Leaderboard

Yes.

Schneider ES Cinelux 2x (Custom single focus) | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F:1.8 | Sony a6300 Some shots with varyND. Early test, needed to learh how to achieve best result with this setup DIY-body... and few stills at Helios 44-2 F:2 and... ...Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F:1.8

I owned a Kinemini and now own a few KineMax. The KineMax is a significant upgrade over the Kinemini in every way. Obviously resolution, color science, and usability. The Terra 6K uses the same sensor in a smaller format. Dynamic range in the "golden" mode is insane. My DP (owner of alexa mini) was blown away by our ability to shoot subjects directly against a bright sky. Cineform Raw >>>>>> every other codec out there. Lossless raw at smaller file sizes than Prores and I can cut 6K raw even on a first gen i7. The cameras are rock solid. Never an issue. Never a crash. I had one big problem on set once not getting it to recognize the SSD, but that was because I was using 7mm instead of the 9mm SSDs that the slot is built for. Yes you have to deal with crappy Chinese support and sending it back to Bejing to fix anything so if that's not for you, don't even consider them. Now, cinema cameras will be a pain in the butt if you're 'upgrading' from DSLR, so the GH5 and the 5D come out to shoots way more than the Kinefinity stuff. But that's a different argument.

Yeah, wouldn't change a bit either, for me that was already purdy dang purfect! This one you did with the F35 I really liked as well: F35 defo has some special mojo and you a gift to make it sing!

Fitted it for first time to one of my Android devices... I am using a spare Axon 7. Could use Samsung S8+ as well but that's my main phone and Axon 7 is right up there with OLED screen and great battery life. Whole thing is super small and light... Can't say the same about many much more expensive HDMI-monitors. A real relief not to have to add Canon batteries to the back. It is nice how incredinly light it is... In total (cable, clamp, LukiLink) it adds a barely noticable weight to the smartphone. Very impressive on that front. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the cable on the LukiLink. It isn't swappable and has a large legacy USB connector on the end, when my phone is USB-C. That means the cable sticks out quite far from the phone because I have to use an OTG adapter. My link to download the pre-release copy of the app from Frank expired before I got to it, but will hopefully get that installed tomorrow on my device and start testing. As you can see from the photos I stuck mine to the back of the smartphone clamp rather than the phone itself, so phone can be de-attached in an instant and used seperately at any moment. So yeah initial pros and cons... Pros Super light Small physical footprint on the phone Clamp and locking velcro work well HDMI port can exit at any angle, lots of choices with mounting the port (I have it pointing downwards from back of screen) Cons Wish it had a USB C slot instead of a fixed standard USB cable Wish the hotshoe ball socket for connecting to camera was just a small hinge about 1cm high instead. Always hated these ball-socket things and spidery arms.

If a person doesn't need: 5th & 6th inputs. Time code. Hirose power connection. XLR outputs. Metadata entry. USB interface. Flexible file naming. (& much more) Then yes the Tascam DR70D could be a worthy lower priced option. But those other things I mentioned are VERY handy. Some are essential even (such as TC & metadata entry) if working as a sound recordist on bit bigger productions. But if you just need the basics of a 4 ISO track recorder then the Tascam DR70D will be fine enough for now.

Just to clarify I wasn't endorsing the 70d over other options, just responding as to if it could fill the functionality required. With regard to battery life with it, I'm not sure whether this would be a massive drawback when you power it from USB. This video tests it running for 11 1/2 hours off a cheap 12,000 mAh block with all channels recording and with phantom switched on all of them. Again, not an endorsement for the 70d, just an FYI if you go that way.

Unless I hit the lottery or became independently wealthy, I will never buy one, but you cannot deny the image the Kinemini or Terra are capable of... The colors are just gorgeous.

I think you are right. Just film is making me broke! Shot this on Kodak Ultramax 400. I don't know if the Nikon D80 is going to get there

This is insane. I'm editing with a massive smile on my face. No hitches, project loaded my footage almost instantly and editing is an absolute breeze. Moments before, I tried to import footage on Premiere Pro and it took 3 minutes for the previews to even load. I'm buying the full version.

