92F

I took my new camera to San Francisco last weekend to capture Christmas in the city. I filmed at 60p and showed the footage to family on Christmas day and I got the same reaction you did. No one said it gave them a headache or complained that it felt like someone peed in their eggnog.

Fascinating. 
 
Super wealthy hobbyists who make fancy home movies think 24p doesn’t look like cinema having never actually made anything with actors or working with a crew and using their family as their evidence of audience approval.  
Little to no understanding of the difference between acquisition frame rate and distribution or display refresh rate in multiple environments or global territories but still drawing conclusions. 
 
So many experts one one place. How lucky we all are. 
 
 

Gee, I hope you never discover what the sports bureaucracy in other sports get up to.... 
Name a Top 10 finisher (not just in the TdF but any Grand Tour, or heck, even any of the Classics) from that era who you're certain wasn't ever taking drugs?
I feel as a fan to be stressing and worrying over who was or wasn't is a futile exercise. Just enjoy the racing for what it is. (and got to admit, the racing during that era was a lot better!)
I never said that. 
Oh sure, and Óscar Pereiro has never had any doping allegation scandals around him! /s 😅😂🤣 If you fully believe he's totally clean then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell 😉
This proves the point about how totally different Lance Armstrong has been treated, as a scapegoat and a punching bag for the entire world's media (not just cycling media) to beat up upon. 
(just to be clear btw, I'm no great fan of Lance Armstrong specifically! In fact his existence kinda annoyed me back then, as Armstrong prevented my favorite rider from winning any more TdF titles!! If not for Lance, then I think he'd have gone on to win even more titles than Lance did. Oh well)
(also just to be clear: yes, what he did is wrong. It's wrong to dope. But when you consider the broader context, I find it impossible to get as super hyped up furiously mad about it as so many others seem to be. It's merely disappointing, not some kind of greatest scandal since Watergate) 

Not 100% of riders.
No, you’re trying to prove your own point that 100% of riders were using.
Floyd Landis’ TdF title in 2006 went to Oscar Periero just as Alberto Contador’s went to Andy Schleck in 2010 so that proves the point that they only had to go one place down to find a rider that they could give it to.
I’d venture that the Armstrong “asterix” years are more to do with UCI/ASO complicity and/or legal issues that are still ongoing.
Anyway, enough of cycling, I’ve derailed this thread enough so will politely withdraw from the sport vs spectacle conundrum.
 

Likely none.
The issue at hand is being lukewarm about when someone is caught.
That just doesn’t chime with me personally in terms of being sport.
Transparency?
Armstrong colluded with the UCI to cover up his positive tests FFS.

I’m not sure as a hardcore fan of any sport how you could be lukewarm about systematic cheating as, well, it doesn’t seem very, erm, “sporting”.
From my personal point of view as a pro sports photographer covering Tour de France in that era though I’m far from lukewarm about having sat in press conferences being lied to  by him and watching him ridicule and soil the reputation of David Walsh and Paul Kimmage.
Or Emma O’Reilly.
I’m also sore that in Armstrong’s case, unlike all the other ones I’ve covered, that I get zero residuals from my “winner of stage x” or “winner of TdF x”  images 🙂
I might be being old fashioned here but I’d give it to the highest placed cyclist that wasn’t using PEDs.
I have some sympathy with the “well they were all at it” aspect so, fine, let everyone do it and have a special event.
Just don’t call it sport when it’s only being used by some of the field.

It's a joke...the topic seems a little funny to me.
" tripod improves image quality much more than 10 years development "
"Warm water is less hot than boiling water " 😄
The AF, the IBIS are remarkable advances when we do reporting... When we do cinema,  a tripod, a crane, manual focus are widely used
 
 
 
 

Only the compare revealed the copying errors. I too was shocked when I saw them and when I used Window's Event Viewer to look at the error logs, there was nothing there to indicate any device errors. The first time this happened, I wiped the T7 by reformatting it and tried the copying again, and got the same results, although the copy errors were in different files and the missing files were different. I tried this several more times with two other T7 drives and got similar results. The files being copied were about a TB of RAW files from my Canon still cameras along with associated .PSD files.
In all cases, the drives were connected to my PC using USB C to a native USB C port on the PC. I tried four different USB cables to rule out a bad cable and it didn't make a difference.
I tried the same tests with several T9 drives and never saw any binary copy errors or missing files. At this point, I have zero confidence in the T7.

