PDA

View Full Version : FS100 looks so video-ish



danstone
08-31-2011, 07:45 AM
Hey guys,

Just wanted to get some thoughts from the ones of you that own the FS100.

We just bought one and can NOT get it to look cinematic! Compared to the 5D and the AF100 it just looks so video-ish (and I'm not talking about shallow depth of field - there's plenty of that). It lacks that "filmic" feel that the other cameras have. We can't put our finger on exactly what it is -- the crispness of the image or just the color handling of the processor - or something completely different.

We've tried picture profiles and turning the detail all the way down. Before we send it back I thought I'd ask you guys to see if you've had similar results. Anything you've tried that helps?

Thanks!
Dan

robmneilson
08-31-2011, 07:57 AM
It seems to me that there's no reason why why the 5D would look more "filmic" over the FS100 that is not operator error.

Postmaster
08-31-2011, 08:00 AM
Hmmmm...

I donīt know. I think mine looks pretty cinematic.
Have a look at some of the stuff I shot with it and let me know what you think.

http://vimeo.com/user1323085/videos

Maybe we can figure out what is going wrong.

Frank

sinapps
08-31-2011, 08:05 AM
Post a sample of your video-ish footage please.

danstone
08-31-2011, 08:26 AM
A great example of the "videoish" feel is Sony's "ballerina" sample footage. Another great example comparing 5D and FS100 footage is a local Harley Davidson commercial I found on Vimeo. You can tell right away which shots are which (and it has nothing to do with shallow depth of field).

Frank,
I have to say... yours are the most cinematic I've seen. Well done! Are you using a custom picture profile? I saw that you're using Samyang glass and I wonder how much difference that makes. I have a set of Red Pro Primes but don't want to drop another grand on an E-to-PL lens mount. Ugh.

Thanks so much for your help!

Dan

Postmaster
08-31-2011, 08:41 AM
Yeah, itīs somewhere in the custom PP thread...

wait a minute...


here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?251509-FS-100-Picture-Profiles&p=2412585&viewfull=1#post2412585

The PL mount adapter is 299 bucks: http://photo-adapter-llc.amazonwebstore.com/Kipon-PL-Mount-Lens-to-Sony/M/B00596QKXQ.htm?traffic_src=froogle&utm_medium=CSE&utm_source=froogle

Some folks donīt like Kipon, but it works great for me.

I also think this one is most cinematic. Some blown highlights, and crappy Vimeo transcoding, but never the less cinematic in my book.
And I donīt think. that it is because of the anamorphic lens.


http://vimeo.com/28203770

Frank

alaskacameradude
08-31-2011, 08:43 AM
Not sure what you are seeing, in my opinion the FS 100 looks every bit as cinematic as the AF100.

Kyle McConaghy
08-31-2011, 09:16 AM
I agree that some videos have looks disappointingly video. But after buying and using the FS100 i think a lot of those 'videoy vidoes' are a reflection of using the kit lens and the color grading. Not that this working draft of a video is genius, but I found the FS100 to be every bit as easy to get a 'cinematic' look as a Canon DSLR...

27754789

cheezweezl
08-31-2011, 09:23 AM
I think what you are seeing is a huge increase in detail over the 5D. The lack of line skipping, etc. is giving you a much higher resolution image. If you are running and gunning, it will have more of a video look than the 5D. On the opposite end, I have a friend that still shoots on a DVX100 with a homemade 35mm adapter. So low res but so filmic. You can't make it look like video no matter what you do.

The answer is to compose, light, and move the camera in a cinematic fashion. Frank's video above is beautiful and filmic. However, I guarantee, if you shot the same scenes along side him, but hand held the camera, and didn't quite get the same composition as him, it wouldn't hold up.

BTW, I thought the same thing the first time I used the RED. Coming from a HVX200/Redrock M2 setup, the RED looked like cheap video to me.

Dermot
08-31-2011, 09:29 AM
AbleCine's TechLook works for me

To qualify; my day job when i'm not making indie films is gradeing fairly highend stuff; Alexa, Epic, 16 & 35 Film and pretty much nothing else, features and national comercials.

I'm super happy with where i am with the FS, but i do have pretty solid color tools and pipeline to play with on the weekends and evenings, and decades of playtime under my belt ( and i own the faclilty).

I find it really helps to avoid 709 gamma in post, using "linear light" in 709, or just bite the bullet and go with P3 if you have the monitors and calibtrated enviroment to support that.

But to return the camera due to not being able to make it work?

I'd revist my post workflow and find the weak link, then fix it

d

morgan_moore
08-31-2011, 09:57 AM
Imo you can not over expose film - it just cant really happen

Sure you can over expose it till the emulsion is white

but its entirely acceptable for instance a window to be 10 stops over when using film

You cant do this IMO with an FS, or and AF , more so with a 5d

Additionally with a 5d you can afford a 20 2.8 which give a wide FOV and a narrow DOF

Thats not a look you can get on S35 without a 10k cine prime eg 18T2 .. which are used on films .. but not by 99.9% of FS100 users

Mainly I think it is roll off that is not filmic

I think the FS outdoes all other sub $10k camera in other departments however and is IMO a great tool for the money

S

TheDingo
08-31-2011, 10:36 AM
We just bought one and can NOT get it to look cinematic! Compared to the 5D and the AF100 it just looks so video-ish

Hi Dan,

Can you provide some screen grabs of what you are seeing with your FS-100 and some examples of what you would like to achieve with your camera ?

I suspect your problem may be with your process and not the actual camera itself. From my experience the footage from almost any camera can be made to look "cinematic" with the right production process.

danstone
08-31-2011, 12:19 PM
Hey guys,

Thanks SO MUCH for all of your help! This is really awesome! And Frank, thanks so much for posting those links. I'm going to try your picture profile and that PL mount.

I think some of you have hit the nail on the head - it's the high resolution and that kit lens. Here's a great example: http://www.vimeo.com/27096493 (borrowed this clip from Vimeo but it's representative of the results we're getting). Notice the contrast between the first shot (stock footage shot on film) and the rest.

Good composition, good lighting, good movement - yet it looks like it was shot with a 2/3" video broadcast camcorder and a Pro35 -- not anything close to film.