Every now and then we have this discussion. I think many underestimate how difficult is for a camera company to establish itself and expand in the world market. From what I understand, Terra has been in great demand. There is a HUGE market just in China for it, and maybe I say maybe most buyers there are actually putting their cameras to work instead of just shooting vlogs on youtube. Now that being said, if you need a camera that shoots RAW at a low price point now with very good support and you are closer to the US than China, blackmagic Ursa mini might be a better choice. In any case, there is plenty of very nice looking Kinefinity footage for the ones that are willing to look:

If, like me you have ever wanted to use the OLED screen of your lovely thin and light smartphone as an HDMI monitor for your camera, you are now officially in luck. The LukiLink will give you that long-awaited HDMI input. Read the full article

I fucking hate YouTube and am done working with clients wanting to use it. That's my New Years resolution. Don't get me wrong. I love it as a monetary platform. I almost-maybe-kinda make a living off a few channels I run. But as someone trying to deliver a great product it makes me want to cry. Feed it whatever the fuck you want: DNxHDProResHigh bit rate h.264Crazy compressed formatsAbide a 100% to the recommended spec It does NOT matter! The YouTube encoder will take your work and compress it to shit. Case in point, the last shot I delivered looks awesome on desktop and laptops. It was encoded right out of the gate to VP9. Video has netted twenty-ish thousand views. A few night ago I get an e-mail from the client complaining about how the video looks. Sure enough, YouTube is delivering h.264 for iOS and Android. The 1080P looks like complete crap. Macroblocking, banding and tearing EVERYWHERE. Knock it down to 720P and it's perfect.

Well... Whilst Its true that the DR70d fits your usage now and you might not need the extra features of the F4, will that always be the case? Might you need the extra features further down the line is what you need to consider. Yes, its a multiple more in terms of cost in relative terms but in absolute terms is it really ? The £300ish difference is probably something you wouldn't think twice over if it was a camera body or a lens I would imagine. And if you do need those extra features in the future, how much will you get for the Tascam in part exchange ? About £150 if you're very lucky so you'll have already lost half the difference. When you look at it in those terms - if you will need the extra stuff further down the line and have to buy an F4 - then the real difference in price is only £150. Against that, you have to look at whether your a better use of your budget right now is to put into better microphones as the old adage of garbage in garbage out is very much in play here. In an ideal world you'd have budget for all of it but if you don't then its not exactly like you'd be recording onto an old cassette deck if you went with the Tascam so, for me, I'd go with putting the extra money into whats feeding it as that's where you'll feel the overall benefit more at this time. Its IBC next week so make sure you keep an eye on that in case someone comes up with a new model before you take the plunge. In the meantime, here is some viewing for you based on long term usage of a number of different recorders.

Yeah would love to. I'll let you know, Always wanted to visit Stockholm! You can see that in reality, the light makes more difference than 10 years of sensor improvements I still can't quite seem to part with my M9 even though I got a bargain on a M-P (based on Typ 240) recently and the live-view is a great bonus. It has video, but not used it much for that yet. Kodak did the best sensors in the world before they flushed it all down the toilet. The Hasselblad medium format chips were leading the entire world in sensor tech in 2007, before Sony was even in nappies and lagging Canon. Sure today Sony has the march on tech specs vs everyone else in the CMOS market and the largest share too. But do they have SOUL???!

Yes I agree the battery life with the Tascam DR70D is a non-issue. Just use an external power supply! It is quite normal with ALL recorders that if you have a full shoot day, then you just use an external power supply. Even if you've dumped billions of dollars and purchased a new Sound Devices / Zaxcom / Sanosax recorder, then you still use an external power supply. So I don't see it as a massive negative to criticise the DR70D for that, just that the micro USB connection is not as ideal as Hirose. I have never owned a Tascam DR70D, but I used one when I was starting out, when I was the sound recordist for a feature film. And I had an issue with it, also with my Tascam DR60D mk1 that I had at the time, but all was solved with a simple firmware update: http://ironfilm.co.nz/firmware-update-for-tascam-dr-60d-mk1-fixes-recording-interruptions-when-running-on-external-usb-power-packs/

The Zoom F4 is the best buy for bang for buck sound recorder right now from the lower priced options. The Zoom F4 is insanely low priced (a steal!) for how much it does. Only if you really need the more inputs or Bluetooth, would I suggest the more expensive F8 instead. And I'd only recommend the MixPre6 (ignore the MixPre3!! Too crippled for its price) if you really REALLY need that HDMI triggering. Otherwise get an F4. If you're on an ultra super tight budget, get a Tascam DR70D. But once you own a DR70D, then there is almost no reason whatsoever to own a H5/H6. Anyway, this is all just a repeat of what I said in my latest blog post: http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-recorder-to-buy-a-guide-to-various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/

Yes, it gives you options to record all four channels separately (which will give you the maximum flexibility), as stereo sets or as a mix.

