Towd

I never see anyone mention this, but Panasonic actually has a Varicam LUT that can be applied to properly convert V-Log footage to Rec. 709.  I think its a really nice starting place for grading footage, and it will properly transform V-Log into the Rec. 709 colorspace.   I see a lot of people grade by just applying custom S-curves or contrast to their Log footage with great results, but I'm a big fan of getting your camera data into the proper color space.  I think its especially helpful for people new to color grading, since it gets them into a more recognizable starting place.
The Arri LUT generator tool is also pretty cool especially for generating LUTs with soft roll-offs for shadows and highlights,. Your starting place is a bit off I think compared to Panasonic's LUT, but it's totally workable.
They're both free and worth checking out:
http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/varicam/35/dl.html
http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/tools/lut_generator/lut_generator/
For those interested, Camera Labs put out some really nice ungraded footage to test these LUTs in their review of the GH5.
 

The fact few people if any can tell the difference lets us know all we have too.......
 
Both cameras look great and if most people here cannot tell the difference, 99.9% of the audience will not be able too either......
 
Go and create the project you've always wanted, the camera is no longer an excuse /
 

I've been using 5D3 Magic Lantern RAW for a few years now and it's my personal gold standard for image quality as I'm very familiar with it, can predict the results I'll get in various situations and have developed my own look that I like using in post. I do a lot of documentary and corporate stuff and wanted to do more handheld, so I got the GH5 for its IBIS, 10bit V-Log, 4K and general ease of use. Although the GH5's colour is an improvement on its predecessors, the 5D3 is nicer looking to me. So I wanted to see if I could tweak the GH5's VLog colour to be more similar to the colour I get from Magic Lantern Cinelog-C, processed via Adobe Camera Raw (other debayering workflows will give different results).
I shot a chart with both cameras, extracted the squares and put them side by side in Resolve. V-Log on the left, ML on the right:
 

 
I used Hue v Hue and Hue v Sat to line up the signal on the vectorscope:
 

 
Here you can see the effect of this correction.This is accurately white balanced V-Log (default colour) with a curve and saturation added:
 

 
And here's the same shot with the colour correction applied:
 

 
Skin goes from green-ish to pink-ish. Reds become more saturated, blues are pulled back. Foliage separates out into varying shades of yellow to green to blue-sh green, rather than being one big block of pure green. So next, I wanted to test this by comparing the same shots to Magic Lantern RAW. Would this correction really turn my GH5 into a handheld and more usable version of my 5D3?
I stuck the GH5 on top of the 5D3. I shot the 5D3 at 3520 x 1320 (the maximum resolution I can get that's both continuous and at a sensible aspect ratio) - this has a crop factor of 1.63x. ISO was 100, and aperture at f5.6 on the Canon 24-105. The GH5 was 10 bit V-Log, Cinema 4K, ISO 400, aperture f4 (roughly equivalent) on the Leica 12-60. I used shutter speed to control exposure, so motion blur is different between shots. It seems like the GH5 has around 0.66 stops more info in the highlights at the same exposure as the 5D, so I shot it one stop over to maximise DR.
 
 
First I corrected the 5D shots to the way I wanted them to look. Then I tried to get the GH5 to match. It's not a perfect match by any means, there are individual hues that tend to go awry a little, especially in the first shot. But for me the exercise is a success: the GH5 footage looks more like Canon Magic Lantern than it would straight out of the camera. And I would be happy to intercut the two, or to use the GH5 in situations that are more suited to its features. The take home message is that V-Log has a lot of grading potential - you're not necessarily stuck with Panasonic's colours on this camera.
A nice surprise for me was how much detail is in the 3.5K 5D files compared to Cinema 4K GH5, especially when sharpened. However, it's not very practical to shoot in its high resolution modes at the moment, due to the slow refresh rate of the LCD preview.
If you want to check out the files yourself, here are a series of matched pairs of 5D DNGs, and GH5 V-Log TIFFS.
FOLDER:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFdi1FZ3hma09YZms
ALL FILES ZIPPED:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwzsbjMgrAwzTFJZby0xSTV6VmM

