Robert Collins

I see 'professional' and 'closed' system as an oxymoron. Who in their right mind uses a computer whose lifespan is determined by the shortest lifespan of any given component.
I gave up using Macs for desktops when Apple stopped making desktops (which is a while ago.)

I see 'professional' and 'closed' system as an oxymoron. Who in their right mind uses a computer whose lifespan is determined by the shortest lifespan of any given component.
I gave up using Macs for desktops when Apple stopped making desktops (which is a while ago.)

Honestly that is nonsense.
Look at the raw digger data from Phase One IQ250

It very clearly shows a 16 bit file with 14 bit information - which is why 3 out of 4 channels are blank.
I am not sure if we are discussing whether it is possible to create 16 bit files from 14 bits of information (which is trivial) or whether you actually think it is a good idea on the basis that it fools you into thinking you have 16 bits of information.
 

believe what you want, all the info is in this thread.
Just a thought: if you import an JPG into Photoshop as a 16bit TIFF, do you get those 16bit you are after?

Honestly that is nonsense.
Look at the raw digger data from Phase One IQ250

It very clearly shows a 16 bit file with 14 bit information - which is why 3 out of 4 channels are blank.
I am not sure if we are discussing whether it is possible to create 16 bit files from 14 bits of information (which is trivial) or whether you actually think it is a good idea on the basis that it fools you into thinking you have 16 bits of information.
 

It really isnt that simple. I can take an 8 bit jpeg into photoshop and convert it to 16 bit - it will be a 16 bit file with 8 bits of information.
The 50mp Sony medium format sensor only outputs 14 bit data, so any 16 bit file generated from the data has simply added 'padding'. For instance the Hasselblad X1D claims to be 16 bit while the Fuji GFX 50s is 14 bit. As you can see here the only difference is the padding in the Hasselblad. 
https://***URL removed***/forums/post/59002429
Sony (or anyone else) do not actually produce a FF sensor with more than 14 bit output. Now Nikon's image processor could quite easily convert that to 16 bit but it wouldnt actually achieve anything of any consequence. Apart from the fact that it might be a good marketing ploy if it happened to fool people.

Looks like a Canon release....

Kidz has a graph that I guess proves your point on the 16 bit part on the Nikon. Middle of the second page.
 

In my experience, PC v Mac threads never really die until people end up debating the benefits of Linux

Oh I will not contest that FF cameras doesn't have 16 bits at all. 14 tops, and that is in Photo mode. Heck video we are talking 8 bit other than the GH5, GH5s I could ever afford. And I don't think sensor size has much to do with bits anyways, look at the F65 above. Plus in reality I have no clue the specs of Any newer Nikon. Out of my price range for the nicer ones. But every camera that has Raw output is pretty high Bit rate wise in Raw.
But I am not sure what Bit Rate this New ProRes Raw has to be? I have not read the White Paper. I thought I read 10 bit someplace?

In my experience, PC v Mac threads never really die until people end up debating the benefits of Linux

Taking a look at the Yedlin footage what seems interesting is how little dynamic range is in the 'final output' when compared to how much dynamic range is in the scene.

Note the limited DR in the histogram.
The footage is also very desaturated. (The camera angle and limited color gamut also seems cinematic.)
Take a vaguely similar shot with a digital camera. Straight out of camera it looks something like this... (A7r3)
Note that this has bags more dynamic range - it fills the entire histogram and the colors are much more saturated. And that it looks 'digital'
However, if you make a tonal adjustment (see below) which compresses the dynamic range - see histogram and tone curve (by raising the blacks and lowering the whites). And reduce the saturation (see below), the photo appears more cinematic...

So my feeling is having quite a low dynamic range in your final output is quite key to a cinematic look. Of course you can achieve that with a high dynamic range scene given enough processing leeway (either in camera or post.) Or alternatively, you could achieve it with an iphone given enough additional lighting equipment I would imagine.

OK, as requested by @Grimor I've just written an additional app for live tweaking of the parameters.

Usual instructions, so put your Panasonic camera into wifi mode and attach your phone/tablet then press the Connect button in the app.
Select a base profile with the Profile button and then tweak away on the sliders.
Press the STILL button to, erm, take a still and the REC button will start a video recording.
While the video is recording, your tweaks are still live to the camera and will be recorded.
Download link is here
https://mega.nz/#!djgk1aIL!fzloi_GiFqTNULCcYhCaG0oZHes6sQd-RzW_PsUlK-I
Enjoy !
 

