MacMurphy

I've learned a lot about film-making over the years, most of it came through discovery and experimentation, but the best film-making advice I ever got was this...  
See how much contrast and saturation you can add to your images
This probably sounds ridiculous to you, and I can understand why it would, but hear me out.  Not only is it deceptively simple, but it's hugely powerful, and will push you to develop lots of really important skills.
The advice came from a professional colourist on some colour grading forums after I'd asked about colour grading, and as I make happy holiday travel videos it seemed to be a logical but completely obvious piece of advice, but it stuck with me over the years.  The reason I say "over the years" is that the statement is deceptively simple and took me on a journey over many many years.  When I first tried it I failed miserably.  It's harder than it looks...  a lot harder.
The first thing it taught me was that I didn't know WTF I was doing with colour grading, and especially, colour management.
Here's a fun experiment - take a clip you've shot that looks awful and make it B&W.  It will get better.  Depending on how badly it was shot, potentially a lot better.
It took me years to work out colour management and how to deal with the cameras I have that aren't supported by any colour management profiles and where I had to do things myself.  I'm still on a learning curve with this, but I finally feel like I'm able to add as much contrast and saturation as I like without the images making me want to kill myself.  I recently learned how the colour profiles work within colour management pipelines and was surprised at how rudimentary they are - I'm now working on building my own.
The second thing it taught me was that all cameras are shit when you don't absolutely nail their sweet-spot, and sometimes that sweet-spot isn't large enough to go outside under virtually any conditions, and that sometimes that sweet spot doesn't actually exist in the real-world.
Here's another fun and scarily familiar experiment - take a shot from any camera and make it B&W.  It makes it way better doesn't it?  Actually, sometimes it's astonishing.  Here's a shot from one of the worst cameras I have ever used:

We're really only now just starting to get sub-$1000 cameras where you don't have to be super-gentle in pushing the image around without risking it turning to poop.  (Well, with a few notable exceptions anyway...  *cough* OG BMPCC *cough*).  Did you know that cinematographers do latitude tests of cinema cameras when they're released so they know how to expose it to get the best results?  These are cameras with the most amount of latitude available, frequently giving half-a-dozen stops of highlights and shadows, and they do tests to work out if they should bump up or push down the exposure by half a stop or more, because it matters.
Increasing the contrast and saturation shows all the problems with the compression artefacts, bit-depth, ISO noise, NR and sharpening, etc etc.  Really cranking these up is ruthless on all but the best cameras that money can buy.
Sure, these things are obvious and not newsworthy, but now the fun begins....
The third thing it taught me was to actually see images - not just looking at them but really seeing them.
I could look at an image from a movie or TV show and see that it looked good (or great), and I could definitely see that my images were a long way from either of those things, but I couldn't see why.  The act of adding contrast and saturation, to the point of breaking my images, forced me to pay attention to what was wrong and why it looked wrong.  Then I'd look at professional images and look at what they had.  Every so often you realise your images have THAT awful thing and the pro ones don't, and even less often you realise what they have instead.
I still feel like I'm at the beginning of my journey, but one thing I've noticed is that I'm seeing more in the images I look at.  I used to see only a few "orange and teal" looks (IIRC they were "blue-ish" "cyan-ish" and "green-ish" shadows) and now I see dozens or hundreds of variations.  I'm starting to contemplate why a film might have different hues from shot-to-shot, and I know enough to know that they could have matched them if they wanted to, so there's a deeper reason.
I'm noticing things in real-life too.  I am regularly surprised now by noticing what hues are present in the part of a sunset where the sky fades from magenta-orange to yellow and through an assortment of aqua-greens before getting to the blue shades.
The fourth thing it taught me was what high-end images actually look like.
This is something that I have spoken about before on these forums.  People make a video and talk about what is cinematic and my impression is completely and utter bewilderment - the images look NOTHING like the images that are actually shown in cinemas.  I wonder how people can watch the same stuff I'm watching and yet be so utterly blind.
The fifth thing it taught me was how to actually shoot.
Considering that all cameras have a very narrow sweet spot, you can't just wave the damned thing around and expect to fix it in post, you need to know what the subject of the shot is.  You need to know where to put them in the frame, where to put them in the dynamic range of the camera, how to move the camera, etc.  If you decide that you're going to film a violinist in a low-bitrate 8-bit codec with a flat log profile, and then expose for the sky behind them even though they're standing in shadow, and expect to be able to adjust for the fact they're lit by a 2-storey building with a bright-yellow facade, well... you're going to have a bad time.  Hypothetically, of course.  Cough cough.
The sixth thing it taught me is what knobs and buttons to push to get the results I want.
Good luck getting a good looking image if you don't know specifically why some images look good and others don't.  Even then, this still takes a long time to gradually build up a working knowledge of what the various techniques look like across a variety of situations.  I'm at the beginning of this journey.  On the colourist forums every year or so, someone will make a post that describes some combination of tools being used in some colour space that you've never heard of, and the seasoned pros with decades of experience all chime in with thank-you comments and various other reflections on how they would never have thought of doing that.  I spent 3 days analysing a one-sentence post once.  These are the sorts of things that professional colourists have worked out and are often part of their secret-sauce.
Examples.
I recently got organised, and I now have a project that contains a bunch of sample images of my own from various cameras, a bunch of sample images from various TV and movies that I've grabbed over the years, and all the template grades I have developed.  I have a set of nodes for each camera to convert them nicely to Davinci Wide Gamma, then a set of default nodes that I use to grade each image, and then a set of nodes that are applied to the whole project and convert to rec709.
Here's my first attempt at grading those images using the above grades I've developed.  (This contains NO LUTs either)

