Mark Romero 2

Are there any real scientific tests of the actual DR of the C70? If so, can you link to them? 
Gerald Undone used a Xyla chart and came up with 13 stops of DR, which put it pretty much in line with an a7S 3 or a Panasonic S1 / S1H / S5.
I am truly hoping that it is NOT 16 Stops of DR because I really don't want to spend all that money for one.
 

Are there any real scientific tests of the actual DR of the C70? If so, can you link to them? 
Gerald Undone used a Xyla chart and came up with 13 stops of DR, which put it pretty much in line with an a7S 3 or a Panasonic S1 / S1H / S5.
I am truly hoping that it is NOT 16 Stops of DR because I really don't want to spend all that money for one.
 

It really is remarkable how opposite their body designs are from their OS. One is ugly as sin, the other is truly elegant. 
Unless you need auto focus it's hard to justify getting the C70 over this. There's A LOT of value in this. $2,500 for all of that is a tremendous value. 

Bang for buck with a tight tight budget, you still can't beat a Panasonic G85. You might even want to go cheaper, and check out a G7, leaves more spare dollars in the budget (which will disappear faster than you think). 
 
Just spend zero dollars on audio, and get someone else to do it instead. 

The Af is substandard compared to other cameras, no doubt about that. And full frame is indeed where the other competitors are headed.
But for hybrid shooting, the S-Series of cameras are really good.
I am really impressed by VLOG at ISO 4000. 
The S1H has 6K internal, and that is coming to the S1 in the next firmware update (this spring?!?!?!)
The Panasonic lenses (although there aren't that many of them) are great for shooting video (as long as you get things in focus). Minimal focus breathing, near parfocal performance on the zooms, linear focus, adjustable amount of focus throw. 
Maybe no one cares about that but people like me. Which is a way of saying, yes, the full frame cameras need to be significantly better to grab a larger part of the market.
The thing is, for m43 (and for Panasonic in particular), they really are only missing:
1) Great AF
2) Better Low-light / high iso
3) Better dynamic range / lattitude
4) More AI features???
5) 6K internal?
6) ProRes Raw over HDMI
So they are going to be dependent on what Sony or any other chip fabricator comes up with. (An m43 sensor with dual gain optimization like the Canon C70 has would be great and would take care of #2 and #3 above).

Or let depreciation work for you and get a FS5/GH5/X-H1 instead??

Seriously, with the way the world and the economy is, I'd minimize spending and look for best bang for buck. Let others take the depreciation hit! Not you.

Will any of your wedding clients really tell the difference between if you shot it with a X-H1 or X-H2??

Am looking forward to recording this new hairdryer. 

So for a GH6, my wish list would be...
Dual Gain Output sensor similar to that in the C70 (but in m43 sensor size) that expands the dynamic range.
A better LOG codec that can handle that increased dynamic range.
Ability to output Black Magic RAW (BRAW)
6K ???
4K 120 ???
Oh, and one other thing: Add some phase-detect autofocus pixels. I mean, just get the cameras to focus as well as my 7-year-old Sony a6000, which has about the most rudimentary sony phase detect AF system  and still blows my $2,500 S1 out of the water 😞

But only for photography, AFC for video is very limited on Sony with MC11

yeah this is it, I threw on my panasonic 85mm 1.8 and it sorta works (slowly). So this kinda sucks.
Is the same problem present when using EF lenses on A7S III or R5?

You raise some great points. 
The GH5 set a pretty high bar, and it took several years for full frame cameras to catch up.
A GH6 would have to be as far ahead of today's competitors that the GH5 was when it was released.

So for a GH6, my wish list would be...
Dual Gain Output sensor similar to that in the C70 (but in m43 sensor size) that expands the dynamic range.
A better LOG codec that can handle that increased dynamic range.
Ability to output Black Magic RAW (BRAW)
6K ???
4K 120 ???
Oh, and one other thing: Add some phase-detect autofocus pixels. I mean, just get the cameras to focus as well as my 7-year-old Sony a6000, which has about the most rudimentary sony phase detect AF system  and still blows my $2,500 S1 out of the water 😞

You raise some great points. 
The GH5 set a pretty high bar, and it took several years for full frame cameras to catch up.
A GH6 would have to be as far ahead of today's competitors that the GH5 was when it was released.

