kye

Tried v15 Beta 1. 
Here are my initial impressions:
It's very simple and fast to add titles. There are many predefined 3D templates. More templates will come for sure.
LUT Browser is awesome if you use LUTs and want to try different color grades
Improved speed and interface. 
Improved noise reduction. In v14 noise reduction was good enough for me. V15 is even better.
Very easy to remove objects and/or spots / blemishes on the footage
Whole workflow is well thought and using all the tools is easy and quite intuitive.
Bottom line: It's my only video editing software now. Has everything I need and like it a lot. Well done Blackmagic.

I am!
I've said before that I try to capture in a relatively neutral style and then I put in the work in post, and Resolve is my all-in-one.
I'm excited by Fusion, more specifically for the stabilisation and the 3D titles.  I'm really hoping that I can get better stabilisation than the Classic Stabiliser in v14, as sometimes I film in difficult situations and I need more stabilisation than Resolve currently supplies.  The 3D titles will be cool, but I'm more hoping that combined with the tracker I'll be able to add 3D items into the 3D space I've filmed.
I watched the 20 minute video from BM about Fusion and got lost about a third of the way through.  It's like Resolve is a house and each tab is a doorway through to an array of controls that each rival the space shuttle!

I am!
I've said before that I try to capture in a relatively neutral style and then I put in the work in post, and Resolve is my all-in-one.
I'm excited by Fusion, more specifically for the stabilisation and the 3D titles.  I'm really hoping that I can get better stabilisation than the Classic Stabiliser in v14, as sometimes I film in difficult situations and I need more stabilisation than Resolve currently supplies.  The 3D titles will be cool, but I'm more hoping that combined with the tracker I'll be able to add 3D items into the 3D space I've filmed.
I watched the 20 minute video from BM about Fusion and got lost about a third of the way through.  It's like Resolve is a house and each tab is a doorway through to an array of controls that each rival the space shuttle!

I've got two of those. They work pretty well, but not 100% reliable as far as knowing when a battery is actually full. I still like them though and are my primary chargers for my Micro.

Pretty much, but I find those USB chargers are slow — takes a few hours to charge to capacity. USB-C PD runs at like 14v instead of 5v at I think 2A, so it puts out more juice meaning you can charge batteries faster (it’s how USB-C laptops accept charge through USB). A 1hr fast charger for a single battery would be ideal, so as one is depleted you should have a spare, and one mostly charged. If it can take power from a V-Lock battery that’ll be even better.
This isn’t an issue if you’re charging overnight, and charging slower is probably better for the battery anyway. 

You should be okay. Are your batteries OG Canon or aftermarket? I think this makes a difference. Sometimes looks like batteries are finished charging when they aren't. Sometimes the light won't go on at all so no idea if a certain battery is charging.

I recently watched an interview with a DoP talking about equipment and he basically said that his preference is that the equipment not impart anything on the 'look' of the film, and therefore he chooses equipment that will accurately capture what is put in front of it.  Therefore it was about operating the camera like a technician, choosing lenses that are sharp with minimal distortion, and faithfully executing the direction of the others on set who are artistic, like director etc.  His view was that the look of a film is created by the stuff in front of the camera and what is done in post.
I've just spent about 20 minutes trying to find the link and FML I can't find it..  I consume too much from too many sources!
He did mention that some people like using vintage lenses and creative filters etc, and didn't criticise that approach.  I must admit that I personally find this perspective to make sense, and I've looked at things like the Tiffen Mist filters and decided that I can do a 'good enough' emulation of them in post (which lead me to include the Glow OFX plugin into my workflow) but with the added benefit that the effect isn't baked-into the footage and therefore I can tweak it in post to get it how I like rather than being stuck with what the filter gives me.

It's actually 5.2"

Thursday is D-Day for Operation Cheap Screen so I'll let you know.
If it doesn't explode as soon as I plug it in.

Just returned from NAB. Here is what I found out about the new Pocket Cinema Camera 4K. 
The Good:
1. Huge screen.
2. Surprisingly light..
3. Ports
4. 12 bit 4K internal recording.
The Bad
1. There is nothing “Pocket” about it. It’s huge for the form factor.
2. It is not of the same build of the MkI version. That is to say the new camera will be polycarbonate that is carbon fiber reenforeced. What does this mean in the real world. While it does not feel flimsy, it also fails to feel premium also. 
3. The UI/UX design language will feel familiar, in it’s implementation.
4. Battery life of around an hour... read that to mean 45 minutes or so. 
Additional thoughts:  I don’t see this as a threat to GH5/S as it is not the same type of camera... Apples to oranges. This is not something you are going to be carrying all over the place with you. :This is not a DSLR format camera. It’s something else, and that makes me think they should have moved to a new ergonomic form.
Blackmagic would not let anyone pop an SD card in, so I cannot say how the IQ is. On screen it looked ok, but not “special”. On the other hand over at the Atlas Lens Co booth they were showing off their lenses with the new Kinefinity Mavo, and from what I could see it looked stellar. 

