FS7: Can the FS7 look "cinematic"

Viddovation said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement. Fact is, the numbers of clients I have who expect an F55 are few and far between. Most of my clients are more than happy with what I give them...YPbPr, 422, 1080P, 8-bit....what I can easily provide with an FS700. But, then, I also edit the footage and struggle with 8-bit sources. The very rare client who hires an F5/F55 pays for the hardware in one felled swoop. And I'm ignoring the fact that I'm a single guy with a passion for hardware and process. What I shoot with, sometimes, is more important to me than my client. It's not that I'm that good, it's my reputation that I rely on, always delivering more than what's expected.
 
For or the most part I can say that if I did my job on the same level as most of the directors and producers I work with on one of their better days they would never hire me again.

cuervo said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
cuervo said:
The very rare client who hires an F5/F55 pays for the hardware in one felled swoop. And I'm ignoring the fact that I'm a single guy with a passion for hardware and process. What I shoot with, sometimes, is more important to me than my client. It's not that I'm that good, it's my reputation that I rely on, always delivering more than what's expected.
Click to expand...

I can respect that. It's what drove me to buy an F35. It's what made me look seriously at RED, Alexa, F65, F55, and the F5. In my case, the F35 taught me the lesson that just because something is good doesn't mean it's profitable. And since then, I've been far more careful to only buy what I can justify with income. But everyone has to make these decisions on a personal level.
 
cuervo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely understand it, as a producer you just need to get the job done and not fail in your job; producer. And that job means you gotta cross a hundred things off your list. Not go to water, be lead, or drink - just cross the sh_it off your list - fill those black boxes.

Im not a producer, and I dont know sound - certainly dont follow the latest developments in sound. To me sound is a 'black box'

So give me the job of producer - I need a soundie.

My limited knowledge of that department runs to the fact that if I hire a soundie with a Sound Device/shoeps set up .. well the sound probably wont lead to me getting fired.

No one got fired for running with the pack, see the sucess of the C300 over the F3 and maybe F35.

S
 
Last edited:
It's a cold wintery day here, spending the time online and watching CNN. CNN has been running interviews with Bill Weir and Phil Bloom, promoting their latest production, "The Wonder List", Wondering in Vanuatu. Bloom happens to mention he wanted to make the production as "cinematic as possible". But, he also mentions that they were miles from anywhere civilized; and, he shot footage with a quadcopter. Some of the footage they're showing in the trailers are aerial shots walking along a Pacific island beach or looking down into an active volcano. Incredible footage that visually supercedes "cinematic", on many levels. That just goes to show what we're talking about, here. He mentions, also, that they had a crew of four, assuming Bloom and Weir are included. Being able to shoot professionally, with a minimum of support crew....just another factor when budget or location is a consideration. And that footage from a Gopro is used in a broadcast production.
 
Last edited:
Filmic: Looking like film, as opposed to video. Requirements:
- 24 fps (or thereabout, so that the motion is mildly stroboscopic)
- S curve (high-contrast faces and other mid-range elements; low-contrast highlights: you can blow out highlights all you want as long as they blow out gradually)

Cinematic: Filmic, and furthermore looking like Hollywood or high-end 35mm TV commercials.
- 24 fps
- S curve
- widescreen
- lighting and camerawork that emphasize the emotional content of the scene (I really wanted to say good lighting and camerawork or at least professional lighting and camerawork. But there are too many deconstructionists and logical positivists here. Even this rephrase is open to being lambasted).
- occasional, moderately shallow focus (not f1.4 all the time, but certainly not the hyperfocal depth of field of 1/3" chips either)

In the 80s and 90s it was more obvious. Then you could shoot either film or 30i. Nowadays the worst videocameras look more filmic than the best videocameras did back then.

However, filmic could never be reached mainly by lighting, and therefore neither could cinematic. NFL games: video. NFL Films: filmic. Same lighting, different cameras. And there were a few very cinematically lit videos I saw that nevertheless did not look filmic and therefore not very cinematic. You know the ones. Like some made-for-TV adaptation of a play or novel that your English teacher showed in class. Nice, cinematic lighting. Decent acting. Cheesy-looking (hush, deconstructionists!) nonetheless. Before at least 24p and film gamma (S curve) there was never, ever, ever* a show shot on video that I mistook for film.

Ironically, high-end Hollywood nowadays sometimes looks less filmic than it did at the end of the 20th century, because they do HFR (losing the required 24 fps) or botch the grade (not enough S curve). The log profiles and powerful post tools are large, double-edged swords.


* never ever ever ever ever ever ever never no never ever ever ever!
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
I completely understand it, as a producer you just need to get the job done and not fail in your job; producer. And that job means you gotta cross a hundred things off your list. Not go to water, be lead, or drink - just cross the sh_it off your list.
Click to expand...

Just quoting your comment Morgan, but my reply is to the thread generally:

As I have stated elsewhere, I am, for most projects, a shooting producer (me plus audio guy).

We have a project in pre production for shooting in August which requires a lot of shoulder - steadicam (or off the sticks) and a change from our normal format.

I am running the B camera and second unit using the FS7. Principal is on the F55. Why? Because I hire a DP who will provide the results on a 21-day schedule with the to-camera talent, and is more comfortable using the F55. I don't have a problem with that, but it will be shot in a "cinematic" gamma, but it's not cinema, but a nice workable compromise in order to convey content artistically in the televisual medium. Direction is often from behind the lens in that I rely upon the DP to see the shot in collaboration with myself.

