Gadhai

5 axis...
X
Y
Roll (rotation - this can be done mechanically for stills, or digitally with crop in video mode)
Pitch (tilt up / down correction)
Yaw (tilt left / right correction)
I can see roll, pitch and yaw being done digitally with a crop in video mode or via OIS.
It depends if the mechanical sensor movement covers all 5 axis, or just X, Y and Roll, using the lens for pitch and yaw (like Sony's system)
Does the Olympus system correct by tilting the sensor pitch and yaw? I think it probably does.
If so then Panasonic might be doing the same thing - all 5 axis on the sensor.
Then it would work with manual lenses with no electronic contacts, just like the Olympus system.
Or it may be that in video mode the electro-magnetic IBIS compensates for 3 axis (X, Y and roll) but uses electronic image shift with small crop to achieve pitch and yaw correction in 4K video mode. Maybe roll would be electronically compensated too.
OIS usually compensates for yaw and pitch.
EDIT: it looks like they do indeed have 5 axis IBIS so the sensor can move on the X and Y axis, plus rotate, plus tilt horizontally and vertically. So same as Olympus.
What they do with the OIS is probably improve the yaw and pitch control by switching the IBIS to 3 axis and doing the other 2 on the lens. This might reduce image warping especially with wide angle lenses. This was an issue with the Olympus system in video mode

I've cleaned the thread of most of the non footage posting stuff.
It was arbitrary job, apologies if your post has disappeared, but the thread need to be mostly footage links and footage requests in order to serve its purpose properly.
This is proving to be a valuable resource. Feel free to continue discussion, just be aware that it may be cleaned up intermittently to keep the thread useful to newcomers.
Please try to keep your links alive insofar as you can.

I believe that the jump from 8bit to 10bit is far more important than 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0. The bump to 4:2:2 increases the theoretical gain of picture information by 1,3x, whereas 10bit increases it by 64x more information. The A-B-C example that Emanuel posted doesn't prove the opposite for quite a few reasons:
1. When testing the impact of a certain change or setting you can only vary one factor to make assumptions regarding that setting. But as it has been pointed out it not only changed from 8bit 4:2:0 to 8bit 4:2:2, but the entire system that recorded the scene changed including the codec thats being used. thats a massive flaw in the test and therefore doesn't prove anything regarding 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2.
2. Better color subsampling only increases accuracy of chroma information meaning that a black and white picture looks identical in 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2. The ABC example still shows banding even when converted to black and white, meaning the banding isn't caused by the color subsampling.
3. if 4:2:0 were to blame for the banding in the picture then the 4:2:2 example would show the same kind of banding on the horizontal line of the vignette circle. why? well, because 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 have the exact same amount of information on any horizontal line of pixels. its only the vertical chroma resolution thats improved.
Quite opposite to Emanuels opinion I think people are way to focused on 4:2:2. Its really just a leftover from interlaced footage times that only increases new picture information by a tiny bit. if something bothers you about 4:2:0 it should also bother you while looking at horizontal lines from 4:2:2 footage as it has the same chroma resolution. 10bit on the other hand is HUGE. companies went from 10bit raw to 12bit raw to 14bit raw and its still going. Now, in my personal opinion we have reached what makes sense in that matter and everything above is just marketing, but since 8bit is the lowest amount of color we need to not see any banding, it makes A LOT of sense to go at least one step higher to have a little bit of room for grading. 8bit only accounts for 0,02% of all the color that 12bit includes and if people don't even think thats enough, we might see a bunch of reasons to upgrade to 10bit.

please show the same test in colour? :-)

Im not talking about anything that comes from post. im talking about camera output. more on that later
just talkin about in camera color rn tho
nothing could be further from the truth. i want a high level of color accuracy for reproducing sets, costuming, and prop elements (which were very expensive and time consuming to make). i want nature to look like nature, i dont want to have to avoid shooting something as common as a F------ BLUE SKY for any reason, i want people to look awesome, and healthy, like actual living creatures with blood running through their veins
fyi im capable of being extremely critical of the alexa, everybodys favorite movie camera. im not a mark; i know what i want and im gonna keep bitching until i get it, thats my job as a consumer. after TONS of bitching from us all about slog2 on the a7s, heres slog3 on its successor –– no coincidence. anyway, i digress, just saying that youre a bit unclear on what im "looking for"
these video reinforce my point: ive seen em, not impressed. at all. im not into retro luts or affected color grading, thats a fine option –– but i described above what i want from a digital video camera
but then again –– some feature filmmakers are going to map all their colors to teal and orange in their edit, and for them this shit doesnt rlly matter too much. slog2 is great for black and white work ive made some beautiful stuff
 
