HockeyFan12

A few things:
 
ADC in this camera is linear, so no funny business with Log encoding or anything like that.
96db of dynamic range is an audio standard. The video/photo equivalent would be 48db (a stop is either 3db or 6db, power or amplitude).
IIRC N-bit ADCs have DR = 6.021N + 1.763dB (audio), or 3.021N + 1.007dB, so a 12-bit ADC = 74dB/37dB or 12.333 stops of dynamic range.
The sensor is 12-bit readout of ~6K photosites in a Bayer array.. When this is tested at 4K we have significantly more than 12 bits of readout per measured pixel. 8-bit 4k IS 10-bit 1080p, etc.

I might be misunderstanding something, but my understanding was that the bit depth of the ADC correlated with the maximum number of stops of dynamic range:
https://***URL removed***/articles/4653441881/bit-depth-is-about-dynamic-range-not-the-number-of-colors-you-get-to-capture
There are serious issues with Cinema5D's methodology, even if their comparisons are useful. But even 12.7 stops would be too much for a 12 bit ADC was my understanding and to me their results read as significantly more.
Regardless, the S1H has outstanding dynamic range, in my experience more than most cinema cameras with quoted 14 stops of DR (though not Alexa-level by any means), and something doesn't add up here.

Here’s my latest anamorphic adventure!
Pro-tip for anyone who is considering an anamorphic rig on film: make sure your variable diopter has focus marks! Everything looked focused in the viewfinder, but it definitely wasn’t. Marks and a tape measure are your best friends.
 

I've had similar IR issues with footage I've received from the Ursa mini but nothing as severe as the above with the P6k. @Super8 is right that by the time a colorist receives footage, it's rarely raw anymore, if it ever was. For instance any visual effects shots are going to be delivered in ProRes or DPX or something even if the project is shot in raw.
I expect the IR pollution shows up in the monitors but is lost in glare. I saw it happen on a Red MX shoot too, but not nearly as bad. It's a real problem. Pro ACs and operators can pull focus better than you, but they're not necessarily knowledgeable about prosumer video.
A few years ago I remember reading in ASC mag I think about a network series shooting Alexa in ProRes 422 1080p instead of HQ I think? As bad as your storage issues might be, imagine scaling them up across an entire series... A lot of the time amateurs and small post houses are way ahead of larger studios technically. You can afford to shoot raw. NBC can't. I suspect this has changed to an extent by now, of course, but it's worth considering what luxuries we're granted in different segments.
It's also true that raw isn't the same across cameras. Disregarding the potential for IR pollution, etc. different sensors have different noise levels and different chromaticities based on the dyes used. I worked with a DP who was on the ACES board or knew someone on it–or something–and manufacturers would send in data from their sensors. There're all sorts of differences between them. If I remember correctly, Red, for instance, had green and red chromasticities rather close with its early sensors, so you got ruddy foliage but then the Panavision DXL fixed this with software and you could grade it to mitigate it pretty well anyway. Apparently the C200-generation Canons have a special Bayer array to capture a much wider gamut than their predecessor so they can be used in BT2020 workflows. Granted, raw footage can be graded with more flexibility than raster in general, but raw footage isn't necessary as interchangeable across camera systems as would be ideal. Of course the whole point of ACES is to equalize things as best possible so it's not entirely hopeless matching cameras. But the raw signal from an Alexa is going to be way better and way more flexible than the raw signal from a less expensive camera. 
I forget what the original argument was. 
But amateurs have advantages larger studios don't in all aspects of production. I talked with a grip who'd worked on an Adam Sandler movie and they had these massive nets and 18K HMIs set up primarily so they wouldn't have to wait on cloud cover. Not even because it looked better, but because it was too expensive to wait. Chances are you can afford to wait on cloud cover. Or even wait until golden hour.
Likewise a GH5 will fit on a gimbal an Alexa rig won't. And on and on...
This might be a lesson to me more than anyone else, but I think it's worth mentioning: play to your strengths. You might have better luck with a Pocket 6k than Warner Brothers does. Everything I've seen from the Pocket 6K indicates it's the best price/performance around. It looks a lot like a 6K Alexa to me. That doesn't mean it's the best for every workflow by any means, though. One of the advantages of the Alexa is how easy it is to operate if you're someone who's used to shooting film. The menus are minimal and interface relatively simple.