Taking a look at the Yedlin footage what seems interesting is how little dynamic range is in the 'final output' when compared to how much dynamic range is in the scene.

Note the limited DR in the histogram.
The footage is also very desaturated. (The camera angle and limited color gamut also seems cinematic.)
Take a vaguely similar shot with a digital camera. Straight out of camera it looks something like this... (A7r3)
Note that this has bags more dynamic range - it fills the entire histogram and the colors are much more saturated. And that it looks 'digital'
However, if you make a tonal adjustment (see below) which compresses the dynamic range - see histogram and tone curve (by raising the blacks and lowering the whites). And reduce the saturation (see below), the photo appears more cinematic...

So my feeling is having quite a low dynamic range in your final output is quite key to a cinematic look. Of course you can achieve that with a high dynamic range scene given enough processing leeway (either in camera or post.) Or alternatively, you could achieve it with an iphone given enough additional lighting equipment I would imagine.

Taking a look at the Yedlin footage what seems interesting is how little dynamic range is in the 'final output' when compared to how much dynamic range is in the scene.

Note the limited DR in the histogram.
The footage is also very desaturated. (The camera angle and limited color gamut also seems cinematic.)
Take a vaguely similar shot with a digital camera. Straight out of camera it looks something like this... (A7r3)
Note that this has bags more dynamic range - it fills the entire histogram and the colors are much more saturated. And that it looks 'digital'
However, if you make a tonal adjustment (see below) which compresses the dynamic range - see histogram and tone curve (by raising the blacks and lowering the whites). And reduce the saturation (see below), the photo appears more cinematic...

So my feeling is having quite a low dynamic range in your final output is quite key to a cinematic look. Of course you can achieve that with a high dynamic range scene given enough processing leeway (either in camera or post.) Or alternatively, you could achieve it with an iphone given enough additional lighting equipment I would imagine.

Taking a look at the Yedlin footage what seems interesting is how little dynamic range is in the 'final output' when compared to how much dynamic range is in the scene.

Note the limited DR in the histogram.
The footage is also very desaturated. (The camera angle and limited color gamut also seems cinematic.)
Take a vaguely similar shot with a digital camera. Straight out of camera it looks something like this... (A7r3)
Note that this has bags more dynamic range - it fills the entire histogram and the colors are much more saturated. And that it looks 'digital'
However, if you make a tonal adjustment (see below) which compresses the dynamic range - see histogram and tone curve (by raising the blacks and lowering the whites). And reduce the saturation (see below), the photo appears more cinematic...

So my feeling is having quite a low dynamic range in your final output is quite key to a cinematic look. Of course you can achieve that with a high dynamic range scene given enough processing leeway (either in camera or post.) Or alternatively, you could achieve it with an iphone given enough additional lighting equipment I would imagine.

My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'.
Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look.
If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).

So i heard about the D850 when it came out, and was willing to pull the trigger on it and sell my a6500 and D800 to cover it and as soon as i read what Andrew wrote about it, it confirmed what i was expecting. Fast forward 3months and i did my first little job with it and really liked what it came out of it, i am still trying to figure out how to get the footage from the mavic pro to look cleaner and softer without becoming too mooshy so excuse that part, but the colors straight from the camera are awesome and the detail on the 120fps are amazing coming from an a6500 this is night and day
 
 

If you actually believe there is something such as 'REAL' color, you clearly dont understand how our brains work.

My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'.
Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look.
If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).

My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'.
Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look.
If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).

My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'.
Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look.
If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).

If any of the rumored specs would be true, they would begin with the mount and none have. These are just wish-lists.

Well this Long article pretty much explains how S log works. This guy knows his stuff.
http://www.xdcam-user.com/2014/08/exposing-and-using-slog2-on-the-sony-a7s-part-one-gamma-and-exposure/

Well presumably there are 2 different tests. Relative dynamic ranges at 'base iso' and relative DR at higher isos (or low light). They are not the same - for instance Canon sensors have much lower DR than Sony sensors at base iso but they are pretty similar at higher isos.
The 'Op' seems more interested in relative DR at base iso.