I don't want to derail the discussion about the GH5, but I hate seeing bad information out in the world, and just have to correct this.
For all intents and purposes, as long as the focal plane of the camera is in an identical place in the world between shots with different focal lengths, the effect is mathematically identical to a crop from a larger FOV to a smaller one.  In other words you can animate a crop on an image to recreate the effect of a zoom with a lens.
The only things that could possibly be different would be characteristics of the different lenses, such as pin cushion or barrel distortion throughout the zoom.  Of course there are going to be varying resolving differences depending on the technique used.  For example a digital zoom is going to reduce pixel resolution,  but an optical zoom is going to be affected by any resolving differences of the lens at different focal lengths.   That said, if you took a theoretically "perfect pinhole lens" and performed a zoom it would be identical to to a crop on an image with infinite resolution.
I've run into so many photographers who don't get this, but I think it's an important bit of information to keep in the back of your head while out shooting--  you can crop in on an image and  it will have the same basic effect as putting a longer lens on your camera.  What's neat about the GH5 is that trick doesn't seem to have much effect on the detail in the image, so it really effectively gives you two lenses which is very cool.
Just as a side note, that Jaws effect is achieved by combining a move through the environment combined with a zoom or crop in to keep the subject in the same scale in the frame.  The key to the effect is that the camera is moving and not in the same spot from the beginning to the end of the shot, so you are getting the parallax of moving the camera.  In fact even before digital, they used to do the effect using optical printers in the same way in which we can crop a shot today.

I don't want to derail the discussion about the GH5, but I hate seeing bad information out in the world, and just have to correct this.
For all intents and purposes, as long as the focal plane of the camera is in an identical place in the world between shots with different focal lengths, the effect is mathematically identical to a crop from a larger FOV to a smaller one.  In other words you can animate a crop on an image to recreate the effect of a zoom with a lens.
The only things that could possibly be different would be characteristics of the different lenses, such as pin cushion or barrel distortion throughout the zoom.  Of course there are going to be varying resolving differences depending on the technique used.  For example a digital zoom is going to reduce pixel resolution,  but an optical zoom is going to be affected by any resolving differences of the lens at different focal lengths.   That said, if you took a theoretically "perfect pinhole lens" and performed a zoom it would be identical to to a crop on an image with infinite resolution.
I've run into so many photographers who don't get this, but I think it's an important bit of information to keep in the back of your head while out shooting--  you can crop in on an image and  it will have the same basic effect as putting a longer lens on your camera.  What's neat about the GH5 is that trick doesn't seem to have much effect on the detail in the image, so it really effectively gives you two lenses which is very cool.
Just as a side note, that Jaws effect is achieved by combining a move through the environment combined with a zoom or crop in to keep the subject in the same scale in the frame.  The key to the effect is that the camera is moving and not in the same spot from the beginning to the end of the shot, so you are getting the parallax of moving the camera.  In fact even before digital, they used to do the effect using optical printers in the same way in which we can crop a shot today.

I'm not pre-ordering because it doesn't have the Auto Hollywood Mode, in which I'm guaranteed to be a Hollywood cinematographer. I don't want to buy lights and go to all that effort just to get a usable picture at night time. ;-D 
In all seriousness, the camera seems like a no-brainer. I had and loved the GH3. But I'll be waiting for these firmware updates and some user experiences / knowledge before placing an order. I made that mistake with the RX10 II (which didn't work out for me at all). 
I also need to break in my A6500 first!

Thanks for the support.
If people don't agree with me on this, then I will at some point also cave in and do a run of big advertisements splashed on the site and regular sponsored articles. But if my readers say they're NOT fine with this, I won't. Simple as that. So speak up for the indies... not many advertising-free places left now on the internet.
It wasn't supposed to be this way online.

it seems to me that complaints about the codec not being editable come from people who have never touched the camera. i can edit that 500 mbit/s footage on my i5 (!), gtx770, 8gb (!) ram pc in realtime. i even edit it on my 13'' macbook pro in final cut using proxies with zero lag. 

"Likewise when I invested – key word invested – in the A6300, had I known Sony would roll out the A6500 a few months later I would never have spent money on it. One should rarely wait to buy the tool you need, because there’s forever something newer round the corner, but it seems like every 6 months Sony make your last purchase a complete waste of money."

1) Oh COME ON. For two years you were yelling at Canon for not innovating. Now that they finally update your yelling at Sony for innovating to much with fast refresh cycles?
2) Cameras are not an investment in terms of resale value, camera's are in an investment into your art/business.

I've grown very tired of base Canon profiles ( C-log is excellent however). They are excessively warm, not true to life at all. Which is great if your shooting weddings all the time, but not all subjects are served with that type of color.

I find your comparison completely false. The Canon is using your custom profile GRADED and the Sony is using Standard, ungraded, and obviously underexposed!

But most of all, no mention of the IBIS and excellent viewfinders on the High-end Sony camera's?? I could never go back to only using the rear LCD, a non-tilting one at that!

Andrew, do you film professionally? It's just that you speak authoritatively but I don't think I've seen anything other than what you post here. To me the skin tones (especially on the train trip) look pretty awful. No client I have would ever approve that. The blacks are crushed to death and faces are red and over-saturated.

