bamigoreng

I think a lot of the footage I have seen from the X-H1 looks too un natural to me. There are good looking colors, BMPCC, Canon, Nikon colors. But Fuji, I like tend to like the new Sony A7 mk III colors better to my eyes. I just don't like over saturated colors. Olympus used to be that way years ago also. But read on below and I will reward you.
I am not even going to say it is not Cinematic, Filmic. I like those looks, Mercer does also. But I would think if you are a working Pro, a person trying to make money, you are not looking for that look anymore in this day and age. That is a movie film look. Film is dead in a sense. Not going to be revived. When the old timers die it dies. No going back. No real need to.
Most people are making Doc's, interviews, news stories etc to try and make a buck, break into the business. 4k and higher have ended the film look. Normal younger people want to see sharp, clean footage. They don't want film grain from hell anymore. They want 1080p you can cut your face on. And well I guess people now are into that look and I am not. There are more of you then of me left. I personally like the look of the GH5s better, more grungy like the A7s I have. Most people on here like the GH5 and the A7s mk III look now. And apparently now the X-H1 look.
So I guess I am in the minority on the Fuji X-H1, and well will concede you win. Times change and I probably won't. Too old for that. But I see no reason for people not to buy it, I am sure it will take a video, a good one. It's more on you than the camera anyways. Go for it and enjoy, it's your money, make the most of it. I will let you guys rest in peace. No further comment from me on it. Only fair to you. And hell I have run out of jokes on it anyways.

Here are the budgets,workflows etc
https://blog.frame.io/2018/03/05/oscar-2018-workflows/
(This link has a couple of pop ups)

Trust me, it's bewildering to many Americans as well. I won't get into political conversations here, so if anyone has a retort you will not get a follow up from me.
But we definitely need a good overall of our public policies in my country. Webrunner's story is not unlike many, many Americans. Statistics show that many Americans are roughly a paycheck away from total poverty and many go bankrupt with medical bills, even with having insurance.
I recently had a talk with my 13-year old son about what to do if some crazed individual comes to his school with a weapon. Not a conversation I ever imaged I'd have to have with my children. It's surreal. 

This is probably the worst advice I've ever come across. There is so much work for still photographers out there its insane. For every corporate video or commercial there is need for at least ten times as many stills. 
But luck is not the way to get a piece of the action.
 

... you guys sound surprised as if Canon was really going to give DPAF, 4K, no-crop & manageable codec in a sub-$1K body when it hasn't even done so on their flagship 1DX2 / 5D4 / 6D2!!
watching that unbox video though i gotta say the 1080p looked cleaner/sharper than i've ever seen a non-cinema Canon camera produce and if you forget the crop & dual pixel absence in 4K, the IQ remains pretty strong with those pleasing Canon skin tones.
so my verdict is if you're on a tight budget doing 1080p interviews or vlogs with the occasional macro 4K product shot, this might not be as bad as it seems.
and of course this paves the way for upcoming better spec'd higher-end models ( i still want to see c-log, peaking & zebras in non-cinema line).
 

How dare they make stuff for people with less money. Only rich people should be allowed to take pictures.

I think you, like me, and others on here have become our own worse enemy. It was simpler times years ago, the camera didn't make much difference because it was sort of crap to what the big boys had, and we just ignored the camera and went on to write, I would say more fun stuff, then we do now. Willing to try anything because it was fun to experiment, to create, and hell that is what a movie Is suppose to be, Creative.
Now that we have damn good cameras we spend 3/4 our money and energy on the camera, oh got to have the best camera thing, and I would argue less time being creative, having fun doing it. Getting the juice's going as they say.
The story is King, and damn if it ain't! This B&W thread on here proves you can take a pretty ho hum camera and make magic with it. I think most people that have the GH5 spends more time on the Forums, YouTube complaining about AF, Colors, HDR on and on then going out and shooting. Hell they probably accomplished more, and better output on their old GH4! How long can you keep doing tests and not use it for its intended use, a short, a Movie,  a Doc, on and on. Not 50 lens tests ,100 different LuTs.
I think we all need to spend less time on the camera and more writing a story, a story board, dreaming what the outcome will look like, not how great the camera will make it look. There are lots of shorts, movies I never took my eyes off the actors, that I paid Zero attention how the Camera performed. That was the least of my thought used in the case of a great story.
I am not saying go buy a 50 dollar camera and lens, I am saying put what you got to good use, the use it was intended for, to project your thoughts out to the world, good or bad. Shoot, shoot shoot.

