kye

I've had the Emotive Color lut break the Panasonic s1 4k 10 bit files. What happens is you get like weird looking noise. Hard to explain I'd have to post some photos. I suppose neat video would probably fix the issue. I would also imagine if you shoot RAW this probably wouldn't happen but that is a guess.

Its limited to what can be gleaned from the commands from the other cameras so its possible there is something from one of the Panasonic sets that I haven't got (I've tried GH5,GX80,FZ2000) that may do it so if someone else wants to go down that rabbit hole all the tools are available to do it on the other thread.
However, from the reaction of the LX15 to those all-i codecs in terms of what went on in the actual UI (as opposed to the corrupt recordings !) then I wouldn't hold out much hope as it blanks out the codec selections completely until you then hit it with something valid.
 

For our european visitors, in my country the Lumix S 24mm F1.8 is 900 euro's in every shop (well, 899 actually) but in Amazon italy it is 750 for reasons unknown to me. Has been for quite a few days now. I ordered one, it was an excellent copy. https://www.amazon.it/s?k=lumix+s+24mm&i=electronics

Good post.
To clarify I was comparing RAW Linear with compressed Log in the context of ETTR vs exposing for middle grey.  ETTR is a great strategy if you're using Linear RAW and don't mind compensating for the level changes in post.
The Alexa is a bit special in this way (I believe) as it can output Log in very high-bitrate 12-bit 444, compared to (say) the GH5 200-400Mbps 10-bit 422 log, so the Alexa has an enormous amount more latitude just because of the codec.  It's also special in the sense the readout from the sensor is a higher bit depth than the Log codec.  On a camera with a 12-bit sensor output, if that was transformed into a 12-bit Log profile then the highlights would lose the effective bit-depth they had when in Linear, but the other stops wouldn't really benefit much because although the 12-bit log has better bit-depth for the lower stops, the limitation would always be the bit-depth from the Linear readout.
Regardless, having a 12-bit sensor readout converted to a 10-bit log profile in-camera is probably good enough for almost all applications - I've tried to break the 10-bit HLG on the GH5 by applying curves that were severe beyond reason and the image held up.  
Of course, the thing missing from most consumer cameras is a decent codec, like Prores HQ or 4444.  I'm really looking forward to the GH6 update to see how the 1080p Prores looks.  Unfortunately most cameras have really weak internal h264/5 implementations and the in-camera downscaling is often very poor.  I suspect the push towards RAW in this segment is partly a way to deliver better image quality without having to design cameras that can scale and compress properly or having to buy a Prores license.  Unfortunately it then means they run into the challenges around internal compressed RAW and so we end up with tiny cameras needing an SSD or external recorder strapped to them.  Hardly ideal.

Good post.
To clarify I was comparing RAW Linear with compressed Log in the context of ETTR vs exposing for middle grey.  ETTR is a great strategy if you're using Linear RAW and don't mind compensating for the level changes in post.
The Alexa is a bit special in this way (I believe) as it can output Log in very high-bitrate 12-bit 444, compared to (say) the GH5 200-400Mbps 10-bit 422 log, so the Alexa has an enormous amount more latitude just because of the codec.  It's also special in the sense the readout from the sensor is a higher bit depth than the Log codec.  On a camera with a 12-bit sensor output, if that was transformed into a 12-bit Log profile then the highlights would lose the effective bit-depth they had when in Linear, but the other stops wouldn't really benefit much because although the 12-bit log has better bit-depth for the lower stops, the limitation would always be the bit-depth from the Linear readout.
Regardless, having a 12-bit sensor readout converted to a 10-bit log profile in-camera is probably good enough for almost all applications - I've tried to break the 10-bit HLG on the GH5 by applying curves that were severe beyond reason and the image held up.  
Of course, the thing missing from most consumer cameras is a decent codec, like Prores HQ or 4444.  I'm really looking forward to the GH6 update to see how the 1080p Prores looks.  Unfortunately most cameras have really weak internal h264/5 implementations and the in-camera downscaling is often very poor.  I suspect the push towards RAW in this segment is partly a way to deliver better image quality without having to design cameras that can scale and compress properly or having to buy a Prores license.  Unfortunately it then means they run into the challenges around internal compressed RAW and so we end up with tiny cameras needing an SSD or external recorder strapped to them.  Hardly ideal.

