FHDcrew

It still have one of the sharpest FHD footage since it is supersampled from 4k sensor 
If C100II have 4k it will certainly change the projectary of the cinema space, unfortunately Sony came out with 4k FS5 and that was history (I was one of the early adaptor of fs5 ha)
With c300ii only have 4k30p certainly doesn't help either when FS7 have 4k60p

Let’s share our work guys!  I’ll start. Here is an interview I shot and lit the other day, featuring a congresswoman from Indians!  One camera was a Nikon z6 recording into an Atomos ninja v.  With a Tamron 45mm 1.8.  The other was actually the ancient, cheap Canon 7D fitted with a Canon 85mm 1.2 shot at f/2.5!

The Canon C100 was a fantastic camera. Great images and ergonomics. It's main problem for me was it's size. It was hard to pack away quickly with a lens attached.

GxAce's stuff is so good. One of the few YTers I will purposefully wait to watch on my desktop or TV.

prepping a no budget feature.

here's some stuff that i like somewhat from the past year and a half or so:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Equivalent to 3.2K to be more precise :- )

This seems like a simple question, but the more I think about it, the less simple it gets.
Let's start out with the seemingly obvious answer - it looks like Super-16 because the sensor is literally a S16 sized sensor.  End of thread, thanks for coming, byeeeee!
Here are some thoughts suggesting it looks more like S35, or at least more than S16.  Some are good arguments, some aren't, but summed up I think they're hard to dismiss.
It appears sharper than S16, a lot sharper.
Without getting overly technical, S35 has around 4K resolution, but the level of contrast on the fine details is quite low, and it's well known that by the time you print and distribute a 35mm film it really only looks like about 2K once it's projected in cinemas.  This is perhaps the biggest argument for me - the P2K just looks like cinema did in the 90s.  I know this isn't comparing a 35mm neg scan with the P2K files, but virtually all the memories of 35mm film that most people would have are from movies shot and distributed on film, not from viewing modern film scans.
Lenses are much sharper now too, adding to it.  S16 lenses were often very vintage!
We have speed boosters, much faster lenses, and much wider lenses now.
One of the looks of S16 was longer focal lengths and deep DOF, but if we were to use the P2K like we would use any other camera, it would be with speed boosters and faster lenses which would have much shallower DOF.  The wider lenses we have now would be much sharper and faster too.  So the lens FOV, lens DOF, and sharpness combinations would all be much more like S35 was, and perhaps even exceed it.
How it's used would be much more modern.
The framing, movement, lighting, locations and subjects also play a role in 'placing' a medium.  This has probably changed less than the above arguments, and the things that any of us might shoot are more likely to still resemble things that I would associate with S16 (like FNW and TV and low-budget projects).
I'm curious to hear thoughts from others.
I've been reviewing my equipment and got to the P2K and thought "oh, it's a pocketable S16 camera" but my brain immediately added "that looks like 90s movies" and then I realised that these two things don't align!

Yeah, I think we’ve hit a ceiling in a lot of ways. Most of the "progress" over the last couple of years has been in resolution increases, but visually it hasn’t been a major leap. It’s nothing like the jump from SD to HD, or even HD to UHD. And honestly, most of us aren’t even making full use of UHD, since our TVs usually aren’t big enough to show the difference clearly.
There have been a lot of quality-of-life improvements when it comes to acquiring images, and things like color science have improved. But visually, you can still take a GH5 and, with some effort, get results that look very close to modern cameras.
I can’t say the images I’m getting from my S5 and S5IIX are that much better than what I got from my old GH5. The larger sensor and better color are definite upgrades, but I don’t always take advantage of them. I often shoot at f/4 or higher because I don’t want extremely shallow depth of field. And while the color is nicer out of the box, it mostly just saves time. I was still able to get the look I wanted from the GH5 with a bit more work.

I was wondering is Lumix taking a note from Sony's marketing tactics
I do see annoyed Sony user on some of those comments, like they are going through a divorce because the guy they subscribed suddenly jumped ship.

Truth.
I had a client from just over 10 years ago come back to me the other day having lost what I provided for them.
I went to see if I still had it and expecting it to be a bit trash compared with today, but was actually quite surprised.
It stood up very well and the video was shot on GH3 and the photo on X Pro 2.
I notice more things like technique and editing & grading choices, but as for the raw result, - the client wouldn't notice any 'upgrades' in a decade.

