Rinad Amir

8-bit rec709 profiles are much more flexible in post than you might think.  I'm not saying they're as good as an Alexa or whatever, but they're a million miles better than people give them credit for.
Here's a latitude and WB torture test of the GX85, in the standard profile (8-bit rec709) customised to have reduced contrast but normal saturation.  
For each of the below, the left image is the properly exposed reference image, the middle one is the graded image, and the one on the right is the image SOOC.
Exposure latitude test - +3 stops:

Exposure latitude test - +2 stops:

Exposure latitude test - +1 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -1 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -2 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -3 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -4 stops:

Exposure latitude test - warm:

Exposure latitude test - cool:

Exposure latitude test - magenta:

Exposure latitude test - green (as far as it would go!):

Notes on the testing method:
GX85 shot in manual mode on cloudy day Exposure varied by changing lens aperture WB varied by changing colour temp and tint Tools used in Resolve were mostly Lift/Gamma/Gain, saturation, and some had a bit of Shadows/Mids/Highlights Notes on the results:
If it's clipped then it's clipped, there's no getting around that If you've shot a whole sequence in the wrong WB then shoot a test chart replicating the error, spend some time on the correction, then apply to all the shots... a bit of work but worth it to rescue a days shooting If you've shot on auto-exposure / auto-WB and want to correct the small errors then this is easily possible - it won't have gotten it nearly as wrong as what I have shown above Most cameras shooting in rec709 will do funky stuff to colours depending on their luma value as part of the look of the profile, so when you over/under expose and then pull things back the hues and saturation levels will have shifted around in odd ways compared to a normal exposure, but if it's a real shoot then you most likely won't have many dominant hues in the image and you only have to correct the ones that are in the frame and distracting, so the above is far more work than normal shooting would be  The days of needing RAW or even LOG to change exposure or WB in post are gone, and although the rec709 profiles often have lower DR than log profiles, they're much better than you think.
If anyone wants me to post full-sized versions with titles so you can flick back and forth then just let me know.
Happy shooting!

He does.
I applaud Markus for the work he does and the passion that he brings, trying to beat back the horde of Youtube-Bros who promote camera worship and the followers who segue this into the idea of camera specs above all else.
But there's a progression that occurs:
At first, people see great work and the cool tools and assume that the tools make the great work - TOOLS ARE EVERYTHING Then, people get some good tools and the work doesn't magically get better.  They are disillusioned - TOOLS DON'T MATTER Then they develop their skills, hone their craft, and gradually understand that both matter, and that the picture is a nuanced one.  TOOLS DON'T MATTER (BUT STILL DO) This is the same for specs - they are everything, they are nothing, then they matter a bit but aren't everything.
By the time you get to the third phase, you start to see a few things:
Some things matter a LOT, but only in some situations, and don't matter at all in others Some things matter a bit, in most situations Some things matter a lot to some people, but less to others, depending on their taste Film-making is an enormously subtle art.  Try replicating a particular look from a specific film/show/scene and you'll find that getting the major things right will get you part of the way, but to close the gap you will need to work on dozens of things, hundreds maybe.  
The purpose of any finished work is to communicate something to the audience.  For this, the aesthetic always matters.  Even if the content is purely to communicate information, if you shoot a college-looking-bro delivering the lines sitting on a couch drinking a brew filmed with a phone from someone lying on the floor, well, it's not going to seem like reliable or trustworthy information, unless it's about how many beers were had at the party last night (and even then...).  The same exact words delivered by someone in a suit sitting at a desk with a longer lens on a tripod and nice lighting will usually elicit a very different response (sometimes one of trust, and sometimes a reaction of mis-trust, but different all the same).  A person wearing glasses and a lab coat standing in front of science-ish stuff in a lab is also different.
Humans are emotional animals, and we feel first and think second.  There isn't any form of video content that isn't impacted by the aesthetic choices made in the production of the video.
Some might be so small that they don't seem relevant, but they'll still be there in the mix.