@kye lol🤣
Of course that "bug machine" wasn't for the bugs, but a fog machine to make it all pretty on camera. 
Quite common on sets. Never yet caused the Empire to show up!! Although years ago I was working on the lighting department for a music video, and we got a few fire engine trucks show up because they believed there was a real fire  in the bush which they needed to respond to 🚒 🔥🔥🔥

I used a Leica CL with a 40mm for a long time for stills and the Sigma FP comes really close to that idea of minimalism. 
I think the FP is very convenient.  And I haven't actually come across any aliasing in practice with the 4K DNG vs the URSA Mini 4.6K where I have it in the test scene (showing on the URSA on the color checker) when I compared the two cameras.  The FP is very clean and vibrant.
I bought SmallRig accessories, cage, rail adapter, and ssd holder and a top handle when I need to adapt the Sigma FP into a larger setup, but also just using it bare bones with the EF adapter and an Canon IS lens has really been smooth.  
I've remapped the False Color to the 'AEL' button on the back as well as the 'Mode' button to ISO and 'Tone' to Peaking.  Then with the aperture / shutter dials enabled in cinema I can bump around exposure.  I have a few Hoya Pro NDs and a magnetic adapter ring.  I have a Canon 5DS for stills and while the colors are slightly different out of the box I don't have any issues trying to match it if that's what's needed.  
And the post workflow is honestly very quick if you drop into a DaVinci Color Managed or ACES project and not any different really than taking the stills to Lightroom / Photoshop Camera Raw or Capture One. 
I don't expect it to be an Alexa, but I think there is plenty of runway in the files for any kind of imagery you want to make with it.

Just a note IMO about linear Raw vs Log encoding. Let's keep in mind that log encoding was developed by Kodak for Cineon scanning of film negative, and is basically what was passed on to digital cameras. It's not an inferior image encoding method developed for hybrid 4k mirrorless cameras. The LogC encoding on the Alexa is probably the most prominent log curve for a digital camera to be very close to Cineon, and Red and Sony eventually capitulated to that.
It's not inferior to linear raw, unless the individual log curve implementation by that camera manufacturer is left wanting. It's a more efficient encoding of highlights and shadows because it gives less code values to highlights, rather than half of a linear image for the brightest stop. It also allocates more code values to the shadows than linear raw. I would rather take 12 bit log ProRes RAW from the Sony cams/Ninja V than 12 bit linear DNGs, but obviously that's a much more expensive solution than the fp - like 5x the price.
The reason that log footage is often inferior in the prosumer cams is because it's probably chroma subsampled, denoised and DCT compressed. ProRes 4444 log from the Alexa Classic is a thing of wonder though.
If you apply the inverse transform of the log encoding curve, then your image is back in linear space and if you factor out the ways the image has been decimated, then it is very close to an original raw recording.
 

By the way I tested the ARRI against the Sigma in a mixed lighting condition. Lit myself with a blue light on one side and and orange light over head. I was really pleased how close it looked to the Alexa after adjusting WB, tint, and contrast.

Its really too bad all the cheaper cameras have crap focus peaking and terrible laggy HDMI out. The image quality is there but the practical usability on set isn't. But hey still pretty cool to have something like this for a little over a thousand bucks.

I am sure this was already posted but maybe worthy of posting again. Really nice imagery imo
 
 

Thanks for your reply - very useful, and also heartening that it's not the footage that is the challenge but the camera itself.  I'm also further heartened that it seems the challenges are just in working out the camera rather than challenges that come up shoot to shoot (like fiddly buttons or confusing menus etc).
I've done many (many...) of these types of tests in the past to learn to get the most from the GH5 (and other cameras).  I've shot test scenes in different modes, uploaded to YT, downloaded back from YT at different resolutions and then studied the resulting images to see what is visible at the end of the whole pipeline and what is not (4K vs 1080p source material is essentially imperceptibly different when uploaded to YT at the same bitrate/resolution). etc etc.
This means that those considerations are, for me at least, kind of inconsequential.  I'd do some tests, evaluate my options, and then just work out my rules for shooting.  
On first glance, and knowing what I know about lighting levels (which I've talked about in another thread) I'd be tempted to have DR+ on all the time, have a fixed ND that I put on when outside during day, and then just let it expose with auto-ISO.  I tend to shoot with aperture only varying a few stops anyway, so that sort-of doesn't factor in that much.
Every time 100 people say "FF" on an MFT thread, one less review gets published.  We're voting with every comment, and most people are voting against themselves.
Go back in this thread and re-read the last 10-20 pages - you'll be left with the distinct impression that no-one is in the market for this camera and that AF has killed MFT.  It might not be true, but it's how it sounds with all the moronic comments that people make.

@TomTheDP  In addition to the above, and I don't know if it's related to DR or not, but the more modern cameras seem to have much better behaviour in their under/over exposure tests.  I had the impression on older cameras that when you went under/over significantly that colour shifts and strange / unpleasant behaviour crept in before clipping or noise, whereas now most cameras seem to have only very subtle colour shifts right up until they clip or get overtaken by noise.
Maybe I'm getting that wrong, but the DR that exists between noise and clipping is far less relevant if the usable DR between strange colour shifts the dominant restriction.

