kye

@Evgeniy85 I got a LX15 myself but was a bit underwhelmed by its output compared to a G6, G7 or GX85. After revising the example from above I might give it a try again. I had posted it here before. I was amazed back then when I found it and I still am. The material just looks like some of the best footage I have seen from a GX85 or G7. Sensor estate in 4K on this cam is 2/3 inch only, so quarter the area of MFT. Same relation like MFT to FF. But since MFT is faring pretty good in that regard this camera should compare well to mft 8bit cams as well. It does pretty good going by the example above.
Here is another one by the same artist, Rec709 8bit 420 glory, 2/3 inch prowess :)
 
 

It appears to only be on videos uploaded at 1080p, not those with 1440 or 4K etc.
I could also be in a test group potentially..
Wow, the option has now disappeared for me!
It was on a bunch of videos I checked, but I remember specifically that it was on this one.  Have a look for yourself:
Maybe my feedback got me kicked out of the test group lol.

But there isn't a lot of glass from original and third parties. That's the problem. And since it's a mirrorless mount with a shorter flange distance than EF, the ability to implement internal NDs will be a bit more difficult. I suppose BM can get into the lens adapter business and produce adapters that have some kind of internal ND system.

It should be pointed out that it is not mandatory to have a short shutter speed for photos.
Let's review two examples.
The first is this guy, who is obviously playing at an extreme level here, with huge energy and drive:

It is an incredible photo, there's no doubt.  But does it convey the sense that he's pushing himself to the limit?  The more I look at it the more it looks like it could be a still life, maybe he was on wires and it's a setup.  In a sense, it implies motion but doesn't actually express any.
Contrast that feeling to this image:

There is no denying this.  Not only is it a great photo, and not only does it show that world-class people are pushing themselves to the limit (the three guys on the right definitely are!) but it shows the results of that effort.
Now scroll back up to the first image - what is the energy level of the first image now?
I would suggest that the obsession with short shutter speeds is part of the same obsession with getting "sharp" images, which is driving lenses to be clinical, sensors to be enormous, megapixels to be endless, computers to be behemoths, and images to be soul-less.
To be a bit practical, there are likely limits to how much blur you want in a scene, and it's relative to the amount of motion involved, which often varies quite significantly, even from moment to moment in a lot of sports.
Some more examples of varying amounts of blur..
This one is a great image, but if it was important who the defender was then it's too blurry.  If not, then maybe not..

Sometimes it's not important to get anything completely sharp..  images without feeling are of limited value, and I find that motion is full of feeling.  Here's one that is full of emotion (especially if you knew the subjects):

Also worth mentioning is that you don't always have to have the subject still and the background blurred, it can be the other way around, but it changes the subject of the image somewhat.

and with video you're taking lots and lots of photos so the creativity is endless...

Remember - don't let the technical aspects blind you to the point of capturing things in the first place.

There is a huge difference between the RAW and video from my GF3, I would guess other models are likely the same.  I don't take stills anymore, except timelapses and for that I shoot jpg for ease of editing in post.
Before I went to video, I shot a few trips with the GF3 in RAW and was really happy with the images.  

Interesting comparison.
For anyone not aware, it's worth noting that since the iPhone 12, they quietly upgraded to doing auto-HDR and the h265 files are also 10-bit, as well with the prores files being 10-bit of course.  It is interesting how little they promoted this - I have an iPhone 12 mini and didn't even know about it for the first year of owning it!
This is what really unlocked the iPhone for me - I have used iPhones since the 8 for video but prior to the HDR / 10-bit update it really wasn't a competitor to anything other than cheap camcorders, as it lacked the DR to record without over-contrast or clipped highlights and bit-depth to really be able to manipulate it sufficiently in post to remove the Apple colour science and curve.

