FS7: Can the FS7 look "cinematic"

It's much like calling all orchestral music "classical" which is incorrect. classical is actually and era...like the baroque and romantic period. Commonly the general public carelessly uses classical as a blanket term...much like cinematic.
 
All that said...was the video in the OP good looking? ...yes. I think it's looked very nice and if shown on a big screen to the general public, I don't think anyone would question it's quality in comparison to what they are traditionally use to.

There use to be a HUGE difference in quality from lower budget cameras to higher budget cameras. So much that it was obvious to the general public. The video industry has now gone through what the audio industry went through about 10-15 years ago. Now the margin of quality is not nearly as noticeable to the general public and the gap between cameras is much closer.

It definitly makes a the decision to spend over $20k on any camera much harder...though 10 years ago I wouldnt have batted an eye.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone comment in regards to the aliasing or moire that is present on some of the shots, for example, on the child's forehead at 22 seconds. Is this the case of improper downsampling 4k to 1080p or is this just something that happens in HFR shots with the camera?
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
There use to be a HUGE difference in quality from lower budget cameras to higher budget cameras. So much that it was obvious to the general public. The video industry has now gone through what the audio industry went through about 10-15 years ago. Now the margin of quality is not nearly as noticeable to the general public and the gap between cameras is much closer.

It definitly makes a the decision to spend over $20k on any camera much harder...though 10 years ago I wouldnt have batted an eye.
Click to expand...

I would submit that the only significant difference (aside from the fact that the F55 doesn't have a rolling CMOS shutter and that it has a HUGE color space) between cameras like an F55/F5 and an FS7 is the robustness of the mechanical hardware. I suspect in 5 years time, not too many productions will still be made with FS7's. They're a fad camera not designed to last very long, either technically or mechanically. The F55/F5, like their predecessor, the F3, are made to survive production work for the long haul. If one can stomach the cost, the modules of the F5 can be upgraded to, ultimately, make it an F55. And that's the difference between a "disposable" $8k camera and a camera that will last for years of work. Now, it becomes the responsibility of the manufacturer, like Sony, to keep their higher end cameras viable over the long haul by providing modular updates. If Sony neglects this duty, then i would agree, from a purely technical standpoint, one is better off with a low cost disposable, good for 1-2 years. However, having said that, lenses are a different story. A good lens is a lifetime investment. I don't think any e-mount lens falls in this category. But, a good PL lens will be reuseable, hopefully, on any camera platform for years and years.
 
cuervo said:
I would submit that the only significant difference (aside from the fact that the F55 doesn't have a rolling CMOS shutter and that it has a HUGE color space) between cameras like an F55/F5 and an FS7 is the robustness of the mechanical hardware. I suspect in 5 years time, not too many productions will still be made with FS7's. They're a fad camera not designed to last very long, either technically or mechanically. The F55/F5, like their predecessor, the F3, are made to survive production work for the long haul. If one can stomach the cost, the modules of the F5 can be upgraded to, ultimately, make it an F55. And that's the difference between a "disposable" $8k camera and a camera that will last for years of work. Now, it becomes the responsibility of the manufacturer, like Sony, to keep their higher end cameras viable over the long haul by providing modular updates. If Sony neglects this duty, then i would agree, from a purely technical standpoint, one is better off with a low cost disposable, good for 1-2 years. However, having said that, lenses are a different story. A good lens is a lifetime investment. I don't think any e-mount lens falls in this category. But, a good PL lens will be reuseable, hopefully, on any camera platform for years and years.
Click to expand...

I think I understand your point, but I would object, I think. It's absolutely true that the FS7 is not the most robust camera, and I suspect that it will see only limited B camera use in large, well funded productions. However, I've seen the venerable Sony PMW-EX1, made to a similar build quality and initial pricepoint as the FS7 last over 5 years and still show up on sets. Sony doesn't make it anymore, but it's competence at it's job has meant that those that manage not to get destroyed keep working consistently. I expect small productions will use the FS7 until it breaks, and for those who take good care of their gear, that may be longer than 5 years.

It shoots internal 4k. God only knows what the market will demand we buy next.
 
