.🙂

"Grabbin a camera, going out and having fun with your friends" (at 43min 22sec). Great watch. Reminds me a lot of my video tape days, makes me wonder about my 15 years long break from video back then, makes me wonder about so many things. In 2015 I got back to video with hugely improved tech. I´ve had my waves of momentum since then. I still got my old svhs camera. It shall be a reminder of old dreams and of new dreams to go for. best and cheers
 
 
 

True.
I would like Panasonic to resurrect the brand name of Varicam and call their flagship DSLM something like Varicam VH1, with internal electronic vari ND, SDI, Dual Gain sensor, a cinema camera the size of a S1H. It could also be used to take photographs.:) Signal processing as pure and raw as of the og S1H. The DOP of the S1H Cannes film used a Sony Venice on his current Cannes 2024 entry. S1H was Bcam. So a traditionalist to the craft, but an open minded one to the tech and art of cinematography.🙂

I had an URSA Mini Pro 4.6k that shot Cinema DNG and BRAW (a firmware upgrade discontinued Cinema DNG). The BRAW was slightly less resolved with a slight color shift compare to the Cinema DNG.  Once color corrected I did not notice which shots were which on YouTube.  From the online comparison between BRAW and Pro Res RAW it seems that Pro Res RAW has a finer noise structure, which makes the Pro Res RAW slightly better looking IMHO.  BRAW at higher resolutions like with the URSA 12k shooting 8k resolution, I have no complaints unless I don't provide enough light, then I see the slight limitations of BRAW as compared to Pro Res RAW.

And from what little I've been able to see and hear, at least here in Europe, DoPs who work exclusively in film are some of the most reactionary and traditionalist people out there.
That is why these over-excitements about GH7's ARRI-certified LUT make me smile a lot. It is something that will not touch real film productions at all. Maybe I expect some real use for high end advertising and TV productions and of course all the wannabes but real film environment is pretty much "watertight"
In that sense, even Red acquisition supposed motivation to put a foot in the movie business is a gamble

For the S9, testing overheating please, ibis modes in open gate. How much does it crop with highest Ibis when in S35 mode? I am asking due to using 4K60. HD quality in ff and S35. That's a lot. Thanks.:)  @MrSMW

Same for me.:) They must have shot the film ahead some time in 2020. That's quiet a demonstration of trust in a camera that has been released only a few months beforehand, to be used for a 2 million Euro production. The two directors have been nominated for the Camera D'Or with this film btw. Mission accomplished for the Lumix and the Dop I would say. Why Panasonic has not been taking advantage of such a testimony to their brandnew flagship camera, that question remains to be answered.
I just watched through a 30min horror flick shot 10bit internally with a FX3. It was graded by a skilled post production pro. I could still recognize the mush at high iso shots. S1H has pro internal processing and image quality for cinema productions on the other hand.
 
 

S1H has been the main camera for two french cinema films that I know of. That was before Fx3 fame.
This film was at Cannes in 2021 and was shot on the S1H. The actress is french movie star Adèle Exarchopoulo who starred together with Léa Seydoux in the Cannes Palm d'Or winner of 2014, which was shot on the og C300 btw. So here is some S1H Cannes motion picture glory.:)
 

But how come that it couldn't just be a simple google search, I asked myself, scratched my head and gave it a try. Digital bolex Cannes 2021, voilà.😊
 
 

But how come that it couldn't just be a simple google search, I asked myself, scratched my head and gave it a try. Digital bolex Cannes 2021, voilà.😊
 
 

Same for me.:) They must have shot the film ahead some time in 2020. That's quiet a demonstration of trust in a camera that has been released only a few months beforehand, to be used for a 2 million Euro production. The two directors have been nominated for the Camera D'Or with this film btw. Mission accomplished for the Lumix and the Dop I would say. Why Panasonic has not been taking advantage of such a testimony to their brandnew flagship camera, that question remains to be answered.
I just watched through a 30min horror flick shot 10bit internally with a FX3. It was graded by a skilled post production pro. I could still recognize the mush at high iso shots. S1H has pro internal processing and image quality for cinema productions on the other hand.
 
 

Wow..  "I was there" wasn't a reply I expected!
What else can you tell us about the shoot?  Anything that looks that crazy on film has got to have some stories that go with it!

Nice, I was there that day.
The heat from the explosions singed my arm hairs. Always inspiring to be around Spike and Ty Evans and the fun shenanigans they get into. That was a good day of skating with my friends, thanks for posting.

I don’t think that for 99% of us, 99% of the time, we would know what anything has been shot on without being told.
And 99.9% could not care less.
The movie and TV industry has been built on big cameras, initially because they just had to be a certain size.
Today, they do not and are arguably the least important part of the entire puzzle.
And that image of big camera = professional camera filters all the way down to us lowly wedding hacks.
Well, the lower down the food chain, the less important a ‘Big Camera’ is, but it wasn’t until the last decade really that even at weddings, videographers did not have bigger shoulder mounted cameras.
In the movie industry though, unless you are a Greig Fraser and can ‘get away’ with using FX3’s, the issue is mainly how you would be perceived. OK, he wasn’t using $250 kit lenses but you know what I mean.
But it’s changing isn’t it and even larger studios using smaller more ‘regular’ cameras is becoming more common.
I think there is still a ton of snobbery though of cameras.
But back to the S1H specifically, mine is now on borrowed time…
Despite it having better image quality than my S5ii’s, I turned it from it’s static role of the last year or so, back into my primary run & gun unit for the first part of a 2 day job, yesterday.
This morning, first thing I did was put it back into the static role and reset one of my S5ii’s into the run & gun role.
Why? It’s just too slow compared with the S5ii and ultimate image quality aside, some things are more important and the top of that list is getting the shot.
If I was shooting a movie though, S1H hands down.