I think so yes.
I have for a long time critiqued LUMIX regarding their marketing, or lack thereof and suspect they have indeed taken a leaf from the Sony playbook, of, "lets get our product out there into the hands of all influencers", rather than the seemingly limited way they used to do it.
And many of those who were previous diehard Sony Shillboys, seem to have jumped ship and are now preaching The Gospel According To Lumix.
I was an early adopter of Fuji when the X series came out and a large portion of the so-called 'professionals' scoffed.
When they became too popular (in my eyes anyway), I jumped ship to the newly hatched lame duck that was LUMIX full frame.
LUMIX seem to becoming 'the new Fuji'...which edges me closer back into being a Nikon boi which is where I started out back in the olden times.
But where do LUMIX stand in 2025 without all the hype?
Almost certainly top dog for 'consumer' video needs, as in hybrid style cameras rather than dedicated cine stuff.
Lenses is where I think they still lack, - the entire L Mount collection. There's a lot in it, but also a lot of holes.
And those holes are the one's that most suit my needs.
So between the hype (which puts me off any brand) and the 'lens hole scenario', two compelling reasons for me to dismount from this particular train ride at the end of this season.
But we shall see. The 'hype' alone is merely a 'negative distraction' really and. not a deal-breaker. Subject to finances, the lens situation will be the decider. 

**Haven't been active a while but have been lurking often, just not posting.  Hoping to get back to posting much much more regularly now and actually being involved in this awesome community.  Hope everyone is doing great and making awesome art that plays in sequences of frames 😉
 
"_names_are_hard" from the magic lantern forum made a post yesterday announcing a new official development team; I am not 100% sure but seems as though this was not the case sine a1ex left a few years ago.  Obviously, awesome developments have still occurred in the mean time, such as the incredible work done to the EOS M, 5d Mark iii and more to sd overclock, implement new binning modes that provide more image detail and less moire, and enable excellent previews in modes that previously rendered almost unusable to monitor.
 
Now an official development team is back, and their aim, according to the post, is to implement features into main builds; finally we do not need to dig through forum posts anymore lol...
What is even more exciting is the announcement of great improvements towards Digic 6 and Digic 7 cameras.  The Canon 200d/SL2 has an OFFICIAL build with WORKING RAW VIDEO.  This excites me, as supposedly this camera has an entire stop better dynamic range at ISO 200 than the 5d mark iii does...and DPAF to boot.  Makes me want to get one just to play around with and rig into a poor man's interview b-cam for my Nikon Z6.  The 7d mark ii, 6d mark ii and 750d/t6i also have official builds, though more work needs to be done to implement RAW video.  Still, even this is exciting news, because it looks like a point will be reached in which the aforementioned cameras all have stable RAW video.  Man...the 6d Mark II is gonna become absolutely killer and I believe might overtake the legendary 5d mark iii as the ML king...why?  Full-frame AND Dual Pixel Autofocus.  So exciting.
 
Imagine if they progress on the EOS R and we get RAW video on that...we shall see.
 
Anyways, wanted to share as I think it is exciting that the ML community is getting active again.  Although I have never personally owned a ML camera, it has always fascinated me and I want to pick up a ML-compatible Canon body, even if it's the dirt-cheap Canon 50d that makes it possible to shoot continuous 14-bit RAW video for only $86 US on ebay haha.
 
Exciting times.  Screw modern camera releases.  My 7 year old Nikon Z6 is still alive and kicking.  And these old cameras are about to become beasts.  And to me 5d mark ii/5d mark iii/eos m crop mood stuff looks just as good as your youtube shill Sony FX2 bs anyways lol...
 
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=27315.0
 
Also here's the dirt cheap Canon 50d...I might buy one.   Literally the cheapest half decent ML RAW cam in existence:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/326652260011?_skw=canon+50d&epid=100134403&itmmeta=01JYD74BEKB8BK43GTP64YXEYE&hash=item4c0dfdeeab:g:zH4AAeSwaqVoO8fg&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA4FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1dPuUUXNiquWqTtYdpH3VhCftZqA2312R5f5VSKqv6B737uadt8L7po3UhjQmLj7p22fLaKrov1%2FdF7%2FPis094b98Wz%2FnMbwS7WtRhqTqfyUhYZCMMmhc9OdIad%2FLodvcJXSllJYh90xsUWRTm7vGW5QqKQBbevi0jxouClCZ%2Fbk6QKRNa9LTJsvkdX56eaU7F7IwVfBdZCHZOygCtMLm6H3MlF0YovoZEHjhhYqNq10jPFnlPCjhOBrGydgfrK%2BKuCTwN1sGX5Pb3KDZ5MpxcA|tkp%3ABk9SR7i3kafzZQ

Yeppp.  I love Justin Philip BTW.  But yeah these youtubers deserve it lol.  The YT camera community is so toxic. 

Yeppp.  I love Justin Philip BTW.  But yeah these youtubers deserve it lol.  The YT camera community is so toxic. 

Yes…it destroys our contentment with the gear we already have haha

I could be wrong that I feel like we've arrived at a place where video quality is technically pretty solid across the board in new gen mirrorless cams. But if we're talking about R50V vs 5D MKIII ML RAW, it's less about better and more about 'different'. The 5D MKIII ML RAW definitely offers something aesthetically different than the R50V, but all things considered, I don't know that it offers better video quality, overall. 