 

Just received the RX100IV today and I'm dang excited to create some things with it. I had the mark 1 and despite its limitations, had lots of fun shooting with it. 
I created a 15 second instagram video at work today just as a means to try out the 4K mode. I was in a hot warehouse in Texas right next to an open door. After 1 take, it began to display the overheat symbol. After two takes, it told me to let the camera cool and shut off. Switching to 1080p mode and I was just fine. 
This is by no means an A Camera, but I do think it is an absolutely incredible creative tool. Its so versatile! The 4K is sharp and clean, and the image grades well. This particular short was shot in  Picture Profile 4 and graded with film convert to add a lot of punch. I'll continue to share my thoughts and include more video after I've had more of a chance to shoot with it. 
General light coming from a nearby open door. A bit of spot from below added by a pair of Lumos Trip Pro LED's. Cinevate Duzi V3 slider.
 

Andreeeeew what's up with the review ??

As part of my MA program we were asked to create a short clip that tried to capture the experience of getting lost in thought staring at something. Here's my take, filmed with the Sony A7s in SLOG2 and using a DeLUT from James Miller. I'm pretty stoked that I'm finally getting the hang of SLOG2. It's not great to use in low light situations, but I nailed a sunset at the very end of the video, something I'd been trying to do for ages after watching Ed David's Kholi footage a while back.
 
 

Autumn Leaves Creative Style
-3 Contrast, 0 Saturation, -3 Sharpness
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4
Rokinon 14mm T3.1 Cine
Metabones EF-E Adapter mkIV

Edited in FCP X
 
 

Hello everyone !
This is my new movie.
It's entitled « eet Gourmandise ».
This is a film about the preparation of cake, a "entremets", specially created for the film.
You can see it there :
It was shot with : Canon 5D MarkII with Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L  + 70-200mm f/2.8 L + 100mm Macro.
It was editing with Avid and color graded with DaVinci Resolve.
I wanted to show you and to have your feedbacks.
So if you like it, do not hesitate to share the link of the video on social networks, with your community (Facebook, Twitter ...)
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
...and "Bon Appétit" !!
Florent.

Because it isn't the 10bit you're liking.
For a start your screen is 8bit.
Secondly a typical 10bit camera like the Blackmagic Pocket has a wide dynamic range - you liking that and also the high data rate of ProRes meaning fine grain and very little compression so less colour data is lost. Also you are liking the look of an i-frame codec rather than long GOP and 422 over 420.
All make a difference to the image.
The 1D C proves that you can get amazing amounts of colour information out of a 8bit file.
Hell, 42MP A7R II JPEGs prove this
10bit is massively overrated because people blame 8bit for stuff that is really the fault of heavy compression (banding) and sensor related shortcomings in DSLRs.
If a line-skipping DSLR went 10bit tomorrow in a firmware update you would notice no difference.
And as for grading, I have tried grading 8bit and 10bit from the same camera and you have to pixel peep ridiculously hard to see a difference. Raw makes all the difference for grading, it is a different ballgame. 10bit is not.

Magic Lantern already did... 14 bit raw. Medal goes to them.

Hi Tito, Dan...
Thanks for your comments. Although I only shoot stills, some of the info I've provided might work with film / video. The decision to go with diopters made from junk lens objectives was purely economic, since... being retired,  I don't have much money to put into this activity. The results might be far better for those folks who want to try doing this with more "high end" cameras. I'm using a Nikon D40 and D60, both relatively poor (and limited) high ISO performers, so I'm stuck working at !S0 100 to 400. 
I've found that good junk lenses to scavenge front objectives from are those primes having a focal length of 100mm, or greater, or zooms having a top end of at least 200mm. Some lenses, certain Vivitars in particular, can be a nightmare to dissassemble. Sometimes a dead film camera having a non-interchangeable zoom lens can serve as the donor for a usable strong diopter. The delicate "surgical procedure" being performed below is to remove the lens from a long section of unwanted barrel. This particular optic is the objective from an old Olympus IS-3 DLX film camera that spent a few minutes in the surf at a local beach.
Although the longest focal length is 180mm, it still works well, although the field has quite a bit of curve to it. It's used when I want critical sharpeness in the center and totally blown bokeh at the edge of the field.  Reversed on the Isco it gives a field width of 28mm at a working distance of 6.5cm. I should mention that all my working distance measurements are from the subject to the longest part of the barrel left on the objective. In some cases the lens comes off easily, having a short length of barrel that serves as a built in lens shade when reversed on the Isco. Longer lengths of barrel have to be shortened to provide usable working distance... as with the lens above. Also, testing a junk lens objective and having it "bomb" on a particular primary lens is no reason to give up on it. Some objectives I've tried worked terrible with the Iscorama on my Nikkor-H 85mm, were buried in the back of a cabinet, only to be pressed into service later after being tested with the Isco on the 200mm micro nikkor and found to produce brilliant results. Anyone contemplating buying "junk" lenses to rob objectives from should "buy cheap" and not be put off by internal fungus, haze, or cracked elements... providing the objective itself isn't involved. Steer clear of lenses with bent or badly dinged filter rings that might not be able to accept a macro reverse adapter ring.

