Shirozina

Thanks - looks even better than RCM!

I've got a timeline containing multiple codecs and profiles - REC709, S-LOG2, HLG, V-LOGL, BM, Canon C-LOG. I've traditionally been working with LUTS to help match them but setting up Resolve to RCM seems a better solution as it's not dependent on getting a LUT that matches the exact exposure. I've batch assigned my clips to their various profiles in the media bins and the input color space is set to bypass and the working and output spaces to REC709 2.4. Tone mapping is set to simple and gamut mapping set to saturation with the default values. So far the grading process is a lot quicker and the grading consistency between clips is much greater. I've been working with stills in a CMS workflow for 20 years since Photoshop 5 so it's been a long wait for CMS to come to video........

A senor has a color space in the sense that it's colour response can be measured and quantified and this information used to enable a RAW conversion to interpret the data to create the desired output. As no camera on the market seems to be able to meet your requirements for 10bit colour then why are you complaining about this one in particular? Bit depth as most people use the definition is to do with how many times you can slice the cake rather than how big the cake is.

RAW does have a colour space concept otherwise it would not be possible to convert RAW images into Tiff's or jpegs etc that can be used in a colour managed workflow.The camera can do Adobe RGB in stills and REC 2020 in Video so it's safe to assume it has a large enough colour space to fit in the REC709 (sRGB) colour space. The Panasonic specs and DXO describe the GH5 having 12 bit sensor - are you disputing this?

If you are not shooting LOG or HLG or don't want to grade there is little point in 10bit and 8bit is plenty My own tests of 150mbps vs 400mbps show the only advantage ( I only shoot LOG or HLG) is during the grading where the 400mbps codec is easier on the hardware. Visually I can't tell the difference and also can't 'break' the footage when applying even hefty tonal changes in terms of revealing artefacts. One reason you may want an ext recorder is that of you are recording a lot of footage it may be cheaper than V60/90 cards. I can see 10bit vs 8bit differences when I grade as its visible in the scopes. You have not understood the bit depth data that DXO state - more research needed

Time the OP puts up some samples and examples to illustrate these issues or goes away and diverts their evident spare time and persistence into something more worthwhile and constructive for both the film making community and mankind in general! The GH5 has been out for quite a while now and if any of the OP's 'concerns' were manifested in actual problems that users and testers could see we would have heard about them (ad nauseum) by now.....

Explain exactly how the bitrate and codec are 'very limiting'?

Yes that's true (The HDMI out on my Sony A7s and A7r2 is very robust ) but it still doesn't change the fact that you don't need a 10 bit screen to benefit from a 10bit codec. I have argued many times previously that 10bit is not a cure-all. The advantage in video of 10bit is that in a YCBCR codec most of the data is stored in the Luma channel so higher rates of compression can be applied without running into some of the more obvious tonal artefacts. This I assume is why the 'theoreticaly inferior' 150mbps 10 bit codec can comfortably be used to shoot V-LOG, be subject to lots of tonal correction and still come out looking very good where as most internal 8 bit codecs fall apart. At the end of the day most users are not choosing their codecs after doing theoretical data analysis exercises as it's not hard to see the artefacts of a poor codec once you start grading esp if you shoot LOG profiles.

You don't need a 10bit screen to see the benefits of using a 10bit codec - the lack of banding, posterization and macro blocking artefacts after applying tonal adjustments especially with LOG footage are it's big advantages.

I think the title of your post is a bit 'click-bait' in the context of a consumer cameras internal media they are good enough (more than good enough infact) for most users esp if you expose and color balance fairly well.

Despite the poor specs of the 150mbps LongGOP codec it does hold up very well in grading. Mainly I think due to it's 10bits which make the luma channel near immune to banding unless you apply insane curves or tonal shifts and bends. The main reason to avoid it is the stress it places on most editing rigs trying to decode it on teh fly for smooth playback. The 400mbps codec is better in this respect but still harder on the CPU and GPU than ProRes or DNxHD. Given that most people will expose and color balance near optimally and not treat it as RAW the inadequacies you describe are purely academic and do not translate into real world problems. Until other mainstream manufacturers adopt 10bit 4.2.2 internal codecs the GH5 is well ahead of the game at the moment and a joy to work with compared to ubiquitous 8 bit 4.2.0 codecs with often even more compression.

Primarily the Sony A7 series are (and were designed as) stills orientated cameras with video capability so small size suits many people and overheating is not a problem for all users. I also think the Sony design brief was to design the smallest body that would accommodate a full frame sensor and this they did very well. Besides a nice cage soon sorts out the size problem - love the Smallrig on my A7rII.