The creative brief for the grade was to push the contrast and saturation to give a "punchy" look, but without it looking over-the-top.  They're not graded to match, but they are graded to be context-specific, for example the images from Japan are cooler because it was very cold and the images from India were colourful but the pollution gave the sun a yellow/brown-tint, etc.
Would I push real projects this far?  Probably not, but the point is that I can push things this far (which is pretty far) without the images breaking or starting to look worse-for-wear.  This means that I can choose how heavy a look to apply - rather than being limited through lack of ability to get the look I want.
For reference, here are a couple of samples of the sample images I've collected for comparison.
Hollywood / Blockbuster style images:

More natural but still high-end images:

Perhaps the thing that strikes me most is (surprise surprise) the amount of contrast and saturation - it's nothing like the beige haze that passes for "cinematic" on YT these days.  
So, is that the limits of pushing things?  No!
Travel images and perhaps some of the most colourful - appropriate considering the emotions and excitement of adventures in exotic and far-off lands:

I can just imagine the creative brief for the images on the second half of the bottom row...  "Africa is a colourful place - make the images as colourful as the location!".


In closing, I will leave you with this.  I searched YT for "cinematic film" and took a few screen grabs.  Some of these are from the most lush and colourful places on earth, but..... Behold the beige dullness.  I can just imagine the creative brief for this one too: "make me wonder if you even converted it from log...."

 

I was looking at that thread with a lot of interest, as I do cut our show on a Mac with FCPX. However, to test I stuck the card back in the GFX 100, and the footage played back with the crushed blacks in camera, and on an external monitor.

I'm not too concerned, it's very common for pre-production cameras to have issues like these. I'll update when I get a production unit shortly.

First proper video I've shot on the GFX 100:

Didn't have much to knock this together, but the camera did a pretty respectable job, especially as the last two shots are at 2000 ISO. The whole video was shot in Eterna.
Unfortunately, the DR+ profile did not seem to be functioning properly, so blacks were quite crushed in the captured footage, unlike what I was seeing in my histogram and external monitor. I'm optimistic that this will be fixed when we get production cameras.
 

Yes but most of the video centric versions ditch IBIS.. GH5S(No IBIS) S1H(No IBIS) etc... Certainly no professional cinema cameras have IBIS. For me I see IBIS as great for stills... horrible for video; it can sometimes warp the image and ruin the shot. This is understandable as the sensor is also correcting for yaw and pitch. If IBIS only corrected for X Y axises. I believe this would not be such a problem. I feel ultimately, EIS, as seen on the Osmo Action and GoPro... but with better quality, will be the future for cinema. And with large sensors like this, it would be very feasible. 