Lots of them are, but as you brought it up, here are my impressions on the above:
It's still far too sharp to be convincing - I noticed this in the first few seconds of the video - TBH my first impression was "is this the before or after footage?"..  of course, once you see the before footage then it's obvious, but it didn't immediately look like film either The motion is still choppy with very short shutter speeds - this would require an VND which isn't so easy to attach to your phone I think that people have some sort of hangup about resolution these days and as such don't blur things enough.  For example, here are three closeups from the above video.
The original footage from the iPhone:

Their processed version:

A couple of examples from Catch Me If You Can, which was their reference film:



As you can see, their processed version is far better, but they didn't go far enough.
I've developed my own power grade to "de-awesome" the footage from my iPhone 12 Mini and detailed that process here, but here's a few example frames:





I'm not trying to emulate film, I'm just trying to make it match my GX85.  Here are a couple of GX85 shots SOOC/ungraded for comparison:


I haven't got the footage handy for the above shots, but here are a few before/afters on the iPhone from my latest project from South Korea.
iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

I'm happy with the results - they're somewhere in between the native iPhone look (which I've named "MAXIMUM AWESOME BRO BANGER FOR THE 'GRAM") and a vintage cinema look.  My goal was to make the camera neutral and disappear so that you don't think about it - neither great nor terrible.
Going back to Dehancer / Filmbox / Filmconvert / etc..  these are great plugins actually and I would recommend them to people if they want the look.  I didn't go with them because I wanted to build the skills myself, so essentially I'm doing it the hard way lol.
The only thing I'd really recommend is for people to actually look at real film in detail, rather than just playing with the knobs until it looks kind of what they think that film might have looked like the last time they looked which wasn't recently...  I keep banging on about it because it's obvious people have forgotten what it really looks like, or never knew in the first place.
And while they're actually looking at real examples of film, they should look at real examples of digital from Hollywood too - even those are far less sharp than people think.  The "cinematic" videos on YT are all so much sharper than anything being screened in cinemas that it's practically a joke, except the YT people aren't in on it.

One of the (potentially numerous) differences when swapping from 4K to 6K (on a 4K timeline) is that the downsampling goes from being before the compression to afterwards.  Compression is one of the significant contributors to the digital look IMHO (just compare RAW vs compressed images side by side), and if you can downsample from 6K to 4K in post then you're downsampling and also interpolating (blurring) the compression artefacts that happen on edges.  
I would favour a workflow where the image is debayered, downscaled, then recorded to SD with very low or even no compression.  It would effectively have the benefits of downsampling and the benefits of RAW, but without the huge file sizes of RAW at the native resolution of the sensor.  Of course, no-one else thinks this is a good idea, so....

I guess if I look at it from the perspective of BM then perhaps it makes slightly more sense.  BM has made cameras with S16 and MFT sensors and they used the MFT mount, and they made cameras with S35 sensors and used the EF mount.  Assuming they then wanted to make a FF camera, what mount would they choose?
EF mount
They have used it before, and their users already have lenses that use it, but the crop factor would change between the S35 and FF sensors, and the EF mount has pretty much been abandoned by Canon, so maybe BM want something that's still in active support RF mount
Canon have been quite restrictive with third-party use of the mount, so maybe Canon is blocking BM from licensing it, or maybe it's prohibitively expensive, or maybe the flange distance is too little for things like internal NDs PL mount
Seems like a logical choice with lots of existing lenses and support from other manufacturers, but maybe it's a step too far for their existing customer base, or maybe they want AF support (does PL support AF?) Nikon mounts
Not a lot of cine lenses for Nikon I wouldn't have thought, focus direction is the other way to EF lenses, which might be troublesome to their existing customers Fujifilm X-mount
No AF lenses available that cover FF and only 5 third-party lenses that do (on B&H) MFT mount
Wouldn't cover FF sensor Sony
A logical choice, but like Canon RF, Sony might not want to help BM compete with their cine-cameras so might be charging a lot for the license or might be refusing outright From this perspective I think L-mount makes more sense, and sort-of aligns with their previous use of MFT and EF mounts, which were both "semi-open" systems with lots of existing glass from original and third-parties.

