brianwahl

Actually, if you upload in 4k, you get into a higher 1080p bitrate tier as well. I can confirm this to be the case with a number of my videos.

That's an interesting question. The original file definitely looks better than the 1080 version on youtube, and I have heard that if you upload a video in 4k, YouTube will show a much higher bitrate version, but I think that's only if you watch the 4k resolution on YT.
I did a 4k export and uploaded it - you can see it here:
 

I would 100% agree with this statement. I haven’t used the GH5, but I have lots of experience with Sony, including full frame and APS-C bodies. Eterna alone is a massive factor in my opinion.

I would 100% agree with this statement. I haven’t used the GH5, but I have lots of experience with Sony, including full frame and APS-C bodies. Eterna alone is a massive factor in my opinion.

I would 100% agree with this statement. I haven’t used the GH5, but I have lots of experience with Sony, including full frame and APS-C bodies. Eterna alone is a massive factor in my opinion.

Thanks! And that video is beautifully shot - wow.
I sold my old a7S ii months ago, and I don’t miss it at all  

Another quick little clip using 60 and 120p footage and Eterna (graded in Resolve).

So far the Fuji continues to impress while the Sony's sit on the desk...
 

Went out and shot some more footage today with the X-H1 around 4pm, hoping to see what kind of dynamic range testing I could do. It was overcast, but the sun was still pretty bright in the sky.
All of these shots were using the Eterna film simulation, and almost all at either 60p or 120p, slowed down to 24p in post. I graded this in Resolve and just added contrast and saturation, with slight white balance adjustments as I saw necessary. It wasn't this vibrant in real life (it was a gray day), but I wanted to see what it looked like when I pushed saturation.
YouTube definitely makes this footage look mushier than it did when I was editing it.
 

Went out and shot some more footage today with the X-H1 around 4pm, hoping to see what kind of dynamic range testing I could do. It was overcast, but the sun was still pretty bright in the sky.
All of these shots were using the Eterna film simulation, and almost all at either 60p or 120p, slowed down to 24p in post. I graded this in Resolve and just added contrast and saturation, with slight white balance adjustments as I saw necessary. It wasn't this vibrant in real life (it was a gray day), but I wanted to see what it looked like when I pushed saturation.
YouTube definitely makes this footage look mushier than it did when I was editing it.
 

Went out and shot some more footage today with the X-H1 around 4pm, hoping to see what kind of dynamic range testing I could do. It was overcast, but the sun was still pretty bright in the sky.
All of these shots were using the Eterna film simulation, and almost all at either 60p or 120p, slowed down to 24p in post. I graded this in Resolve and just added contrast and saturation, with slight white balance adjustments as I saw necessary. It wasn't this vibrant in real life (it was a gray day), but I wanted to see what it looked like when I pushed saturation.
YouTube definitely makes this footage look mushier than it did when I was editing it.
 

The X-H1 (and X-T2) also does the 6K to 4K thing, so you get the same type of resolution with their 4K video as you do with the Sony bodies that do that. For me if it's between an X-H1 and an a6500, I'd take the X-H1 all day long, but it's a lot more money.

I'm trying to decide between using the Fuji system vs Sony full frame (a7 iii, a9, etc). At this point I think Fuji is winning, and it's 100% based on color.

At this point the quality of the final product rests solely on the person behind the camera. Pick you brand - Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, etc - every single brand makes cameras and lenses that can produce incredible video (and stills). They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and they all will require you to adapt them to your workflow (or adapt your workflow to them). To me it's about picking what strengths and weaknesses are most/least important to me and what best fits the way I work.
Color is such a huge factor for me - I'm discovering it may be the most important factor, actually - assuming a camera can do the basics right. And when it comes to color, nobody can beat Fuji, in my opinion.
Yeah I think they released that along with the X-H1, and I've seen some people use it with great results. I haven't tested that yet, but I'd like to soon.
I actually used to use Blackmagic cameras. I had some Studio 4k cameras and then the Ursa Mini 4.6k. I shot with the film/log profile, but lately I'd rather just get good colors out of the body - log is often more work than it's worth, personally.

The X-H1 (and X-T2) also does the 6K to 4K thing, so you get the same type of resolution with their 4K video as you do with the Sony bodies that do that. For me if it's between an X-H1 and an a6500, I'd take the X-H1 all day long, but it's a lot more money.

I'm trying to decide between using the Fuji system vs Sony full frame (a7 iii, a9, etc). At this point I think Fuji is winning, and it's 100% based on color.

At this point the quality of the final product rests solely on the person behind the camera. Pick you brand - Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, etc - every single brand makes cameras and lenses that can produce incredible video (and stills). They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and they all will require you to adapt them to your workflow (or adapt your workflow to them). To me it's about picking what strengths and weaknesses are most/least important to me and what best fits the way I work.
Color is such a huge factor for me - I'm discovering it may be the most important factor, actually - assuming a camera can do the basics right. And when it comes to color, nobody can beat Fuji, in my opinion.
Yeah I think they released that along with the X-H1, and I've seen some people use it with great results. I haven't tested that yet, but I'd like to soon.
I actually used to use Blackmagic cameras. I had some Studio 4k cameras and then the Ursa Mini 4.6k. I shot with the film/log profile, but lately I'd rather just get good colors out of the body - log is often more work than it's worth, personally.

Ehh you have a Child with Red Hair! No I won't ask LoL.