Here's another explanation (for the sake of the conversation): we shoot on film a lot and I love how forgiving it is in the sense that, with film, if you need more light on someone's face, you simply throw a Kino up and the exposure goes up on the face. With video (including the FS100), you throw a Kino up and it looks like you threw a Kino up. Put a hair light up and it looks like you put a hair light up. When we bought our RED One, we had to learn to light more carefully. For example, with film we would blast a 6K HMI through a window and it would look like daylight. With video, it looked exactly like what it was: a big light blasting through a window - not natural.

You know how, when you watch the 'behind the scenes' feature on a DVD, they start with an actual clip of the movie and then switch to the behind the scenes camera that shows the same scene? It looks way different. That's an exaggerated example of what I'm seeing with the FS100. It's more than depth of field and 24p; it's something about the way the sensor sees the image that I just can't put my finger on.

By the way, love the comment about the DVX100!

Anyway, I'll try some things and report back.

Thanks again, everyone!

TheDingo
08-31-2011, 12:40 PM
Hey Dan,

Looking at the example you posted, I think the "video-ish" look stems from a combination of: no grain in the video shots, high color saturation, and narrower exposure latitude ( especially with over-exposed hilights )

All of this can be corrected in post, but you`re going to have to cook up your own "recipe" that will give you what you want. ( i.e. Add film-like-grain, desaturate and grade your image, light very carefully to keep things within the tighter exposure range that prosumer video cameras have to live with )

Also, being an 8-bit camera has a definite effect on how it renders your shots. ( 10-bit means going with a smaller sensor 10-bit ENG camera, or something like a F3 or RED )

Postmaster
08-31-2011, 12:42 PM
It's more than depth of field and 24p; it's something about the way the sensor sees the image that I just can't put my finger on.

!

I know what you are talking about - itīs very subtitle.
Itīs hard to describe, but if you seen it once, you see it all the time.

I believe that this is a CMOS sensor thing and has to do with motion rendering, you not gonna see it on a - letīs say - HVX200 or DVX.


Funny thing, slowing down the material - even if it is only a few percent (like from 30p to 24p) takes out the videoish.

Frank

alaskacameradude
08-31-2011, 02:34 PM
I know what you are talking about - itīs very subtitle.
Itīs hard to describe, but if you seen it once, you see it all the time.

I believe that this is a CMOS sensor thing and has to do with motion rendering, you not gonna see it on a - letīs say - HVX200 or DVX.


Funny thing, slowing down the material - even if it is only a few percent (like from 30p to 24p) takes out the videoish.

Frank

Ok, but the OP said that the AF100 DID look 'cinematic' and the FS100 did not. I believe they both have CMOS sensors and both shoot 24p.
I guess everyone has their own opinions on this though. I personally like the way the FS100 handles 'highlight rolloff' BETTER than the AF100,
which makes it look MORE 'like film' to my eyes, but neither one is great in that aspect. Still, I think that either one is perfectly capable
of giving a 'cinematic' look. But honestly, you probably want to shoot 'flat' and use Magic Bullet or Color and make the 'look' in post.
That will give you more dynamic range to play with....and that is one area these cameras are not up to film standards, so you want as much
dynamic range to play with as possible.

Rick Burnett
08-31-2011, 02:50 PM
Have a look at the video posted at the start of this:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260461-FS100-and-AF100-compared

I think that pretty much sums up "cinematic look" :) Both videos look great to me. Maybe you can ask Barry to share his settings on the FS100 that produced that.

speedracerlo
08-31-2011, 04:09 PM
I agree that some videos have looks disappointingly video. But after buying and using the FS100 i think a lot of those 'videoy vidoes' are a reflection of using the kit lens and the color grading. Not that this working draft of a video is genius, but I found the FS100 to be every bit as easy to get a 'cinematic' look as a Canon DSLR...

27754789

it was a great video, nice colors and looks film like in some shots

LiamR
08-31-2011, 08:02 PM
http://vimeo.com/millerandmiller/videos

vision_filmz
08-31-2011, 08:47 PM
Yeah, itīs somewhere in the custom PP thread...

wait a minute...


here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?251509-FS-100-Picture-Profiles&p=2412585&viewfull=1#post2412585

The PL mount adapter is 299 bucks: http://photo-adapter-llc.amazonwebstore.com/Kipon-PL-Mount-Lens-to-Sony/M/B00596QKXQ.htm?traffic_src=froogle&utm_medium=CSE&utm_source=froogle

Some folks donīt like Kipon, but it works great for me.

I also think this one is most cinematic. Some blown highlights, and crappy Vimeo transcoding, but never the less cinematic in my book.
And I donīt think. that it is because of the anamorphic lens.


http://vimeo.com/28203770

Frank

Really liked this video.... Those slow push in/out shots in the bathroom were excellent as well as the neutral colors. Overall A+ job Thank You for for Inspiration

Searcher
08-31-2011, 09:40 PM
http://vimeo.com/millerandmiller/videos
Wowser! He sure knows how to shoot and colour grade! Loved "Out Like A Light, The Plea" and I'm a little embarrassed to say I'd never heard of lens whacking. That is awesome. And some of the shots on Gung Ho (http://vimeo.com/26032986) are so beautiful.

Ralph B
09-01-2011, 04:44 PM
*I find it really helps to avoid 709 gamma in post, using "linear light" in 709, or just bite the bullet and go with P3 if you have the monitors and calibtrated enviroment to support that.

d

Can you elaborate on this statement? Thanks.

ectobuilder
09-02-2011, 09:27 AM
A great example of the "videoish" feel is Sony's "ballerina" sample footage. Another great example comparing 5D and FS100 footage is a local Harley Davidson commercial I found on Vimeo. You can tell right away which shots are which (and it has nothing to do with shallow depth of field).

Frank,
I have to say... yours are the most cinematic I've seen. Well done! Are you using a custom picture profile? I saw that you're using Samyang glass and I wonder how much difference that makes. I have a set of Red Pro Primes but don't want to drop another grand on an E-to-PL lens mount. Ugh.

Thanks so much for your help!

Dan

Has to do with the color grade. With the Harley Commercial I believe he was using a FS100 and a 5D. You potentially you could be commenting on the 5D ;p

From my point of view the term "filmic" is describing the image capture -> processing aspect of a camera. With that definition the FS100 has a "filmic" look because of the color latitude you are getting.

Then it is up to the post-editor/director to apply the necessary grade to give it a "filmic" (definition 2) look in post. AND if you use a 422 external recorder then the video capture part will look even more "filmic" as it will allow you to do more color grading in post.

robmneilson
09-02-2011, 09:47 AM
I'd also imagine that alot of the videos he has seen that "dont look filmic" were shot with the kit lens. True the motion from a CMOS sensor isn't going to look identical to a film negative, but a nice lens, and some care with lighting and framing will get you close.