The most reliable solution I've found is to identify the correct clip in your finder/explorer, change the name of the source file, and then reattach the media in the PP project using that new name.  Not sure how many clips you have with this issues, but it's a one-clip-at-a-time fix, can be a tedious chore.
I made this mistake a few times early on with Premiere too.

Quite an attack...
https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/21/canon-announces-the-c300-mark-iii/
https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/21/canon-c300-mark-iii-hands-on-footage/
https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/21/canon-eos-r5-specifications/

Highlight detail is so good on the S1H. On the S1, too. That camera is a sleeper. P6K is excellent, too.
To me the 2.1Gbps codec on the C500 Mk II would be too heavy to be pragmatic, regardless of image quality.

The gyro info will be good for vr environment too...

This is what you want.
https://revisionfx.com/products/rsmb/

The ALEV3 sensor has soul. (That is to say, an extremely expensive OLPF that smooths the image out really nicely. And nice noise texture. And low pixel density.)
I agree that consumer/prosumer video cameras and hybrids are way way too sharp, which I think is what you're getting at. But it's a different market. FS7 etc. is more targeted toward sports and reality anyway. 
But Red's got their 6K S35 sensor and Arri is working on a 4K+ S35 sensor so I think everything is going to start looking like shit soon lol. Even with the Alexa LF and Alexa 65, you need old vintage glass to get a good look, whereas film and 2.8/3.2k Alexa look pretty good with Rokinons or CP2s.

Since there is a camera owning plans thread, why not?
 
My plans are just to try and hang on to the lenses i currently have (five main ones and a couple of outliers anyway).
Canon EF mount 17mm f4 L tilt shift
Canon FD 24 1.4 L
Sony Zeiss 55 1.8
Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro (EF mount)
Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall MF
I still have a heap of others but most not used...occasional use of a Canon EF 20-35 2.8 L and FD 85 1.2 L but both have issues.
The 300 2.8 just might be my most used lens for people shooting over the coming months (perfect for portraits while social distancing).
IF (big IF), I get some money later this year after the current mess is over and the Aussie dollar climbs the mountain again, I would like to get the new Sony 20 1.8 but that is more like I am dreaming.
 
 

Can you buy faster lenses?
In general I like the S1H but I haven't tried the autofocus. Low light is excellent, maybe not best of the best but very very good.

I'd rent a set instead.

@Tito Ferradans might be the man to ask, he's like the guru with the mojo, i'm sure he'll turn up sometime shortly.  

Since I had and thoroughly used whole sets of Leica R and Zeiss Contax lenses, maybe it's not too unworthy to mention that there are also pretty big differences between lenses in either of lines. Precisely, above quoted Leica R 35mm f2 is indeed, without doubt by far the best lens between R's (even not just at pixel peeping level), following, I'd say not so close with 60mm f2.8 and 90mm f2 - but such combination of sharpness and mellowness at the same time is unique even for R's. (Even every last revisions of famous 50mm's need higher aperture  to avoid noticeably even center softness on modern sensors.) So, comparing best of the best of whole line, with edge focal distance of an zoom, actually is compliment for Sigma 18-35.
Interestingly, from my experience, if I have to choose similar unique character for one single Contax lens, I'd choose Distagon 35mm f2.8, even rather than Hollywood 28mm. (Also Contax 35-70 is surprisingly great, but for me not as much as its cpair Leica 35-70... Also very 'cinematic' SOOC result with modern cameras could be achieved with pretty underdog cheap, but mechanically brilliant R 28-70.) R's also have lesser focus breathing than Contax's.
Another similar remark  is that R line is mechanically on level upper to Contax line, and age deterioration with proper care even with intensive usage is remarkable close to zero, which couldn't be said in term of 1:1 for Contax's (although they are at the same high league in comparison with often confection-type of modern lenses).

You have to post that just as I decided not to get a Leica R 35mm f2, don't you lol. That looks so good.
This is why test charts are not a good metric of performance imo. I suspect the Leica is worse on a chart but the look of it overall imo is significantly better. And I really really like the Sigma 18-35mm as modern lenses go. It's a personal favorite. But the Leica is juts spot on. Looks good without any overt "vintage" feel, which I tend to chase excessively. 
I'm sending in an old 28mm f2 Contax Zeiss to get serviced and the technician tells me that even an apparently spotless lens will slowly develop invisible oil deposits as the helical grease ages over the course of a few decades. I wonder if part of the lower contrast "vintage" look is just oil deposited on the glass. Not always desirable when you're shooting film, but when you're shooting digitally it could take the edge off?
 
