webrunner5

I think anyone that is older has had some experience with the 79a' threw 79e' series Ikagami's and portable recorders. They were the thing to have until the I started using a Sony BVP-5 3CCD BetaCam Head with BVV-1A BetaCam VTR. All 550 lines of resolution! I think that thing with the big battery on it weighed like 22 pounds!! But they were pretty good at holding them steady at that weight. You had to warm up the camera for an hour or more before you could even use them to be calibrated. Man it produced a beautiful picture at the time though. The tape decks we had at the time weighed nearly 50 pounds each in the studio.
We had one reporter that used to stutter at times when he got too excited, so we had to do a lot more re-takes with him. God I hated that holding that camera for what seemed like half an hour straight LoL. And he was good at running after people to get more dialog from them. That was a LOT of fun!! Wow good thing I was young, 30ish at the time. I think I have one arm longer and one leg shorter than the other because of all of that for years LoL.
Wow those were the days. Man the money the stations spent was mind boggling at the the time to upgrade to that stuff. I have no clue how they could really afford it. It had to be like a  3 Million or more dollars easy. Heck each camera was over a 100k each. Studio cameras with the box Lenses were like 250k or more with the remote controls and the pedestals. And I have NO clue what the switchers cost then! Probably 250k each also. And the mobile trucks, Jesus if you had to ask, you could not afford it. Easy Million dollars each one.
But the money like NBC spent in those days to cover the Olympics had to be mind boggling. It had to be a Billion dollars or more easy! NFL football was just as bad. Heck a Red camera seems cheap this day and age! Not!

"You can do 4K@60 with 4:4:4 8bit, or you can do 4K@60 with 4:2:0 10bit". It appears we are both wrong (I got my specs originally from Wikipedia). It looks like you can do 4K@60 10bit 4:2:2.
From your link:
Yes. HDMI 2.0 includes support for BT.2020 Colorimetry with 10 or more bits of color depth.
Video Formats defined in BT.2020 and supported by HDMI 2.0 specification:
– 2160p, 10/12 bits, 24/25/30Hz, RGB/4:2:2/4:4:4
– 2160p, 10/12 bits, 50/60Hz, 4:2:0/4:2:2
Since few cameras output 4:4:4, having a TV with 4K@60 10bit 4:2:2 capability with REC2020 would appear perfectly fine to monitor for editing HDR video.
I would expect the forthcoming GH5 will output 4K@60 10bit 4:2:2, since the GH4 outputs 4K@30p 4:2:2 10bit.
 

There is a reason(or two) that big tvs cost much less than small computer monitors.
 

I wonder if the dual cameras in a smartphone could be combined to create an anamorphic image. That's something I would love to see in a small format.
Still nothing easy for DSLRs. Really a shame. 

No, I have yet to find one that I can live with size and weight wise. Have been kicking around the idea of the moondog labs 37mm adapter. But that means a bigger beefier gimbal. So for now I'm just letterboxing it. And yes, I know it's not the same thing... Believe me, I know.
But how do you keep it small and light, with single focus, and anamorphic? Better still, how can I keep the brilliant 1DXMk2 DPAF and still do anamorphic? 

I think anyone that is older has had some experience with the 79a' threw 79e' series Ikagami's and portable recorders. They were the thing to have until the I started using a Sony BVP-5 3CCD BetaCam Head with BVV-1A BetaCam VTR. All 550 lines of resolution! I think that thing with the big battery on it weighed like 22 pounds!! But they were pretty good at holding them steady at that weight. You had to warm up the camera for an hour or more before you could even use them to be calibrated. Man it produced a beautiful picture at the time though. The tape decks we had at the time weighed nearly 50 pounds each in the studio.
We had one reporter that used to stutter at times when he got too excited, so we had to do a lot more re-takes with him. God I hated that holding that camera for what seemed like half an hour straight LoL. And he was good at running after people to get more dialog from them. That was a LOT of fun!! Wow good thing I was young, 30ish at the time. I think I have one arm longer and one leg shorter than the other because of all of that for years LoL.
Wow those were the days. Man the money the stations spent was mind boggling at the the time to upgrade to that stuff. I have no clue how they could really afford it. It had to be like a  3 Million or more dollars easy. Heck each camera was over a 100k each. Studio cameras with the box Lenses were like 250k or more with the remote controls and the pedestals. And I have NO clue what the switchers cost then! Probably 250k each also. And the mobile trucks, Jesus if you had to ask, you could not afford it. Easy Million dollars each one.
But the money like NBC spent in those days to cover the Olympics had to be mind boggling. It had to be a Billion dollars or more easy! NFL football was just as bad. Heck a Red camera seems cheap this day and age! Not!