While I mostly agree with you Andrew, this race to the bottom is not specific to Youtube or FB. It started long before that with trash people magazines, reality TV and 24h news channels.
There is an interesting scene in the movie "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" where the main character, a TV producer in the 70s conducts casting of people who want to sing in his TV shows. Most of the contenders are bad singers and the TV producer gets very bored during the casting. He dreams of trashing them. Then he realize that the show should actually be about trashing people live. He changes the concept of his show and pick the worst possible singers to make fun of them during the show. It works great!
Unfortunately, Youtube, FB, news channels and reality TV rely on the human perversion and basic instincts to success: voyeurism, sexuality, violence, sadism, narcissism, jealousy, etc.
As you know, the Germans have a word for this "Schadenfreude"

Good overall point, I think, Andrew.
I used to get really dissapointed in my fellow man/woman over their behavior and decisions until I finally came to accept the fact that a solid percentage of people simpy have below average intelligence - both intellectual and emotional. Walk into a room with a random group of 100 people and maybe 30 or so will have a difficult time with basic logic, reasoning and emotional judgement.
And while accepting this basic math helps me remember that most people are reasonable and decent, it's pretty important, as a culture, that we encourage and promote higher thinking and ethical behavior. Unfortunately, too many corporations have become the biggest douchebags of all with no obligation to anyone but their shareholders. And thanks to them we have a big  chunk of the general population that stares at little screens all day sending and receiving vacuous content and prattle.
This guy is just another mindless douchebag who enthralls a lot of other douchebags, to the delight of media whores around the world.
Idiocracy is looking more like a documentary by the day.
 

There's always going to be an enormous amount of junk out there and there's no point censoring it.
I think some people think this is what I was getting at in the article... nope.
Leave the junk out there.
But take some responsibility for it. Give kids some other way of venting, letting off stream and entertaining themselves.
Stop promoting it on trending lists and YouTube home page.
Stop cross-linking to it from other videos.
Have some editorial direction as YouTube.
Don't promote it, don't give it a platform for it to thrive on... and above all, hope the next generation are smart enough to not watch it. This one's fucked. Too late for them. This is their culture now, they own it and are doomed to repeat it... the culture of vanity, insensitivity, selfishness and above all MONEY and LOOKS.

Last month I completed a short doc/promo for MMA fighter Drake Boen, directed by Edrei McCabe, shot and edited by me. The final version utilizes archival footage of past fights and doesn't have film grain, but I prefer this version, which I've dubbed "The Editor's Cut". It was shot mostly on the Canon EOS M with ML (H.264 with 3x Bitrate) with some Panasonic G7 (with focal reducer). Lenses used: Canon FD 50mm 1.4, 28mm 2.8, 35-105mm 3.5, and the Tokna 17mm 3.5. Edited with Premiere, graded with FilmConvert.
 

The rumored pricing is the issue and one of the biggest factors in figuring out what may be included in the new GH5.
All rumors state $2499... well you’re not getting a S35mm sensor GH5 for that price. It would piss off too many current owners and it would eliminate too many of their m4/3 lenses, unless they have decided to go EF... but that also would piss off current m4/3 lens owners heavily invested in the system. I doubt it’s Raw for some of the same reasons.
It’s probably something as simple as full VLog for better DR and a better codec or more efficient codec for the higher bitrate modes. 
I still think it will be available as a new body for $2499 or a paid firmware upgrade for existing GH5 owners.