I recently 'upgraded' my S7 to an S9 - for all practicsl purposes it does the same tasks at the same speed and if it broke today I'd happily go back to the S7.

Camera tech is starting to plateau just like phone tech. The original 5D was a ground breaking stills camera that made high quality full frame digital capture available to the mass market.The mk2 did the same thing by bringing cinematic looking HD to the mass market. Difficult to make these giant leaps again and who cares if Canon has failed or is unable to ' crush' the opposition unless you are a Canon fanboy or shareholder....

The use of Proxies / cache renders / optimised media has little to do with image quality and is mainly to do with working around highly compressed camera codecs that consume large processor cycles to uncompress and reconstruct on the fly.It's not even a laptop vs desktop issue as it takes a very high end desktop to edit these files smoothly. For most users the proxies / cache / optimised media are in codec terms higher quality than the originals but in practice image data is often lost in the transcoding process which is why you never want to do anything other than render to your delivery format from the original camera files. Also as far as grading accuracy is concerned most NLE's give you the ability to switch the viewer between the proxy and original file to check for things like NR , sharpening and any banding or macro blocking artefacts and obviously for compositing you don't want to do it at anything other than native resolution. Lastly - portability and mobility is not the same as battery power or independence from mains power. I never use my laptop on battery power alone for editing as it would drain the battery way too quickly. Desktop GPU's consume large amounts of power so it's totally impractical to expect them to run on battery power.

I have an eGPU that I use with my laptop. I use this at home when I don't want to edit in the studio. Without the eGPU the laptop overheats and slows down when I edit the GH5 UHD 400mbps codec. When I'm just editing UHD Pro Res I don't have a problem so I can get away without an eGPU and it even worked on my previous less powerful laptop. BTW - I'm not on drugs

It makes sense when you try to edit 4k highly compressed codecs ?

Transcoding to Pro Res (one highly compressed codec to another slightly less compressed) throws away image data unless you use one of the very high end lossless codecs and then the storage size gets to be a problem - it's also time consuming and even with 4k ProRes you will still struggle to edit smoothly on the OP's existing or proposed hardware.

I don't know what the minimum requirements are but my '4k capable' workstation is a 6 core i7 6850 ( overclocked and watercooled to 4.4ghz) on an ASUS x99 MB, 64gb RAM, GTX 1070, 512gb SSD C drive, 512gb SSD scratch for cache files and 4x 2tb 7200rpm HD's in RAID 0 for media + 8TB drive for daily backups and numerous other drives for long term archive. I mainly use Resolve studio but Premier Pro still struggles to playback smoothly with some 4k codecs unless I continually render. The CPU is a bit old hat now and at some point I'll probably upgrade this and the MB. The bottom line is that to smoothly edit 4k you need a pretty high spec machine and there are no cheap options or corners you can cut.

Neither is capable of handling 4k without significant time consuming frustrations esp with Premier Pro.

If you are moving to a desktop PC just use RAID 0 on internal disks and regularly save to a backup as it will be cheaper and less hassle than an external setup. I use 4 x 2tb which gives me enough read and write speed for 4k and an 8tb ext HD for daily backups. If I have a drive fail I would just replace the bad drive, rebuild the raid and copy back the data to it from the backup which is probably a lot easier, faster and safer than trying to recover from the more advanced RAID configurations. RAID 0 currently enables fast write and read speeds and large storage capacity for less money than SSD or NVME storage. When the latter 2 drop in price significantly we can consign RAID to history......

You can't get around the physical limitations of a thin case.......

Also worth considering an eGPU for Resolve and even getting less ram and an i7 CPU to keep within the budget.

Resolve works way better on my XPS 9560 than Premier Pro but it's still a struggle with thermal throttling during rendering and extended playback times even with a 2nd internal SSD as a scratch drive. If you are using the Avid codec it will be a lot easier though as I'm mostly working now with the GH5's internal 400mbps codec which PP just can't handle very well at all on the XPS. I'd suggest you also look at some gaming oriented machines as they have more powerful GPU's that Resolve can use and most importantly they have better cooling systems that will run high intensity tasks without overheating. The 9570 has a better CPU than the 9560 but the cooling system is the same and in particular ( if you want to get technical) it's the voltage regulators which over heat and bring it to it's knees even if you do a CPU and GPU repaste and other mods.

I suggest you read some reviews of the GH06 before condemn it. The rubber band trick only helps with smoothing motion and does little for bounce-back which as I said is a result of torsional weakness in the tripod and nothing to do with the head.