I didn't see that correlation anywhere, but yes I agree that a "good" 1080p is more than enough. But unfortunately with most cameras in this price segment (other than BM and GH5/s) to get a good 1080p means you have to shoot at 4K and convert to 1080p in post. 

I see this from a slightly different point of view.
The main "pro" that I see is that it has the potential to improve workflows for those who are already using the compatible equipment (FCPX and external recorders) or are willing to change their workflow to do so.
The main "con" that I see is that this is quite a deliberate move on Apples behalf to further separate themselves and their ecosystem from being globally compatible.  As someone who is now an Apple user (MBP, iPhone, iPads) but didn't used to be (PC, Android) I became acutely aware of how Apple will deliberately do things to restrict global compatibility and drive people to an all-Apple ecosystem.  My distain for Apple is significant, and perhaps only surpassed by my distain for Microsoft, who are also masters of playing this game, which is one of the main reasons I changed platforms.
It's not the creation of a new codec that is the risk here, it's that it places a greater likelihood that other more open codecs will not receive as much attention or support.  We have all suffered as the innocent bystanders in 'format wars' from Blu-ray v HD DVD to VHS v Beta and before that with Quad etc.  Some of us have also suffered at the hands of a feature that promised interoperability but was unusable due to some kind of bug, but unfortunately the manufacturer never fixed it and we lost months or years waiting and hoping that it would be rectified. 
Manufacturers are out for themselves and will shaft the customer as much as is possible to get away with while still gaining sales by being the 'least worst'.  Take Canon and ML as an example of what was possible vs what was delivered.

My impression is that Resolve 15 will be an all-in-one that features a colour module at v15, an editor at v3, fairlight at whatever version it is but at integration v2, and Fusion at whatever version it is at but integration v1.  I chose it for myself because I don't need (or even understand) most of the features that a pro editor would want or need, but would want much more sophisticated colour capabilities (I view the colour module as Adobe Lightroom for video with full tracking).
If you're someone that wants or needs video editing features of a mature editing platform then I'd be careful switching to Resolve and make sure you do your research first.  It's about strengths and weaknesses.  Also, be really specific with researching what particular features you use - it might work great for most things but if the things you rely on are buggy or whatever then you won't have a good experience.
I do believe, however, that Resolve is the future.  I have heard from multiple others that Resolve is getting better many times faster than the other options, and while I've only been a user since v12.5 during that time they've added Fairlight and Fusion, so even in that short period of time they're moving incredibly quickly.  I can also attest to it getting less buggy over time.  I used to have Resolve v12.5 crash outright about once every 30-60 minutes of use (it saves regularly so normally it's not a big deal) and it would start acting funny and you'd need to restart it quite a bit too.  V14 almost completely eliminated the crashes, but it will still go funny every now and then, with hotkeys suddenly not working, and all manner of other things just not doing what you'd expect.  
It's definitely a work in progress, but to give you an idea about what life in Resolve is like, when I saw Adobe release the Lumetri colour panels I immediately thought "is that all?", then I saw the reaction from YouTubers and laughed out loud.  That upgrade is laughably minute.  It's the right stuff for sure, and very usable, but I was using things in Resolve that Lumetri doesn't have  within the first 20 minutes of having installed Resolve, and use them on most grades.  It's like people getting excited over being given a hotkey for splitting clips.

This is probably the highlight of the entire show for me (and we don't even know most of what is being announced yet)..  
This is awesome for a number of reasons:
My workflow focuses on capturing cleanly and then working hard in post to create the artistic parts, so this is an upgrade to probably the largest component of my workflow It's free It now includes Fusion, which apparently has much better trackers than Resolve, which for my stabilisation requirements (which are crazy) will be fantastic Did I mention it's free? It has all sorts of stuff I wouldn't know to ask for.  Like "Multiple playheads"..  ummm, what?