Living on the west coast and having the beach as a convenient test location, I shoot a lot of sunsets, and my experience with the BM OG Pocket and BMMCC are that there's enough DR to just clip a round section just near the sun and still get shaded skin tones usable (to my tastes anyway).  
I have no idea if they were exposed "properly" at the right levels, or if they were one (or more) stops under, but the IQ seemed perfectly acceptable.  I know the BMMCC is still relatively good in terms of DR compared to all but the current generation of cameras, but with those the exposure challenge is even easier to deal with.
I notice really huge differences in practical DR when comparing the GH5 709 modes (that don't have the full DR of the GH5) with the HLG mode (which does - all 9.7 / 10.8 stops of it) and the OG BM cameras with their 11.2 / 12.5 stops.  Another stop or two more would obviously be beneficial above those but I think the point at which you're choosing what to be able to include in the shot (ie, what is usable and what isn't) has probably passed for most people, even with the sun in frame.

@IronFilm - great pics but man...  what a ride that was!!
"we were out in the forrest just minding our own business and playing with cameras"

"the bugs were getting annoying so we used some spray"

"then out of nowhere the freaking empire showed up!"

"It was at least 6 to 1, but those guys are SCARY...  he said our bug spray needed a permit and that if we didn't have one, he'd KILL us"

"we didn't know what to do..  we didn't have a permit, and the guy was completely nuts, so we mostly just avoided eye contact and tried to let the situation calm down"

"he eventually left, probably to go kill more innocent people on a picnic or something, just gave us the evil eye before he left.  psychopath!"

 

I may be completely wrong here, but it seems like a lot of people are overthinking the workflow of this camera... from exposure to color... I don't know if it should be this problematic. Perhaps I am so used to workarounds with my 5D3 and ML Raw, so I don't understand the issues. But it shouldn't be this difficult. 

If it helps, you can go to a hardware store and grab a bunch of highly-saturated free paint swatches with the brightest colours you can find (and grab some skin-coloured ones too while you're there if you don't already have a colour checker) and you can experiment with those.  
Assuming you're setup with a calibrated monitor and neutral studio lighting (I recommend MediaLight https://www.biaslighting.com/ and have lit my studio with their bias light and plug-in globes) then you can shoot some test shots (I recommend in full-sun for best colour accuracy, or a halogen / incandescent globe if it's not sunny outside) and then you can bring the switches into the studio and compare them to your monitor (if you have a portable high-CRI light you can light the swatches with that - keeping any spill off your monitor) and literally compare then side-by-side, which is by far more brutal a comparison than anyone would ever have looking at your work in isolation.  
Much easier to do that than convert your studio into a rainforest habitat!
What are your thoughts on RAW vs Prores and how good Prores is at matching the capabilities of RAW?
I ask because lots of folks here have only shot with h26x and RAW and the differences are obvious, but may not be aware of where Prores sits in that spectrum.
lol.... 
Are you able to provide any examples?
I've seen a number of tests that don't have these issues, so interested in seeing how people are testing this.
I'm seeing random idiots all mouthing off without having any thought (or even fact) behind their opinions all the time at this point.  I think I saw one person declare that the GH6 was useless because it didn't have PDAF and then raved about the S1 for a while, I was thinking "um.........??"
lol..  
I find that when shooting with the family on trips there's a few things that solve lots of problems.  Unfortunately one of the ones that gets used most often is a credit card!!

Darn, one should write a guide with the knowledged written in your posts @kye @Llaasseerr @hyalinejim. Simpler to dig through for people like me. 🙂

But do they? LOL
I attached two more DNG files to check out if anyone is interested with lots of commercial objects including some coke cans.   

Color "On" with a Kodak Film LUT. 

My point I think as it pertains to the thread, is that the ‘off’ profile is the only option when recording out hdmi to braw.  So that’s where I initially noticed the color difference, doing dng and braw but I didn’t have ‘off’ set initially in camera for dng.
It’s a great sensor / camera without a ‘known’ or tried and true workflow.