I guess if I look at it from the perspective of BM then perhaps it makes slightly more sense.  BM has made cameras with S16 and MFT sensors and they used the MFT mount, and they made cameras with S35 sensors and used the EF mount.  Assuming they then wanted to make a FF camera, what mount would they choose?
EF mount
They have used it before, and their users already have lenses that use it, but the crop factor would change between the S35 and FF sensors, and the EF mount has pretty much been abandoned by Canon, so maybe BM want something that's still in active support RF mount
Canon have been quite restrictive with third-party use of the mount, so maybe Canon is blocking BM from licensing it, or maybe it's prohibitively expensive, or maybe the flange distance is too little for things like internal NDs PL mount
Seems like a logical choice with lots of existing lenses and support from other manufacturers, but maybe it's a step too far for their existing customer base, or maybe they want AF support (does PL support AF?) Nikon mounts
Not a lot of cine lenses for Nikon I wouldn't have thought, focus direction is the other way to EF lenses, which might be troublesome to their existing customers Fujifilm X-mount
No AF lenses available that cover FF and only 5 third-party lenses that do (on B&H) MFT mount
Wouldn't cover FF sensor Sony
A logical choice, but like Canon RF, Sony might not want to help BM compete with their cine-cameras so might be charging a lot for the license or might be refusing outright From this perspective I think L-mount makes more sense, and sort-of aligns with their previous use of MFT and EF mounts, which were both "semi-open" systems with lots of existing glass from original and third-parties.

I guess if I look at it from the perspective of BM then perhaps it makes slightly more sense.  BM has made cameras with S16 and MFT sensors and they used the MFT mount, and they made cameras with S35 sensors and used the EF mount.  Assuming they then wanted to make a FF camera, what mount would they choose?
EF mount
They have used it before, and their users already have lenses that use it, but the crop factor would change between the S35 and FF sensors, and the EF mount has pretty much been abandoned by Canon, so maybe BM want something that's still in active support RF mount
Canon have been quite restrictive with third-party use of the mount, so maybe Canon is blocking BM from licensing it, or maybe it's prohibitively expensive, or maybe the flange distance is too little for things like internal NDs PL mount
Seems like a logical choice with lots of existing lenses and support from other manufacturers, but maybe it's a step too far for their existing customer base, or maybe they want AF support (does PL support AF?) Nikon mounts
Not a lot of cine lenses for Nikon I wouldn't have thought, focus direction is the other way to EF lenses, which might be troublesome to their existing customers Fujifilm X-mount
No AF lenses available that cover FF and only 5 third-party lenses that do (on B&H) MFT mount
Wouldn't cover FF sensor Sony
A logical choice, but like Canon RF, Sony might not want to help BM compete with their cine-cameras so might be charging a lot for the license or might be refusing outright From this perspective I think L-mount makes more sense, and sort-of aligns with their previous use of MFT and EF mounts, which were both "semi-open" systems with lots of existing glass from original and third-parties.

A 6k 50/60 m4/3 set up could be quite interesting for this kind of thing…

So, some photography with my beloved GX85 and the beautiful Zeiss Tevidon 25mm 1.4. It was pretty tricky doing pictures during this beautiful street fest. Small EVF, heat, loud but cool music, MF with very small focus throw, 200.000 people, dancing all over the place and the overwhelming presence of all auto smartphone computers.:) But the pleasure was all mine that day!:)
 
 

For me it is very different. I just started doing photographs again and i just love my Tevidons and my GX85 for that. But I had an almost greater pleasure taking pictures with one of two of my newly acquired MFT cameras. No ibis. So small, so direct and simple and loved the ancient pre GH4 menu system. I had just bought a Lumix G1 and G3, both for 25EUR, shipping included.
I tested the G3 and cannot wait to test that old 12MPix sensor of the G1 again, which should be the same as in the GF1, a camera which is one of the prettiest ever to me. Btw the G1 is red:) I love MFT. Will get an Oly EM10 III one day. For video, I am thinking about a GH5 II, for the great organic texture it seems to be known for. I don´t enjoy my S1, though it earned me some money. S5II looks appealing, just like Mft does in general and the latter even moreso with my newly acquired OG G cameras.:) The G3 is like brandnew. G1 is sticky. I hope it´s from honey.:)

I can confirm that with a fully charged single oem LP-E6NH battery I got a little over 80 minutes at 4K 422 10bit 24p XF-AVC (Clog3). Before the update I was getting a little over 60 mins fully charged. 
Also getting double that with the grip.
Words can't express how f*ckin' happy I am right now thanks to this one practical update - and I haven't even started to play around with the other stuff!
 