It's only $300 if you're not a Resolve license holder already.  If you are, then you are likely to get free upgrades for a long time (maybe forever).  Resolve users who bought their license at V8 can still use them on 14.  I bought mine as a v12 license, but it was second hand so who knows.
In a way I don't even mind a transcode, just having it integrated would be wonderful.  I'm new enough to the game that this whole idea of round-tripping seems like word processing by choosing fonts and colours and page layouts in individual applications.
I am the last person who would know, but perhaps they're talking about ACES support?  I'm not sure how much you know about ACES but in theory you capture footage on whatever devices and then run them through a profile to then have them in the ACES colour space, then you can grade them however you like, and then you run them through whatever output profile you like, for example Rec.709, Rec.2020, etc.  Of course, you're never actually seeing what the ACES colour space looks like, because you'll be monitoring it through an output profile suitable for your monitor.  IIRC they say that if you grade on a Rec.709 monitor and then output to a Rec.2020 profile then it will take the dynamic range and colour space and somehow squeeze it to fit the output space.  I say squeeze because ACES is something like 26-bit internal, so everything is a squeeze from there.  I think they created it to have a larger colour space and DR than the human eye so that it can keep pace with future technology advancements.
I've looked into ACES a little as a way to try and match my different cameras, but most of them lack profiles yet.

Resolve 15 flyer
 

After a weird winter of weather, some family health issues and some financial issues, I am finally ready to resume production on my film. The financial issues forced me to sell off the two lenses I was using. After a few months of digging through my closet and testing almost every lens I had, I finally settled on two lenses I didn't have but cost me a fraction of what my original lenses cost. Here are a couple examples from a final lens test I did the other day with my lead actor.
The first two are from the Canon EF USM 28mm f/1.8...
 


And the next two are from the Canon 50mm f/1.4...
 


Both are great lenses that cost me a lot less than one of the lenses I was using before.

@jonpais Interesting thread.  My (little) experience on film sets is more than enough to understand the benefits of being able to prepare a focus pull in advance.
In order to add to the completeness of this thread for those lurking out there, in addition to the benefits of cinema lenses already mentioned, IIRC they are also designed so that all the lenses in a set are the same weight (which means not having to re-balance gimbals or adjust steadicam rig counterweights when changing lenses), will also share the same filter size (to enable one set of filters) and will have the same spacing of gears so that remote controllers for focus pulls or zoom lenses don't have to be adjusted.
The total hourly rate of a film set is absolutely huge, and these lenses are designed so that they are quick to change and use.  

I'd suggest that people not buying one because they fumbled it is less likely than people not buying one because of other more tempting options also appearing.  There's lots going on in this price-range (when you consider all the support equipment required they're up against lots of other -seemingly- more expensive setups).

I think Steve Jobs, and Tim Cook, but a lot was probably in the works with Jobs, started putting to much form over function. The latest Macbook Pro ditching the SD slot, the mike input on the iPhone, that is just going too damn far to make something thin just to be the thinnest.  I am not going to go past my late 2014 Pro 15" I have. Heck my Note 8 has a mike jack and a S Pen in it ,and it is more waterproof deeper than my Apple X phone. And who the hell doesn't use SD Cards. That stuff is stupid I don't care how nice the stuff is.
My son is eat up with Apple stuff, so is my brother. I used to be Years ago. But I was until lately a pretty big Gamer. Not many games out for Apple products over the years. Their video cards were always too far behind for one thing. So I just passed on them. Plus I have built my own desktops for years, and years to save money and to have what I want. So Apple was out of the question mostly for that.
But yeah their stuff works right out of the box, but on average it was not cutting edge stuff, and as a gamer I wanted cutting edge. But they have gotten better, but if they keep up this thinner crap I guess they will have non moveable keys on the keyboard next LoL.
This is the laptop I have for gaming. My son seems to want the Apple, so it works out for me. I don't carry it much anyways. I bought it more for RVing than anything. It weighs a ton. But it is faster than my Box on my desk. I think I am done building desktops now. They have finally got video cards as good in laptops now for not a lot more money overall. Ahh they might be one generation behind on them but that is no big deal anymore. They had a promo sale on that laptop at Micro Center that was a crazy deal. I could not turn it down. My son used to work there, and they call him about heads up deals before most people know about them.
https://www.msi.com/Laptop/GV72-7RD

I see this from a slightly different point of view.
The main "pro" that I see is that it has the potential to improve workflows for those who are already using the compatible equipment (FCPX and external recorders) or are willing to change their workflow to do so.
The main "con" that I see is that this is quite a deliberate move on Apples behalf to further separate themselves and their ecosystem from being globally compatible.  As someone who is now an Apple user (MBP, iPhone, iPads) but didn't used to be (PC, Android) I became acutely aware of how Apple will deliberately do things to restrict global compatibility and drive people to an all-Apple ecosystem.  My distain for Apple is significant, and perhaps only surpassed by my distain for Microsoft, who are also masters of playing this game, which is one of the main reasons I changed platforms.
It's not the creation of a new codec that is the risk here, it's that it places a greater likelihood that other more open codecs will not receive as much attention or support.  We have all suffered as the innocent bystanders in 'format wars' from Blu-ray v HD DVD to VHS v Beta and before that with Quad etc.  Some of us have also suffered at the hands of a feature that promised interoperability but was unusable due to some kind of bug, but unfortunately the manufacturer never fixed it and we lost months or years waiting and hoping that it would be rectified. 
Manufacturers are out for themselves and will shaft the customer as much as is possible to get away with while still gaining sales by being the 'least worst'.  Take Canon and ML as an example of what was possible vs what was delivered.

