Nobody is saying that it's an Alexa. I think we all know that. We do think it's pretty great for $8K though, certainly one of the best sub $15K cameras.
FS7: Can the FS7 look "cinematic"
- Thread starter 1027Films
- Start date
Nobody is saying that it's an Alexa. I think we all know that. We do think it's pretty great for $8K though, certainly one of the best sub $15K cameras.
Paul schefz
Well-known member
on any feature with any budget the camera is by far the cheapest ingredient, so there is no real reason to go with a FS7 over any other....
but considering some people choose to shoot with a F55 over alexa or red...there is no reason to not throw in a fs7 at that point....
i don't see anyone going with a Fs7 as an artistic choice....makes no sense....
i am pretty sure we will see a F55 follow up soon anyway, maybe NAB....
mainstreetprod
Veteran
Depends on what level you're at. If you are trying to shoot features with a DSLR because you just don't have the budget for an Alexa, having the built in ND's, 24 bit audio, high frame rates and solid internal codec solves most of the problems associated with DSLR's at a cost not that much higher, when you consider what it costs to kit out a DSLR. 4K is just a bonus.
OlegKalyan
Well-known member
For some reason it looks good, yet quite different compared to most "cinematic" pieces on youtube, vimeo.. from what I've seen so far.
P. Bloom piece to me is sort of anti commercial for the camera. Lots of mud in shadows. Still in places blown highlights. Great slow moution though. Totally different than Arri, for sure, artificial skin color, "graded", not natural. I've seen better skin colors elsewhere from DSLRs, from Canon, Nikon, Panasonic.
P. Bloom piece to me is sort of anti commercial for the camera. Lots of mud in shadows. Still in places blown highlights. Great slow moution though. Totally different than Arri, for sure, artificial skin color, "graded", not natural. I've seen better skin colors elsewhere from DSLRs, from Canon, Nikon, Panasonic.
It looks very good, PB knows his stuff. But it doesn’t look cinematic IMO. Cinematic should look like cinema and looking at this I don’t think cinema. The opening shot with the blown out sky and high lights, crushed blacks, looked very video. A few of those in there. Skins look video too. Could be the grade, although the skins are on pair with what I’m getting with my own FS7.
I had a 3 day shot with an Alexa this week. Coming back to my FS7 is a slap on the face. Makes you wish all you shot was Alexa. But the reality is different and for the money the FS7 is very good. You are right it’s not an Alexa. But better than most cameras not called Alexa, Amira, F35, F65, gives F5, F55 and Reds a run for their money and is a better option than any Canon or Blackmagic at the moment.
Yes true. Some FS7 users here get offended when people say the FS7 is not fit for high end drama. But it’s not that it can’t do it, it’s just why would you choose it? There are much better cameras with better image quality and that look closer to film. Even if you want the FS7 look a production would be better off with a F5 or F55 as A cam.
Ben Scott
Veteran
This subject really winds me up, as though other look is valid than the ambiguous and amorphous 'cinematic' that nobody can even describe.
Wonder List is factual entertainment / documentary television. It isn't trying to look like a film, it's trying to look interesting, which it does. Just like the Anthony Bourdain stuff shot on F5s. Looks great but doesn't look like film. Or the BBC's recent 'Sue Perkins on the Mekong' which was shot on the F55 and looks stunning but does't look cinematic. By the way, Bloom had zero to do with post on the show.
Wonder List is factual entertainment / documentary television. It isn't trying to look like a film, it's trying to look interesting, which it does. Just like the Anthony Bourdain stuff shot on F5s. Looks great but doesn't look like film. Or the BBC's recent 'Sue Perkins on the Mekong' which was shot on the F55 and looks stunning but does't look cinematic. By the way, Bloom had zero to do with post on the show.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Yup. The cost difference per day on a feature would be smaller than the soft drinks budget.
Don't get winded up it's just cameras.
Yes it looks like television. This is not cinematic. Cinematic is supposed to look like cinema. Cinema has been film for the last 100 years and the digital theatrical films still try to look like film. This is why the Alexa is so big with movie producers and DPs.
But I never said it didn't look interesting or good. I said it looks very good. Just not cinematic.
This and there is no reason for them to put up with the FS7 quirks and limitations. When the F5 or F55 are so much better built for set work and are better cameras that give you basically the same look, the FS7 makes no sense. With the F55 an even improved look with the global shutter.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Oh I was agreeing with you absolutely
If there is a definition of 'cinematic' it is much more closely related to art design and lighting and blocking of scenes than it is what type of camera you use. And those all the things that would be different on a shoot like the Wonder List than they would be on a movie set.
cuervo
Veteran
This is all just such an old, tired and worn out discussion. In the end, it's the story that's told and the professional presentation that's made that counts. Everyone gets so distracted by who can pee the furthest. The important thing is that the viewer is captivated in the story, becomes part of the story without external distractions to remind the viewer they're only watching images. Bad set design, bad talent, extraneous sound are all obvious distractions from the story. Shaky camera footage, wandering focus, poor exposure, inappropriate lighting, bad post color grade are all artistic choices that are OK in the right places, but, distracting to the viewer in the wrong places. What's important is that they are conscious choices used to enhance the story being told without reminding the viewer it's only a story. That's what distinguishes film from video.In the days of film, what was captured was all there was. You had to get it right the first time; and that took a LOT of preparation. In the days of video, you can erase the bad stuff and reshoot it. No worries. Go out and shoot.