That´s what I´m thinking when I process the Raw files from my GX85, though a few pixels more in the x and y axis, not that many though:) @kye Video is nice on the GX85, but not up to par with the beautiful image coming from the RAW files, though supposely "only" 12bit. Gimme 10bit GH5 like HD and VLog in this body!
Back to my acquired og beauties. The 12MP sensor is a tricky beast, I had it in its GF1 alteration and I loved it for flashlight photography but the limited dynamic range gave me problems outside. When I got the G6 some years later it felt like another dimension of image quality. The GF1 had fugly Jpegs btw, so one had to dig into Raw. Mybe I should revise my GF1 Raw files again with a different processing workflow. The second camera has the approved 16MP sensor which supposely works in the G5,G6/7/85, GH3/4, GX1/7, GX85 and some GF cameras from the GF5 on.:)

I meant I CAN see a future when I will be doing this all the time. Doh! 🤪

For track and field, if you shoot laterally by either tracking eg. gimbal moving in parallel or from a fix point by panning the sense of speed will be very different depending of frame rate and shutter speed.

24fps 1/50 will look like they go much quicker than 60fps 1/120 or look even slower at 60fps 1/500. Even when taking photo only panning laterally  you would always want to have some slow shutter speed so 60fps 1/120 will yield good pictures.

Now if they run towards you and your camera is not really moving eg. tripod or handheld, it will not matter that much if is 24fps 1/50 or 60fps 1/500 in term of sense of speed. But for photo grabbing 1/250 or above would be required. 

So instead of sticking with the 180 rule I change the shutter speed based on the position and movements and again if the prio is photo or video or both.

Some examples of my video grabs:

Slow shutter 180 rule









The below one works as the camera is moving (tracking bike) at the same speed as the athlete, if the camera would be fixed it would be impossible to get a picture out

 
 
High shutter speed 1/500 and above











For me 4k would be too low as I crop quite a bit and also take vertical photos out of horizontal video. If you would do it a lot to take pictures out a 6k or above would be better in my opinion. 

12MP is 4K in 4:3...  with a good enough codec, that's 1.5K more than most people need!!
The OG Alexa was 2.5K and most cameras these days still can't create an image as good....

For our personal lives, we really only need food, clothing and shelter.  We got by just fine even before we had language, so I'm pretty sure that there is no minimum number of megapixels in that equation...
But, assuming that you're asking if you can print things and enjoy them, then I'd say there's no lower limit except what limits you would have to your own enjoyment.  After all, mosaics have been a form of art for thousands of years and no-one has started complaining that they don't look photorealistic, and people aren't complaining about paintings not being photorealistic either.
It's controversial, within online photography communities anyway, but here is Ken Rockwells thoughts on the matter:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
A few highlights include the idea that the larger you print something, the further you tend to stand from it:
Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.
and also practical experience:
Even when megapixels mattered, there was little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings. For instance, a 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18" (30x50cm)! I know because I've done this. Have you? NY Times tech writer David Pogue did this hereand here and saw the same thing — nothing! 
Joe Holmes' limited-edition 13 x 19" prints of his American Museum of Natural History series sell at Manhattan's Jen Bekman Gallery for $650 each. They're made on a 6MP D70.
I would argue that what is visible will depend on the printing technology you use.  A canvas print will hide any blurriness or detail that is in the image, but a metal print will accentuate it.  I have visited a house with a couple of large metal prints (maybe 3' x 5') of very high resolution shots of a rainforest with deep DoF and dappled light filtering down to the ferns and rocks by a stream.  The resolution was palpable, so much so that both myself and the other non-photography people were all impressed by the print.  The discussion included 'oohs and aahs' around how much it cost, how difficult it was to hang, how they had to get little custom lights to shine on it like in an art gallery, how impressive it was, etc.  What was missing, however, was any discussion or appreciation of the image.  All discussion was of the technology.  The sharpness was distracting.