The relationship between a cameras image and the emotional experience of the viewer are connected, but a compelling story will completely overwhelm the image quality.  I know there is no discussion on here about what happens to images once they're captured (and much discussion is relevant to only single images) but I think that the image quality is part of the last 10% of polish on top of a finished piece.
Love is still love, even if it's in SD Heartbreak is still devastating even if shot on Alexa Betrayal is still ugly even if using Canon colour science Emotions are still colourful even if filmed in B&W If you want to make a feature then go ahead and make one.  You are probably already familiar with Noam Kroll and the principles of writing the film you can make, starting with what you have access to and working backwards.  I think that probably everyone is capable of making a feature film of significance if they were able to look within and tell a story inspired by their own struggles.  
Until recently all of TV was in worse quality than every FHD camera on the planet, and millions or billions of stories were told.  Don't let colour subsampling and DR distract you from the fact that the human experience is universal, and that what separates a good film from a bad one is how much the audience can relate emotionally to what they see.

G9ii to get external RAW in future firmware update...  
 

Let's be reasonable!
4K/8K is quite far from cinema...a good FHD is softer and creamier with an FF sensor and an old lens...etc.
It's not a few extra images that change much: real cinema isn't silent cinema in black and white with a real piano in the room? Lol 
Tell me, have you tested when you lose the cinematic sensation: at 25p, 26p, 27p, 28p ...29.5p ..more?! Please, it's not a bit ridiculous...who decides, is it you?
Is slow motion filmed in 60p 120p no longer cinema? : no, stop, we have to wait for the film to return to the original 24p !? Amusing .
Cinematic rendering is a personal matter. Sometimes old high-budget films on silver film then remastered have a very clean rendering, but not sharp...very beautiful, very cinematic visual experiences
Cinema is just an illusion that arouses passions and 24p is a matter of broadcasting habits and laziness... and for TV broadcasting everything has to be readjusted,  so 24p disappears.
For video games it's only cartoons so the cinema experience here, I don't understand, it's irrational !?
Now if you are a purist, only go to cinemas and choose those where you are sure of the broadcast quality... but don't force anyone to only see 24p which jerks at the slightest important panning.
To say that 24p will disappear one day is not important, just a provocation... perhaps it will happen, I am neither for nor against it?

Darn. I've been a member here for 8 years by now. But never have I given anyone a thumbsdown. You righteously earned all of those I could have had potentially given towards other nonsense before, dear og poster. What nonsensensical, arrogant and depreciative statements you've been coming up with just to feel being right. Your statement could have even been an attractive thesis for me to talk about with you. But your argumentation is without any respect for any good nor in the service of your claim.
"24p is dead". Maybe it is. Maybe not. Maybe 25p as here in  Europe is the current 24p. But no need to act up like a triumphator about it. Something like "Your old world is dying, let's  celebrate that." NOT.
That doesnt mean, you are not a lovely person with possibly an adorable filmmakers mind. But your statements are a long way to go from in order to be a good testimonial for a convincing positive assumption about you. Wasting our planet for consumption of 4k 60 video junk is not a thing to be goofy about. 8k 60p- like looking outside of the window. Let's look outside of our window for sure: the world is burning. No tolerance for most terrible display of ignorance and stupidity in behaviour nor speech.
"Thongs", "clothes forum", are you a chauvinist scared of thongs? Never seen a thong in your life or someone undressing a thong? I will do that now for a change. Seeing is believing.
So many people trying to provide awesome content here. So many good reasons to reason with THEM, because they make it possible. Never used capitals before. Oh, well..