Pretty sure that the Lift/Gamma/Gain controls are designed for use on 709 footage, and the Contrast/Pivot/Offset are designed for use on Log footage.  This might (I'm guessing here) have implications for how the out-of-bounds values are handled (eg, the curves might do predictable things and the LGG might not).
To make a more general comment in the context of the bewildering complexity of the various colour spaces and gammas that are being discussed in this thread, Resolve is now getting to be a very sophisticated engine when it is put into a "colour managed" mode (RCM or ACES) and in the most recent versions some of the controls are now "Colour Space Aware" so will act differently depending on what colour space you have told Resolve that the project is in.
To expand on this somewhat, you might have footage that's shot in one LOG format, and if you tell Resolve to manage the colour space in the same log format that matches the footage, and you adjust the Offset wheel +1 then you will get the same results as if you shot the footage exposing one stop brighter.  However, if you do the same but don't match the log format of the project to the footage the same +1 adjustment will do strange things because Resolve is doing complex things underneath the surface to tailor its behaviour to the specific colour space you've told it to work in.
I've confirmed this to be the case with the HLG files from my GH5, which (almost!) line up perfectly with rec2100.  In previous versions of Resolve without colour management (I never tried ACES) I shot two clips one stop different and tried to duplicate one shot by modifying the other shot, but I failed to find a combination of colour space and tool that would do the correction.  Now in Resolve 17 in Resolve Colour Managed mode it's dead easy to do it and the +1 control on the Offset wheel does an almost perfect job.  (On footage that is directly aligned to a colour space in Resolve, the transformation is perfect - HLG on the GH5 isn't).
I suspect that this means that some tools effectively have a CST prior to their adjustment and then one after it to put the footage back into the mode that your project is in.  This isn't the only place that Resolve does "hidden" CSTs in - you can program individual nodes to do that too I think.  
I had a long and rather frustrating conversation with a pro colourist when I asked about configuring projects to use RCM and they essentially advised me to do everything manually, despite using the RCM modes (of CSTs) being the proper way to do things.  I think the advice was well intended and was simply coming from a place of concern for the depth of complexity actually involved in the tool, and their (probably frequent) experience of non-post-pros going down the rabbit hole and essentially getting lost, so putting up a fence to protect people from the journey makes sense considering how many of them never make it to the other side.  (I was also trying to do something a bit horrible that complicated the workflow beyond how that mode is designed to be used, so my example was even worse than the standard situation).
To make an even broader comment about this whole thread I am reminded of a long conversation / debate about if there was any magic in the Alexa ARRIRAW files, and it was pretty clearly showed from some under/over tests that the RAW from the Alexa was a completely neutral linear capture - just like how sensors are designed.  This should be true of the RAW output from any sensor because it's literally how sensors work.  The challenge is how to process it in a way that gives you the results you want.  It's true there are potentially slight differences between the frequency response of various R G B filters on the sensor, but they're likely to be relatively similar and can easily be adjusted with an RGB matrix if you're really keen on matching cameras (that's the basis of the BM RAW conversions from Juan Melara IIRC).  Otherwise, you can simply take the RAW Linear files from any RAW camera and apply whatever conversions you like - if you like the ARRI colour science then apply their LUTs or transforms, etc.
It's also worth stating that many heavy colour grades will completely obliterate any sense of colour accuracy so I would imagine the pursuit of it is really only relevant in situations where a natural or hyper-natural (eg, commercial look where everything has to be cleaner than real life) look is required.

Someone shared this on dpreview m43's forum, I couldn't resist.
I have m43 to Sony E and Nikon Z adapters, so plan on using these adapted to FF.
Adorama back at it again with some Samyang/Rokinon price craziness, this time in the m43 mount
I thought $230 was low for the 24mm 1.5 last year, now it's at $150!
They have most focal lengths and some kits available.
The 135mm 2.2 is $140, the 50mm is $130

The 24mm, 35mm, 85mm kit is $350!
https://www.adorama.com/l/Video/Video-Lenses-and-Accessories/Samyang~Digital-Cinema-Lenses?sel=Lens-Mount_Micro-Four-Thirds
 

One valid reason not to ETTR on every shot is that it creates extra work in balancing exposure in post, versus exposing for middle grey where the same correction should work for each clip regardless of highlight level.

Great post - thanks!
As a GH5 user I can see lots of interesting little improvements here that are against things that irk me about the GH5 so will be real-life improvements.
A few thoughts:
V-Log clipping at 88 isn't a big deal - for 10-bit footage the difference between 88 and 100 is inconsequential and it's designed to provide compatibility with V-Log cameras with larger DR on the GH5 the HLG mode contains the whole DR of the camera (unlike any of the other picture profiles) so if HLG is in the camera then that's a full-DR alternative to V-Log 13 modes rather than 5 is huge, and especially that there's 4 on the physical dial - I will definitely be using more than 5 of these modes Sleep function forgetting things was definitely a PITA so refinements to that is huge, and the extra custom modes help with that too I'll be particularly interested to see how the 1080p (or 2K?) Prores mode is integrated into the camera.  In addition to image quality, it'll be interesting to see if it requires the newer batteries or not, etc.  
Can you give a bit more information about how well the current (h26x) 1080p ALL-I mode works?
Particularly, I'm interested in how the footage looks from these modes:
1080p24 mode 1080p24 mode with 2X digital zoom 1080p60 mode 1080p60 mode with 2X digital zoom On the GH5 all those modes are downsampled and the footage looks flawless.  Is the GH6 the same?

Keen to hear your thoughts on the camera, image, and this rather strange exposure behaviour...
You mean a test like this?
 

Just purchased this camera, coming tomorrow. I am really interested to see how it can match to the ARRI alexa.

it's the long awaited sequel: man taking a hat and looking out the mfin window