The Zoom H1 Input Impedance‎: ‎2 kOhms (0 to -39 dBm) The input level of the H1 pre likes to be on the low side or extraneous noise can be noticeable. Use an input level of 33 rather than 99, for example. This was my experience when using the sennheiser ew100 g3 with the H1. Knowing one's mic systems output impedance is good when using this cheaper Zoom recorder. I also experienced RF noise with a particular shotgun mic, an unshielded cable, and my wireless transmitter. However, that was my fault, not necessarily the H1. It illustrates how cheap gear is susceptible to limitations, so you need to be careful.

If you are recording a music gig, for example, the sound that will be coming from the mixing console feed is reinforcing the on stage sound - hence why the formal term for live audio systems being Sound Reinforcement. Depending on the band this will invariably not be providing the full representation of the gig as, for example, the overall guitar sound will be lower as it will be missing the sound of the on stage guitar amplifiers, which can be quite significant. If you are doing a Kraftwerk gig then this is less of an issue as there is nothing naturally occurring on stage (sometimes physically in their case ) that isn't present in the mixing console mix. However, in all instances, you will be missing the room ambience (including the sound of the audience) and the mix from the console will always sound much drier. Hence, having a secondary ambient mic source, allows you to mix both. With regard to the DR-70D, yes this would work in this mode as the mic inputs are switchable to line level to take a signal from the feed box at a press conference. It is actually very useful in this role as with it having four inputs you can attach a receiver from a radio mic to enable you to supplement the provided feed with your own mic. In a press conference situation can be invaluable in the same way as the music gig example as whilst the persons(s) answering the questions always have microphones, it is not always the case that the journalists asking the questions are covered with a mic so you can end up with the audio from the central feed box having barely any level for the questions.

Zoom F4 is the best option out of the Zoom range, plenty of power options too. You can do anything with it, you do not need another recorder, not now, not later as a lot of -low budget- production sound engineers have adopted the F4 and F8 Zoom devices. If you can afford it, Sound Devices MixPre3 has better analogue sound, which for some is the Alpha and Omega (plus analogue limiters), but for most tasks, the F4 is sufficient, and probably more feature rich. I am a Tascam user, but recently they have been left a bit behind the curve. Just for the history, my next purchase is the MixPre6, but I am working in sound, and that seems as a "cheap" addition to my kit, if you compare it with the 4 times more expensive Sound Devices 633 that I was ready to buy (now, I will just invest in more microphones and other sound equipment).

@Hakeem Foster you probably need a later version of MLVFS

The de-clip plugin from Izotope is amazing; works wonders on slightly clipped audio files.

http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-recorder-to-buy-a-guide-to-various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/ The DR70D sounds good but power options are a bit restricting.

This is something you really need to test for yourself. Every camera will react differently to under/over exposure, and the variable of exposing with a hardware light meter vs histogram vs internal meter vs zebras vs false color will make a big difference. If you can, setup several scenes in the typical environments you will be shooting in; low light, back light, cloudy etc.; (It is probably best to have a person in the shot as skin tones are the most important thing to monitor.) Using the metering system and picture profiles you will normally use, expose your camera in 1/3 stop increments from 3 stops under to 3 stops over. In post grade these clips to normal and look through them all side by side. Also test different white balances, ISOs etc.; doing this you will learn a lot about your camera. I have been testing the GH4 and G85 in this way in many different environments and with several different picture profiles for quite some time. I test, then use in in the real world, then test again. After hundreds of videos filmed all around the world in some of the harshest of filming environments, I feel like I have really hit the sweet spot with these cameras. This is a quick project we just released yesterday shot with the GH4 and G85. Filming and editing was done in two days; shot entirely in natural light run and gun.

Is this for interview work? Pretty much anything in that price range (around $350) is the same. Zoom H5 and H6 have better battery life I think, if that is important to you. If you can afford it check out the Sound Devices mixpre 3 or 6. That's what I'm looking at even though it is overkill for most corporate gigs. IF you aren't getting paid much, even recording directly to the camera using a JL box is fine especially if you are using a backing track in the final. For getting a feed I've used old Zoom H2s in the past and it was fine. I have switched to Tascam DR-40s for this task as they directly take XLR feeds with adequate quality and a backup track. Best thing is they only cost $100 used now...