Here's the "bowl" diffuser and "direct flash" shield I use. The UAC-2000 runs about $8.00 at big NYC stores.
All the macro shooting I do is hand held... for a reason. Focusing in most cases is "problematic, with most subjects being live creatures going about their business, or inanimate objects being blown around by wind. Working free-hand alows me to constantly shift the camera, following the subject's change in position. I do have a favorite mop handle to steady my hands, or lean on in cases where I might become overbalanced and fall forward. Below is an example of a shot where I leaned on a stick and moved left and right "shopping" for the particular out of focus elements seen behind the spider. A very minor shift in camera position at high magnification can produce a radical change in background appearance.

If anyone tries shooting anamorphic macro video, I'd really like to see it. Thanks!
 
 

Hi Bootsie...
Thanks! Here are some quick photos of two of my shooting rigs, with an explanation for each pic.
The image above shows my set-up for shooting with a high magnification supplemental lens reverse mounted on the iscorama, using the Isco on my Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8. The bracket is made from two strips of hardware store aluminum, drilled to allow mounting with a knob onto the tripod mount of the camera. The angle of the arms is adjustable to allow for different sized foil reflectors to be used at various close working distances. This is a special short-arm bracket for working very close to a subject when there's not much room to move around. The Iscorama has the back end (50mm Nikon mount section removed.  Attached at that point is a 52mm to 49mm step-down ring. Onto that are mounted three empty 52mm filter rings to allow the Isco to be mounted on any of my primary lenses having a 52mm filter thread. This ensures that the protruding back element of the Isco compression module doesn't come into contact with the primary lens glass. This three ring "spacer" then serves as a convenient place to attacht an old tripod mount (upside-down) from a junk telephoto lens, which is used as an anchor point for a bowl flash diffuser made from the dish found in a particular brand of frozen dinner. The plastic diffuser has a moveable black piece that allows for soft directional lighting. This diffuser mounts atop the lens using the silver knob on the repurposed tripod mount. The ring resting between the two lenses is a 72 to 52mm step-down ring. All my supplemental lenses have been set up with 52mm rings to mount on the Isco, which is fitted with the 72-52mm ring. This simplifies mounting any of my add-on lenses onto the Isco. Plus, the Iscorama's filter ring is plastic, and subject to wear and possible cross-threading when I'm working rushed. The metal step-down ring saves the Isco's threads, and results in faster lens swapping. The larger lens on the left is the front cell from a junk Vivitar 28-210mm zoom lens... set up for reverse mounting with a macro-reverse adapter ring, and is incredibly sharp, but has a curved field. With the Isco mounted on the 85mm, it gives a "field width" of about 29mm at a lens-to-subject of 6.5 cm. The smaller lens on the right is the large "common objective" from an American Optical "Cycloptic" stereo microscope, mounted in a cell I've constructed from six empty 52mm filter rings. This mounts on the Isco with the front of the objective toward the subject... the same way it's mounted on the microscope. It's apochromatic, has a huge clear aperture of about 32mm, and gives a field width of about 40mm with some vignetting, at a lens-to-subject distance of a bit over 10 cm. Using a 2x teleconverter doubles the magnification and halves the working distance on all my supplemental lenses..

Here's the rig assembled with the Vivitar 28-210mm element mounted on the Isco.The two foil reflectors clipped to the threaded rods are adjusted to direct additional flash lighting to the diffuser. Behind the supplemental lens you can see the knurled rubber ring used to "lock" the Isco at infinity. This was scavenged from a junk lens and was the right size to work onto the Isco. It still allows the lens to focus properly, but totally protects against accidentally altering the focus. The 85mm is fitted with a similar band.

Here's an oblique side view showing how the reflector support posts are rigged, plus how the diffuser is mounted on the old tripod mount. The reflectors can be mounted inside or outside the posts. The black clip provides more clearance for my right hand to operate the camera than clothes pins would, as used on the left reflector.

