Ken Ross

Absolutely true. I've watched this on my 5K iMac, 65" UHD OLED and 75" UHD LCD, and there is not a trace of moire. Further, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about moire with the GH5. As you've correctly said, sometimes the computer and/or monitor that's being used can easily cause these artifacts. That roof is squeaky clean.
How about a nice UV filter smeared with Vaseline. That  should give it that nice cinematic look that some are after.

Absolutely true. I've watched this on my 5K iMac, 65" UHD OLED and 75" UHD LCD, and there is not a trace of moire. Further, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about moire with the GH5. As you've correctly said, sometimes the computer and/or monitor that's being used can easily cause these artifacts. That roof is squeaky clean.
How about a nice UV filter smeared with Vaseline. That  should give it that nice cinematic look that some are after.

Absolutely true. I've watched this on my 5K iMac, 65" UHD OLED and 75" UHD LCD, and there is not a trace of moire. Further, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about moire with the GH5. As you've correctly said, sometimes the computer and/or monitor that's being used can easily cause these artifacts. That roof is squeaky clean.
How about a nice UV filter smeared with Vaseline. That  should give it that nice cinematic look that some are after.

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

The outside car to roof video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsPFxB6kHU There is no moire/aa on 4k monitor in 4k. The roofline is not smooth - it has tiles that go slightly up and down. It's meant to look like that. Perhaps there's something wrong in your graphics card settings? Take a snapshot (or even a screeny) and compare  
 

I re-read your post and I apologize, you are correct. Part of this was the frustration I was feeling in that it was only Max's tests that people were paying attention to and judging the camera on. It wasn't just the ignoring of my videos showing things to the contrary, but all the other GH5 videos that also showed the AF not to be nearly as bad as it appeared in Max's tests.

I believe in his honest efforts to begin with. But, his perspective is flawed now. To criticize the GH5 manual disclaimer, some other example, doesn't help at all, only can confirm it. He's trying his best only to stay reliable on the picture. Unless he had a malfunctioning unit to test with (which I doubt), your testing shows there's something going wrong with the methodology of his tests. To me, he had to even be more complete than he was. GH5 AF system is complex enough to require the customization of distinct scenarios.
Still hoping he will come to understand and stand corrected it.

I literally said your test were a 'little different', since you used a different lens, then you quote me as saying 'very different'. You then ask how I can possibly ignore your test result, after I said your autofocus test were helpful. Do you always try so hard to create conflict or just having a bad day? Nobody is ignoring you. You are important too.

First most movies, TV shows and music videos don't use AF, they use MF. So what else would you expect. Beyond that, the background was not so distracting and most certainly did not 'fade in and fade out' (a bit of hyperbole there) that most viewers would ever notice it. 
You also keep ignoring the intent of my videos, to show how much better other GH5s are than what Max showed in his.
And your comment that most people have moved on from image quality is truly amazing. Moved on? Really? Okeedokey.
Get the Sony, it seems to be where you're headed. Enjoy it, it's a great camera.

I'd have given you a 'like', but the site is telling me I'm all out of likes for the day. That's kind of like "Air Supplys", I'm all out of love.
I think the point is that the settings are there, but you can choose not to use them...and you'll still get excellent results. I'm more than mildly amused by all the futzing with +5, -5, speed, sensitivity etc. I set the damn thing to central area focusing, leave every other AF setting at default, and my results seem to be 100X better than Max's. Did I say I want to hit my head against the wall.

I'm assuming all the networks are televising it?

Yeah, Ken. You're right! At this point of the route, trolling is the fair word to call it ;-)

Fritz, superb idea!!! This is done on other forums to keep the trolls out. I like it!
Orangenz, it's amazing isn't? I watch these guys adjusting speed to +5 and responsiveness to -5 and then 20 settings in-between to achieve the 'perfect balance', and all I did was use central area focusing at the default settings. Done. I think some guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be in many instances. Sure, it might not be perfect for every situation, but hell, I've used it in a variety of environments and it's worked every time.  

Fritz, superb idea!!! This is done on other forums to keep the trolls out. I like it!
Orangenz, it's amazing isn't? I watch these guys adjusting speed to +5 and responsiveness to -5 and then 20 settings in-between to achieve the 'perfect balance', and all I did was use central area focusing at the default settings. Done. I think some guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be in many instances. Sure, it might not be perfect for every situation, but hell, I've used it in a variety of environments and it's worked every time.  

Fritz, superb idea!!! This is done on other forums to keep the trolls out. I like it!
Orangenz, it's amazing isn't? I watch these guys adjusting speed to +5 and responsiveness to -5 and then 20 settings in-between to achieve the 'perfect balance', and all I did was use central area focusing at the default settings. Done. I think some guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be in many instances. Sure, it might not be perfect for every situation, but hell, I've used it in a variety of environments and it's worked every time.  