GH2user
09-02-2011, 10:51 AM
It could also be the long-GOP nature of AVCHD. Over at the Personal Views site (GH2 hacking) they have pretty much come to the conclusion that the longer the GOP, the more video-like the image becomes, regardless of frame-rate. In fact, it's more noticeable with 24p because you're expecting a "sticatto" motion, but the long GOP footage renders the motion in a weird way. Some people have comparied it to looking like Flash animation where part of the video stream is moving like normal footage... but then the backgrounds stay still, or parts of the image "slide" instead instead of actually "refreshing" like they should for a authentic film-feel. I'd go check out the thread over there, it's interesting... and I totally see the difference between long 12 GOP stuff and the hacked 3 GOP or lower. Makes me only want to shoot with Mjpeg codecs or AVC-Intra now... Have you tried an external recorder? Internally recorded footage from the AF-100 looks very video like... but the stuff I've seen externally recorded had much more film-like motion. They were also using Ziess CP primes with it, so I dunno, could just be the lensing... the Lumix lenses look terribly video-like, IMO.

I'd say try some Canon or Nikon glass with an external INTRA-frame recording... and if it still looks like video, it's probably just the sensor.

Dermot
09-02-2011, 11:26 AM
Sure, most dedicated gradeing systems, and some highend finshing systems allow one to choose color models for a project in one form or another, i have had best resualts with FS100 footage by using linear, not the gamma that 709 calls for.

I do most of my work in LOG anyway, and use tools that are built to respond correctly with that color model, so it's a bit easier for me.. but i understand that Preimere Pro allows this - and calls it "Linear Light"... my understanding is that FCP, Smoke & Media Composer only work in 709, i've not a clue about Vegas or anything elsei

If you can test it, it's worth a few min... use AbleCine's technicolor settings, and if you can use it the 3D lut on Technicolor's site to unfold it to display on a 709 monitor

Won't work if you are working in a 709 color model tho, as the clip is getting a 709 LUT applied on injest, and then a second LUT applied to create a very contrasty and saturated image

P3 is the standard for DCI mastering, and needs a monitor that can show a wider gamut than 709, and a room that has 0.04 LUX Bg illumination ( from memory)

robmneilson
09-02-2011, 12:16 PM
Can you use 5DtoRGB to transcode your FS100 files, that way you might be able to bypass using the 709?

PaPa
09-02-2011, 01:13 PM
I guess it gets pretty subjective, but I have seen many things that look videoish on the FS100, af100 and even film, and the same can be said the other way around. I guess it just depends on what look you're going for?

Does this look videoish to you?

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3500/rooftopcuwinst.jpg

jay_switzerland
09-02-2011, 01:43 PM
Yes, it does.

jay_switzerland
09-02-2011, 01:54 PM
By the way, check out these:

Film: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pAPfg1dEJLU/TbujTKEEr3I/AAAAAAAAA64/7mIuZztpBWc/s1600/1Mad_Bastards_filmstill1_LucasYeeda_bySteveArnold. jpg_rgb.jpg
CineAlta: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Gio8duK36U4/TY_5zf5s7QI/AAAAAAAAA2w/qRVlcB9AdNo/s1600/02.jpg
Red: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fb-KVwgQGGY/TYQn5bUOC6I/AAAAAAAAA2o/Y6T7Bw485mw/s1600/01%2B%25282%2529.jpg
Rendered :-) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c30LAU0NFrg/TaD7pfqiQfI/AAAAAAAAA3w/gBf2haXCNaI/s1600/2393_TP_00061RV2.JPG

PaPa
09-02-2011, 02:12 PM
Just to be clear, is this thread dealing with images that don't look like film? Or don't look cinematic? There is a big difference.

LiamR
09-02-2011, 06:52 PM
It's about it looking video-ish

It is still a digitally processed image for $5000 that look's amazing. Put the camera in the right hands and it will look superb, put it in the hands of a dummy and it will look bad, simple really.

Ryan Lightbourn
09-04-2011, 08:06 PM
Compared to the 5D and the AF100 it just looks so video-ish

I shot this video with the FS-100 & 5D and the footage blended seamlessly in my opinion:
http://www.vimeo.com/28276128

The only time my FS-100 looks more video-ish is when I raise the shutter in daylight...I'll be investing in a few more quality NDs to solve that issue.

jmmusic
09-05-2011, 04:30 AM
Yes, it does.

Does this?

39501

jay_switzerland
09-05-2011, 05:17 AM
woo-hoo!!! :-)

NeedCreative
09-05-2011, 08:55 AM
My initial thought was that the FS100 (and AF100, and even the F3) look video-ish as well. But that really comes down to a couple of things:

1) The extra detail that the 5D muddies out that the proper video cameras don't have as much of an issue with,

and

2) The operator. If you light and shoot a scene like a video, it's going to look like video, even if it's film. And vice versa. I have seen "cinematic" shots from the FS100 et al and I have seen video-looking shots. It's up to the person behind the camera; these cameras certainly have enough technical capability to capture a nice shot.

PaPa
09-05-2011, 08:55 AM
woo-hoo!!! :-)

I forgot, milky is the new crushed.

Anywho, they both look cinematic to me, but the look I'm going for is a comedy look. A look I think I've achieved.

Phil1076
09-07-2011, 06:44 AM
http://vimeo.com/millerandmiller/videos

Off-topic but I love that "Out Like A Light" song...great vocals...I hope these guys get famous!

Oh, and nice camera work too.

Postmaster
09-07-2011, 07:23 AM
Okay, here is some stuff I did with the FS100.

Can`t say if it looks cinematic to you, but I think itīs fair to say, that it does not look very videoish.

Frank

3962339622396243962539626

PaPa
09-07-2011, 08:24 AM
That looks really great Frank. How was the grade treated? Desaturation of highlights? did you crush the whites a touch and curve them at the top end?

alaskacameradude
09-07-2011, 08:43 AM
Okay, here is some stuff I did with the FS100.

Can`t say if it looks cinematic to you, but I think itīs fair to say, that it does not look very videoish.

Frank

3962339622396243962539626

Very very nice work. Looks cinematic to me, definitely not looking 'videoish' from what I can see. Good stuff!

David G. Smith
09-07-2011, 08:51 AM
Okay, here is some stuff I did with the FS100.

