FS7: Any way to get an amazing Redraw image from FS7?

Doug Jensen said:
@IronFilm,

1) Please show me any instance where you could buy a used F55 for less than a used FS7. A used F55 will always be worth more than a used FS7, therefore has more resale value, and that is not open to debate. Of course, the F55 may be out of someone's league or more camera than someone can handle, but that is a different kettle of fish. The F55 is just as relevant and current as it was when it was introduced 5 years ago. There is still no camera that can do what it can do for anywhere near that price point and nothing is going to make it outdated until FF sensors or 8K become absolutely necessary. Mine has paid for itself many times over and continues to be the best cash cow I have owned since the old Betacam days. Tremendous ROI on an F55 if you know how to shoot and run your business.

2) Are you seriously trying to put Sony's prosumer UWP mic system in the same league as the DWR series? What a laugh. You are obviously illinformed and should do a little more homework before posting. Perhaps you would say tha a Kia is in the same league as Jaguar just because they have four wheels.
Click to expand...

1) not saying a F55 sells for less than a FS7, I just don't believe you'll get the same % back from a new F55 purchased in 2018 when you later sell it as when a person sells a FS7 instead.
(but like I said before, the math works out a lot better if a person is considering a secondhand F55/F5 purchase in 2018 instead)

2) not saying they're equivalent, just pointing out that option exists for the FS7
 
dmitrizigany said:
If you have the back extension thingie, you could buy an Atomos Shogun Inferno and shoot in ProRes RAW to squeeze out a little extra from the FS7?
Click to expand...

But that gives even less dynamic range. What i like about RED is the HDR - up to 18 DR... Works wonders for landscapes.
 
Martin, you definitely should go for the RED. It's in your mind that is has the superior image and with everything else you will be in doubt.
 
Clermond said:
another samples where the FS7 shines:



shot on vintage lenses:
20mm - Mir 20a
28mm - Mir 10a
30mm - Meyer-Optik Görlitz Lyidth
37mm - Mir 1a
38mm - Helios 44-2 + DSO wide angle adapter
50mm - Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar
58mm - Helios 44-2
85mm - Jupiter 9
135mm - Tair 11a

found in the FS7 Facebook Group
https://www.facebook.com/crazypictures/videos/10156132716610801/
Click to expand...

This looks pretty good! You can see they did A LOT of post work on it. But again is a perfect example of why I gave up. Even with a lot of post work, good composition, effects, good lighting and some budget or whatever. It's inevitable. There are always those shots that slap you back to reality and remind you of what you are really watching.
 
Last edited:
The third shot? What didn't you like about it. Why don't you qualify the statement? Is it the color, the definition, the grade or what? If it's the grade then your statement carries little weight as it could be graded a 1001 different ways.

Chris Young
 
All these cameras put out an image that, in the end, pretty much look the same to me. Film sometimes look video-ish if it’s lit or shot the way videos typically are. Alexa looks particularly like film but sometimes looks like video. Reds and Sonys and Panasonics look great sometimes and look like cheap digital other times. In the end it’s realy all about which camera system workflow works best for the project budget, and the people behind the camera and all those decisions being made down the pipeline from wardrobe to hair and makeup to lighting design, production design, post, composition, etc. It’s about choosing crummy MiniDV as a master media for creative reasons on 28 Days Later, for example. It’s how you use the tools.

What I’m saying is if someone thinks they get a cinematic image better from a Red than an FS7, then fine. But don’t tell me you can’t get a cinematic image from FS7. That guy doesn’t know what he’s doing and probably wouldn’t be happy with a Red or Arri or whatever, either. It’s about the human using the camera. Buying a more expensive camera doesn’t make you a better shooter. It’s as simple as that.
 
Im not sure the fs7 is lacking but the other day I did a job where they wanted a matching still and video (for an app and exhibition stand)

Certainly I found the Nikon Nef in Capture One (6k 14 bit raw) quicker to get looking right than the Slog2 4k shot in Resolve.
 