Hmmm... on my S1, if I pick any other white balance BESIDES  AWB, then it will show the white balance in the upper left hand corner of the LCD (just to the left of the picture profile icon).
If I choose AWB (auto white balance), then it does not display ANY icon for white balance.
Also, you can toggle through different screens on the LCD by clicking the Display button. I think I realized that early on, and then forgot about it. 

@elgabogomez @Django The controlled tests I have seen all show that 35mm motion picture film can't beat 4K and IMAX motion picture film does better but still isn't as good as a 6K sensor like the Alexa LF.
Did you watch the Resolution Demo that I linked in my first post?  I know it's long, but it might have more real information in it than years of reading forums.
I'm curious if you can link to any demos that show, under controlled conditions, direct comparisons between motion picture film and digital cameras.  Or any kind of calibrated resolution test would also be good.  Sadly, everything else other than controlled tests are worthless for actually being able to understand what is going on.
The more I think about this stuff, the more I think that sharpness is the problem.  Reality has infinite resolution and no sharpness.  
Both digital and film images obviously have less resolution than reality, but for some reason film doesn't look objectionable but digital often does.  Of course, RAW video, or very high quality codecs, also don't have this objectionable quality.
This all leads me to think that it's about sharpness and not resolution.  Resolution is fine - reality has so much of it that if it was at all objectionable then it would be awful to look at, but it's not.
 
I agree, however I still think we have a massive blind spot.
I don't think that anyone in this thread is interested in applying Gate Weave to their images, and I'd suggest that some of the people here talking about how film is desirable don't even know what it is.  
This proves exactly my point, that our one-sided rose-coloured-glasses view of film is getting in the way of a useful conversation about what is great about film and what is not, what is great about digital and what is not, and what might have been great about tape and what wasn't.  
Until we start breaking down the various attributes of each then we're going to have discussions where someone less educated in the medium talks about "the film look" as a proxy for everything nice about an image, and the people who have deep knowledge about what is really going on react in ways that don't make any sense to the newcomer, and the discussion never makes any progress.
If we had a different phrase, then maybe it would create space in these conversations to discuss the good parts of every medium without the newcomers inadvertently implying they love gate weave.
 
Actually, I think the cinematic vs video look argument hasn't been argued well at all, which is kind of the point of this thread.
The state of the debate is this:
People almost universally claim to like the colour and DR rendition of good film stocks People almost universally claim to like the colour and DR rendition of well-shot and well-graded Alexa images A huge amount of technical knowledge accumulated over decades went into developing film stocks A huge amount of technical knowledge about film and digital accumulated over many years went into developing the ARRI colour science The few people who have demonstrated the ability to flawlessly match digital to film do so with Alexas, are able to do so after years of personal testing and research and talk about making complex adjustments that are often not known about or discussed in the public domain, and use specialist and even custom written software tools to do so So I'd say that a better summary of "cinematic vs video" is that film-like colour and DR are an attribute of "cinematic" and only a selection of people on earth know how to do that.  ...and good luck if you "only" have Resolve.
Are you talking about blurring images or softening contrast?  The BPM filters soften contrast but don't blur.
Vintage lenses often do both, with the lens optical tolerances accounting for the resolution of the lens (blur) and the coatings accounting for the macro and micro contrast of the image, which is actually called halation.
Fascinating how different the colour reproduction is on those images, even with two coming from the same film stock.
Funny how no-one in this thread has mentioned that they're chasing images that vary in colour reproduction from shot to shot like film can do.
The point of this conversation (and these forums in general I believe) is to try and get smarter are getting better results with more modest equipment.
Anyone can just say "oh well, if you want good colour then go buy the Alexa 65...  byeeeeee" but it's not really of much help.
Any ideas about what BM did in the new U12K that improved the image and got it closer to film-like?
I'm a big fan of trying to learn by picking apart good examples of things.  For example, I bought a BMMCC just to be able to experiment with the colour science as it has a good reputation.
A few questions for thought around the U12K:
Does it keep its magic at lower resolutions?  If so, it's not the resolution creating the magic. Does it keep its magic when blurred?  If so, it's not the sharpness creating the magic. Does it keep its magic when sharpened?  If so, it's not the lack of sharpening that is creating the magic. you get the idea.... Do you do this just to make them look nicer?  or for a particular aesthetic effect?
I know what you're saying but I'm going to disagree with the way you outlined it.
There are two competing sets of priorities, one set that makes an image with the organic aesthetic, and one set that is all about resolution and high frame rates and other specs.
I think these priorities only conflict when a person doesn't know enough about what is going on.  For example, in this thread I've linked to evidence showing that film has quite limited resolution, and yet we've heard from others that film has heaps of resolution.  For those that understand how much resolution film really has, then there is no conflict, they aren't tempted by the allure of increased resolution because they know that the aesthetic they desire doesn't have that resolution.  
Other parameters have different status, for example, film has almost infinite bit-depth, all the way through the entire signal chain, so having greater bit depth is in alignment with a more organic aesthetic.
Knowing which parameters are which is the point of trying to have these conversations.
Any modern camera that jiggles the image around slightly from frame to frame or subtly varies the exposure from frame to frame would have to take this crown, considering these are attributes of film that no other camera is replicating.
That conversation is the one that inspired this one.
Another reason that we should move beyond film being a proxy word for "good".
Is anyone asking if the kids will stop liking good images because they never saw film in a theatre?  No, that's ridiculous.
Therefore, good does not equal film.
Are there desirable attributes that film has, yes absolutely, but many aspects of film are only desirable because of association and nostalgia. 