The camera spec I believe is 15 stops, but I saw film and F65 footage that looked fine as HDR.
That's similar to asking why an HD screen is required to view HD when you can downscale to SD. Truth is, tone mapping only goes so far. With HDR, it's the difference between listening to a very compressed (dynamic range compressed while mastering, not MP3 compressed but that too) track on your iPhone with bad headphones vs being at the concert live. It's the difference between a cheesy tone mapped image and being there. It's really incredible and difficult to describe because no screens exist now that can approximate the high end test beds.
Imagine that the image you're seeing of a day exterior isn't an image, but instead a window, with as much contrast as your eye can see and as many colors. Or even colors that you have never seen before. The sun can be so bright on an HDR set that it's unpleasant to look at. Imagine if your tv could get as bright as looking into a 60w bulb and as black as pure darkness. Sure you can compress that range, but why would you want to?

What cameras can record in HDR?
Why is a HDR screen required to display HDR when you could just bake the dynamic range into a normal video file?

Nice piece of work! Excellent color, framing & editing. I will agree with bunk though regarding audio. I have a pair of near field studio monitors in front of me & can't hear what she is saying. Music is too loud and her voice needs more aggresive compression and volume to cut through. Cheers!

Color looks fine to me ...the balance of the sound on the other hand not so. No idea what the girll was talking about, the music is way to loud to my ears.

Unless Canon has completely changed their numbering scheme the XC15 is exactly  the same image as the XC15.

There is a small difference, a C100 with an atomos is even better than a C300 (without atomos), and with prores 422 you can push further in davinci, and what I like about this camera is that it is so cinematic, if It has 4K will be my dream camera (of course keeping this price, $12,000 for a 4K C300 mKII is impossible for my wallet). BTW, the original without DPAF sold out in two days, so a lot of people took advantage of this price cut, I went for the DPAF because of I am also planing to use it with a steadicam, and I can now forget about the focus, less work, much better!

I finally picked up the C100, the one with dual pixel, BH just lowered the price to $2,300, an even lower price than I was seeing for a second hand in ebay, I will add it an atomos ninja star and I will be ready to gun&run, the good thing is that this model will depreciate really low during the next two years, much less than any other camera so I will get at least 2/3 of the camera value if I decided to sell it next year…..I wish canon fixed the issue in the XC line with the next XC20, if that happens I will probably switch to it.

When I was a Stagehand/camera assistant, we had to carry Ikagamis around golf courses for cameramen for 3-4 days at a time, (couldn't get into floor managing quick enough)... I'm actually getting a sore back remembering them !! 

Fucking YouTube.
Reuploading AGAIN!!

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-more-gh5-pricing-info/#disqus_thread
Body only: Price will be between 1 800 € and 2 000 € in Europe for the DMC-GH5.
Price will be ± 2 900 € for the DMC-GH5 + the new Panasonic Leica 12-60 Lens (not the older 12-60mm lens!)
In Korea that's around the price of a a7r ii or a7s ii. Kind of crazy.

“The winning part of shooting video on the X Pro2 is the colour science underpinning the video mode and JPEG engine. It’s simply the best. To the extent that Tina Turner would write a song about it.“ Fuji x pro2 review by Andrew. 
It would be a ruinous  thing to base buying decisions on your fast changing gut feelings. 
 
Best Jan
 
 

In all due respect, I think this is one of your weaker articles.
The comparison is weird (as the A7SII does look better) and this newish stance regarding Canon contradicts many other previous articles written on the site. 
I looked into the Canon 1DX II - although the entire package is nice, the file sizes are very large, you need a hotshoe monitor for serious work (exposure tools, tilt viewing angles etc), the highlight roll-off is steep, and finally we are back to the Franken-rig for steady hand held... so having a more video focused hybrid or a dedicated video camera will be a better option in a lot of cases. 
Plus, while Sony images are much harder to get a pleasing look - with skill, you can get some magnificent results. Many users are uploading very poorly graded S-log videos with horrendous white balance, exposure and lighting. Get it right, and you have lovely dynamic range, lovely colour and detailed image. No auto modes required! 
I can see the DPAF having huge value in many situations. I'm glad you are enjoying the benefits. However, I wouldn't throw out theta A7S II just yet, it serves a very different purpose and will be very useful. 

I agree with DPC and Gerbert Floor. There is no commercial potential in this footage, as it is.

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.

There is a problem with this statement, as Nikon that won number 1 in the "JPEG shootout" also use Sony sensor...

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of some of your comparisons in this review.  In Australia, a 1DX mkII will set you back $8500 vs $1400 for an A6300!

Too expensive for me. 
The GX85 image you put is amazing. Way better than the Sony. Good enough color wise. 
So the GH5 would do it for me if only it had DPAF like the canon.......
it would be a way better tool than the canon actually. 3 times cheaper, articulated screen, 3 times smaller, better spec and 10bit with better codec. 
Just that AF which is crucial and which is going to be DPAF decent at best, and not DPAF at worst
 

No offense intended to the OP.
I think there are other folks like myself who want the camera for the film simulation colors, even though I know I could grade it. The time savings would be worth it. 

$1500 vs $6000 is a very different price proposition.