Viddovation said:
However, I've seen the venerable Sony PMW-EX1, made to a similar build quality and initial pricepoint as the FS7 last over 5 years and still show up on sets. Sony doesn't make it anymore, but it's competence at it's job has meant that those that manage not to get destroyed keep working consistently. I expect small productions will use the FS7 until it breaks, and for those who take good care of their gear, that may be longer than 5 years.

It shoots internal 4k. God only knows what the market will demand we buy next.
Click to expand...

Curiously enough, the EX1 was a product of the Cinealta Division, the same division that makes the F series. I had an EX1.
As far as what's coming next, I would guess real 4K (which demands a 6K resolution sensor), no rolling shutter, expanded color space-ala F55, to meet REC2020 space, perhaps WiFi video transmission for capture to a remote station, more pixels per super 35 sensor. One needs to look only at still camera evolution to see where video might go. Right now, digital thruput is limiting data rate. Faster I/O, larger storage are all needed technologies for the next evolutionary step in acquisition. The physics of optics will limit making cameras more compact...DOF, diffraction limits, refraction limits of glass, will all necessitate super 35 frame sizes as optimum.
 
I think if you ask every commentor here why he bought the camera and what he or she is using it for and how I would guess you would have an almost endless amount of combinations. I work in broadcast documentaries knowing my world and the limitations both expertise and experience wise of my clients I doubt i will be seeing any 4k requests or S-LOG for months and probably years to come. Their tech people have budget cutted down to a point where the cheap people they hired have no clue. So in 90% of what i do is will be in 1080 interlaced standard5. occasionally I will have a non retard client and there I will be able todo something different. Somebody else here will use it competent differently. When I started you had one option a 4x3 SD betacam which set you back 40k. So things have never been better.
 
Pointless chat. But Ill join.

IMO 'cinematic' from the camera department is probably fully controlling your dynamic range. Cast your mind back a couple of years ago where zacuto did that test that basically (IMO) made all cameras look the same. The test allowed infinite lighting from the DP of each camera. DPs using the narrow DR cameras correctly whomped up the fill lighing by calling for 1000s of watts of HMI fill.

Step out into the real world outdoors or onto a low budget set and we cant call for 'more light'

Now the FS7 moves the DR well beyond cameras like my FS100.. making it 'more cinematic' - maybe it crosses some thresholds for situations where one can use natural light only - making it a better camera by a large margin.. it is therefore 'more cinematic' than the FS100

Now a camera like the FS100 had horrid highlights compressing its 'usable' DR even more heavily (id give it four stops personally!) Test from people like abel tend to fail to explore colour shifts and fail to find the true usable DR

Maybe the FS7 has hit an equal to film?

Whatever it is certainly good enough to shoot cinema
 
morgan_moore said:
Pointless chat. But Ill join.

IMO 'cinematic' from the camera department is probably fully controlling your dynamic range. Cast your mind back a couple of years ago where zacuto did that test that basically (IMO) made all cameras look the same. The test allowed infinite lighting from the DP of each camera. DPs using the narrow DR cameras correctly whomped up the fill lighing by calling for 1000s of watts of HMI fill.

Step out into the real world outdoors or onto a low budget set and we cant call for 'more light'

Now the FS7 moves the DR well beyond cameras like my FS100.. making it 'more cinematic' - maybe it crosses some thresholds for situations where one can use natural light only - making it a better camera by a large margin.. it is therefore 'more cinematic' than the FS100

Now a camera like the FS100 had horrid highlights compressing its 'usable' DR even more heavily (id give it four stops personally!) Test from people like abel tend to fail to explore colour shifts and fail to find the true usable DR

Maybe the FS7 has hit an equal to film?

Whatever it is certainly good enough to shoot cinema
Click to expand...

This situation only demonstrates why 'cinematic' is a word with too many different understandings and meanings to be used used practically anymore. Your points about dynamic range are all well taken, but the fact that you have to define cinematic in relation to the camera department only goes to show that it is understood differently by different people. When a word requires too many conditional modifiers and clarifications to be understood in a context, it's rendered essentially meaningless.

Cinematic, in the new langauge of camera nerds is essentially equivalent to "desirable." The fundamental problem is that we don't all desire the same look, and we don't all agree on how to achieve it. We're arguing subjective aesthetics and glossing it up as if that subjective taste is tantamount to the quality of the art.
 
Ergo pointless chat as I said :)

I think limiting to 'the camera department' is kind of relevant to this forum.