It's the DP's job to produce images with his tools. He's supposed to be the master of his craft that can capture the scene as the director/producer wants it. Understanding how to fit lighting with his camera is part of the job, just as much as framing and exposure. The ability to do that is professionalism. The way he or she does it, the tools they choose are simply the means of his profession. A pocketcam is just as filmic as an Alexa, in the right hands and the right piece of telling the story. Whether it's celluloid or CGI, it's all "film" if the viewer is captivated and lost in the story. I bet Phil Bloom is adept at many tools, not just one. And don't forget, he makes his living by telling stories about products he's hired to sell.
Having said this, a cinematographer picks his tools for the job. More often than not, there are different tools for different stories. R&G, documentary, drama, studio, stage are all different venues for storytelling. It makes no sense to use and R&G camera for studio work, or a studio camera for R&G. One camera that can do all of the above is a camera that can do none of the above well. Autofocus, autoaperture, auto WB, auto anything really isn't useful for most studio/stage work. Why would anyone choose an R&G camera for these applications if they weren't limited on resources? It's like a carpenter choosing a 20 lb mallet to drive a finishing nail. The ability to choose the right tool for the right job is what professional skill is all about. I find it curious that everone talks about cameras and the related sensor, but, never a mention of the lens and optics. Most certainly just as critical in being able to tell the story. Why is it that high end optics, like a Red Pro zoomor cabrio lens, doesn't have optical stabilization, while a DSLR lens does?
And for those aspiring cinematographers/directors who want one inexpensive plastic camera to do all of the above is delusional. I understand that there are budgetary limitations. I understand that one will pick the best tool for the job that's limited by budget. An FS7, in the right hands, and in the right application, can do the same job as an F55 or an Alexa. But, why would the right hands choose an FS7 for studio/stage work, when they could use an F55? And why would anyone choose an URSA for R&G? In my mind, that's how I distinguish a cinematographer from a videographer. If I forget that I'm watching a small screen instead of real life, that's how I distinguish film from video. And anyone who can mention an FS7 in the same breath as an Alexa, a Red or an F55 is out of touch with reality. Different tools for different applications. The FS7 is an R&G camera by most standards. And a pretty funky configured one, at that. Why aren't news crews shooting FS7's? (Maybe it's related to robustness?)It's designed to fit a particular market segment; and, it does that fairly well. Don't think I know anyone who would choose and FS7 over an F55 if they had a real choice. I love my FS700+O7Q, for the right job. I love my F5 in almost all other situations. Wish I could shoot an F65 or Alexa....but, they're not in my budget. Could I pick one up at a rental house and use it in an instant? You bet I could. Could I be comfortable with a set of cine primes instead of an auto-everything emount or DSLR zoom lens? You bet I could. Could I convince an executive producer to pay for an Alexa instead of an FS7 or F5? LOL...well, maybe.
It's the DP's job to produce images with his tools. He's supposed to be the master of his craft that can capture the scene as the director/producer wants it. Understanding how to fit lighting with his camera is part of the job, just as much as framing and exposure. The ability to do that is professionalism. The way he or she does it, the tools they choose are simply the means of his profession. A pocketcam is just as filmic as an Alexa, in the right hands and the right piece of telling the story. Whether it's celluloid or CGI, it's all "film" if the viewer is captivated and lost in the story. I bet Phil Bloom is adept at many tools, not just one. And don't forget, he makes his living by telling stories about products he's hired to sell.
Having said this, a cinematographer picks his tools for the job. More often than not, there are different tools for different stories. R&G, documentary, drama, studio, stage are all different venues for storytelling. It makes no sense to use and R&G camera for studio work, or a studio camera for R&G. One camera that can do all of the above is a camera that can do none of the above well. Autofocus, autoaperture, auto WB, auto anything really isn't useful for most studio/stage work. Why would anyone choose an R&G camera for these applications if they weren't limited on resources? It's like a carpenter choosing a 20 lb mallet to drive a finishing nail. The ability to choose the right tool for the right job is what professional skill is all about. I find it curious that everone talks about cameras and the related sensor, but, never a mention of the lens and optics. Most certainly just as critical in being able to tell the story. Why is it that high end optics, like a Red Pro zoomor cabrio lens, doesn't have optical stabilization, while a DSLR lens does?