Clermond said:
Off course a RED has quality. But what exactly at the FS7 wasn't enough for your demands ?
Click to expand...

cyvideo said:
The third shot? What didn't you like about it. Why don't you qualify the statement? Is it the color, the definition, the grade or what? If it's the grade then your statement carries little weight as it could be graded a 1001 different ways.

Chris Young
Click to expand...


I didn't elaborate because it's beating a dead horse. It has been talked about here ad nauseam. By me and others. Not only about the FS7 either. Lack of image depth and the skin tones, mainly.

Also a total lack of mojo for lack of a better word. Just the overall look of the image. Some call it the Sony look, the video look. You can add film grain, you can grade as much as you want. Just lipstick on a pig. It can look good at times. But there are always shots which will just suck no matter what you do in post.

It's not a matter of how you shoot it either. I have done tests and shot the same set ups with a FS7 and the Alexa and the Alexa just comes out nicer no matter what. Without barely any effort. Some will say, duh it's much more expensive than the FS7. I know and this is the point and this is why I got rid of the FS7. I got tired of fighting the look. FS7 will FS7. If that's what you like good for you. I hated the look and hated to have to spend so much time grading trying to get rid of it and still not. So I sold it. Couldn't be happier.

IMO newer Reds look better. Blackmagic looks better. Arris and F35 look WAY better. Grading can't fix everything.
 
Last edited:
legrevedotcom said:
Because he doesn't know.... this whole thread is a justification thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't know why I don't like the FS7 and why I sold it and bought a much more expensive camera. It looks like you , given your tone, probably know it better than I do why I sold my own camera, sitting there on your high horse.
 
JRJphoto said:
All these cameras put out an image that, in the end, pretty much look the same to me. Film sometimes look video-ish if it’s lit or shot the way videos typically are. Alexa looks particularly like film but sometimes looks like video. Reds and Sonys and Panasonics look great sometimes and look like cheap digital other times. In the end it’s realy all about which camera system workflow works best for the project budget, and the people behind the camera and all those decisions being made down the pipeline from wardrobe to hair and makeup to lighting design, production design, post, composition, etc. It’s about choosing crummy MiniDV as a master media for creative reasons on 28 Days Later, for example. It’s how you use the tools.

What I’m saying is if someone thinks they get a cinematic image better from a Red than an FS7, then fine. But don’t tell me you can’t get a cinematic image from FS7. That guy doesn’t know what he’s doing and probably wouldn’t be happy with a Red or Arri or whatever, either. It’s about the human using the camera. Buying a more expensive camera doesn’t make you a better shooter. It’s as simple as that.
Click to expand...

I wish it was as simple as that. It never is. :)

If it was, every single thing shot with any camera would look like shot on Alexa or even film. Other manufacturers would not need LUTs that imitate the Alexa and places like Netflix wouldn't have such LUTs either, since they all look the same. But they don't really. ;-)

By the way, are you talking about any particular clip shot on film which looks like video? if you have a link I would love to see it. I never saw anything shot on film which looks like video. Even cat videos if shot with a super 8 camera under any light will still look like film. :thumbsup:
 
Sttratos said:
I didn't elaborate because it's beating a dead horse. It has been talked about here ad nauseam. By me and others. Not only about the FS7 either. Lack of image depth and the skin tones, mainly.

Also a total lack of mojo for lack of a better word. Just the overall look of the image. Some call it the Sony look, the video look. You can add film grain, you can grade as much as you want. Just lipstick on a pig. It can look good at times. But there are always shots which will just suck no matter what you do in post. .
Click to expand...

uuhh you took one scene with skin tones you didn't like and call it missing mojo?
Seems that every further word is wasted.
 
Clermond said:
uuhh you took one scene with skin tones you didn't like and call it missing mojo?
Seems that every further word is wasted.
Click to expand...

Not just one, but every single example posted in this thread that was meant to show how awesome the Sony cameras are, have just discouraged me.

For corporate and one man band stuff, my FS7 delivers amazing quality and it works effortlessly. But i have not seen a single omfg wow video made with it. Not sure why it is like that. I cant answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top