I would hate to cage this beast. For me this camera would be mainly for stills. Even though from what I've seen it can produce a lovely image for video also.
It would be great to see more footage from this camera. This is, imo, one of the most tempting cameras of late. It's more of a "nice to have" than a "must have" for me... though I am very tempted. 

Still people find a reason to complain
Unbelievable.

I found this chart (originally posted in 2016, but which has apparently been updated with newer 2018-19 HDR TV models) with tests comparing DCI-P3 and Rec. 2020 capabilities of various TV displays available in the U.S. market (sorry, that means no Panasonic HDR TVs listed)...
Wide Color Gamut Coverage of TVs: Rec.709, DCI-P3, Rec.2020 - RTINGS.com:
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/wide-color-gamut-rec-709-dci-p3-rec-2020
...so it's looking like that if one's target is to correct for Rec.2020 then the TV-as-editing-monitor market is not-quite-there, yet.
Which then raise the question in my (new-to-HDR) mind, is there any sense to just correcting to DCI-P3 for now (if one's NLE allows), since that's all anyone's target audience can maximally enjoy here in early-2019?

Well, if the following information from Sound&Vision is correct...
<<
Virtually all films are currently mastered for video on monitors having P3 color primaries. Those primaries are converted to Rec.2020 based coordinates, but the color values are identical, leaving the consumer with Rec.2020 color that only extends as far as the P3 color gamut within it.
>>
...from...
Colors in Space | Sound & Vision:
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/colors-space
...then it sounds like one could actually use a DCI-P3-capable HDR TV as a monitor to grade their HDR content for DCI-P3 delivery? ...or am I missing something both obvious and important here?

-HDR-noob

Pros will tell you that there are no cheap options for professional grade HDR editing. The cheapest pro option likely being EIZO CG3145 for ca. 20-30k$ USD?
However, some HDR TVs are used on a budget and you can use LUT for calibration.... LG C8 series OLED 4K or Samsung QLED 4/8K (although not sure about using LUT in these) seem to be good. Read through the topics on different forums:
For example: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?173930-State-of-the-GRADING-monitor-2019
https://liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/lg-c8-experience.12401/

Discovered this test two weeks ago and it’s definitely very interesting.
It's in Russian; you have to watch with Chrome and autotranslation (good enough for understanding).
https://www.ixbt.com/dv/fujifilm-xt-3-cinema-review.html

Yeah I had the "Bulging Battery" Thingy on my Note 7. Next phase is Holy Shit I am on fire or worse. A real confidence builder in your Pocket, right next to your Johnson lol. ?

Following @androidlad's findings i did some tests trying to decide which to choose, Flog or HLG.
Camera Settings:
FLOG: ISO 640 - SHUTTER 2000 - WB 5300K - F8
HLG: ISO 1000 - SHUTTER 3200 - WB 5300K - F8
Both shots exposed with Multi Metering aiming at 0 on the display meter.
Here are the results:
 
FLOG CLEAN


 
 HLG CLEAN


 
FLOG + FUJIFILM FLOG to WDR BT.709 LUT


 
HLG + LUTCalc HLG to ALEXA X2 LUT


 
HLG + LUTCalc HLG Rec709 LUT


 
FLOG + FUJIFILM FLOG to WDR BT.709 LUT + MINOR EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENTS


 
HLG + LUTCalc HLG Rec709 LUT + MINOR EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENTS


 
 
You can download the original files if you want.
https://we.tl/t-1qqI0lonhz

One thing I've discovered - and this might help some people - is that the rendering settings in Premiere can create extreme banding and blotches in your h256 footage once you apply a lut.
I had terrible problems with this on my Mac, before I realised I'd accidentally created a sequence with the Metal hardware acceleration setting selected under Project settings. When I changed it to OpenCL, the banding went away completely.
Might be something worth playing with. I usually find Software rendering to be the most reliable for quality, albeit by far the slowest.