I am not particular to the nth-degree of pixel peeping that we have a "cinematic" look that people who often frequent these fora will say "wow". I am looking to tell a story supported by cinematography within our budget and in the timescale set, and at the same time provide a "nice look" without spending two weeks in colour post.

What I see is the FS7 providing a number of options spanning televisual and the fringes of cinema - I do not see DCI nor a replacement for Arri, the F65 or whatever the go-to camera is for that end of the cinematic market.

60-minute UK arts and science documentary commissioned for UK network television: circa £60K or less. That's why most go for observational programming using a PMW200 or any 422 8 bit 50mbps piece of kit pushing out REC709 as default and without the need for a colourist other than a couple of days tops to pull in multiple source cameras.

If I were to pitch art & science exclusively for national cinema release, how much? Film Festivals, Marketing? £200K? And yes, there are the odd exceptions. On an iPhone even less, but how do they get a Cabrio on an iPhone? :) . Could you shoot a 60-minute cinema documentary using an Arri et al with a 4-person skeleton crew, and post for less than that? How would you structure the costs? And what would you compromise in order to bring it in on budget and still make a profit?

When, as a producer, you work for yourself (or the broadcaster) and budget for a profit margin, it really focuses the mind.

As for Philips film? Content matters more than a few "muddy middles" "the odd "crushed black" "clipped white". Crikey, he's on location in a foreign location miles from anywhere, probably with a three-person crew (if he's lucky) under time constraints or other production pressures.

Claire
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
It's long since past the time when we should all drop the lazy term "cinematic". It's such utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

+1 Liam, I think you are absolutely right. Two houses divided, but now under one roof - could it be possible?

Thank you Cuervo, you're welcome.
 
SpareWheel said:
Just quoting your comment Morgan, but my reply is to the thread generally:

As I have stated elsewhere, I am, for most projects, a shooting producer (me plus audio guy).

We have a project in pre production for shooting in August which requires a lot of shoulder - steadicam (or off the sticks) and a change from our normal format.

I am running the B camera and second unit using the FS7. Principal is on the F55. Why? Because I hire a DP who will provide the results on a 21-day schedule with the to-camera talent, and is more comfortable using the F55. I don't have a problem with that, but it will be shot in a "cinematic" gamma, but it's not cinema, but a nice workable compromise in order to convey content artistically in the televisual medium. Direction is often from behind the lens in that I rely upon the DP to see the shot in collaboration with myself.

I am not particular to the nth-degree of pixel peeping that we have a "cinematic" look that people who often frequent these fora will say "wow". I am looking to tell a story supported by cinematography within our budget and in the timescale set, and at the same time provide a "nice look" without spending two weeks in colour post.

What I see is the FS7 providing a number of options spanning televisual and the fringes of cinema - I do not see DCI nor a replacement for Arri, the F65 or whatever the go-to camera is for that end of the cinematic market.

60-minute UK arts and science documentary commissioned for UK network television: circa £60K or less. That's why most go for observational programming using a PMW200 or any 422 8 bit 50mbps piece of kit pushing out REC709 as default and without the need for a colourist other than a couple of days tops to pull in multiple source cameras.

If I were to pitch art & science exclusively for national cinema release, how much? Film Festivals, Marketing? £200K? And yes, there are the odd exceptions. On an iPhone even less, but how do they get a Cabrio on an iPhone? :) . Could you shoot a 60-minute cinema documentary using an Arri et al with a 4-person skeleton crew, and post for less than that? How would you structure the costs? And what would you compromise in order to bring it in on budget and still make a profit?

When, as a producer, you work for yourself (or the broadcaster) and budget for a profit margin, it really focuses the mind.

As for Philips film? Content matters more than a few "muddy middles" "the odd "crushed black" "clipped white". Crikey, he's on location in a foreign location miles from anywhere, probably with a three-person crew (if he's lucky) under time constraints or other production pressures.

Claire
Click to expand...

Spot on. Couldn't agree more, on every aspect.
 
SpareWheel said:
60-minute UK arts and science documentary commissioned for UK network television: circa £60K or less. That's why most go for observational programming using a PMW200 or any 422 8 bit 50mbps piece of kit pushing out REC709 as default and without the need for a colourist other than a couple of days tops to pull in multiple source cameras.
Click to expand...

What i find confusing is that a crappy 8bit camera..
-needs more grading/correction
-needs more lighting

And is IMO more expensive, therefore, to create an acceptable image.. but of course people don't need to make acceptable images, only images that are accepted.
 
I'm not so sure about broadcast and theatrical being under one roof, sure there is crossover and more of it everyday. But TV fictional narrative takes about a week per ep. Theatrical anywhere between say 3 weeks to 6 months etc. What these schedules mean is different workflows , different philosophies to meet budget and timetables and also different camera requirements.

IMO FS7 is made for documentary or Eng or reality ( shudder ) . To think it can do otherwise is treading into Alexa/ Amira territory & then it becomes no contest .
 
Mike is right for doc people like me the fs7 is spot on it can meet low end cinema verite demands in xdcam MPEG-2 interlaced 422/50mbs and the occasional higher end reenactment shot in 4k S-LOG 12bit and colored.
No one in his right mind will choose it over an Alexa or red Epic for a feature or commercial. Why would they? The camera rental lineitem in the budget is so small compared to other items that the savings barely make a difference. You grab the best tool available and its not a Sony of any kind btw.
 
Just to be blunt, if I had clients putting Alexa rental money on the table, I wouldn't be spending so much time on this forum.
 
Exactly we are here because we are squeezing a high performance out at a lower price point.
that keeps us ahead of the game in a market that is unwilling to spend Alexa money but wants better results than your average ENG camera can delver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top