You could easily say the same about VHS or Hi8 in the 90s and early 2000s...

I use Leeming LUT and skintones are nice.

Yesterday I was shooting bowl jam all day using mix of 4k25/50/100p, i didn't get the overheating warning but I did get down to 5 min, so for last grand final I did the reset trick (with v1.2 firmware) and worked. Weatherwise it got some patch of clouds so not boiling hot but still hot as it is the hottest month down here. 
 
 

check out "How To Sell Video Production Services At Higher Rates" on Facebook. It has a lot of members and business related things is all they talk about. 

OK, first go in to preferences and change the color management / color settings. Set output color space to Rec.709 2.4 and disable any input LUTs / transforms.
 
Then in either the media pool or the medial viewer of the edit page, change the Input Color Space to Panasonic V-LOG / V Gamut

 
You should end up with a really good starting point even before grading. I disabled the nodes in my grade to show you the starting point. NOTE: For whatever reason, photoshop saturates my screen captures from the color page of resolve a lot, so the image is not as saturated as it looks in this screen shot.
Note the HDR panel location next to the primary wheels / bars / log tab. If you see the levels in the center viewer, click the HDR icon a second time and it will display the HDR levels tool instead. 
HDR tool works EVEN IF YOU WILL BE DELIVERING IN SD INSTEAD OF HDR. big benefit is that adding contrast does not add saturation the way that it normally does when using primary wheels / bars / log tools.
 

 
Hope this helps. 

I just upgraded to 17 yesterday, could you post a printscreen of your settings as I dont seem to be able to get it working properly?

@zerocool22
Which version of resolve are you using?
If you have version 17, I highly recommend using the DaVinci Wide Gamut (you have to go in to DaVinci Managed Color in the project settings and then choose DaVinci Wide Gamut), then make sure the input color space for your clips is set to Panasonic V-LOG, and it looks really good, IMHO. Be sure to NOT use any CST or LUT nodes when you try it out.
Also, with Resolve 17, Panasonic V-LOG and DaVinci Wide Gamut, try using the HDR panel for your primary grading instead of using the LOG / Primary wheels / Primary Bars.
Hope this helps.
ASIDE: Personally, I was never completely satisfied with the V-LOG image in Resolve 16 when using either CST or with the Default LUT, nor with ACES transform. Of course, could be 100% operator error. I liked using some of the Varicam LUTs that are available on the Panasonic site, namely the  Fashion Lo Contrast and Nicest LUT. 

Yes that is true, maybe we need to update the first post with every good piece of information, so users do not need to scroll through heaps of comments/pages?

Hello, 
I shot some clips with V-log on the S5. But when I apply a color space transform in Resolve the image and skintones turn really red. So that cant be correct. What am I doing wrong? (Skintones were lit with 5600 light with custom wb, before the colour space transform the colours look normal)
Input color space: Panasonic V-Gamut
Input Gamma: Panasonic V-log
Output Color Space: Rec709
Output gamma: Rec709
 
Thanks,
 

Having said that, I spent last night clicking through 100s of AS7Rii images on Flickr and the detail on some of them was mind-blowing, compared to what I get from my EM-1 mkii. Looking forward to getting my hands on the camera, even though there's not exactly much to point it at right now.