Nothing remotely exotic or with any particular character but the diminutive Panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 is a handy little (with the emphasis on little) lens to have in your bag if you shoot MFT.
The upside is the OIS so its a boon for using on cameras without IBIS like the G7 or, like here, the Pocket 4K but the downside is the lack of manual focus ring so you will have to rely on AF or onscreen focus.
Or for the Pocket 4K as I was doing here for testing you can use a remote control app....
As I say, its not going to wow anyone with its '3D pop' or 'mojo' but as a purely utilitarian wide zoom its a very solid performer and as so many of them were bundled in kits with GX80 etc they are readily available for well under £100 used.

Yeah I'll upload some tonight.
10bit 400Mbit ALL-I H.265 is butter smooth to playback on MacBook Pro in Quicktime player BTW.

Tested the Viltrox EF to Fuji AF adapter tonight. So far I've only tested it with the 50/1.8 STM and I must say, it's very fast. Not native fast, it's an adapter after all. But noticeably faster than the Viltrox Speedbooster on ny G85. And in general faster than any adapter combo I've ever tried.
But like I said, only tested with one lens in pretty bad light. Will test it more thoroughly tomorrow.

Yesterday I was street shooting with the G85. Everything was golden until I was shooting straight into the sun. The focus just started hunting like crazy and couldn't focus on backlit subjects. I then switched to a native lens and everything was fine, very fine to be exact.
Tonight I quickly tried to replicate the issue with the Fuji version but couldn't. It just worked.
Needs more testing but so far I don't really see why a Fuji shooter with EF glass wouldn't get one as long as the money isn't an issue.

 

Yeah, that lens is bananas in good light for $100 or so.  Also just got the toy-like 15-45mm which is amazing at 15mm and will hold me off buying the 16-55mm for a good while. May not need it at all if my 50mm Super Takumar and 55mm Minolta Rokkor are sharp enough on this sensor. Got the 23mm f2 for WR and 7artisans 35mm f1.2 for lowlight. The latter flares badly but the 23 has CA open. 

It's not the size of an X-T30 and you have to add a 0 to the price, but Dpreview says, that the upcoming GFX 100S will shoot 4K at 10bit 4:2:0 internally, same as the X-T3. 

@Andrew Reid Hey Andrew, great interview. I really like the introduction. Awesome that you had a such an open talk and constructive  time with the Lumix S1 team and its leading gentleman. The current codec choices are Lumix G7 territory, which would not make me consider to buy this camera. I hope for GH5 codec choices, ALL Intra included and full VLOG. Then this would be my first full frame video/cinema camera. All full frame GH5 with full VLOG and without artificial sharpening and good battery life- here is my money! For now these codecs area available, which give Lumix G7 and GX85 quality.

For long-time GH1 to GH5 shooters like myself, loyal from the beginning, at a time everyone else was shooting Canon, the S1 is a milestone. I have a bit of an emotional attachment to it already, being the first Panasonic full frame camera. It is not my first L-mount camera though. I’ve been shooting with the Leica SL for a few years now and it is still the most clean, ergonomic, minimalist full frame mirrorless body. It cannot, however, match the sheer size of the feature-set on the £2000 Panasonic S1.
Read the full article

In a battle between the people with 100 million guns and the government, my money is on the side with the predator drones, not with the side who can't even talk about photography equipment online without getting into an argument.

Here's my top 5 cameras of 2018.
Of course we all know "there's no such thing as a 'bad' camera" any more but there is such a thing as a dull, boring rip off. Then there's the stuff that has a shelf life of a few months, that you just know is a stepping stone before the real deal arrives. In many ways 2018 was a good year to keep hold of what you have and wait for the dust to settle. An eventful one for technology, especially in the second half where we saw some glimpses of the future. In 2018 we had six truly great cameras for filmmakers and a few that didn't make my top list like the RX100 VI but which are nevertheless still useful in one way or another.
Read the full article

I’ve been using the Meike 28 f2.8 and it’s great. Such a small lens and cost about £80 I think.
It’s a nice focal length, clickless aperture and quite bright, although not as fast as the ones listed at the top here. You can get some lovely portrait style shots with it. 
 

Flickr may now turn into a viable alternative.
A couple of days ago the announced a revamp...
https://www.flickr.com/
...following on from the acquisition by Smugmug...
A 'pro' account is US$49 a year with unlimited uploads.
From 'early 2019' video playback will be increased from a maximum of 3 minutes to a maximum of 10 minutes....