Fuji is rumored to have a video dedicated new camera soon also, maybe Panasonic is rushing things because a 2000$ APS-C camera, with a lot of native lenses (+recently released cheap cine lenses) and IBIS will compete with their GH5 really soon, rather than a double price-full frame camera from Sony. Buy a GH5 and a couple of lenses, or three, for 3000$, that ain't even the body of the Sony, and then you have to spend two times more for a couple of Sony lenses. I do not believe that a new A7s, that will be close to 4000$, will be the main competitor of the GH5. I am not even sure that Sony can implement 10 bit internal on that camera, but we will see.
I do not believe that Casey, or Andrew, or me, have to tell Panasonic about their AF. Do you think they do not test other people's cameras? or do not really hear the market? They can't just do everything at once, it is an evolution progress, and Panasonic invested on other things, that their cameras excel (like heat dissipation, continuous video recording, advanced codecs and formats etc). It took almost half a dozen years for Sony to put a bigger battery on their cameras, which wasn't that groundbreaking to start with, that grip was mainly empty anyway.
Canon C100mkII is still my most beloved tool, and Samsung NX1 second, an ancient one and a forgotten one. They both do the job 9/10 for me.

Thanks Juan for this great tutorial! seems to works nicely on BMPCC raw footage too.
I don't have a 5D3 but have done a quick test on some MLV files from my Canon 50D and it's looking good to me, see image below. I'll post a video if I get a chance:

I'm totally with Kisaha. I'd prefer a 5000€ Canon C100 mk3 with 4k 50p with reasonable fast turnaround codecs Dual Pixel AF, good low light, maybe even slightly smaller than the C100mk2 and if possible some sort of IBIS. Pure run'n'gun all rounder. Like my C100mk1. A solid sensible camera. If it needs better codecs then you have to use a recorder. Ok, fine.
Most people I know would buy that camera.

On a side note to sharpness. Same thing goes for every new iteration of a camera. I've got a 5DIII and I'm yet to produce something which looks remotely close to what some folks have already produced with this camera or even worse cameras and much worse glass than I own. I've given up on upgrading until I actually use my camera to the full potential and definitely going to skip everything until canikon release their FF mirrorless cameras. Until that, I've got a ton of other things I must improve on... Once this is sorted I hope I'll find a product which has the following: 8K RAW (for cropping to 4k) + lighter options, 5-axis IS, usable ISO 25k, DPAF 2.0  

Am I missing something - why nobody doesn't comment simply blown out sky in case of GH5 and A6500 in previous Yuryev's details-test sample? Also, does a6500 always and inevitably show such strong magenta bias (I never had one to check)? GH5 color science looks here (imo) very balanced.
 

Have you ever shot with the 5D4? because it sounds like baseless erroneous assumptions you are making here.. fyi FHD has improved since the 5D3. 
As for C-Log it is far from useless.. for matching footage from other C-log cams, getting creative with grades or extending DR.. it doesn't seem to break much on the "dinosaur codec"
 

The colors are nice but imo Canons are nicer. What the "fuji look" is for me is noise that is pretty much Luma only. No matter how hard I push.

Excellent two videos from cinematographer Steve Yedlin via the link below, where he tries to make a point that quality of pixels in a camera is far more important for the perceived cinematic experience than the race in quantity, now that most high end cameras in his opinion already surpassed the resolution threshold required for image with good clarity and perceived sharpness.
In the first video he shows the same scenes shot with 6 different cameras (2 analogue) and all of the footage is graded and matched in post. He doesn't reveal what camera was used for particular shot just to prove his point. Second video shows post production.
This is quite relevant for this topic so just wanted to share.
http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

Well, what does a D7500 compare to... a Canon 80D? And how are they doing again in comparison? You want to talk smack, have a go at Canon. Nikon might be a little traditional and late to the party, that's because they're like parents: oldschool and need a while to catch up to the new age things. Once they do, they actually try to implement that shit. Really doesn't make that much sense to compare a system or camera based on a few little numbers on DxOMark if you're asking me.
Hopefully Nikon is going to get into mirrorless APS-C. A camera like my D5300 is great on a sensor and results level, but I just hate the friggin' flippin' mirror that clacks around taking stills in liveview and it doesn't have any of the mirrorless bells 'n whistles either for any type of shooting. From what I gathered it seems they might be aiming at a mirrorless camera that is fullframe. Shame, because mirrorless allows for downsizing and while I like the occassional 35mm image circle throwing glass, it's also nice to have more compact options and APS-C/S35 gives you just that without sacrificing too much performance. And let's not forget, there's still focal reducers to get you back to FF should that be your thing. Lenses really define the compactness of a system, not so much the body. That's why Sony would've been better off having a mirrorless APS-C camera that's more like a A7-series camera than an A6x00-series one. Not that their APS-C line-up is alive and kicking, but atleast they'd have the literal room for improvements that plagues their too crammed full A6x00 bodies. Wish Nikon would go the Fujifilm route. The X-T2 is such a dope camera, a camera like that with a few tweaks (I'm talking sensor stabilization, I'm talking frontfacing touchscreen, I'm talking headphone port on the body itself and all that Gucci fuego) could suck up the whole MFT market and former traditional DSLR shooters.