Here's a video that explains the basics of lens choice:
Perhaps the single biggest take-away from this video is how the cinematographer is speaking - he is talking about how he wants the audience to feel, not what is 'realistic'.  
In fact he introduces the video by saying "Hello.  I'm Tom Single and I've been a cinematographer for the past 40 years.  Today I'm going to be focusing on how film-makers achieve the desired mood as it relates to lens choices".
Think about that...  "the desired mood".
Realism isn't the goal, and it's not even relevant to the context.  It's completely besides the point for the industry that he's in.
You can take almost any aspect of film-making and when you find very experienced people talking about it, it will always be discussed in the context of the mood and perceptual associations you want to create.

It sounds like you missed the point.
I didn't post the video saying that it was an example of great image quality, I posted it to make the point that a lot of the techniques being used in cinema are also being used for creative YouTube videos.
This entire discussion has been about if film-making should be more or less realistic, and the point that many of us have been making is that almost all of the tools and techniques used in cinema deliberately make things less realistic.
The video I posted was an example of many techniques that improve the creative aspects, but make the end result less realistic, including:
cutting up clips into sequences that aren't 'continuity editing' but are more emotive combining multiple images at a time (e.g. the top-down shot in the bedroom) splicing in audio clips that were recorded at a different time than the visual being shown overlapping audio clips and other foley and SFX to create a creative rather than realistic sound design non-realistic colour grading filming insert shots (like the hanging of the clothes in the closet) for the purpose of association rather than limiting the edit to 'real' events production design techniques like use of lighting and light modifiers, smoke machines, etc in-camera visual effects like the top-down shot of the medium format camera etc.  there are likely lots more, these are just the things I could name off the top of my head From this perspective, such a video is an example of a great many techniques that are employed by film-makers to make the finished product more appealing, but do so specifically by making the end result less realistic.
You didn't like it, and that's fine, but my point was that there are deliberately non-realistic techniques being used on YT and the example shows a variety of them in use.  It didn't share it because I thought everyone would like it, it was an example to discuss the techniques.

Slashcam have also assigned impressive latitude to the GH6, better than a FX30 and R7. @92FIf only the processing for noise and textures for the GH6 and G9 II would borrow from the GH5 II, than both would be a something like a rigged out 4K60p Bmmcc, perfect nerds and image tinkerers dream.

They announced officially earlier this year they were moving out of the compact market, so unless they reverse what sounded like a very firm decision…

I have the GH6, S5 and S5II. I don't see more moiré on the S5II compared to the S5. What I see on the S5II is more edge sharpening and worse fine details. Again, if you don't crop I don't think you can see a big difference.
The GH6 on the other hand is less prone to moiré, but since the S5, Panasonic uses some processing to minimize moiré :
"Intelligent detail processing eliminates the need for a low-pass filter and smooths fine details like hair and wires to minimize moiré patterns". 
On the GH6 the result is pretty good but maybe a bit too strong compared to their other cameras, the moiré is most of the time eliminated, but this is the same for some fine details. When I compare my video from my G9, GH5 and GH6, depending of the scene, the GH6 has often less fine details when looking them at 100%, especially in low light. At first I thought it was noise reduction, but the noise structure is very nice and seems unaltered. 
This is a sort of digital OLPF.
There is no miracle, in order to have the best picture (similar to a picture raw file), the less processing is always better, but moiré is certainly an issue for most people. It is why the Panasonic S1H has probably the nicest video quality from a camera below 4000$, details are less processed than the GH6 or the S5II, and the OLPF eleminates the moiré without looking unnatural. 

 

If you focus on stability and autofocus and wide angle, cheaper and lighter lenses...the G9 II surely ?
Otherwise if the sensitivity and creative capabilities of the FF interest you the S5 II , but overall it will be more expensive and bulky... 
And wait for in-depth tests on the sensitivity of the G9II ?