I realised that I kind of got my argument backwards.

Ie that all/most cameras are 'cinematic' because with enough lights most cameras can shine - so to call any camera 'non cinematic' kind of just exposes the weakness of the camera department.

My work with the FS100 was weak not because I had a lack of knowledge but a lack of resources - I could not call for huge HMIs or 40Ft overhead scrims.

So describing a camera as cinematic or not is dumb - really the only issue is how few resources one can use with the camera to create 'cinematic'

The exciting thing about cams like the FS7 is that creating good images is not that hungry on other resources so will allow more camera departments, with less resources, to hit a certain bar.

My opinion of the FS7 is that it is a huge jump in the sub $10g bracket. One that may make over $10g cams a little irrelevant over time.
 
I've been pondering the terms DIT and Videographer/Cinematographer in much the same context. As a DP, it's the mission to provide images as desired by the director/client. How the DP goes about that is almost a black box, as far as the client is concerned. Most clients aren't interested, as long as they get what they expect to see. To be a DP, one also needs to be a DIT, or at least to shoot with knowledge about the post processing. Unless the client can afford a DIT and colorist, the job falls to the DP. And it falls to the DP to make recommendations, based on budget and what can realistically be expected. This is drifting off topic, but, in respect to you guys, who I know understand what I'm sayin'. Cinematic means knowing how to use your camera, as well as how the captured data streams will be processed....yielding the final grade from the "raw" footage. Exploiting the dynamic range performance of the camera is the first step. I think we can agree that 'cinematic' is a dated and passe term. Technology is, indeed, putting very professional capability in the hands of everyone. The issue now sinks to the lowest common denominator...the skill and experience of the operator.
 
Another way of defining 'cinematic' would be a simple straight test against motion picture film.

I would think that noise, res and DR are similar between film and the FS7 , but motion cadence is not.

Film probably has a mild lead in the highs, the FS7 in the shadows.

S
 
Well, look at the world this way. Once upon a time there were only three tv channels in the USA. Less content was being produced, and more people watched any given piece of content, due to lack of options. As content options expand, viewing becomes highly niche. The world population has grown, but overall, shows today get smaller and smaller viewer pools. This means smaller and smaller budgets over time, as despite mitigating factors (niche content is more effective for advertisers per person, since it's targeted) there's less market to sell to. This means production costs have to be smaller. And that's where the FS7 shines compared to an Alexa or RED Epic. Is it better engineered? No. Is the image as good? No. But it's good enough for viewers, at a much lower cost to production.

There's only a certain percentage of the work out there that goes to enough viewers to justify being shot on 100k camera packages. From a business perspective, 10k camera packages like the FS7 serve the growing need for niche content being driven to small markets.
 
cuervo said:
To be a DP, one also needs to be a DIT, or at least to shoot with knowledge about the post processing.
Click to expand...

I think this has been a real problem for 'trad' DPs - who have often not really taken their skills to a place to find out what digital cams can actually do or how.

I have a different career path with started in the dark room, moved to scanning film and finally to doing post on digital, so I was constantly learning the relationship between my 'set' choices and my 'post' choices.

In the main only really learning the right lighting ratios of the specific media (and availability of lights to create those ratios) have driven the final outcome, not really the aquisition media.

S
 
cuervo said:
I've been pondering the terms DIT and Videographer/Cinematographer in much the same context. As a DP, it's the mission to provide images as desired by the director/client. How the DP goes about that is almost a black box, as far as the client is concerned. Most clients aren't interested, as long as they get what they expect to see. To be a DP, one also needs to be a DIT, or at least to shoot with knowledge about the post processing. Unless the client can afford a DIT and colorist, the job falls to the DP. And it falls to the DP to make recommendations, based on budget and what can realistically be expected. This is drifting off topic, but, in respect to you guys, who I know understand what I'm sayin'. Cinematic means knowing how to use your camera, as well as how the captured data streams will be processed....yielding the final grade from the "raw" footage. Exploiting the dynamic range performance of the camera is the first step. I think we can agree that 'cinematic' is a dated and passe term. Technology is, indeed, putting very professional capability in the hands of everyone. The issue now sinks to the lowest common denominator...the skill and experience of the operator.
Click to expand...