And for those aspiring cinematographers/directors who want one inexpensive plastic camera to do all of the above is delusional. I understand that there are budgetary limitations. I understand that one will pick the best tool for the job that's limited by budget. An FS7, in the right hands, and in the right application, can do the same job as an F55 or an Alexa. But, why would the right hands choose an FS7 for studio/stage work, when they could use an F55? And why would anyone choose an URSA for R&G? In my mind, that's how I distinguish a cinematographer from a videographer. If I forget that I'm watching a small screen instead of real life, that's how I distinguish film from video. And anyone who can mention an FS7 in the same breath as an Alexa, a Red or an F55 is out of touch with reality. Different tools for different applications. The FS7 is an R&G camera by most standards. And a pretty funky configured one, at that. Why aren't news crews shooting FS7's? (Maybe it's related to robustness?)It's designed to fit a particular market segment; and, it does that fairly well. Don't think I know anyone who would choose and FS7 over an F55 if they had a real choice. I love my FS700+O7Q, for the right job. I love my F5 in almost all other situations. Wish I could shoot an F65 or Alexa....but, they're not in my budget. Could I pick one up at a rental house and use it in an instant? You bet I could. Could I be comfortable with a set of cine primes instead of an auto-everything emount or DSLR zoom lens? You bet I could. Could I convince an executive producer to pay for an Alexa instead of an FS7 or F5? LOL...well, maybe.
Last edited:
Viddovation
Veteran
Honestly, the way the word "cinematic" is used today is virtually meaningless. Everyone has their own taste and preference, but "cinema" as both an art form and commercial craft has gone through a variety of stylings and advancements and aesthetic looks.
Again, everyone is entitled to like what they like, but when I hear comments like "To be more cinematic, shoot full frame f1.4" it's reductive and has no real relationship to what historical cinema actually was or is. For instance, plenty of cinema films have been shot at T4 on Super35.
I just wish the conversation about which camera to use or how to shoot stopped using the word "cinematic." It's been rendered meaningless.
Again, everyone is entitled to like what they like, but when I hear comments like "To be more cinematic, shoot full frame f1.4" it's reductive and has no real relationship to what historical cinema actually was or is. For instance, plenty of cinema films have been shot at T4 on Super35.
I just wish the conversation about which camera to use or how to shoot stopped using the word "cinematic." It's been rendered meaningless.
cuervo
Veteran
Right on! Back when video cams were first hitting the market, they had such limited dynamic range that blown hilites and hotspots clearly distinguished "video" from film, with it's wide DR. DP's got around that by properly lighting a scene, reducing the scene DR to what the videocam could handle. That produced fairly flat images, not a lot of DR. These days, the paradigm has shifted. Perhaps the one distinguishing feature of film over video is the noise signature. There's something organic about film grain, and something unpleasantly digital about compression artifacts. But, most young shooters who have never used celluloid, haven't experienced that difference. Digital SNR is the new film grain.
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
++1 I agree. I think what people think is cinematic is subjective...and what they use to think is cinematic in the past and present could be very different for the future.
I'm starting to dislike that term as much as "game changer." If I hear game changer one more time about a single piece of gear, I'll vomit.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Funnily enough I was thinking recently about how similar the game is today compared to how it was before the Movi came along and - according to everyone that had a blog with affiliate links to Amazon and B&H - changed it.
Maybe everyone else was playing a different game to me but it now just seems the same game but a bit less wobbly when hand held.
Maybe everyone else was playing a different game to me but it now just seems the same game but a bit less wobbly when hand held.
The Raid Redemption (huge hit) was shot on a Panasonic AF100. The film that had the biggest buzz at Sundance this year was shot on an iPhone. It's silly to worry about cameras in this day and age for a film because they're all good enough. Of course having an Alexa or Red would be better, but there is zero reasons you can't shoot a film on an FS7.
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
I too find myself using the term cinematic, but in actuality it can be a very convoluted term. I find it to take into account all aspects of productio (art direction, on-scree talent, makeup/hair/costume, lighting, and the list goes onnnnnnnnn). Even without all those things, the language of camera movement in concert with blocking and artistic framing does more for this term cinematic, than a specific camera.
All ml in all, I found PB's piece to be a very beautiful and entertaining piece of documentary. And even then, the A-cam was an F55. Nothing against the FS7, because I think it's a great camera! And you probably could use it in concert with great lighting, talent, art-direction, etc, to get a cinematic final product. But I also agree that it's a specific product for a specific market...that being the solo operator on mid range corporate, event and documentary shoots.
Thats is not to say it can't deliver beautiful images.
All ml in all, I found PB's piece to be a very beautiful and entertaining piece of documentary. And even then, the A-cam was an F55. Nothing against the FS7, because I think it's a great camera! And you probably could use it in concert with great lighting, talent, art-direction, etc, to get a cinematic final product. But I also agree that it's a specific product for a specific market...that being the solo operator on mid range corporate, event and documentary shoots.
Thats is not to say it can't deliver beautiful images.