Can`t say if it looks cinematic to you, but I think itīs fair to say, that it does not look very videoish.

Frank

3962339622396243962539626

Are those all shot with those Zeiss lenses you have Frank?

Postmaster
09-07-2011, 11:24 AM
All differnt projects.

#1 was the wedding of my brother in law - Samyang 35mm
#2 is a latitude test with my silly face (uncompressed BM Hypershuttle)- vintage Zeiss 50mm medium format
#3 and #5 is the kit lens
#4 is a vintage Zeiss 85mm medium format

I used my own "GlenColor" picture profiles - http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/new-glencolor-picture-profiles-for-the-sony-fs100/
They are a bit desaturated already, to prevent clipping of color channels. After using them for a while, I fine tuned them in the color section, cause
the sensor (or processing) seems to introduce some weird stuff in the red channel. - especially shadows. I do an update, on my blog when I have some time on my hands.

There was only some curve tweaking, nothing fancy - only the fake anamorphic streaks where made in MagicBullet.


Frank

jetswing
09-07-2011, 02:55 PM
I think many have missed the OP's point. Anything can be made look "filmic" if you process it enough. What OP was saying is that footage coming straight out of the camera, FS100 footage lack that organic filmic look compared to Canon DSLRs. And I would have to agree with that. My first reaction of looking at the FS100 footage was "This looks like it was shot by a home video cam...I've made a mistake by purchasing this camera". No, I did not return the FS. I still do prefer the look of Canon DSLR.

Postmaster
09-07-2011, 03:07 PM
I donīt know anybody, that uses clips straight out of the camera but news and EB teams.
Everything else in the industry usually goes trough some sort of processing.

Frank

speedracerlo
09-07-2011, 03:12 PM
Someone on the AF100 forum made a point that a lot of people disappointed with the AF100/FS100's raw footage are mostly people who got their feet wet in the DSLR video revolution without much knowledge on how to use true video cameras.
I think these new breed of cameras like the AF100 and FS100 create a new dividing line between the real pros and hobbyists who care not for all the tedious technical aspects of filmmaking.

Rick Burnett
09-07-2011, 03:13 PM
Is it shooting in Rec709? When I switched to the cinematone, I like the look immediately better to my eyes, which of course, was more of a crushed image that was similar to the crushing that the Canon DSLR have.

I have shot EXTENSIVELY with the 7D and all I can say is to me, even straight out of the camera, the FS100 with a few minor tweaks and not using Rec709 looks amazing to me, and to my editor. In fact, we had shot some scenes with both the 7D and FS100 and the look of the FS100 looked so much better, we've stopped using the 7D as much. One of the big things for us was handling reds. The 7D doesn't differentiate between reds as well and one of our heros of our new series wears LOTS of read. With the FS100, we can see more of the detail in the reds that was lost before.

There is NOTHING I can shoot on my 7D that I cannot shoot better in EVERY way with the FS100. And yes, that includes highlights, because I just fix them in post. It's just understanding what is different allows you to make many changes in camera (which I think is what you want) with a few required in post (which highlight handling is the one big one I can think of).

Or, is it the highlights that are what are throwing off your perception of the FS100?

One easy thing to do is reduce the saturation of all the colors. Both the FS100 and AF100 have A LOT more saturation out of the box. Reduce those down while looking at the image off a CanonDSLR. You will be AMAZED at how much more color is there. Once you pull that down, the highlight handling is MUCH better!

LiamR
09-07-2011, 06:21 PM
I think a lot of people are getting caught up thinking you can purely get a cinematic look straight out of a camera and in that case, directly with the camera, not true. A cinematic look is brought together mostly by other sources than the camera, especially lights. I recently shot a short with the FS100 and in some scenes we had GREAT lighting set-ups and were able to achieve a very cinematic look and in other scenes were lights were our enemy, we suffered.

A little example of what I am talking about:

This shot had lighting that we liked and could work with easily
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6125845312_88fda10f53.jpg

This shot did not, and came out looking "video-ish"
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6125843364_a7b0ba0052.jpg

Both with the same settings on the camera, which was most likely my downfall...

Rick Burnett
09-07-2011, 06:46 PM
For that second shot, I'd have moved the camera lower and pushed in a bit to get rid of some of that black. I find the farther back I am from subjects, the more towards the waist the camera goes to get the right perspective on the image. I spent A LOT of time watching movies and studying camera height with regards to composition as I was trying to figure out why some of my shots didn't look right.

I learned this too looking at behind the scenes of people shooting film. The camera would be on a dolly and the lens at waist height for action scenes. It's amazing what you can learn in behind the scenes footage!

I think another thing to consider is downloading some RAW Red or Alexa footage and compare that to what comes out of any Canon, Sony or Panasonic camera below $5k. I think you will be surprised at how uncinematic it looks. The image is exposed for the highest range of detail and it looks very unconstrasty to me, almost washed out. However, when you start applying your color correction and the look you want, you suddenly realize just how much information is there. It's really amazing.

With the Canon cameras, they crush the blacks and desaturate out of the box giving you a look that is cinematic in feeling. The AF100 and FS100 do not do this out of the box, but, they can do that, if you want them to. It just takes tuning the setting for what you want. Both cameras have A LOT of adjustment available.

Also, analyzing a piece of footage to understand why it doesn't look cinematic is a HUGE step into understanding the aesthetics of the image. You can easily shoot a scene with both the 7D and FS100. Do that, post the frames, and explain why you think one is less cinematic that the other. You could easily just crush the blacks a bit more in camera and desaturate the colors a bit (ESPECIALLY RED) and find you get something you like, in camera, very easily.

One must remember, there is a LOT of variety in what people want out of a camera. I don't think Sony or Panasonic pick the best settings out of the box for their cameras.

Grug
09-07-2011, 07:53 PM
Or, is it the highlights that are what are throwing off your perception of the FS100?

One easy thing to do is reduce the saturation of all the colors. Both the FS100 and AF100 have A LOT more saturation out of the box. Reduce those down while looking at the image off a CanonDSLR. You will be AMAZED at how much more color is there. Once you pull that down, the highlight handling is MUCH better!

Rick are you pulling down the saturation in post or in-camera to improve the highlights? Would you be able to post a comparison shot to show the difference? It would be hugely appreciated.

Cheers

Rick Burnett
09-07-2011, 08:13 PM
Rick are you pulling down the saturation in post or in-camera to improve the highlights? Would you be able to post a comparison shot to show the difference? It would be hugely appreciated.