I'm not really up with all the latest things that all the flagships have in them, but I'd imagine there's a bunch of things that they could do that would fit into the "spirit" of the GH line, being that each one isn't really head-line grabbing but cumulatively it creates a real workhorse.
Things that come to mind (but is by no means everything):
PDAF with all the modes (face, eye, dog/cat/gerbil-eye-AF) Variable eND External RAW support (BRAW and Prores RAW) Focus breathing compensation Shutter angles All the prores modes internally (including the 4444 12-bit mode) Dual native ISO with a nice high second ISO for serious low-light performance Support for more than 2 channels of audio Clean HDMI out Updated BM-like UI where you can choose the resolution, frame-rate, codec, quality settings, audio settings etc all in one simple place 1000/1500/2000+NIT screen They could also make an effort to create a good package / rig, by offering products like:
Updated interface module that offers XLRs, TC, other stuff On-camera hotshoe shotgun mic like the Sony ECM on-camera mics which make a nice compact package Bolt on ARRI LPL adapter Integration with DJIs system so the camera can talk to the gimbals (for follow-mode) and their LiDAR products so you can have AF on manual lenses etc A custom-designed grip that provides extra batteries but also integrates a swappable SSD NVMe (the long skinny ones) so you can record to SSD without having to mess with cables I mean, there's nothing life-changing in the above, and we're not breaking the laws of physics by suggesting a 20-stop DR from an MFT sensor, but if it came with half of that stuff then it would be a serious offering I'd say.
I mean, if you think there's no improvement above other offerings just watch a few videos where people list the 27 reasons the FX3 isn't a cinema camera, or the equivalents from any of the other brands too.  No camera has all of the good features, they're all missing a random smattering of them.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this whole thing, which is the elephant in the room, is that all movies and TV and videos are a fiction.
Anything scripted is a fictional reality of course.  
Documentaries are a fiction too, taking hours of interviews, b-roll, on-location and historic footage and editing them down to a hopefully coherent string of snippets is a radical departure from the reality.  In documentary editing they talk about "finding the story in the edit" - if I go out my front door into reality I don't have to "find the story in reality" and even if I believed that made sense how could it possibly occur?  
Wedding films are so romanticised that most wouldn't even call them a documentary, despite being made exclusively of filmed-on-location non-scripted cinema-verite.
Even the walk-around videos shot by @markr041 are a long way from reality.  If I was actually present in these locations then I could go wherever I want, talk to whoever I want, etc - the set of choices of each video represents one single possibility from an infinite number of creative choices, just like every edited film is one of an infinite number of possible edits that could be made.  These films are edited in real-time, moment-by-moment, and cannot help but include an almost infinite number of creative choices.
In this context, ALL choices are creative choices to contribute to the final film.  
So what does this mean?
Well, if all work is fiction (of some sort or other) then every choice is a creative one.  The choice of a high-resolution aberration-free lens is a choice just like any other.  If I am shooting something modern then a modern lens is appropriate, if I am shooting something gritty then a gritty lens is appropriate, if I am shooting something vintage then a vintage lens is appropriate.
But here's the kicker....  if everything is a fantasy, to some degree or other, then there is no such thing as a neutral choice.  Clean lenses have just as much look as anything else, it's just an absence of technical aberrations.

It’s impossible to have a one size fits all LUT or else we would all be buying it. 
 
There’s so much variation in lighting and even sensor to sensor copy variation. Most people don’t realise that the color of a lens is usually DIFFERENT you shoot it wide open compared to three stops down. 
 
There’s no magic bullet for this. AI can maybe take over the color balancing at some point. Maybe. 

