Davide DB

Panasonic does tend to implement and do video a bit better in their versions of the cameras than Leica's 

Greater resolution comes at the expense of every other spec.

The S1R and the SL2 are the more stills focused units and perhaps the SL3 and any S2R will also be leaving the option for lower res more video focused versions?
Full frame 6k 50/60p over 8k 25/30p internal all day for me.

Well I hope these are not the features of the future Lumix FF flagship.
The specifications for the video look very basic. 8K@30p 10 bit but only 4:2:0 internally.

Well I hope these are not the features of the future Lumix FF flagship.
The specifications for the video look very basic. 8K@30p 10 bit but only 4:2:0 internally.

It is economy of scale, baby!
I see nothing mysterious in this. Nikon just before the move to mirroless was almost given up for dead (it had just lost a very important piece of its business in lithography of electronic components). Now it's out of the picture, but I don't think its Z line has changed things all that much.
So in a very high-tech market with a very small (declining) number of units sold, it is increasingly difficult to find the funds for the necessary technological investments. Sony has a diversified business and can rely on revenues and technologies from so many other markets.
Red in my opinion did not fare any better. It remained a mystery to me how such a small company could make a living in this industry. Where was it getting the money for technology investments. By the way, in Europe Red was getting progressively gnawed off the market by Arri.
So big fish eat little fish. It's a win-win deal for both of them even while keeping their respective brands separate.
The exchange of technologies will be there. Even without fantasy Red by Nikon stickers or the like.
Nikon acquires several patents and technology (raw and global shutter) and enters the cinema market.
Red accesses Nikon's technology and more of its production capacity.
If in a few years we essentially have a Nikon camera inside a Red cube marked Red no one will ever know. Then of course there are a whole series of probable ripple effects in the patent war and on trade agreements with other brands.

Here's an interesting video regarding the purchase...
For those that don't have the time, or inclination, to watch, he basically says that this purchase was so Nikon could get into the high end cinema market. He also claims it has nothing to do with the patent, but then kinda contradicts himself. Either way, it's a breakdown of what probably occurred over the past 2 years between Red and Nikon...
Trigger Warning: if you despise Red and believe their patent is complete BS, then you may want to skip this video.

It's definitely cute, but I think it's probably not good.
I couldn't find any reviews or sample images, so I suspect it might even be a low-res sensor that just upscales to 44M in software.  It's probably the same sensor and firmware as those first generation 40+MP smartphones.  If retro is in, then a bit of blur is part of the style, not a failure of lens design or MTF curves!

We all know the camera and imaging industry is being disrupted heavily, first with the move to digital that sunk Kodak, then with smartphones slowly eating the whole industry from the bottom up, and now right at the start of generative AI.  In situations like this market consolidation is an enormous game of 9-dimensional chess, so this move will be the result of more analysis than a person could read in a week, even if we had post-graduate qualifications in corporate law, economics, and accounting.
It's not like Nikon was sitting on a huge pile of cash to begin with - in this phase of a market disruption where the manufacturers are literally fighting to stay alive if this wasn't a great match for the two companies across many/most factors then it will be a mistake that might cost them everything.

Would be funny if the Z-mount Komodo gets launched as NIKOMODO.

I agree - the RED cinema cameras will keep the RED branding - it would be silly to dilute/erase the RED brand image.
(pure speculation) From a branding point of view, maybe Nikon might add some subsidiary RED branding to few video-orientated hybids e.g. 'RED Cinema' or 'Video by RED', in the way Panasonic and Sony use the Leica and Zeiss branding on some products?

I'm reminded of the pattern in automobile manufacturers where the fancy sportscar brand that isn't profitable is purchased by the mass-market manufacturer that is profitable, and then in exchange for the sports brand being propped up the high-powered engineers get sent on excursions to the parent company to talk about how to tune the suspension and tweak the engine for a new hot-hatch variant.
But, in this case, I'm really not sure who is profitable and who isn't...
Simultaneously I'm optimistic about the RED tech trickling down to Nikon, but also pessimistic about that because now Nikon has a cine line their first job will be to protect it with a cripple hammer.