Cheers

In camera. I think the saturation is a bit much out of the box (same problem I had with the AF100). Barry was the first to really talk about this, but basically, by reducing the saturation, you are reducing how fast the colors blow out on the camera. When I compared my 7D to my FS100/AF100 I could EASILY see how this was happening.

If you have a camera you are happy with the saturation AND the highlight handling, compare a blown out scene between them.

Also, messing with the knee value is also how I adjusted the HL as well.

And and Postmaster will tell you, the FS100 is super RED out of the box :) Not sure why, but pull that down! :)

LiamR
09-08-2011, 12:18 AM
For that second shot, I'd have moved the camera lower and pushed in a bit to get rid of some of that black. I find the farther back I am from subjects, the more towards the waist the camera goes to get the right perspective on the image. I spent A LOT of time watching movies and studying camera height with regards to composition as I was trying to figure out why some of my shots didn't look right.


Yeah I agree with what you're saying and the second still is an establishing shot, the shot it leads into is a tracking shot from the waist down, we used the negative space and the wide-angle to accompany the narrative as we had to build up the fact that the character was alone in a field. But I did not shoot it from a lower angle, might try that next time!

Postmaster
09-08-2011, 12:51 AM
Shooting low helps a lot to prevent that hobby filmer look.
I often go way below waist level, especially on wide and master shots.

Frank

LiamR
09-08-2011, 01:23 AM
Shooting low helps a lot to prevent that hobby filmer look.
I often go way below waist level, especially on wide and master shots.

Frank

I never thought about that until now, best piece of advice i've received in a long time.

Postmaster
09-08-2011, 02:21 AM
Try it, the difference is astounding.

Frank

Neex
09-08-2011, 04:45 AM
If you want the FS100 to look filmic, you need to bring down your super whites with a color grading program. Also, shoot in standard gamma to let you expose a bit lower, therefore protecting the higlights even more. Be careful not to underexpose too far; you want your subject to float around 30% luma at a minimum.

You then need to work delicately with cruves and levels to bring out areas of contrast. Emphasize darks a bit more without crushing blacks, and make your highlights look less clipped by having the curve scoop up in to the highest point. Then, you can adjust your levels to bring the highest white to just below 100%. After that, it's a matter of getting exposure right by adjusting mids, both through curves and levels.

Rick Burnett
09-08-2011, 06:32 AM
Yeah, I never realized how much camera high mattered until I was looking at some clips from a production one day and realized it didn't look right for some reason, why? I then spent time finding similar scenes in other movies and was like wow, now I see why it looked strange to me.

So then I started going through my own footage I'd shot over the last few years and saw the times I kind of deviated from this and realized that is why I didn't like the shots as much. (It's not a hard rule, as there are cases where it does work, but I think about it more).

This is one reason I don't mind the LCD on top of the FS100. The camera is typically lower then me (I am 6'4") so the display works great.

I'd still like to see someone shoot something on a Canon and on the FS100 and post a frame where they think one is filmic and the other isn't. It would make for a good discussion and I am sure we will all learn more about why, and what settings some might want with their FS100 for different results.

danstone
09-14-2011, 09:40 PM
Hey guys,

Great discussion and totally appreciate all the feedback! We've done a TON of testing and definitely don't hate the camera.

We're film guys and, therefore, have gotten a little too comfortable with lighting and shooting, I think. We've gotten used to some certainties in film - like that it's extremely organic and very forgiving. When we film a commercial we light based on exposure and it looks beautifully natural. We get the footage back from telecine, give it a quick grade, legalize it and done. Our only other "video" experience has been with the old Varicam and the F900 CineAlta, which have looked equally as fantastic. In fact, we've used the Varicam with an ENG lens for a whole day of pick-up footage that blended seamlessly with 35mm footage. The client had NO idea.

To be honest, when we first got our RED it took us a little while to get the hang of the look, too.

With the FS100 I think we've figured out what's throwing us...

The FS100 footage looks very "real", like you're actually looking at what you're filming. In contrast, a true organic "film look" leaves a lot to be interpreted by your subconscious. On film, when you need more exposure on someone's face, you just throw up a Kino - and it looks natural (there's slightly more involved than that but you get my point). With video cams like the FS100 you need to light much more carefully. If it doesn't look natural in real life, it won't look natural on camera. Simply throwing up a Kino looks like you just threw up a Kino. If Quentin Tarantino, with his love of hard source lighting, had shot any of his movies on the FS100 it would look like a daytime soap opera rather than a film. With video-like cameras you also spend a lot more time in post wrestling with "film look" filters and grading/correcting.

I talked to a Panasonic guy who gave me a whole history on the incredible amount of work Panasonic did with the Film Look Studios guys (the first innovators of giving video a "film look") to give their high-end cameras that organic film-like light handling. I think what a lot of people don't understand is that there's more to the "film look" than shallow depth of field and grain (in fact, most of our 35mm stuff has no visible grain and we often fight for deeper DOF).

So far this week we've tested the FS100 with Zeiss SS glass, RED Pro primes and some cheapie old school manual Nikons. We've decked out the camera, filmed inside, outside, high-light, low light, colored in Color, graded in a DaVinci suite and displayed the footage in any way we can think of. Though personally I wouldn't use the FS100 for a client's commercial, we did get the footage to look pretty good.

Here are our takeaways:

- The camera has an insane amount of artificial detail. We turn the detail all the way down.
- The sensor seems to like lower-resolution lenses.
- The footage looked much less videoish in low light. Even then, underexposing by a stop or two helped.
- If you light, light very carefully. If it doesn't look natural to your eye, it won't look natural on this camera. Flat lighting looks much more natural to this camera than high-contrast lighting.
- If you're looking for a fantastically clean image, this camera is great. If you're looking for an organic film-look, get ready for some wrestling.
- Most of you know this but any sort of skinny shutter is out if you want a film look. On film you get 'Private Ryan'; on this camera you get news-style Betacam.

All in all, I'm very intrigued by this camera and am tempted to bring it on our next set to do a side-by-side comparison with film - just for kicks.

Postmaster
09-14-2011, 11:04 PM
I just returned from shooting a Histotainment show for a week.