My main changes came from my two last big trips, which were Melbourne and Korea.  Partly these changes came from shooting, partly from reviewing the footage, and partly from thinking about it since.
I realised my iPhone 12 Mini shoots 10-bit HDR footage internally, and the colour science is quite benign / neutral
Ironically, I did a test to rule out the iPhone as a real camera, but ended up proving the opposite!  
I preferred the shooting experience with the GX85 over the GH5
This is just purely down to the size and form-factor of the camera.  Not only is it easier to carry and therefore faster to shoot with because it's close-to-hand, but less people look at you while shooting, the kids were less intimidated by it when shooting them, and it was a generally nicer experience.
I preferred the speed of AF vs manual focus lenses
The AF-S on MFT cameras is practically instant and very reliable.  I don't need continuous AF as I tend to compose-focus-shoot-stop then repeat when I shoot a new composition.
I realised that a zoom lens would get me a wider range of shots
I am used to working a scene pretty heavily, seeing shots at various focal lengths, and also anticipating compositions and moving around to try and make them work (e.g. can I get a shot showing the view in the background, the church in the foreground, and framed by this flowering plant?).  Having a zoom means just quickly grabbing all the shots I can see.
I realised I don't need a fast lens
This was an interesting one.  I shot a lot with the 14mm F2.5 and it was borderline too shallow DoF wide open, because what I want is a bit of background separation, but not so thin a DoF that I get focusing issues, especially during the shot when the subject is moving around and the subject distance changes a bit.
I realised that variable aperture zoom lenses (the cheap ones!) are surprisingly constant DoF lenses
I just realised this today.  For example, let's imagine I have the 14-42mm kit lens and I'm taking a mid-shot of a person.  If I'm taking this mid on 14mm then I'd be 1.9m away, the lens would be at F3.5, and the DoF would be 2.9m.  If I take the same composition at 42mm then I'd be 6m away, the lens would be at F5.6 and the DoF would be 3.6m - very similar!  
This is actually what I want creatively - a mid shot is an environmental portrait so having a DoF of 3-4m will include what's around them but give a bit of defocus outside that range.  For the same lens, if I shoot a close-up, the DoFs range from 0.6m/24" to 0.8m/31" which is appropriate as a close-up is more about the person in isolation so a bit more separation is a nice thing to have.
 
I realised that my 12-35mm F2.8 lens on the GX85/GH5 has adequate low-light capability as a walk-around lens
This gives me enough low-light performance as a walk-around lens, and if I need better low-light then I will most likely have enough time to pull out a faster prime.  My 7.5/2, 17.5/0.95, and 50/1.2 are small and light enough to take if I know I'll be going somewhere with serious low-light.  For example, zoos at night, less-lit places at night like the beach, lookouts at night, etc.
I've also learned a TON about colour grading and how to get the most from what I have, with the most important thing being that one critical difference between over-sharpened digital, high quality digital, and film is how it renders the contrast on fine detail, and conveniently, a simple blur will fix sharpening and give digital the same rendering characteristics as film
LOL.  The name of the game is getting the images you want with the least work, so no criticism from me on how we all get there.  I also decided when I started this that I'd do things the hard way and therefore learn the most, rather than just buy my way to good colour (which is realistically just buying a Canon or recent Sony camera and Dehancer/Filmconvert).
I fear I may have over-emphasised the potential complexity of Resolve and colour grading, without putting adequate emphasis on the fact that the most mileage comes from the basics, and it's a game of diminishing returns that kicks in pretty quickly.
I've contemplated starting a thread showing what benefits can be had from only using very simple tools.  Not sure if that would be worthwhile.

Yes, it's called "being a parent".

That looks very nice. I recently used the S5IIx with Dehancer in a tutorial video I made. Was shooting this with the Lumix 24-105mm f4, 4k log long gop. This is just a tutorial but the end of the video has some longer sample footage. I was struggling quite a bit with autofocus, but the end results were fine - couldn't get the camera to detect her face the majority of the time, it would just track the body most of the time which is ok but not ideal. I don't know if I was doing something wrong but need to test AF again
 

I recently asked for book recommendations to learn about human vision and was given a link to a free PDF.
It is incredible.
I'm only a quarter of the way through, but I'm absolutely blown away.  The human vision system looks like it was designed by committee and then re-imagined by Dali and Picasso, while on drugs.  It is a wonder we can see anything at all!
Did you know that the rods and cones (which detect light) are BEHIND a bunch of nerves and nerve cells and blood vessels, so the light has to go through a bunch of crap before you even sense it?   
The book is actually a mix of how the human vision system works and also what we have done with the tech to try and align to it, so it's a nice blend of biology and tech.  It's also very readable and tries to be as non-technical as possible.  This is a rare find compared to other books that are hugely tech heavy.
Take the red pill with me...  download it here: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/support/documents/colourbook/colourbook.php (download it by clicking on the box next to the file size).