Art is conceit.
Cinema is a altered from reality by default.  Because of that, it's perfectly fine when some filmmakers decide for it to absolutely fail to be accurate in certain ways.
Flaws are beautiful.  They invoke an alternate reality.
Some filmmakers like 48 or 60fps.  So be it.  I like 24fps and a 360 degree shutter.  My preferences ain't wrong, they're simply mine.

There is an optimum resolution and sharpness.  More is not always better.  
This is why movies aren't all shot with the highest MTF lenses currently available - DoPs choose the optimal lenses and apertures for the scene / project.
However, I shoot with cheap cameras (iPhone, GX85, GH5, etc) which are far too sharp, and look video-ish.  Luckily, we can reduce this in post.
This thread is me trying to work out:
What the range of optimal resolution / sharpnesses are actually out there (from serious professionals, not moronic camera YouTubers or internet forum pedants) What might be a good point to aim for How I might treat iPhone / GX85 / other cheap shitty video-looking footage so it looks the least video it can be These techniques will likely apply to all semi-decent consumer cameras, and should be able to be adjusted to taste.
I'm still at the beginning of this journey, and am still working out how to even tackle it, but I thought I'd start with some examples of what we're talking about.
Reference stills from the Atlas Lens Co demos from their official YT channel, shot on Komodo and uploaded 6 months ago:
(You have to click on these images to expand them, otherwise you're just looking at the forum compression...)


Reference stills from the Cooke SP3 demos from the official Cooke YT channel, uploaded 11 days ago:


I've deliberately chosen frames that have fine detail (especially fly-away hair lit with a significant contrast to what is behind it), in perfect focus, with zero motion blur.  I think this is the most revealing as it tends to be the thing that is right at the limits of the optical system.
So, what are we seeing here?
We're seeing things in focus, with reasonable fine detail.  It doesn't look SHARP, it doesn't look BLURRED, it doesn't look VINTAGE, it doesn't overly look MODERN (to me at least) and doesn't look UNNATURAL.  It looks nice, and it definitely looks high quality and makes me want to own the camera/lens combo (!) but it basically looks neutral.
But, that's not always the case.  This is also from the same Cooke SP3 promo video:

The fine detail is gone, despite there being lots of it in the scene.  Is this the lens?  Is this the post-pipeline?  We don't know, but it's a desirable enough image for Cooke (one of the premier cinema lens manufacturers in the world) to put it in their 2.5 minute demo reel on their official main page.  It also has a bit more feel than the previous images.
Contrast that with these SOOC shots from my iPhone 12 Mini:

I mean....  seriously!  
(If you're not basically dry-wrenching then you haven't opened the image up to view it full-screen.. the compressed in-line images are very tastefully smoothed over by the compression)
More:



and my X3000 action camera also has this problem:

Those with long memories will recall I've been down this road before, but I feel like I have gained enough knowledge to be able to have a decent stab at it this time.  We'll see anyway.
Follow along if you're open to the idea that more isn't better...

Coming from 10 this might be worth of upgrade 🤔 

If you need anamorphic, dci 4k, cine-ei, timecode, 24p then FX3, if you think you don't need those feature then A7SIII, bear in mind a7siii doesnt have firmware update for years unlike FX3 which have more frequent feature update.
A7SIII is like abandoned child by Sony.