When I saw Max read and then explain this answer I thought he did not understand what the manual tried to explain, because he oversimplified the above into: "so it's normal to not have good autofocus in 4k". I believe there maybe a flawed translation in the manual. Because to me 'Highly accurate focus' sounds like a description of 'very responsive' in the 'responsiveness' setting. The 'reduced Auto Focus speed' is about the focus speed setting. The way that I read this answer is that is you crank up the responsiveness setting to the highest and focus speed to the lowest, the AF will appear not to work. What I believe may be happening in the processing is that the focus change is below a minimal change given the short measuring interval time the 'very responsive' setting allows for. When the camera measures the second time, there is no (too little) focus change, so the camera does something else (stop focussing/ move back to previous focus?) instead of keep on moving the focus.
I think unravelling this new AF system is going to be a great job for forums like this. I wish Panasonic would explain to us how the AF algorithm works in more detail. The quirks Peter Gregg explains, like 60p, pre focussing (grid and white + sign on the main subject to tell the camera what the main and preferred subject is) and then pressing record.

Watch it full screen, it's not there. An artifact of a youtube embed. 

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues.
The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too.
After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary.
Believe what you wish guys.
 
B, they'll all be ignored by a few.
I just checked my original video. It absolutely, positively does not show up in the original 4K video. It is apparently a product of YouTube compression. The roof is 100% clean and devoid of moire in the original.
 
dbp, thanks, you beat me to it. Over the years I've seen countless times where an artifact is blamed on the camera as opposed to YouTube compression artifacts or, watching a 4K YouTube video on an HD monitor. Even that can introduce artifacts that were never there in the original video.

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues.
The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too.
After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary.
Believe what you wish guys.
 
B, they'll all be ignored by a few.
I just checked my original video. It absolutely, positively does not show up in the original 4K video. It is apparently a product of YouTube compression. The roof is 100% clean and devoid of moire in the original.
 
dbp, thanks, you beat me to it. Over the years I've seen countless times where an artifact is blamed on the camera as opposed to YouTube compression artifacts or, watching a 4K YouTube video on an HD monitor. Even that can introduce artifacts that were never there in the original video.

So much about awful the GH5 AF.........
 
 
Well, its seems their is a nice learning curve in howto.... and then the GH5 does AF
B

Max's camera is on par? Really? With what, another broken camera? Despite other videos which show something quite different, including the ones I've posted? There appear to be a couple of folks here that would rather pick one video as representative of the AF and all other videos be damned. It's an interesting thing to watch people ignore what is clearly contradictory evidence.

Max's camera is on par? Really? With what, another broken camera? Despite other videos which show something quite different, including the ones I've posted? There appear to be a couple of folks here that would rather pick one video as representative of the AF and all other videos be damned. It's an interesting thing to watch people ignore what is clearly contradictory evidence.

I will not say that my GH5 is better than the 6500 because I do not have it. What I say 100% is that my GH5 is much better than Max's.

You can stop hunting, locking AF when focused to begin with. As simple as that. Set up the focus peaking and keep the distance to the area in focus, monitoring it in order to not put the focus off over your subject.
Depending on the camera movement (RS has never been quite of a trouble when people understand the way a camera should move not exactly spinning around, except when motivated by the subject, that is, formulas like soap operas never much helped the aesthetics of film), it is rather possible to smoothly and quickly move the focus box in the touch screen even with the camera on gimbal.
I even bet that an extra IBIS will help you out to keep the stabilizer steady : D Techie pleonasm apart and yes, these things require solid training but, like the bikes, once you get it... ; )
Not yet? As eltorrete has just posted, mobile app will be easy going and your friend. Let's not forget touch to focus is part of AF system and if has worked in a 5-years now GF5, count on it shooting with their last and improved toy. This 'GH5 AF sucks' is pure BS. Only shooters do suck if/when that happens.
Moreover, AF performance is not all the same, neither all the Panasonic/Olympus lens models, focal lengths, etc, with several versions included, better to test it before going to shoot without mention the infinite range of settings combination, various speed, sensitivity on responsiveness (Max Yuryev only tested +3 and -3... c'mon *Phew* see Tommy Callaway's test and his different settings, for example) and so on (again, no free lunch), isn't it? :-)
Here's another test, not mine, but gives a scope that even the most lazy AF varies on the results in the very end:
And why not to take a look on the comments too? ;-)

Trust me, I am not YT user 'Real World Endo' in disguise... :-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9P4MAqPj78