That's interesting as I'm just learning the FS700 right now. But what you are saying is that by lowering the detail, you get a smoother motion? How does that work technically?
Cinematic Sony NEX-FS700 Test Footage - Raw and Ungraded
- Thread starter NextWaveG
- Start date
That's interesting as I'm just learning the FS700 right now. But what you are saying is that by lowering the detail, you get a smoother motion? How does that work technically?
ksteiger
Well-known member
OK I need to step up here. I had a 5D for about 2 weeks in February and returned it. Great camera but the form factor was driving me crazy. I heard about the FS700 and waited, I now have one.
The video that everyone is touting here as "cinematic" has...
1. Narrow DOF
2. A lot of deep blacks and contrast
3. Tons of saturation
4. Well executed grading
5. Slow motion shots
6. Edge lit subjects
7. Several high shutter speed shots.
8. What looks to me like some in camera detail boost. (I could be wrong, or it could be Vimeo)
OK, if that's what you want to compare unprocessed raw camera footage to, fine...
From my experience when comparing the 2 cameras using the exact same subjects I have noticed that the
FS 700 has better shadow detail,(the 5D crushes the blacks badly out of the box) much better highlight handling and overall dynamic range and better real detail, but a tendency to be somewhat "flatter".
But when setting the shutter to 180 and shooting at 24 fps I have gotten beautifully artistic shots that don't look video like to my eyes.
So I guess I'm gonna have to step up and make something that will look "filmic". (Just typing that word makes me shudder. It's like the word "analog" in audio.
(BTW when color testing against an HPX 170 I noticed that no matter what I did to WB the 2, the reds always had an "orange" cast on the 170. Even using a color chart, all the other colors looked faithful but red was a little on the "Bozo's Hair" side. Maybe that explains why I don't like the Panasonic skin tones look. But the FS700 always looked correct. Bright reds were bright red. More accurate in my book anyway)
Oh and one last thing, the amount of moire, at least compared to a 5D mkii, is greatly reduced.
BTW I also noticed that no one spoke about shutter speed. Using a slower shutter speed than 180 can def give you a frame blended look which may play a part too.
And someone here spoke about using a 1/500th shutter speed. Great for sports and "Private Ryan". He complained about all that nasty blur but, frankly, the degree of motion blur is what adds to the cinematic effect.
CHEERS!
The video that everyone is touting here as "cinematic" has...
1. Narrow DOF
2. A lot of deep blacks and contrast
3. Tons of saturation
4. Well executed grading
5. Slow motion shots
6. Edge lit subjects
7. Several high shutter speed shots.
8. What looks to me like some in camera detail boost. (I could be wrong, or it could be Vimeo)
OK, if that's what you want to compare unprocessed raw camera footage to, fine...
From my experience when comparing the 2 cameras using the exact same subjects I have noticed that the
FS 700 has better shadow detail,(the 5D crushes the blacks badly out of the box) much better highlight handling and overall dynamic range and better real detail, but a tendency to be somewhat "flatter".
But when setting the shutter to 180 and shooting at 24 fps I have gotten beautifully artistic shots that don't look video like to my eyes.
So I guess I'm gonna have to step up and make something that will look "filmic". (Just typing that word makes me shudder. It's like the word "analog" in audio.
(BTW when color testing against an HPX 170 I noticed that no matter what I did to WB the 2, the reds always had an "orange" cast on the 170. Even using a color chart, all the other colors looked faithful but red was a little on the "Bozo's Hair" side. Maybe that explains why I don't like the Panasonic skin tones look. But the FS700 always looked correct. Bright reds were bright red. More accurate in my book anyway)
Oh and one last thing, the amount of moire, at least compared to a 5D mkii, is greatly reduced.
BTW I also noticed that no one spoke about shutter speed. Using a slower shutter speed than 180 can def give you a frame blended look which may play a part too.
And someone here spoke about using a 1/500th shutter speed. Great for sports and "Private Ryan". He complained about all that nasty blur but, frankly, the degree of motion blur is what adds to the cinematic effect.