ES also tried to persuade another forum member during a drone discussion to ship him a drone to Egypt...these cons or attempted cons have been going on for a while..
Below I'll paste that request made by ES to Jonsey Jones
 
 "  On May 6, 2016 at 4:57 AM,  Ebrahim Saadawi said: 
Where are you located JOnsey? I've been seriously searching here for any DJI supplier new or used and there's none. Zero. I was going with the inspure plus x5r kit just for the sexiness of a raw gh4 footage. But ended up seeing it's a much much more sensible decision to start with DJI lowest end drone (Phantom 4 1080p I thinl? Why not do a pal a favpur and buy an extra one & ship it to me, as I havE no one abroad at the moment. I can transfer the fee through anu channel prior to the purchasr (we've been long enough here to trust one another) plus all the shipping and effort costs. This way we can start with a cheap phantom to really master flyinh and still do some projects with it and then have it as a fiture B aerial camera when we get an inspire, or what ever comes up then! I strongly advice going that way, the phantom 4k can produce amazingbresults  that most of youtube clients won't mind a bit, so getting that instinctive ability to drive the thing and the muscle memory on different situationd is absolutely essential before we go bigger, right? Btw a question, how do you actuall keep track of the drone and fly it? Does it give a live feed wirelesly? And if so, to what? and what range? Mters? Kilometers? And what happens when it goes out of that ramge, crasj? I more consirned about people safety as I'll be shooting incredibly high populated sma'' country (thonk like europe at rush hours in PAris UK, Etc, and and vertical crash WILL absolutelu hit someone 's skull. Of course I'll be training for months and months before taking it to a dense area, just the desert, but still accidents happen. how big and heavy is a phantom , would it cause a si,ple trauma if the worst ever happens. or concusion? Skull fracture and immediate death? If amy one has any experience of hitting people or hearing stories about people hit by these drones i'd love tp hear them, if it's seriously damaging i'll tota'ly resttict the usage to my roof 
Hope yoi can read through this spelling, writing from an old npkis phone with a aphysocal leyboard.
I'm in San Diego, CA. I'd probably buy from BH though. 
I too am thinking Phantom, but 3 or 4 I don't know. What's the big advantage of the 4? Is it worth double the price?
Yes. I will buy and ship for you. PM me and we can arrange the details. "
 
As is obvious...the con has been going on for a while...I posted this during the ES feeding frenzy, when I don't think anyone was really reading anyone else's posts.  I have to agree most strongly with Bioscope's post on that thread which was WTF with all this forgive and forget (I paraphrase here)...this guy needs to be in jail IMHO...he is a thief and whereas he may have been handled with kid gloves before, in the effort to get the money back for the guys who were scammed, it's now a case of here we go again!

 
 Like this

This is the most sensible advice in this thread. Ed needs to relax, we all need to relax. And to be quite honest, I actually don't care about this all that much. The writer side of me has enjoyed the possible narratives but in the end this is just a big stupid scam and some people need to relax over it. This whole idea of occupy eoshd and involving some secret "anonymous" group is so utterly ridiculous, it almost makes ES's stories seem true. Part of me was interested in some version of the truth and hoped the kid would fess up, but the fact is the truth is pretty simple... It's a scam and the herd reaction of LoveFestEOSHD on one side and silly playground vendetta on the other is getting just as creepy as ES's persona. I enjoy this forum... But I definitely need a break from this bi-polar thread. And I really regret my part in it. 

Don't assume, stick to what you know.
You haven't been in this conversation that's been going on for two years, if you had been I don't think you would think so.
When a person basically calls anyone who doesn't shoot 4K or more exactly a Samsung NX1 an "idiot", " hack", "uninformed", etc and never stop and think, not for one second, that people just might not agree, then one will get a few cheap shots.
I think you need to lift your eyes a little and realize that not everything is about you. I never said that 4K automatically means low bitrate. I was talking about one specific camera. I myself use lowbitrate consumer 4K all the time.
But I don't think Tarantino and Spielberg are stupid idiots who would switch to a NX1 for their movies if someone showed them one. And if they rejected it go on to calling them "hacks".
But maybe your right, maybe it won't be an intelligent conversation. A bit patronizing, but maybe your right.

In my opinion a big downside to shooting 4k in the prosumer price range is the rolling shutter is typically much worse when compared 2k/HD.  I personally find rolling shutter to be one of the most annoying aspects to shooting on cmos sensors.
While nice to have, resolution probably falls somewhere after accurate colors, good dynamic range, bit depth/image fidelity, and a lack of difficult to repair artifacts such as rolling shutter, moire, or aliasing.
Limited resolution really doesn't matter much to me and can be flattering in a lot of situations.