Those look great. I loved shooting 135 and 6x7 but large format was too expensive for me. Maybe start processing and scanning yourself? It'll slow you down more and save you money, too. The Nikon 5000 is seriously good. I used to own one and it has driver issues but once you solve them it and the Nikon 9000 scanners are spectacular. But very slow... I wouldn't get a flatbed scanner for 135. Or try underexposing on the D80? It's not a bad camera I just don't think it's quite what you're looking for. Maybe save the money for more film. If I shot people I would shoot on a Leica Rangefinder, no question. Tiny, sharp, and no thunk or heavy shutter so with good technique you can use lower shutter speeds. I love rangefinders and 135 has great texture, looks more organic than larger formats. But I'm not really interested in stills these days. If I were I'd shoot film probably.

Yeah, this is pretty impressive stuff. I'm used to Canon h264 footage, so this 3.5k raw stuff is a little difficult to comprehend. Here's a dng still run through ACR. And thank you to Don Kotlos and maxotics for your explanations on the raw/log. Makes total sense to me now.

Coincidence that you should mention the D1x and Sigma as there was a thread on DPReview recently that I found very interesting. Its taken me a bit of hunting to find again ! It was actually about AF on the SD1 and this guy posted up a link to a gallery of shots he'd taken at the same event on a couple of the SD Merrill bodies, both of the SDQ bodies and, oddly enough, the D1x. The DSC file prefix ones are from the D1x. Its a flawed test for a number of reasons but, still, the D1x were definitely the ones that popped out to me when I looked at the gallery page. Original thread is here https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4201570 Text of the specific post is here : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings Here are a few shots. 3 are done with the SD1 some with the SD15, SDQ SDQ-H and my Nikon D1x 5mp camera. The SD1 shots were shot at ISO 1600. https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefoto9/albums/72157685581297124/with/35998503563/ I find the AF on the SD1 trying at times. I have a split image screen in one of mine for manual focusing. Here's what I've learned over the years. The SD1 isn't really for sport but can be done. I'll look for more image to post later. I don't have the 17-50 f2.8 but do have the 17-70 f2.8-4 and it works very well. To be honest my SD15 worked better when it came to AF. My Nikon D1x beat it and my D1x is 13 years old now and the IQ is really good. You can see it in the images. What I do know is you'll have to micro adjust the lens to get the best IQ. I also found that the older EX DG can't be shot at high resolution the lenses can't do it. Steve Chong uses this combo and say it works great. More later Roger J. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It depends on the distortion you got but the following video should be a good general guideline. Now I know you don't have audition but you can get a trial version if it is an one time thing

Ive seen it, its great. Ive seen all his films many times. But imho, Scientology, catholic church, tomato, tomato. Like I said, I never understood it. A person believing in that alien scientology BS isn't any less trustworthy on cameras to me than one that believe in Jesus "The Spaghetti Monster" Christ. I look at the images in this life and forget about the photographers after life beliefs Speaking of religious believes, cults and Leica Colors... This guy was spreading the lords word (JW) when I past him holding my Leica X1 today. Didn't have a fast enough shutter for him to be sharp, but the colors are there. (And it is a helluva sharp lens.) Its from the Kodak era when all digital camera manufacturers where still trying to match and look like film. Good times

The thing with scientology is it isn't actually a religion, it's a cult and a money making ploy. So the usual rules of not judging somebody by their religion doesn't apply to scientologists. I instantly distrust them. Watch the Louix Theroux documentary on it... very good and illuminating.

Its the testimonials from his workshops that gave it away what might be going on there. "I came for the 3D pop and rendering and stayed for the spaceships" - T. Cruise, LA

He certainly is. https://lavidaleica.com/content/overgaard-workshop-flim-flam

I find him being a scientologist to be more of a barrier to be honest.

I made the mistake of telling my other half how much a Leica Q was when we saw an unpriced one in a cabinet while I was buying an ND filter in a store a few months ago. So what I'm personally scared about with regard to the emotional truth of photography if I ever rang up to order one would be this.

Samsung keeps hiring old Japanese engineers, designers and other talented people who are "honourably" fired from Japanese Corporations because the new generation must replace the old. And this is the result, Samsung is destroying Japanese Corporations, Sony fired a lot of elderly extremely talented people and Korean Corporations fished them in. Having tried several cameras it seems that Samsung NX1 and NX500 trades high ISO performance for superior extremely high colour reproduction. So while having very bad ISO performance in general with huge drops when reaching 800 ISO and beyond, the colour reproduction at lower ISO is superior to most cameras I have tested so far, even the Sony big megapixel beasts cannot seem to keep up. The Sammy's do what other CMOS bayer sensors struggle with the most, capturing accurate autumn colours. Even Sigma SD Quattro with Foveon censor seem to struggle very hard to keep up with Sammy censor.