ibis off for love of god we dont need it.
Give us internal NDs

There’s a place for anything. Most things anyway…
The herd though just look to their idols and then replicate it (or try to).
Look at Peter McKinnon, undoubtedly responsible for influencing thousands of ‘wannabe like Pete’ clones.
Some are quite good, but most are trash.
It’s that, “if I just do what he/she is doing, then I will be successful”, lack of any original thought that disappoints me with these folks. The blatant rip off lack of any originality.
But they rarely if ever are. Not unless they take that thing and elevate it.
It happened with a photographer I know. He was very well known in the industry and because he put himself out there for seminars and workshops etc, he grew a cult following and as good as he was…for his time, others came along who did it even better. The craft and the marketing of themselves.
The photographer has since drifted into obscurity because he couldn’t cope with no longer not being top dog, tried to reinvent himself and I think just tried too hard in the wrong direction.
No names because I don’t do that.
But Peter M just keeps on going because he keeps reinventing himself without moving too far from his oeuvre.
He’s the only one of that bunch I can stand actually and love or loathe him, he’s a pioneer.
Re. the old stuff reviews, there’s a fella called GXAce and he is off the wall nuts with his Bladerunneresque channel with exceptional productions not just visually, but in all areas. For a YouTube channel.
It’s that Seth Godin ‘Purple Cow’ philosophy, whether by accident or design, ie, being original (and ideally authentic) within a field of everyone else  not looking like you, but all like each other.
There’s a guy Mark Holtze who used to do it with lenses, but he’s gone off the boil recently. Maybe (other) work commitments I don’t know…
I discovered a South African guy about 2 weeks back called Jacques Crafford and although he uses modern gear, Sony, his channel is mostly ‘how to’ stuff with minimal fluff and doesn’t appear to be selling anything. 
There’s no, “use this light because it’s the best”…until the next ‘best’ light comes along. And then the next one. Or filter, or lens, or strap, ie, kit plays a part because of course it does, but it’s more about the process than the tools.
It’s not like he’s even selling courses so why spend what must be a huge amount of time and effort on giving this stuff away?
I don’t know but guess some people are just genuine and authentic so because he can?
Vu Nugyun is another one. Sony ‘fanboy’ but along with his hilarious politically incorrect alter ego, does not follow the herd, speaks his mind and isn’t really into the whole sponsorship thing.
The one thing they all have in common is they are not simply clones but as above, whether by accident or design, unique in their own space and that is something I have always subscribed to and strived for in my own space.
There’s nothing wrong with having folks whose work you aspire to but unless you are actually more talented than them, lift parts for sure, but copying wholesale just doesn’t work.
 

Yes, but have they shot weddings?

....and in todays episode of "the camera YT echo-chamber doesn't know shit about the real world", here's a real-world and very high-end studio shooting VFX background plates with a gazillion BGH1 units, or arrays of GH5S paired with 12-35mm f2.8 zooms.
Their website indicates they've worked on Joker, Stranger Things, Mission Impossible, and dozens of other high-end productions.
The thumbnail appears to show 17 BGH1 units:
One shot from the Stranger Things rig detailed on their website shows "our standard nine camera array" is 9 x GH5S units - 5 at the back (with two facing sideways) and 3 on the front:

To all those who suggest that the size/weight advantage from MFT is gone, their page says "The rig was still able to fly as luggage and efficiently attach to a rental car, all while being street legal."  How much does a 24-70mm F2.8 weigh again? If you can't remember then the short answer is more than double the MFT equivalent.  In the video he talks about how each BGH1 + lens is about 1lb, and keeping the weight down allows them to rig the car up in such a way that keeps them from needing increased permitting and things like escort cars (which for 360 cameras appear in the shot).
So, the GH5S (2018) and BGH1 (2020 - 3 years old), which aren't FF, don't shoot RAW, don't have IBIS, and have been completely forgotten by the entire camera YT echo-chamber, are being actively used on some of the biggest and most VFX heavy films being made in Hollywood.
They also just casually mention in the video (11:35 if you don't believe me) they've been involved in over 2000 productions, and that "these cameras are able to match perfectly with all your A-cameras".

Id pay good money for that alone imagine going light without cage! and extra cables dangling around.

To add to my post, external recording is the biggest thing I would give up. Being able to record 12-bit RAW internally would be idea. I wish camera manufacturers would add uncompressed CDNG recording to their flagships. Compressed RAW is such a mess…patents and external workarounds…and then one does not necessarily have freedom of choice when it comes to what NLE to edit the RAW footage in…unless one converts. 
 