What do you all make of this? 

This is so cool.
There's been lip service paid to a return to practical effects with a lot of recent features, and I think that's a step in the right direction, but imo this kind of thing achieves the same goal and it's forward-thinking and not just nostalgic. 
When you film with the background there practically, the specular highlights,  fill light, etc. look appropriate even if you're massaging the background plate in post. Not the case with green screen where it can "feel" fake even with really high end material. And the shots are composed in real time (rather than on green screen with consideration for how you'll compose in post)–what you lose in flexibility you more than gain in terms of the shot being there.
Obvious this tech isn't for everything and has its limitations, but it's super exciting to me.

The Mandalorian has reinvented how we can make films. No need to build physical sets or travel to remote locations. This is like green screen 2.0. Filming in a controlled studio, but the cameras and actors can all interact with the digital environment. Realtime keying without having to use tracking markers or anything. I'd be surprised if every studio in the world isn't already building this. We'll be seeing it in every movie and TV show within the next few years, for sure.
Here's a full article
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/20/how-the-mandalorian-and-ilm-invisibly-reinvented-film-and-tv-production/

I assumed it was from the web compression.

This is not so bad. I don't think you did anything wrong, it might be a half stop underexposed but not that bad.
Those strings are a bit tricky though...
If you were to reshoot, I would rate the camera at around 160 ISO, whatever the lowest ISO is before highlights clip. That will get the shadows super clean and a nice thick image to work with. Cinema cameras generally don't apply denoising to the image (or look like garbage if they do) so you can get a much noisier image from a C300 MK II than for instance an A7S.
Buy Neat Video, watch a few tutorials, and apply it before the key. It will slow your render down and cost $100 or something but it will also solve these problems. You will probably want to regrain after keying even. The data you need is there, you can get a clean key.
Or try setting Keylight to "intermediate result" and using the spill suppressor plug in set to advanced and colorpicker green. It can look a bit less noisy but won't solve a dancing key.
 

T* means multicoated, Sonnar is an asymmetrical (telephoto?) design that also means fast (f2.0 or faster), Planar references a symmetrical six-element design, Distagon means wide angle retro focus design, Biogon means wide angle angle but more symmetrical? I don't really understand lens design. They're mostly branding terms.
Check this thread on RedUser:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide
The Contax still lenses will all cover full fame. The cinema lenses won't, not all of them at least.

On RedUser there is a big thread on FDs. Not sure whether this topic has come up or not.

Shooting with the new Sigma 45mm F2.8 for L-mount, I realised the same thing I did when I first shot anamorphic at F5.6.
Beautiful rendering matters, not just wide open, but at slower apertures.
This doesn't get enough attention!
Sometimes I want to see that background, and not have it completely creamed out, but neither do I want to give up the '3D' look or beautiful out of focus rendering and fall-off.
What is the best rendering lens at F4? I doubt you'll find answer on Google.
Let's test.

A while back I posted a tutorial on film emulation and recreating halation and grain in a realistic way. I recently came out with a new video that goes over it in a better, more concise way.
I see quite a bit of people asking how to achieve the look of film and it's characteristics so hopefully this video can help them out!
A big thanks to the Lift, Gamma, Gain forums for figuring a lot of this out also feel free to share your results and download the PowerGrades I've provided on my website!
 
 
 

I agree. If all we knew of video games were choose-your-own-adventure movies, we wouldn't be so into video games.
One key area where I think video games and VR differ is that video games can present a realistic simulation of depth and physics that can be more exciting than the real thing–but with VR you have to reconcile the game space and game physics with real physics and real space, and teleportation mechanics are the best we've got but imo don't really cut it.
Unless someone comes up with a genius approach to locomotion, I think VR will only thrive when we figure out what the most interesting thing we can put in a small space is. And it might just be a lot of interesting interactive stuff (the Rick and Morty game is fun)–or it'll probably be other people. Like Skype but weird af. Or virtual office or virtual surgery, virtual manufacturing/remote piloting. Transporting people to other places.
And so, ironically, the least effective VR mechanic (teleportation) might become, in effect, what VR is actually/virtually used for.
Maybe the best locomotive mechanic is virtual VR helmets? I think they did this in Superhot VR, I'm not actually creative enough to come up with it. 
Superhot VR is amazing btw.