This is a ridiculous post.
What is the context? There are some situations with some camera/lens combinations in which AF is undoubtably superior. Indeed, AF can make shots which would be hard if not impossible with MF straightforward. There are, equally, some situations when MF is perfect. I prefer MF lenses but I regret that preference time after time - there are things I’d like to do but don’t have the talent or skills or resources to do with MF.
To make a blanket statement about your experience with no context is nonsense. 
Your scoop is possibly better used to serve mashed potato.

Hey,
check out this little music video i shot on the Sony a74 with the helios 44 and sigma 18-35. Helios for Run&Gun - not sure i can recommend. Also did not manage to create the swirley bokeh so far. On the other hand it takes the digital edge of the sony footage which helped tremendously.
In the night scenes we also used the Tiffen Black Promist Filter 1/8.
I realized  i definetely need to learn more about lighting. If you can recommend any youtube channels i would be very happy. Of course i would also be happy about general feedback - and the artist would be happy if you would like or comment on youtube...
 

I will be using the Sony VPL-GTZ380 in the presentation when pleading my case to the wife regarding the €2100 LG Cinebeam that I've got my eye on.
"Listen, it could be a lot worse love".

That bit pretty much sums up about any hobby.  People that buy 20 guitars but can only play three chords.  A dude that has a 40 year old Cessna airplane.  The grandma that does scrapbooking.  Model trains. Race cars.  Dirt biking. Jet skis. Bowling. 
It's all 1st world luxury that even affords us the ability to "waste" our income. 
Beyond that, I make a living (somehow) doing this stuff for corporate so I guess I could be considered a pro at it in a way, but I still feel as if I'm a dilettante within it's sphere.  The technology and techniques always outpaces my understanding.
And the fascinating thing to me about making movies is that the people that truly excel in the business don't really chase the tech, they focus on the storytelling --and they let the technology specialists dig most of the rabbit holes.  
Wanna talk about "fundamentals" with all this motion picture stuff? Perhaps it's best to consider the notion of Art vs. Craft.  
Have any of y'all ever taken art classes during undergraduate studies?  In my experience there was that there was always a person that's a marvel at drawing incredibly realistically...but sucks at making that work interesting or engaging beyond "oh, that looks real."  Then there were people that could do one brush stroke on a canvas and somehow make it mesmerizing.  Then the exceptional creatives do both.
My issue with any kind of fundamentalist in a discipline is a narrow perspective that curbs imagination. It gets in the way to create something surprising.
Like a Robert Kincaid, y'know?

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. 
 
 

Underwater LX-10 in 4K (with less glass in front of the lens)
 
 

Underwater LX-10 in 4K (with less glass in front of the lens)
 
 

I don't know exactly. Here some comments from the author 
https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/715-fight-crab-rough-box-crabs-fighting-away-in-east-bali-lumix-lx10/
 
 

Underwater LX-10 in 4K (with less glass in front of the lens)
 
 

As I gradually get more serious about learning the art of editing, I've discovered it's a very under-represented topic on social media.  There are definitely some good resources, but compared to cinematography or colour grading, it's much more difficult to find resources, especially if your interest isn't purely narrative film-making.
A good strategy is to search for editors by name, as often the good stuff is just called "<name> presents at <event>" and no mention of editing or even film at all.  However, you can search for editor after editor and find nothing useful at all.
As such, I've now started analysing other people's edits directly, hoping to glean interesting things from their work.
My process is this.
Step 1: Download the video in a format that Resolve can read
I use 4K Video Downloader for Mac, but there's tonnes of options.  You're probably violating terms of service by doing this, so beware.
Step 2: Use the Scene Cut Detection feature in Resolve
Resolve has this amazing function that not many people know about.  It analyses the video frame-by-frame and tries to guess where the cut points are by how visually different one frame is from the previous one.  It's designed for colourists to be able to chop up shots when given a single file with the shots all back-to-back.
This isn't a tutorial on how to use it (the manual is excellent for this) but even this tool shows useful things.
Once it has analysed the video, it gives you the window to review and edit the cut points.  Here's a window showing a travel video from Matteo Bertoli:

What we can see here is that the video has very clear cuts (the taller the line the more change between frames) and they occur at very regular intervals (he's editing to the music), but that there are periods where the timing is different.  
Let's contrast that with the trailer for Mindhunter:

We can see that there's more variation in pacing, and more gradual transitions between faster and slower cutting.  Also, there are these bursts, which indicate fading in and out, which is used throughout the trailer.  These require some work to clean up before importing the shots to the project.
Lastly, this is the RED Komodo promo video with Jason Momoa and the bikers:

There are obviously a lot of clean edits, but the bursts in this case are shots with lots of movement, as this trailer has some action-filled and dynamic camera work.
I find this tool very useful to see pace and timing and overall structure of a video.  I haven't used it yet on things longer than 10 minutes, so not sure how it would go in those instances, but you can zoom in and scroll in this view, so presumably you could find a useful scale and scroll through, seeing what you see.
This tool creates a list of shots, and gives a magic button...

Then you get the individual shots in your media pool.
Step 3: "Recreation" of the timeline
From there you can pull those shots into the timeline, which looks like this:

However, this wouldn't have been how they would have edited it, and for educational purposes we can do better.
I like to start by manually chopping up the audio independently from the video (the Scene Cut Detection tool is visual-only after all).  For this you would pull in sections of music, maybe sections of interviews, speeches, or ambient soundscapes as individual clips.  If there are speeches overlapping with music then you could duplicate these, with one track showing the music and another showing the speeches.  
Remember, this timeline doesn't have to play perfectly, it's for studying the edit they made by trying to replicate the relevant details.
This travel video had one music track and no foley, so I'd just represent it like this:

I've expanded the height of the audio track as with this type of music-driven edit, the swells of the music are a significant structural component to the edit.  
It's immediately obvious, even in such a basic deconstruction, that the pace of editing changes each time the music picks up in intensity, that once it's at its highest the pace of editing stays relatively stable and regular, and then at the end the pace gradually slows down.  Even just visually we can see the structure of the story and journey that the video takes through its edit.
But, we can do more.  Wouldn't it be great to be able to see where certain techniques were used?  Framing, subject matter, scenes, etc etc?
We can represent these visually, through layers and colour coding and other techniques.
Here is my breakdown of another Matteo video:

Here's what I've done:
V6 are the "hero" shots of the edit.  Shots in orange are where either Matteo or his wife (the heroes of the travel video) are the subject of the video, and pink are close-ups of them V5 is where either Matteo or his wife are in the shot, but it doesn't feature them so prominently.  IIRC these examples are closeup shots of Matteo's wife holding her phone, or one of them featured non-prominently in the frame, perhaps not even facing camera V4 and below do not feature our heroes... V4 either features random people (it's a travel video so people are an important subject) prominently enough to distinguish individuals, or features very significant inanimate objects V3 features people at a significant enough distance to not really notice individuals, or interesting inanimate objects (buildings etc) V2 are super-wide shots with no details of people (wides of the city skyline, water reflections on a river, etc) V1 is where I've put in dummy clips to categorise "scenes", and in this case Green is travel sections shot in transport or of transport, and Blue is shots at a location V2-V6 are my current working theory of how to edit a travel film, and represents a sort of ranking where closeups of your heroes are the most interesting and anonymous b-roll is the least interesting.  You should adapt this to be whatever you're interested in.  You could categorise shots based on composition, which characters are in the shot, which lens was used, if there was movement in the shot, if there was dialogue from the person in-shot or dialog from the person not-in-shot or no dialog at all, etc etc.  Remember you can sort between tracks, you can colour code, and probably other things I haven't yet tried.  NLEs have lots of visual features so go nuts.
Step 4: Understand what the editor has done
Really this depends on what you're interested in learning, but I recommend the following approach:
Make a list of questions or themes to pay attention to Focus on just one question / theme and review the whole timeline just looking at this one consideration I find that it's easy to review an edit and every time you look at the start you notice one thing (eg, pacing), and then in the next section you notice another (eg, compositions), and then at the end you notice a third (eg, camera movement).  The problem with this is that every time you review the video you're only going to think of those things at those times, which means that although you've seen the pacing at the start you're not going to be noticing the compositions and camera movement at the start, or other factors at other times.  This is why focusing on one question or one theme at a time is so powerful, it forces you to notice things that aren't the most obvious.
Step 5: Look for patterns
We have all likely read about how in many films different characters have different music - their "theme".  Star Wars is the classic one, of course, with Darth Vaders theme being iconic.  This is just using a certain song for a certain character.  There are an almost infinite number of other potential relationships that an editor could be paying attention to, but because we can't just ask them, we have to try and notice them for ourselves. 
Does the editor tend to use a certain pacing for a certain subject?  Colour grade for locations (almost definitely, but study them and see what you can learn)?  Combinations of shots?
What about the edit points themselves?  If it's a narrative, does the editor cut some characters off, cutting to another shot while they're still talking, or immediately after they've stopped speaking, rather than lingering on them for longer?  Do certain characters get a lot of J cuts?  Do certain characters get more than their fair share of reaction shots (typically the main characters would as we care more about what main characters think than what secondary characters feel while they're talking).
On certain pivotal scenes or moments, watch the footage back very slowly and see what you can see.  Even stepping through frame-by-frame can be revealing and potentially illuminate invisible cuts or other small tweaks.  Changing the timing of an edit point by even a single frame can make a non-trivial aesthetic difference.  
Step 6: Optional - Change the edit
Change the timing of edits and see what happens.  In Resolve the Scene Cut Detection doesn't include any extra frames, so you can't slide edit points the way you normally would be able to when working with the real source footage, but if you pull in the whole video into a track underneath the individual clips you can sometimes rearrange clips to leave gaps and they're not that noticeable.  This obviously won't create a publishable re-edit, but for the purposes of learning about the edit it can be useful.  You can change the order of the existing clips, you can shorten clips and change the timing, etc.  You could even re-mix the whole edit if you wanted to, working within the context of a severely limited set of "source footage" of course, but considering that the purpose of this is to learn and understand, it's worth considering.
Final thoughts
Is this a lot of work?  Yes.  But learning anything is hard work - the brain is lazy that way.  Also, this might be the only way to learn certain things about certain editors, as it seems that editors are much less public people than other roles in film-making.
One experiment I tried was instead of taking the time to chop up and categorise a film, I just watched it on repeat for the same amount of time.  I watched a 3.5 minute travel film on repeat for about 45 minutes - something like a dozen times.  I started watching it just taking it in and paying attention to what I noticed, then I started paying attention to how I felt in response to each shot, then to the timing of the shots (I clapped along to the music paying attention to the timing of edits - I was literally repeating out loud "cut - two - three - four"), I paid attention to the composition, to the subject, etc etc..  But, I realised that by the time I had watched a minute of footage I'd sort-of forgotten what happened 30 shots ago, so getting the big-picture wasn't so easy, and when I chopped that film up, although I'd noticed some things, there were other things that stood out almost immediately that I hadn't noticed the dozen times I watched it, despite really paying attention.
Hopefully this is useful.

I know that video and the author well. yes it's shot in 4K.
To achieve such extreme magnification he used no less than three additional wet lenses (diopters) stacked together. AOI UCL-09 closeup lens, Inon UCL-165 closeup lens, Backscatter Macromate Mini closeup lens. It is inevitable that the image will degrade, especially at the edges. Especially the last lens is the result of desperation to increase magnifications. It is a GoPro-specific lens.
Surely with just one or two stronger lenses the quality would have been better, but one tries to make soup out of the ingredients one has 🙂
Still, the shot is exceptional for the ethology of this species.

It plays in 4K for me, and looks pretty good!
There is some optical distortions, but it looks like the normal ones from filming through glass, so not the cameras fault.

Some underwater macro marvel. Not bad for a little pocket cam. Upload is 1080p, so wandering if it was even filmed in 4K. So here the little Lumix LX10 for some underwater footage. I really like the framing and the cinematography as such. What do you think? @Davide DB 🙂