I lit the whole thing only with the practicals that where there and some tablecloth as bounce.
One thing I learned was, that I have to rethink my lighting technique. Mostly flat and soft as possible (even soften Kinos), golden hour, overcast. If you want hard light , even a dimmed Dedo is often too much. You can use a lot of practicals. Avoid household florescent lamp at any cost, the green and magenta spikes is killing you skin tones. The great thing is, you can get away with just practicals and reflectors, if you know how to light.

Here is a quick and dirty teaser. I donīt think it looks too real or soap-operaish.
I think a lot of the look comes from the picture profiles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXt4RkhxTzg

Frank

Searcher
09-15-2011, 12:13 AM
- The camera has an insane amount of artificial detail. We turn the detail all the way down.
- The sensor seems to like lower-resolution lenses.
- The footage looked much less videoish in low light. Even then, underexposing by a stop or two helped.
- If you light, light very carefully. If it doesn't look natural to your eye, it won't look natural on this camera. Flat lighting looks much more natural to this camera than high-contrast lighting.
- If you're looking for a fantastically clean image, this camera is great. If you're looking for an organic film-look, get ready for some wrestling.
- Most of you know this but any sort of skinny shutter is out if you want a film look. On film you get 'Private Ryan'; on this camera you get news-style Betacam.


Thanks for sharing your findings. I use all old nikkors and shoot flat with natural lighting so far.

Searcher
09-15-2011, 12:39 AM
One thing I learned was, that I have to rethink my lighting technique. Mostly flat and soft as possible (even soften Kinos), golden hour, overcast. The great thing is, you can get away with just practicals and reflectors, if you know how to light.


That's good news for me because I love the natural look. I have been shooting without any additional lights but on my last short film I wanted to add just a touch of control to the light. I've been thinking of getting a couple of low wattage fresnels. Thinking of the Mole Richardson Inbetweenie 100w/200w link (http://www.mole.com/lighting/tung_p-f/lite_fres/3101/3101.html). I like to go "old school" and I thought they would be good for just "tweaking" the natural light- especially for lighting faces a touch. I'd love your opinion because you obviously understand how sensitive this camera's sensor is and how minimal lighting is perhaps the way to go. Thanks.

Postmaster
09-15-2011, 02:15 AM
Yeah, you canīt go wrong with a Mole. The Inbetweenie is just right, you probably want some additional diffusion , some frost sheets will do the trick.
Also get an assortment of gels, especially CTB in all grades. The FS100 likes colder tones.

Frank

Grug
09-15-2011, 02:41 AM
I just returned from shooting a Histotainment show for a week.

I lit the whole thing only with the practicals that where there and some tablecloth as bounce.
One thing I learned was, that I have to rethink my lighting technique. Mostly flat and soft as possible (even soften Kinos), golden hour, overcast. If you want hard light , even a dimmed Dedo is often too much. You can use a lot of practicals. Avoid household florescent lamp at any cost, the green and magenta spikes is killing you skin tones. The great thing is, you can get away with just practicals and reflectors, if you know how to light.

Here is a quick and dirty teaser. I donīt think it looks too real or soap-operaish.
I think a lot of the look comes from the picture profiles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXt4RkhxTzg

Frank

That looks fantastic Frank. It doesn't look 'videoish' it doesn't look 'digital', it just looks good.

LiamR
09-15-2011, 03:24 AM
Wow frank that was, amazing, may I ask, what lenses and picture profile?

Postmaster
09-15-2011, 05:12 AM
Wow frank that was, amazing, may I ask, what lenses and picture profile?

Itīs all here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?261592-WWII-Histotainment-Program-shot-on-the-FS100&highlight=

danstone
09-15-2011, 09:46 AM
I just returned from shooting a Histotainment show for a week.

I lit the whole thing only with the practicals that where there and some tablecloth as bounce.
One thing I learned was, that I have to rethink my lighting technique. Mostly flat and soft as possible (even soften Kinos), golden hour, overcast. If you want hard light , even a dimmed Dedo is often too much. You can use a lot of practicals. Avoid household florescent lamp at any cost, the green and magenta spikes is killing you skin tones. The great thing is, you can get away with just practicals and reflectors, if you know how to light.

Here is a quick and dirty teaser. I donīt think it looks too real or soap-operaish.
I think a lot of the look comes from the picture profiles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXt4RkhxTzg

Frank

I agree... this looks fantastic. My point is that you have to work differently with this camera than a more "organic" camera. In many instances you can not light the same way with this camera as you would for film (or a camera that gives more organic results like the Varicam, for example). This camera requires much more thought and control.

When we filmed our "test film", we got good results but there were still a few shots that were just unpleasing to an eye that's used to an organic filmic image. Two of our interns and my girlfriend (all relatively untrained eyes) all said the same thing which was something to the effect of, "yeah, I don't know what it is but it looks different... almost too real."

As an example, your teaser looks absolutely AMAZING. Still, even in the hands of a pro like yourself, there are a few shots that lack that organic film-like look and feel. Granted, I'm looking for it and your target audience probably won't notice or care.

It goes back to what someone said earlier... there are some cameras that don't look like video if you tried. The FS100 just isn't one of them. That's not to say it's not an amazing image.

mandrean
09-15-2011, 10:19 AM
I think, except for messing with the picture profiles, adding a grain structure to the footage would make it look more organic, "film-like" and less video-ish. The footage from the FS100 is extremely clean from noise. Much more so than any DSLR, even with some gain, which I think adds to the "tv-news betacam look".

Also: Don't take my word on it, it's just a feeling - but I think the AVCHD codec is playing some tricks with motion rendering, adding to the video-look. Could someone comment on this in a more scientific way?

Here's a nonsense clip to demonstrate my point with adding grain: http://www.mediafire.com/?54knmbn1knocdn8
(http://www.mediafire.com/?54knmbn1knocdn8)4014540146

1080p24 with newest GlenColor PP2 (blow-out allowed) with grain structure from a real 35mm film stock added in After Effects, and saved as 720p24 prores 422 lt. No grading.

And in a more high-end situation with controlled lighting of foreground and background, a tripod/crane/rig/steadicam/whatever, grading, more work on the noise structure, more work on composition, camera movement etc. I think this camera can do wonders, superior to what any DSLR could do image-wise.

Rick Burnett
09-15-2011, 10:41 AM
I think, except for messing with the picture profiles, adding a grain structure to the footage would make it look more organic, "film-like" and less video-ish. The footage from the FS100 is extremely clean from noise. Much more so than any DSLR, even with some gain, which I think adds to the "tv-news betacam look".