Dude, why are you taking webcam style photos of yourself, posting them on the forum and claiming that a Leica doesn't give you better quality photos. Am I missing something? Are you a troll planted by a rival blog to make the forum virtually unreadably off-topic? There is no artistic delusion to shooting with Leica lenses. The Noctilux is the most artistic and creative lens I own! Please don't post any more self portraits. If you have a dog, shoot that instead.

Its the removal lens camera, SD Quattro is their latest high end camera, I heard a lot of praise for the image quality it makes, however I cannot seem to find it any better than the Samsung NX500 or NX1. Saturation is already insane compared to what I usually use on my Sammy cameras. Maybe Samsung just have an exceptional high tech sensor with colour reproduction prioritisation in exchange for high ISO performance. I will do some more tests, I prefer real world tests and its a good time to be testing these cameras as its closing in on autumn that means lots of nice colours that CMOS bayer seem to struggle heavily with. If anyone got any good advice I be happy to listen to what I am doing wrong if I am doing wrong.

I have to be honest here. There is always alot of talk about how these cameras are way better than that camera etc. But never any footage. Never any reviews. Never any first hand experience. Where is this certainty that its so good coming from? Who is the source? I remember some BS argument when they missed the release date with a year or so. The lack of cameras was said to be because that they couldn't fill orders and all cameras went to the high end Chinese production houses and they didn't have internet or something... give me a break. I guess Im confused because on this forum their cameras have been brought up in "which camera should I buy threads" as if they've always existed. When in fact they have rarely been for sale at all. I don't know how many times I've seen the recommendation to buy a "battle tested" camera from them. Well Ive been on that waiting list for almost two years... lol. I just dont see how this borderline vaporware can be so easy to recommend and compared with so little to no info about using them. I see about 50 videos on YouTube from recently. On three different models. One or two reviews. And thats from several years. Personally I wouldn't take my chanses on this and instead go save with a bigger brand. But that's just me.

I think you guys should debate this in a new topic, because it's killing this one for the rest of us.... title of the topic is "What Magic Lantern reveals - 5D Mark III capable of 4K all along" I really mean it will all the good will in the world, please for the love of all that is holy open a new thread instead of using this one... I've nothing against you guys arguing about the science of dynamic range over 20 pages.... Just put it in the proper place so this one can stay on the topic of Magic Lantern and the 5D Mark III raw. PLEEEASE!

Almost everything we experience/measure, is either counting (linear) or some form of exponential (log). We measure the sensor by counting (linear); that is how many photons have hit the sensel, but we generally express/measure the amount of light exponentially, like f-stops 1/1, 1/4, 1/9, 1/18, 1/32, 1/64 etc. (we put fractional stops in between). That is, if we count 100 photons at one pixel, and 200 photons at another pixel, we generally don't come to the conclusion that the difference in light, measured through the inverse law https://petapixel.com/2016/06/02/primer-inverse-square-law-light/ is double in the second pixel. Double would actually be 400 photons! In the real world, light behaves exponentially. In our data world, we measure/or store number in a linear space. Put another way, humans think in numbers for counting. God thinks, or nature behaves, exponentially. @cantsin can explain better than I why measuring light linearly, or I should say, using the sensor's linear readings at the low and high end generally mean you end up with a lot of useless data. Many of us have hashed this to death. The core problem is you can't save 12 stops of full-color dynamic range in an 8-bit space. It doesn't matter how those numbers are represented, LOG or otherwise. The 8-bit space was designed for our viewing, not for our capturing. LOG can't magically "compress" the sensor data into an 8-bit space. It can help in telling you where you can trade off some data in one area for another, as Don mentions above, but the rub is the area you're getting a lot of noise is also the area you can least afford to lose if you're extending beyond the 6-8 stops you can capture in 8-bit! LOG is also used in video processing to distort data into an 8-bit space. Just to 'f' with us humans, LOG also does a better job of explaining light as we really experience it Unfortunately, our computers, which are binary, don't work with data (like RAW sensor data) in LOG, let alone the decimal system As a side note, Canon RAW, being saved in 14 bits created huge problems for me (and others) in software development. Everything in programming makes it easy to work with in bytes. All electronics are based around that. It's easy to say, get me this byte, or two bytes. To say/program get me this 14 bits...no fun. Take my word for it !!!! My guess is most cameras are based around 8-bit (1 byte chunk) storage. The RAW ML works with is just a stream of bits, which again, you have to parse out into 14-bit chunks. To make the data easy to work with in camera, or PC, they'd really need to make them 2-byte (16 bit) chunks. Well, most small electronics do not use 16-bit processors. You'll read many conspiracy theories about this stuff, but the mundane truth is our electronics aren't up to working with 12-stop (12 to 14-bit) dynamic range data.