So you don't trust his opinion because in one statement he says that he downscaled to 1080p from 4K but then in another sentence he says he doesn't like the ultra sharp images from some lenses? I don't see how they are conflicting statements?
I have been thinking long and hard about 1080p vs 4K. As you know I have been shooting Raw for the past couple months. I don't even shoot at 1080p... I'm shooting 2:35 at 1920x810 and IMO it has a better image than any 4K I have ever shot... but it is Raw, so it isn't a fair comparison.
So I'll digress... Over the past 6 months, I've had 2 FZ2500s. The first time I bought it, I purchased it two weeks after release and paid full price for it. I specifically tested the 200mbps, all-i 1080p vs 100mbps IPB 4K. I downscaled the 4K to 1080p and on my 40" TV, I noticed absolutely no difference between the downscaled 4K and the high bitrate 1080p... in fact, if anything I found the all-i 1080p had slightly better motion cadence at true 24p. The problem with that camera is that I think it's too expensive for what it is, so I returned it. I bought it again, a couple months ago, for a casual camera after I got my 5D3 and the image looked so brittle in comparison that I returned it again.
So, I really don't think 4K is a necessity and I believe that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't be able to tell the difference nor care.
With that being said, I still love gear and I want a 4K camera. I have yet to see any 4K image, less than $4000, that looks better than the 1DC. That camera has some special mojo going on. So I will probably save up for that and hopefully can find one for $3000 this time next year.
In the meantime, to quench my unexplainable desire for 4K, I may pick up an LX100... because the 4K out of that camera also has some special sauce going on. I keep wanting to test the 4K out of the D7500 because I just simply love the Nikon Flat 1080p... seriously one of the best images for the money, but with the crop and its inability to meter older Nikon lenses, the camera is overpriced for my needs... or desires.
So since I can't justify Nikon 4K and can't afford Canon 4K yet, another option for me is the Fuji X-T20. It's in a comfortable price range for me. I should be able to sell it for not much of a loss next year and put that money towards the 1DC. As much as I am tired of the fat adapters laying about, in the end Fuji color and my Nikkor 35mm 1.4 could make a perfect little combo. 
But then again, I want IBIS too... will the madness ever stop?
I think regardless of what tech is available, people should really look to what is most important to them in a camera.
If they need 4K at 10bit... get the GH5. If they need really good 1080p, maybe get a Nikon or Sony a7s.
If they need great auto focus, get a Canon 80D.
If someone needs 4K or even really wants it... then that's what they should buy. But since the title of this post specifically asks... is it really necessary? Nope. It is not. 

How could anyone think the 6D would get 4K that they waited... its just so weird to me. The chance of it was so so so slim.
Just compare the original 6D to the 5Dmkiii. Why would that suddenly change?

Name one company that doesn't communicate profit? Both Panasonic and Sony sure do. Heat pumps and PlayStations that is. If the camera divisions where profitable they would brag about it. They sure took the first opportunity with the units sold during the 4 weeks after a release...
You cant deny that can you? That companies try to raise stocks by positive reporting... you know Apple etc..
That the camera divisions are baked in to "other" and such is enough for me to ask you for proof. Not the other way around.
But again, I honestly dont care. And talking about business is even more boring than pure specs. As long as the camera makes good images I couldn't care less how their bonus program is doing
I know I've said it before but I will try again to stay out of this discussion. Its just so hard when some thinks their preferences and opinions is law and then talk down on others who just want a discussion

From experience I'd recommend not bothering with an EOS M. I've had a few and I think if you want to do Raw it's really not worth the hassle. Look around for a cheap 7D, that's kind of the best cheap camera you can get for Raw and make some good results/ workflow.