Also: Don't take my word on it, it's just a feeling - but I think the AVCHD codec is playing some tricks with motion rendering, adding to the video-look. Could someone comment on this in a more scientific way?

Here's a nonsense clip to demonstrate my point with adding grain: http://www.mediafire.com/?54knmbn1knocdn8

1080p24 with newest GlenColor PP2 (blow-out allowed) with grain structure from a real 35mm film stock added in After Effects, and saved as 720p24 prores 422 lt. No grading.

And in a more high-end situation with controlled lighting of foreground and background, a tripod/crane/rig/steadicam/whatever, grading, more work on the noise structure, more work on composition, camera movement etc. I think this camera can do wonders, superior to what any DSLR could do image-wise.

What is GlenColor PP2?

alaskacameradude
09-15-2011, 01:19 PM
What is GlenColor PP2?

Frank was nice enough to share his picture profiles with us all.

http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/new-glencolor-picture-profiles-for-the-sony-fs100/

They seem to be really nice. I'm printing them out to have with the AbelCine PP's in my production kit.

Rick Burnett
09-15-2011, 02:39 PM
Oh nice! I'll check those out and compare with my own :)

alaskacameradude
09-15-2011, 04:03 PM
Rick,

Have you posted yours somewhere? I'm taking a look at as many PP's as I can. I find it really interesting to see the differences between everyones.....kind of
fun to play around with.

Searcher
09-15-2011, 05:16 PM
Yeah, you canīt go wrong with a Mole. The Inbetweenie is just right, you probably want some additional diffusion , some frost sheets will do the trick.
Also get an assortment of gels, especially CTB in all grades. The FS100 likes colder tones.

Frank

Thanks Frank! And forgot to mention that your work looks great.

Rick Burnett
09-27-2011, 07:09 PM
I haven't posted mine yet. We are about to spend a few days going through the PP settings we had and from here and seeing what we like best.

maranfilms
09-27-2011, 07:32 PM
Some of the best looking fs100 footage is this I think. I liked Franks stuff to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC6VizgTISg

Postmaster
09-28-2011, 01:03 AM
I just updated my GlenColor PP recommendations.
Also finaly wrapped my head around that detail settings - they are now included.

http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/new-glencolor-picture-profiles-for-the-sony-fs100/

Frank

Pietro Impagliazzo
09-28-2011, 06:23 AM
Sony always had crappy exaggerated oversharpening/"detail"/whatever.

Canon cameras even having wacko colorimetry in some aspects gets the attention because it's soft (a happy accident on its DSLRs) and handles highlights nicely (good rolloff).

When people shout "videoy" I notice some basic things:
- Crappy lighting/cinematography (contrast filters and nd-grads exist for a reason, you know? Optical filtering is still the best way to filter)
- Crappy grading (badly done color casts, too punchy, MBL-like 3way madness)
- Crappy camera settings ("default" sharpening on camera, no, it's not default just because the manufacturer says so)
- Modern glass, too contrasty and sharp (like Panasonic lenses)


http://www.vimeo.com/17728149

If all is lost, you can still save a bit with careful grading.

And I always wonder what people mean when they say it doesn't look like film... It doesn't look like it was shot on a camera that costs 10x more in a medium that evolved over a century being shot by an experienced cinematographer with thousands of dollars worth of glass, light and grip? Really? :)

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's important to master your tool (and craft) completely and do your best with what you got, both by taking simple effective solutions and avoiding creative choices that will not be supported by your current infrastructure and/or expertise.

LiamR
09-28-2011, 08:41 AM
That was great Pietro, looked amazing!

Postmaster
09-28-2011, 08:55 AM
Yeah, great job.

alaskacameradude
09-28-2011, 10:01 AM
Frank,

Thanks for your updated PP's. I just used your outdoors PP on a sunny day here in Alaska. It really worked awesome. I'm going to give your two PP's
an honored place in my FS 100 as.........hmmm........well I guess they will be PP1 and PP2 :-)

Chris Johnston
09-28-2011, 10:06 AM
Frank,

Thanks for your updated PP's. I just used your outdoors PP on a sunny day here in Alaska. It really worked awesome. I'm going to give your two PP's
an honored place in my FS 100 as.........hmmm........well I guess they will be PP1 and PP2 :-)

I take it you can't name picture profile with the names you want?
(about to be owner of 2 fs100s next week.)

alaskacameradude
09-28-2011, 10:09 AM
I take it you can't name picture profile with the names you want?
(about to be owner of 2 fs100s next week.)

Yeah, sorry, that was kind of an inside joke from one FS100 owner to another. But you are correct, you cannot name picture profiles.....I think it
is one of the features requested in the 'Firmware update request' thread on this board.

Postmaster
09-28-2011, 10:16 AM
Frank,

Thanks for your updated PP's. I just used your outdoors PP on a sunny day here in Alaska. It really worked awesome. I'm going to give your two PP's
an honored place in my FS 100 as.........hmmm........well I guess they will be PP1 and PP2 :-)

Thanks, glad they work for you.

Frank

Searcher
09-28-2011, 09:28 PM
And I always wonder what people mean when they say it doesn't look like film... It doesn't look like it was shot on a camera that costs 10x more in a medium that evolved over a century being shot by an experienced cinematographer with thousands of dollars worth of glass, light and grip? Really? :)

Awesome quote. Awesome video.

righteous.
09-30-2011, 11:35 AM
"Film look" is 10% equipment, 90% user.

Hell, much of my GL2/DVX footage looks more like film than much of the fs100 stuff I've seen recently.

Barry_Green
09-30-2011, 11:38 AM
"Film look" is 10% equipment, 90% user.

Absolutely the truth. The film look is more about what you point the camera at, than it is about the camera you're pointing.

Searcher
09-30-2011, 05:37 PM
Honestly, sometimes when I watch a film these days I think "gee that shot (especially night scenes) would look awesome if it was shot on my FS100".

I should go on a film forum and post "how can I get film to look more like video?".

Hux
01-24-2012, 01:06 PM
Mandrean, I agree with you, but, can you post the same example without grain structure. I would really appreciate it!

Thanx and cheers!

SergeSmArt
01-26-2012, 07:51 AM
Thanks, glad they work for you.