I think GX85 design is great and I would shock you with a bigger grip if I was a Panny engineer. Stay strong! 🙂 @eatstoomuchjam

Agreed modern Canon bodies really are not very crippled. The fact that the $649 R50V has CLOG3 10 bit is proof. But still, advancements on these older cameras is always exciting, and those old canon sensors certainly have a unique look that I think isn’t quite the same on the newer bodies. 

Yeppp.  I love Justin Philip BTW.  But yeah these youtubers deserve it lol.  The YT camera community is so toxic. 

I love this

The elephant in the room is Resolve.
As I have discussed and demonstrated in my "New travel film-making setup and pipeline - I feel like the tech has finally come of age" thread, over the last decade Resolve has gotten more feature-rich, but more importantly, it's made it HUGELY easier to use and get good images.
People now have a lot more knowledge about colour grading tools and techniques, that's for sure, but things like the Film Look Creator enable you to use a single node, you set your input and output colour spaces, and then you can adjust exposure / WB / saturation / contrast and all sorts of other things in the same tool.  You don't even need to apply a film look at all...  just select the "Blank Slate" preset, which sets it to have no look at all, and you can still use all the tools to adjust the image without having to worry about colour management at all.
Any improvement in your post-processes is a retroactive upgrade to your camera, your lenses, and all the footage you have already shot.
Colour grading is such a deep art that I think the average GH5 user back in the day was probably extracting a third of the potential of the images they'd shot, if that, simply because they didn't know how to colour grade properly.  I'm not being nostalgic about the GH5 either, the same applies for any camera you can think of.
There are reasons to upgrade your camera, for sure, but most of the reasons people use aren't the right reasons, and they'd be better spent taking the several thousand dollars it would take for a camera upgrade and taking unpaid leave from their job and improving their colour grading skills instead.

Right, but this one has 2 r's at the end for a double dose of their review-ing?
It's like "creator," but without the creation/creativity?
 

Yeah, exactly.  That's what I'm saying.  Their banter is still good/fun, but there doesn't seem to be even the slightest spark in the reviews anymore.  That's probably also a symptom of PetaPixel demanding a higher volume of reviews and with a number of them being for things that are inherently uninteresting. 
And I get it - to some extent, how much is there to say about a 21mm lens?  And in that review in particular, they didn't even seem to be doing any basic research before the videos - talking about Thypoch coming out with one (the Simera-C has had a 21/1.4 lens for months already, though with a different design) - and 21mm has been a Leica staple for many years with the 21/1.4 Summilux having been released in like 2008 (which makes sense since Thypoch, to some extent, is emulating Leica with the Simera series).  But yet, Chris acted like a 21mm lens was something he'd not heard of before...  presumably because he just doesn't care about what he's reviewing anymore.  It's a job.  Lens comes in, take some photos around Calgary, do some LoCa tests, shoot a test chart or two, lens go out.  Ready for the next lens to come in...
But they've also become a channel that won't publish a negative review at all.  I had high hopes for the new person - Sarah?  But then she did a review of some shitty wearable camera that seemed way more like an advertisement and any criticism mixed in with tons of praise, despite that the footage looked like pure garbage.  Then the next week in the Podcast, they acted like people were crazy for suggesting it, given that some small criticism had been slipped in to a 14 minute mostly positive review where the footage is described as "good enough" and since the gross oversaturated colors are "so vibrant there's not much you have to do to them."  To me the footage (the link should go right to the sample clips) could be much better described as "a gross, shaky jello-filled nightmare."  Later, in the conclusion, the presenter concludes that the camera is definitely worth the $200 price tag, despite that it's redundant with a smartphone and records with quality much worse than a smartphone.
If that shit is sponsored, it's not disclosed and they actively denied it - so that's gross.  If it's not sponsored, then PetaPixel's standards on cameras are incredibly different from mine.  It was already a thin ice - and posting videos heaping glowing praise on AI slop and deleting critical comments is just the last push that I needed.
 

Isn’t a crater an impact site of destruction?

I always liked Chris and Jordan. I know they have their critics, chief among them Andrew, and I agree with a lot of the criticism, but I always enjoyed watching them. Their banter was always enjoyable, and even when they were with the Camera Store, things like their review of the GH5 matched the same thoughts I had when using the camera and I watched it after I'd purchased it as I tried to consume every video I could to learn how to get the most out of it.
Since going to PetaPixel though, they do seemed checked out in most of their videos. Even when Chris doesn't seem to care about what they are reviewing, he seems to try to make the best of it and have fun. Jordan though went from an active participant to often just filming himself at his computer talking lifelessly for a minute or two before throwing back to Chris. Sometimes he doesn't even do that and Chris will talk about video features.
Never listened to the podcast, admittedly, so can't comment on how they come off on it.