It should be pointed out that it is not mandatory to have a short shutter speed for photos.
Let's review two examples.
The first is this guy, who is obviously playing at an extreme level here, with huge energy and drive:

It is an incredible photo, there's no doubt.  But does it convey the sense that he's pushing himself to the limit?  The more I look at it the more it looks like it could be a still life, maybe he was on wires and it's a setup.  In a sense, it implies motion but doesn't actually express any.
Contrast that feeling to this image:

There is no denying this.  Not only is it a great photo, and not only does it show that world-class people are pushing themselves to the limit (the three guys on the right definitely are!) but it shows the results of that effort.
Now scroll back up to the first image - what is the energy level of the first image now?
I would suggest that the obsession with short shutter speeds is part of the same obsession with getting "sharp" images, which is driving lenses to be clinical, sensors to be enormous, megapixels to be endless, computers to be behemoths, and images to be soul-less.
To be a bit practical, there are likely limits to how much blur you want in a scene, and it's relative to the amount of motion involved, which often varies quite significantly, even from moment to moment in a lot of sports.
Some more examples of varying amounts of blur..
This one is a great image, but if it was important who the defender was then it's too blurry.  If not, then maybe not..

Sometimes it's not important to get anything completely sharp..  images without feeling are of limited value, and I find that motion is full of feeling.  Here's one that is full of emotion (especially if you knew the subjects):

Also worth mentioning is that you don't always have to have the subject still and the background blurred, it can be the other way around, but it changes the subject of the image somewhat.

and with video you're taking lots and lots of photos so the creativity is endless...

Remember - don't let the technical aspects blind you to the point of capturing things in the first place.

It should be pointed out that it is not mandatory to have a short shutter speed for photos.
Let's review two examples.
The first is this guy, who is obviously playing at an extreme level here, with huge energy and drive:

It is an incredible photo, there's no doubt.  But does it convey the sense that he's pushing himself to the limit?  The more I look at it the more it looks like it could be a still life, maybe he was on wires and it's a setup.  In a sense, it implies motion but doesn't actually express any.
Contrast that feeling to this image:

There is no denying this.  Not only is it a great photo, and not only does it show that world-class people are pushing themselves to the limit (the three guys on the right definitely are!) but it shows the results of that effort.
Now scroll back up to the first image - what is the energy level of the first image now?
I would suggest that the obsession with short shutter speeds is part of the same obsession with getting "sharp" images, which is driving lenses to be clinical, sensors to be enormous, megapixels to be endless, computers to be behemoths, and images to be soul-less.
To be a bit practical, there are likely limits to how much blur you want in a scene, and it's relative to the amount of motion involved, which often varies quite significantly, even from moment to moment in a lot of sports.
Some more examples of varying amounts of blur..
This one is a great image, but if it was important who the defender was then it's too blurry.  If not, then maybe not..

Sometimes it's not important to get anything completely sharp..  images without feeling are of limited value, and I find that motion is full of feeling.  Here's one that is full of emotion (especially if you knew the subjects):

Also worth mentioning is that you don't always have to have the subject still and the background blurred, it can be the other way around, but it changes the subject of the image somewhat.

and with video you're taking lots and lots of photos so the creativity is endless...

Remember - don't let the technical aspects blind you to the point of capturing things in the first place.

Just saw a new option appear in YT....

Some quick googling revealed that it's only for YouTube Premium (paid) membership, which I am a member.  Anyone else seen this?  Do we know what is going on under the hood?

In terms of assessing the maximum size for printing, that's another whole debate, but a way to test it is to pull the image up on a 4K display, and then zoom in to the image until you start seeing the video compression artefacts, then reduce the size down a bit, and then measure how large the image would be if you printed it that large.
Remember also that the larger you print an image the further back you will tend to view it from.
A friend of mine won a certificate and got one of those canvas prints about 2' x 2' across.  She sent in an early iPhone photo that was a close-up of one of her kids faces (it was a lovely photo) and the printing place said it wasn't "high enough quality" (read: not enough megapixels) and she had to insist they print it.  She hung it high up on their photo wall and due to how the furniture was arranged you could see it throughout their open-plan living/dining/kitchen area, but you wouldn't have looked at it from closer than about 5' away, and even then you'd be looking up at it significantly.
It looked great.  
Had it been taken with a high megapixel camera would it have been sharper? Sure.  Would she have ever been able to afford a high megapixel camera?  No.  Would you ever take that kind of photo with a "real" camera?  Unlikely.