Frank
Hi, Frank!! I found something realted to your post about stuttering/ jitter on FS-100 - when I trying to find how to reduce it and shoot with -7 sharpering, slow panning and different fps speed I found that 30fps give me NO stattering at all !
I know - you are not able to test it till new fimrware for European FS-100, but what do you think about shooting with 30fps in general ? ( actually it's 29.97fps ) Personally, I prefer it since I shoot with 5D, and don't see any problems with it ... as in USA this speed is needed for TV anyway... :)

3dit0r
03-31-2012, 01:31 AM
I think, except for messing with the picture profiles, adding a grain structure to the footage would make it look more organic, "film-like" and less video-ish. The footage from the FS100 is extremely clean from noise. Much more so than any DSLR, even with some gain, which I think adds to the "tv-news betacam look".

Also: Don't take my word on it, it's just a feeling - but I think the AVCHD codec is playing some tricks with motion rendering, adding to the video-look. Could someone comment on this in a more scientific way?

Here's a nonsense clip to demonstrate my point with adding grain: http://www.mediafire.com/?54knmbn1knocdn8
(http://www.mediafire.com/?54knmbn1knocdn8)4014540146

1080p24 with newest GlenColor PP2 (blow-out allowed) with grain structure from a real 35mm film stock added in After Effects, and saved as 720p24 prores 422 lt. No grading.

And in a more high-end situation with controlled lighting of foreground and background, a tripod/crane/rig/steadicam/whatever, grading, more work on the noise structure, more work on composition, camera movement etc. I think this camera can do wonders, superior to what any DSLR could do image-wise.

That looks very un-video-like - it actually made me feel hungry ;)

While I've been reading this thread, I had in my mind when I moved to a full HDTV, and bluray discs at home, I was quite shocked that there was so much resolution and colour saturation 'out of the box' that even films which I had seen theatrically and were shot on film looked frankly awful- so bad in fact that it destroyed the 'suspense of disbelief' actors looked like actors, and sets looked like sets, and you could see every pore and bit of makeup on A-list stars in high-budget productions. It was literally unwatchable, but as an editor and film-maker I was fascinated. Much of it was quickly relieved by tweaking picture settings-
- Reduced saturation
- Reduced contrast
- Increased brightness
Those alone made a huge difference, and made a much more organic picture, similar to what I would look at on a reference monitor. But it reminded me of what people have been advising on this camera. Further improvements were brought by-
- Turned 'sharpness' right down.
- Turned off all the flicker free/smooth motion/interpolation crap.
These also made an enormous difference. Sometimes if my brother comes to stay, he'll mess with the settings and put them back on 'standard', even SDTV is unwatchable with motion interpolation on. This also jibes with many of the comments here.

As a further experiment, I ripped hi-res file and added some film-grain, then burned a disc and played it through the same player into the same TV. The difference was remarkable- much more 'real' and watchable, all the enjoyment of the film I knew and loved was back.

My point is, a great deal of 'apparent' sharpness can appear from picture processing, either at capture, in post, or even in playback (the films I'm talking about were all shot on 35mm film and looked gorgeous in the theatre, yet looked worse than the most awful vimeo flick until I changed all the settings) and they can easily produce the 'you get what you see' which people have complained about here even when the source had none of that look.

It seems a combination of all the techniques people have been using here with picture profiles, grading, and possibly adding a little 'softening' grain work wonders. My bigger concern about this camera is how easy it apparently is to blow out highlights in a rather nasty way- it seems odd to have to underexpose and boost shadows in post when that's throwing away some of the dynamic range of the camera (expose to the right, and all that), so I'm wondering if anyone has found a profile which doesn't do that?

Also, regarding some of the observations on what the codec might be doing to the motion, and making it seem slightly surreal, has anyone noticed a difference while using external recorders which don't use gop codecs in this respect?

I suppose an obvious observation, though, now that the 5Dmkiii is out, would be- how do you think that compares, and is it easier to shoot on that rather than having to do so much work in post to make the FS-100 picture 'softer' and more 'organic' (and yes, I realise that the question, and those terms, are liable to stir things up- I'm not trying to, I'm just genuinely curious, as it is a camera I'm interested in).

Lastly, mandrean, do you have a workflow for how you scanned the film-grain? I have a minolta slide scanner, as I was a late adopter of DSLRs! Are you simply scanning a blank slide and then overlaying in post? Does that give you sufficient 'dance' in the grain? I'm wondering if there's a way to get moving organic grain like you do in film, rather than a static grain look- there's a difference, I think.

Nice to see so many talented people trying to get the best out of their equipment, and making some great artistic results!

timmytimetravel
07-11-2012, 02:21 AM
Not to revive this too much with the fs700. I read someone trying to load fs100 profiles and messing their cam. They got it fixed. However.
are franks profiles and this thread still pretty relevant to fs700?

It it more of a case of just taking down the detail level on pp5/6 (cinegamma)? To un-video it a touch?

Nirv
07-11-2012, 03:19 AM
Hmmmm...

I donīt know. I think mine looks pretty cinematic.
Have a look at some of the stuff I shot with it and let me know what you think.

http://vimeo.com/user1323085/videos

Maybe we can figure out what is going wrong.

Frank

Have just watched your latest showreel and it decimates the argument that FS100 footage isn't cinematic and the age old adage of a craftsman doesn't blame his tools is still true.

The Man of Steel BTS is great too and again shows why your work is so cinematic, some great support equipment too. Oh and not forgetting a wedge of talent that drives it all.

Postmaster
07-11-2012, 06:14 AM
Not to revive this too much with the fs700. I read someone trying to load fs100 profiles and messing their cam. They got it fixed. However.
are franks profiles and this thread still pretty relevant to fs700?

It it more of a case of just taking down the detail level on pp5/6 (cinegamma)? To un-video it a touch?#

My profiles don't work on the FS700 - gammas are too different - sorry.

I don't have a 700 yet, since the IRS robbed me blind and crossed my camera plans.
But as soon I get my hands on a production model, I do release some PPs.

Till than, Gamma 4 and Knee full throtle and zero for a nice roll off and you are golden.
The 700 needs much less tweaking then the 100.

Frank

Postmaster
07-11-2012, 06:18 AM
Have just watched your latest showreel and it decimates the argument that FS100 footage isn't cinematic and the age old adage of a craftsman doesn't blame his tools is still true.




The Man of Steel BTS is great too and again shows why your work is so cinematic, some great support equipment too. Oh and not forgetting a wedge of talent that drives it all.

Thanks Nirv,

and yeah, a little wedge of talent definitive helps - also the balls to ride the bumper of a Jeep, just to get that angle :beer:
And that damed thing was driving pretty fast.

56434