Leica is always good for premo schtuff... both quality... and pricetag. Needless to say... I won't be getting one anytime soon. Did buy my Voigtländer 17.5mm from a guy who switched to the Leica Q as well, so, I guess there's still a sunny side to it for those whose collection won't have a Leica camera init for the while. Of course I'm a wannabe, so I'll still chase the dream... Huawei P10 Plus has the Leica collab going on, got that MFT Leica 15mm f/1.7 and now the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 that came with the GH5. Two Summicron-R E55 f/2 primes in 35 & 50mm flavors to adapt. But then again, neither of these are even close to £1500 a pop and offer me a bit more versatility. For the lifestyle stills shooters, the Q however is definitely about as good as it gets. There's something about Leica snaps... those cameras capture the emotion of the moment, as if it feels... and intensifies it... connects you to it, where most other cameras can only see and observe, kinda lacking that kind of immersion. I also like the idea of having the very basics covered in one of the most purist forms. That's something that I really appreciate about shooting with the LX100 (oh, another thing with a hint of 'Leica'). Don't have to think about what to bring with you, you just bring your camera and that's it. Would've even been better with a single focal lenght perhaps, that would've simplified it even more. That's why I'm really hoping Ricoh would make a GRIII and hopefully one with a tilting touchscreen and weatherproofing (dustproof!). That's about as close as analog shooting with a digital camera you're going to get perhaps. Surely Fujifilm is doing great things too. And at more of an price for anyone to enjoy it.

Lovely camera and thanks for sharing my video Sadly I couldn't keep it long enough^(investing in some telephoto lenses) which is why the images in my video aren't exactly to my full potential. Therefor I'm looking forward to your review instead Here are two shots if anyone wants to pixel peep.

Premiere is extremely poor at the moment. The Resolve 14 BETA is more stable than Premiere in 2017. And free... blows my mind. Downloading the latest Resolve 14 now, and I am sure the performance and reliability is even better. Adobe should apologise for being so poor, and give everyone an opt-out of the subscription service for a one off fee. Otherwise, the sub service is going to whither and die, people will move back to Apple and Blackmagic. It really is that bad. You can't have such a mission critical piece of software with such poor reliability for months on end.

I have banned Evgeny's two accounts for trolling.

I guess you get what you pay for. (i.e nothing) If a client is embedding YT videos onto their site, or just sending out links to YT via links I'd guess they would not normally rank video presentation quality as a top priority, otherwise they would likely host their own preferred quality compressed video and player onto their own html5 site - or at least link to a embedded Vimeo link that at least has a more attractive/ custom player and non invasive pop up advertising. saying that, it's possible to create nice presentations on YT for some projects & companies and they are currently offering some very interesting 360 VR support, as well as very high resolution playback support. But when it comes to playback quality experience, it's almost always dependant on the connection speed to the viewer. YT only defaults to HD playback when the connection is fast enough( and often not by default even if it is fast enough), otherwise it will auto detect a lower (sometimes drastically low) quality stream to fulfil playback on everything from mobile phone to desktop. That is why sometimes it is good to use YT as a good backup way of promoting video, but better to prioritise and promote the hyperlink to the hosted video page on the clients site, or a Vimeo alternative upload to the Vimeo version may often yield better playback results - as it is less worried about loading fast on weak mobile connections, bit more likely to prioritise maintaining quality on playback...not auto switching to 360p when internet strength is weak. if your client is complaining about how the video looks, maybe it's time to ask them to think about paying for hosting video on their own dedicated web space - where compression can be controlled/minimised or at least try a plus or pro Vimeo account as an alternate sharing platform.

Raw is a different thing entirely to 10bit 4:2:2.   Raw is just the 1s and 0s from the sensor. Everything else like bit depth, sampling, debayering, compression, encoding, comes later.   So 10bit 4:2:2 does not have mailability close to a raw photo actually.   The advantages of recording to a high bitrate is that the image doesn't break up when the movement or scene gets too complex for the codec. Also a finer more film-like noise grain is maintained.   However the stuff you can do with raw like changing the white balance entirely in post as if doing it in camera with no side effects, you cannot do with even the best RGB / YUV codec in 10bit 4:2:2, like ProRes.