Here's a bracket I've rigged for night photography. It's particularly useful for shooting when the Isco is mounted on my old 200mm Micro-Nikkor. The cross-bar prevents the arms from shifting position and is a convenient place to mount a small positionable flashlight used for focusing. This "focus assist" light is pre-aimed to provide illumination at the point of focus. The black "flap" is my "direct flash" shield, which mounts like a lens cap onto the front of any of my supplemental lenses. It's positioned to block direct light from the camera pop-up flash, or small speedlight, from striking the subject, creating flat lighting and overexposure. All shooting is done in the fully manual mode, usually at f/16 to f/32 (200mm Micro-Nikkor). Flash lighting is redirected around the end of the lens by the reflectors, which can be adjusted to vary light intensity and shadow angle from either side. The shield is made from a Raynox UAC-2000 universal lens adapter sold with several Raynox close-up lenses, but available for purchase separately. The black flap material is cut from a polypropylene plastic notebook divider. The lens mounted on the Iscorama is the objective from a junk Soligor 450mm lens... extremely sharp, and has a great flat field. It gives a field width of 12.5 cm at a working distance of 31 cm.

Here's the night photography set-up all ready to go. 

This nursery web spider and nestful of hatchlings was taken in complete darkness with the rig shown in the previous photo, but with a bowl diffuser mounted on the lens instead of the light shield. The reflectors were positioned to direct additional light onto the subject. I have several bowl diffusers that can mount on a lens just like the direct flash shield, with the Raynox adapter.

This last photo shows a partial inventory of supplemental lenses for using on the Iscorama, most being front cells from junk lenses. Although I have add-on lenses by different manufactures that are from lenses of the same focal length, they produce different "bokeh" and have variability in flatness of field, image color bias, and contrast. 
If you have any questions, need additional info, or whatever... just ask. Thanks!

Hi Julian...
Thanks for the response. After a close family friend passed away years ago I arranged for the sale of his old Arriflex II-C camera, His Iscorama lens was given to me by his niece as a "thank you". I've used it for years, shooting slides, then shelved it when I "went digital". Several years ago I stumbled across the EOSHD website and it rekindled my interest in using it for digital work. It's only fairly recently that I've played around with it with the idea of adapting it for close-up shooting. I'm still not fully up to speed with it when working at close distances. The very shallow DOF at high magnifications is a problem, and working with mongrel supplementary lenses scavenged from junk lenses is "iffy" at times. There's a tremendous amount of variability in image quality when I mount add-on lenses on the Isco, depending upon which primary lens I'm using. Through quite a bit of testing I've created separate sets of supplementary lenses to work with the Isco when mounted on specific primary lenses. A few of my add-on lenses do vignette a bit, which is cropped away preserving the normal decompressed aspect ratio. I haven't run any focus / compression tests at anything closer than about three feet, but feel as you do, that if I leave the Isco at infinity there probably won't be a shift in the amount of "squeeze". 
Here are a few sample images, all taken using an old Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8...  stopped down to f/16 or f/22, with a variety of supplemental lenses. The 85 and the Iscorama both have their focusing ring "locked" at infinity with wide rubber bands, focusing is achieved by moving the camera. Lighting is from either the pop-up flash, or a small speedlight bounced off foil covered cards or shot through a home-made bowl diffuser.

Forget-me-nots, 85mm Nikkor-H, Iscorama, objective from a junk Soligor 450mm reverse mounted on the Isco.
 

Orb weaver leg regeneration, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective. I really like the bokeh here (out of focus evergreen branches).
 

Web repair, 85mm with Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective reversed on the Isco, with a Soligor 90-230mm zoom lens objective reversed on the 450mm.
 

Bee, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscoama, with a Soligor 90-230mm objective reversed on the Isco, and a Panagor 85-205mm objective reversed on the Soligor.
 

Freshly moulted Funnel Weaver, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, with the objective from a Vivitar 28-210mm zoom lens reversed on the Isco. 
 

Tiny fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and the objective from the Vivitar 28-210 reversed on the Isco.
 

Baby funnel weaver with a fruit fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and a Raynox MSN-202 close up lens on the Isco. This add-on lens is mounted on an adapter ring that fits the Isco, not in the "snap-on" adapter supplied by Raynox.
The results I've been getting with the Iscorama are very encouraging. It's been great for general photography, but seems to work well up close too. Shooting anamorphic macro images is great... but there are a huge amount of "throw-aways"... more than with using a macro lens without the Iscorama. Shooting extreme close-ups with the Isco is probably "pushing the envelope" a bit, but I'm getting enough decent images to keep me at it. I've been asked why I'm "wasting my time" with the old isco, and been advised that shooting wide angle and cropping might be easier. Having done that years ago... there's no comparison. I just like the look and feel of the anamorphic images better.