Here’s some (very slightly) graded Eterna footage shot at 120fps. 
I have a Sony A9 and a6500. I’ve owned an a7S ii and a7R ii. I can get the Sony footage to look this good (color-wise), but it takes a LOT of work, granted I’m no colorist. With the Eterna footage, it’s effortless - literally just a bump in saturation and contrast. 
The dynamic range may not net quite as good, and the slow motion footage may be slightly more prone to aliasing, but color is far more important to me than those things - I believe color has a much more emotional impact when viewing video. 
EDIT: Sorry for the double post of that video. I posted it a few days ago but my post was under moderation (just signed up for this forum), and I see now that it’s just been approved (on the previous page).

Since I'm trying to evaluate whether I want to sell all my Sony gear for a Fuji setup, I've been taking a lot of photo/video over the past two weeks (I rented the X-H1 first, then just bought one with the idea that I'd have 30 days to return it).

So here are a few clips at various settings and conditions. I'll try to remember what I did for each of these. Sorry the subject matter is almost exclusively my son, but he makes for a good test subject. I'll note the appropriate settings above each video. All these videos are using autofocus. Also, everything here is hand-held using IBIS as the 16-55 does not have IS.

The main work I do is in a much more controlled setting, so I can make most any camera with decent image quality work for that (you can see what I do here - YouTube). I also take a ton of candid home-video type stuff, and I don't have the time really to grade each piece of footage I take. A big factor for me is having a camera that looks very good with minimal effort.

Astia Film Simulation, AWB, Light grade
This is pretty much how Astia looks right out of the camera. I used auto ISO here to see how it would do. Also tried zooming a bit here and there with the 16-55. It actually keeps focus if you don't go crazy with zooms. Nothing at all like the a9 with the 24-70 f/2.8 GM. That thing locks focus and keeps it through the entire zoom range.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eterna Film Simulation, AWB
I graded this to add contrast & saturation, but didn't change color much. It's a tough scene with bright back light (from the door), and I wanted to see how the camera would handle it. The very last shot in this video was with the Sony a9 using the Natural picture setting, and I graded it to match the Fuji footage. There is some 60fps footage in here as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eterna Film Simulation, AWB
Again, a pretty tough lighting situation with a lot of back light. This is a very light grade - bit of contrast added back in. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Various Film Simulations, AWB
Here I wanted to see how easily I could match different film simulations, and if they had different effects on overall color. I honestly can't remember which ones I used here, but I tried to make them all look roughly the same. I realize this is not something you'd typically do, but I was curious. I also stabilized some of these clips in Resolve to see how well it worked. I'd say in some it didn't work that well, ha.
 

I don't really like the A7sII very much. They sort of made it too good looking LoL. Doubt I would ever buy one. I like the grungy look. The 3 videos you have above are super nice looking. But to me not Filmic, Cine looking.
But it is stuff you really should shoot to document your children, cat LoL, your family. You sort of have an obligation to do that. And that is the look you want to keep down the road forever for them.. That is what they really look like. So I think what you have is perfect to do that.
But it is not what I like. It is too good in a way for what I like. But I grew up in a different time, and I like what I remember when I was probably your age. And it was not clean, and perfect, it was Grundy to say the least. The movies I went to did not look 4k. They had grain out the butt. Photos had grain out the butt. But it is was the best there was at the time. And I still like that look.
And now you will like this new look, and it will be yours to remember. And there is nothing wrong with that. We all have our thing as they say. And you did good on those videos. Some of the best I have seen for real life stuff. Grats.

Were you doing tatical military training? ?

Maybe they need to switch the second one on then

You could have mitigated the blown out sky by not backlighting your subject matter. Had you simply turned 90° or 180° you  (or had a bounce board) could have brought down your overall exposure and you wouldn't have had such a high contrast ratio. You had golden hour working to your advantage but didn't utilize it. 
You have to be more selective with your staging when working with cameras that have limited dynamic range. It's about knowing your tools and how best to use them, instead of trying to force them to do something they weren't designed to do and then blaming it. 
Please note: I'm using you and this post as a springboard for a teachable moment. 

It looks amazing to my eyes and I couldn't be more agree with what you say. That's why I'm stocked with Canon, but maybe not for much longer..  

Here’s some (very slightly) graded Eterna footage shot at 120fps. 
I have a Sony A9 and a6500. I’ve owned an a7S ii and a7R ii. I can get the Sony footage to look this good (color-wise), but it takes a LOT of work, granted I’m no colorist. With the Eterna footage, it’s effortless - literally just a bump in saturation and contrast. 
The dynamic range may not net quite as good, and the slow motion footage may be slightly more prone to aliasing, but color is far more important to me than those things - I believe color has a much more emotional impact when viewing video. 
EDIT: Sorry for the double post of that video. I posted it a few days ago but my post was under moderation (just signed up for this forum), and I see now that it’s just been approved (on the previous page).

Here’s some (very slightly) graded Eterna footage shot at 120fps. 
I have a Sony A9 and a6500. I’ve owned an a7S ii and a7R ii. I can get the Sony footage to look this good (color-wise), but it takes a LOT of work, granted I’m no colorist. With the Eterna footage, it’s effortless - literally just a bump in saturation and contrast. 
The dynamic range may not net quite as good, and the slow motion footage may be slightly more prone to aliasing, but color is far more important to me than those things - I believe color has a much more emotional impact when viewing video. 
EDIT: Sorry for the double post of that video. I posted it a few days ago but my post was under moderation (just signed up for this forum), and I see now that it’s just been approved (on the previous page).

I find the focus works pretty well. Compared to my A9 it’s not as good, but it keeps up with my 5 year old, which is no simple feat. 
I’ll also add that I owned an X-T2 briefly and the autofocus on that body did seem more reliable and accurate than my experience so far with the X-H1.