I moved to Apple from PC / Android and I did so knowing that I was paying more for a given level of hardware performance.
What I am getting, however, is a higher level of personal performance, and this is what I am paying extra for.
The amount of time I spent in the PC world struggling to get Microsoft Windows to properly use the BrandA driver for the BrandA chip on the motherboard with the BrandB driver for the BrandB plug-in interface card to connect to the BrandC device I want to use... On Mac I spend time working on my work, not on trying to get my computer to do what I tell it.
My dad was in charge of the PCs for a large educational institution and once had the pleasure of ordering a custom-built server (~$10k worth of high-end hardware) and after a month of not being able to make it work he sent it back to the distributor.  Luckily the distributor was happy to take it back as the school bought large amounts of equipment from them.  The problem was that it wouldn't complete an installation of the OS, and the problem was a known issue and the manufacturer of the RAID controller, the HDD manufacturer and the motherboard manufacturer were all blaming each other as to why the combination didn't work.
At Apple, if something doesn't work, someone gets yelled at and told to fix it, which works because they control all the moving pieces.
You will notice that Apple vs PC articles that recommend PC over Mac often point out that: the hardware performance (ie, MFLOPS or certain chipsets) are cheaper in PC, that for every good feature a Mac has there's a PC that has a better specification, etc.  The flaws to this logic are that CPU speed is not workflow speed, and that Laptop A might have a better screen, and Laptop B might have a better battery life, but you can't buy a Laptop with the screen from A and the battery from B.
Articles that recommend Mac over PC often talk about how 'things just work' which unfortunately isn't as true with the last few OSX versions as it used to be, but I sure as hell don't spend time on forums reading about manufacturers blaming each other for why my mouse won't work.
In case I sound like an Apple fanboy, I'm really not.  Apple are monopolistic corporate criminals who are large enough to exploit the weaknesses in international taxation law to basically shaft every country they do business in, which would justifiably put any of us who did it in jail in a matter of minutes, but they're big enough to get away with it.  The reason I buy their stuff is they suck slightly less than the alternatives.

I see this from a slightly different point of view.
The main "pro" that I see is that it has the potential to improve workflows for those who are already using the compatible equipment (FCPX and external recorders) or are willing to change their workflow to do so.
The main "con" that I see is that this is quite a deliberate move on Apples behalf to further separate themselves and their ecosystem from being globally compatible.  As someone who is now an Apple user (MBP, iPhone, iPads) but didn't used to be (PC, Android) I became acutely aware of how Apple will deliberately do things to restrict global compatibility and drive people to an all-Apple ecosystem.  My distain for Apple is significant, and perhaps only surpassed by my distain for Microsoft, who are also masters of playing this game, which is one of the main reasons I changed platforms.
It's not the creation of a new codec that is the risk here, it's that it places a greater likelihood that other more open codecs will not receive as much attention or support.  We have all suffered as the innocent bystanders in 'format wars' from Blu-ray v HD DVD to VHS v Beta and before that with Quad etc.  Some of us have also suffered at the hands of a feature that promised interoperability but was unusable due to some kind of bug, but unfortunately the manufacturer never fixed it and we lost months or years waiting and hoping that it would be rectified. 
Manufacturers are out for themselves and will shaft the customer as much as is possible to get away with while still gaining sales by being the 'least worst'.  Take Canon and ML as an example of what was possible vs what was delivered.

First publishable ML RAW test.  700D, ML RAW, Sigma 18-35.  
Not a great example of any aspect of film-making, but might still be of interest as an example of lesser film-makers with lesser equipment
One thing I found surprising was that the ISO noise from the 700D (not the quietest camera of all time, especially at 800-3200 in this video) was quite organic and natural looking.  As the noise changed a lot between shots I had a go at the technique that @kidzrevil has mastered of NR+Grain to make the video more consistent.
Enjoy

Another image leaked, looks more and more like a collaborative effort together with Sony on this puppy:

And yes! A headphone port confirmed!