Give us uncompressed RAW to the card. Or give us Prores 4444 12-bit. The codec everyone has forgotten about 😆 

My a7s iii has all the bells and whistles, so i cannot imagine downgrade sacrifice one bit of it ! other than external modules like heavy ass ninja V that i have to carry around with me 😮‍💨 for manny reasons such as bright monitor & 12bit raw yada yada yada and so on 😅

1) colour
The sensor in cameras is a linear device, but does have a small influence in colour because each photo site has a filter on it (which is how red, green, and blue are detected separately) and the wavelengths of light that each colour detects are tuned by the manufacturer of the filter to give optimal characteristics, so this is a small influence in the colour science of the camera.
The sensor then just measures the light that hits each photo site and is completely Linear.  Therefore, all the colour science (except the filter on the sensor) is in the processor that turns the Linear output into whatever 709 or Log profile is written to the card.
2) DR
DR is limited by the dynamic range of the sensor, and of the noise levels, at the given ISO setting.  If a sensor has more DR or less noise then the overall image has more DR.
The processor can do noise reduction (spatial or temporal) and this can increase the DR of the resultant image.  The processor can also compress the DR of the image through the application of un-even contrast (eg crushing the highlights) or clipping the image (eg when saving JPG images rather than RAW stills) and this would decrease the DR.
3) Highlight rolloff
Sensors have nothing to do with highlight rolloff - when they reach their maximum levels they clip harder than an iPhone 4 on the surface of the sun.
All highlight rolloff is created by the processor when it takes the Linear readout from the sensor and applies the colour science to the image.
There is general confusion around these aspects and there is frequently talk of how one sensor or other has great highlight rolloff, which is factually incorrect.  I'm happy to discuss this further if you're curious.

A 3d pop effect starts to show together with defocus characteristics of a real anamorphic lens. I can see a number of 2x anamorphic  purists jumping on this and saying that there is not enough oval defocus. The scope used is a custom 1.5x compression ratio . Flares to my eyes look much more natural than those artificial over coated lens on the market such as Ulanzi, moment and the like.
 

Sony cine cams were definitely used which is why I assumed Venice:

(True Love was the films working title)

24-70gm ii my poor credit card 😭
 
 

24-70gm ii my poor credit card 😭
 
 

Being a Sony apologist isn't particularly professional, either. You've argued that the A7siii isn't meant for professionals, even though the very first thing Sony said in it's marketing material was how this camera is for "movie makers."
You've then faulted people for not immediately selling their A7siii and buying the FX3, because apparently that's a reasonable thing to expect people to do less than a year after they dropped $3500 on the A7siii. Frankly it's pretty ridiculous for Sony to have released the FX3 in the first place just six or so months after the A7siii, given it was pretty much the same camera in a different body, but that's a debate for another day.
And now you're faulting folks, many who use the camera professionally, for feeling burnt because they dare "whine" about features being withheld from their flagship cameras but not entry level ones even though it could be easily done in a firmware update.
This is silly. @Andrew Reid you should check to see if his IP address is located at one of Sony's headquarters! 😉

Yes, I acquired the a7siii when it first came out for its video features. It was the best option, then. As soon as the fx3 was introduced I traded. The fx3 was clearly superior as a video tool, even without the updates.
I agree not upgrading the a7siii is deliberate marketing. But if the new features of the fx3 are important and one's profession is video it seems odd to not trade up.
If a professional hangs on to the a7siii, then it is actually clear the new features are unimportant to her. The trade up cost is a tax-reducing investment and is a trivial expense, again, for a professional making a living based on video quality.
Just whining is not professional. Worse are those who say they will never buy Sony again over this. That is surely not professional.

A7Siii came out well before FX3/FX30 and was way overdue with about 4 years in between A7Sii. 
Its kinda easy today to claim it as the "wrong camera" "for people who take video seriously". 
Many spent their hard earned cash on it upon its release.
Regardless, breathing comp and a lot of the FX3/FX30 features are creeping into Alpha bodies. 
No reason Sony should withhold an A7Siii firmware update, aside from cripple hammer perspective.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh, camera change!
Nothing new, just going back to my old (used) set up.
I had just purchased another S1H to go with the one I already had, plus an S5ii...and was in the process of selling my pair of S1R's but...
The 'new' S1H has some issues so is going back and after 2 jobs this season, realised 4 cameras with the lenses available in L Mount, is better than 3 cameras.
Oh well, back to what works because as they say, if it ain't broke...
The only system I can do a 3 camera set up is Sony + Tamron, but then I'd have to make a YouTube video, "Why I Switched".

I forgot to mention my glasses 😅
24-70gm ii
50mm 1.4gm
35mm 1.8  so yah 🤣

24-70gm ii my poor credit card 😭