Lol you guys talk about thickness of the image like wine conocers talk about their drink.   Please stop. You cant possibly make judgements lile this from a compressed web video. You need the raw footage in your hands and know about how it was lit, shot etc. Most people who use cameras like the gh4 arent setting up huge diffusers to soften 1k watt lights or even the sun. Thats really where the difference lays when you see footage from a 10k camera and from a 1k camera

Would rather the focus be in dynamic range, super 35 sensor, color and 10bit or raw output than 6k.  

I actually wouldn't buy that camera if it was 8bit 4:2:0
People need to start shouting from the roof tops that it is no longer good enough. Whether Andrew chooses to believe it or not, the combination of 10 bit and 4:2:2 (or higher) is where you can really start to get the best out of log footage. I don't want to climb a mountain for 6 hours to then find my shots ruined by banding. 10 bit solves this issue and really helps the log curve store the information correctly.

Bigger sensor size is good and all. But I would like more DR, better highlight roll off, less noise and improved color science even if only at 1080p in a better codec.
 
 

Last week you were saying you didn't care about 4k... Now it's all about 6k?!
I'd much prefer internal 10bit 4:2:2 (or compressed raw)... Better DR and low light.

I could live without 6k.
Want high DR.
And 4K RAW to the Shogun instead.
Otherwise I would probably buy it.
But the NX1 sounds pretty close to it. A NX2 would be nice, if they pick it up again.

Anyone that's complaining about what they can get in a camera for 1K these days is ridiculous.  You. Are. Not. Limited.  The technology that's at your fingertips is more than enough to do whatever you could imagine.  Go use it.  

Yeah, this is just my point.  Unless you want to fork over the money for a Red Weapon, you are going to be making a trade off.  The trade off with the Raven is that you will be shooting using Red's 4.5k  or 4k sensor size for your projects instead of the 6k size.  I know for people who are used to shooting full frame or S35 this feels like a big trade off, but at least the FOV can be compensated for with lens and framing.  It is a lot harder to fix bad color that was shot on an inferior sensor-- and many times can't be fixed.
If you shoot with PL glass, spend another $5k and get the Scarlet-w.
I sound like a Red fanboy and I'm not.  I've just graded a lot of Red footage in addition to Sony, Canon, Nikon, GoPro, DJI, Phantom flex, and others.  Red is just a very workable image that gives nice results.  Same can't be said for some of those other options.  
Obviously, different tools for different projects, but I hate to see people write off a Red just because the sensor is slightly smaller than S35.

First time poster.
In regards to the Samsung NX1, I'm considering a purchase, but I'm a bit curious about your comment regarding "3. Unnatural motion cadence when panning or recording a moving subject (deal breaker)."   Is this in reference to some form of extreme rolling shutter when recording UHD or 4k?  
I've seen that the 4k rolling shutter is pretty bad on the Samsung but its also not great on the Sony A7 series.  However, the Samsung 1080p rolling shutter is one of the best among CMOS sensors.  My thought is that during scenes with extreme action or during lots of hand held shooting, I could drop to 1080p to compensate.
Or does motion cadence refer to something else?  To my mind, something shot at 24 fps at 1/50th shutter speed should be pretty much the same across cameras unless rolling shutter plays a major role in what is perceived by the viewer.
I'm very curious in regards to what people are referring to when they reference motion cadence.  Seems a very nebulous trait of a camera and I'm very interested in what makes good cadence vs bad cadence that would constitute a deal-breaker for a certain camera.

First time poster.
In regards to the Samsung NX1, I'm considering a purchase, but I'm a bit curious about your comment regarding "3. Unnatural motion cadence when panning or recording a moving subject (deal breaker)."   Is this in reference to some form of extreme rolling shutter when recording UHD or 4k?  
I've seen that the 4k rolling shutter is pretty bad on the Samsung but its also not great on the Sony A7 series.  However, the Samsung 1080p rolling shutter is one of the best among CMOS sensors.  My thought is that during scenes with extreme action or during lots of hand held shooting, I could drop to 1080p to compensate.
Or does motion cadence refer to something else?  To my mind, something shot at 24 fps at 1/50th shutter speed should be pretty much the same across cameras unless rolling shutter plays a major role in what is perceived by the viewer.
I'm very curious in regards to what people are referring to when they reference motion cadence.  Seems a very nebulous trait of a camera and I'm very interested in what makes good cadence vs bad cadence that would constitute a deal-breaker for a certain camera.