The problem with DP/Cinematographer/Videographer is slightly different. A Director of Photography is an objective title that we can litmus test. The problem is DP/Cinematographer is a very desirable title, and often people who shouldn't use it do. People who are really acting as Videographers or Camera Operators are sometimes credited as DPs. This happens a lot on productions that are underpaid. If we can't pay you, we'll at least give you a fancy title for your resume and imdb. But someone who just runs a camera and doesn't do lighting isn't a Director of Photography. I've even seen Videographer jobs for simple 3 point lighting interview web content with a listed craigslist rate of $200 be put as a "DP".
 
Viddovation said:
shows today get smaller and smaller viewer pools. This means smaller and smaller budgets over time, as despite mitigating factors (niche content is more effective for advertisers per person, since it's targeted) there's less market to sell to. This means production costs have to be smaller. And that's where the FS7 shines compared to an Alexa or RED Epic. Is it better engineered? No. Is the image as good? No. But it's good enough for viewers, at a much lower cost to production.

There's only a certain percentage of the work out there that goes to enough viewers to justify being shot on 100k camera packages. From a business perspective, 10k camera packages like the FS7 serve the growing need for niche content being driven to small markets.
Click to expand...

Great logic, here; but, is it reality? Not from what I've seen. From what I see, the F55, ($30k+accessories) is moving into the arena you propose, not the FS7. Bill Weir and Phil Bloom used an F55 for an A cam. ( i might hazard a guess that the FS7 was used as a b cam as a promotion by Sony)Anthony Bourdain uses an F55. The $8k camera is chump change for any financed production, including TV. Event videographers, small indies...these are the shooters going for the FS7. First thing I get asked, like it or not, is what camera I'm using. the next thing I'm asked is what lenses do I have. For almost ALL gigs bigger than event videography, an F55/F5 is a minimum. Like it or not. That's my reality in the segment I work. For the "lesser" clients, clients who don't even know what 4k means, my FS700 without the O7Q works just fine.
 
Last edited:
Viddovation said:
But someone who just runs a camera and doesn't do lighting isn't a Director of Photography.
Click to expand...

Having DPd a full low budget feature I ran all the lights, but that still doesn't really mean I DPd the film, IMO, because for it to really have my look I would have entered the project far earlier in pre and carried a lot more 'clout' - particularly on location choices, art, and, critically, scheduling in a manner that would lead to nice light (golden hour!)



S
 
morgan_moore said:
Camera news runs through to production very slowly. I was getting asked for my 5d2 well after I had sold it!

Production are not always right (apart from they are becuase they are paying.)
Click to expand...

I know you're right, Sam. It's an anomaly that bogles my mind. I've no explanation for it. And it may be my own weakness, but, as a DP, I get over-ruled by directors and AD's a lot. I can lead them to water but I can't make 'em drink.
 
cuervo said:
Great logic, here; but, is it reality? Not from what I've seen. From what I see, the F55, ($30k+accessories) is moving into the arena you propose, not the FS7. Bill Weir and Phil Bloom used an F55 for a A cam. Anthony Bourdain uses an F55. The $8k camera is chump change for any financed production, including TV. Event videographers, small indies...these are the shooters going for the FS7. First thing I get asked, like it or not, is what camera I'm using. the next thing I'm asked is what lenses do I have. For almost ALL gigs bigger than event videography, an F55/F5 is a minimum. Like it or not. That's my reality in the segment I work. For the "lesser" clients, clients who don't even know what 4k means, my FS700 without the O7Q works just fine.
Click to expand...

Maybe we're working in different segments.

And by the way, that logic doesn't just count content on broadcast and cable. There's plenty of content on the internet as well. Every day more people "cut the cord" and stop subscribing cable, and meanwhile the cable companies charge the remaining customers more and more.

If you're fortunate enough to not only have clients who want you to shoot on the F5/F55 but can get paid enough to not only pay off the camera but live well - then, congrats - that's the dream. All I can say is that where I am, with the clients I can find, it's easier for me to live well and pay off a $10k camera than a $40k camera. Fact is, I could easily spend $40k tomorrow, but I can't justify the return in my environment.

If you're simply a better DP, Videographer, or businessman than I am - kudos. I don't begrudge you your success - I'm just pointing out that for some of us doing smaller work with smaller clients those big packages with big pricetags don't make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top