CHEERS!
paulcurtis
Veteran
NOOOOOOO! Not the motion thing again
(I'm kidding)I'm still convinced there are more elements in the chain. We watched hard candy the other night and the motion was really odd. There's a lot of obvious high shutter speed work but some of the pans i found unsettling. I think that was more production design with the colours, edges and contrast. And it was shot on 35mm, so no video capture excuses.
And it's interesting that the motion 'issues' aren't seen in slow motion? So sure that means that the rates the camera is putting down are okay and i still think it's too much detail and edges in the pans. When you motion blur a high contrast area as you begin the motion there's a frame or two where the highlights over expose before we're moving and that acts a stutter to my eye. A great example is point a camera at a tree with the sky and then begin to pan or try different speeds. You'll see that because of the clipped nature of digital highlights of the sky between the leaves you get a pulse of over exposure. If you dial down the exposure or be careful in your scene that can be mitigated.
Because of this i suspect the motion cadence is not really a cadence but an artefact at the beginning of a movement in some lighting situations. I think it would affect all cameras but each would deal with digital overexposure differently. However the type of footage i think would change it and also the codec and compression scheme used would have an impact.
cheers
paul
Nirv
Carbonite Member
I have been playing with a load of old footage I shot on my XHA1 and it looks more "filmic" than the FS100 and there are a number of differences that cause that.
Firstly the XHA1 in 25F mode only manages about 720p so immediately the resolution is much lower. I also turned the in-camera sharpening -ve to further soften the image. The XHA1 is also way noisier than the FS100 and it deposits a fine grain all over the image. The compression is also much more apparent and added, luckily, a very fine block noise (not at all ugly) over the image. IMHO Canon did a fabulous job of their HDV codec. All these things add up to a more filmic feel when I compare the XHA1 footage against the FS100 on the same monitor side by side.
Out of the box the FS100 has a very corporate video feel, bags of resolution, overly sharpened edges, not ideal highlight handling, super clean image and an almost invisible compression scheme. If you want to have a more "filmic" image you can, you just have to throw away a lot of the good bits we've demanded from our camera makers i.e. resolution and clean image etc etc. Wouldn't Sony be slammed if they delivered a 500 line aliasing dog of a camera? Er, yes!
Personally I'd prefer to have a camera that produces an image that can be dirtied down for a more filmic look than only have a camera that produces a filmic look. I have no issue with producing a "look" in post. TBH, some clients want that uber sharp corporate look as that's the impression they want to give of being an uber sharp corporate entity. I don't believe a DSLR works in those circumstances at all well. The FS100 is a far more versatile camera IMO, you can even use it like an EX1 with high F stops and gain.
I'm sure the cadence issue is due to localised contrast in the image. I have seen people complaining about judder from their cameras only to find out their TV was sharpening the footage further. It is something to be aware of not least because it takes a disproportionate amount of your codec's limited number of bits to encode.
Jusgorilla
Well-known member
I think the so called "magic" rule of 24 fps with 180 degree shutter is unfounded. I have always hated the motion look and feel of digital cameras at the "magic" shutter (from the DVX all the way till now). I shoot in PAL land using 25fps, with 100th speed shutter at all times now to avoid that digital motion look, and weather 24fps or 25fps, makes no conceivable difference.
The "magic" of film is merely as many have been saying for donkeys years. Its about getting the best out your camera settings, and everything else infront/behind/around the camera, its about camera movement, acting, lighting, composition, appropriate depth of field for the story ( notice some A hollywood films have insane depth of field, the opposite of a 5D FF wide open on a 1.2)
Get rid of all sharpening in camera for starters and use at least double the shutter speed of the "magic" film shutter (in slow mo use quadruple the shutter). Im not saying go "Private Ryan", just eliminate that video 180 degree shutter and you'll make it look alot more pleasing. Look at many top end A grade music videos (especially hiphop) and you'll see many a reduced shutter (fast shutter) look, and they actually still look like the hollywood "Film" look
I was looking to upgrade my camera a few months ago, and upon investigation I stumbled upon "Mobius" by Vincint Laforet, and it looked amazing. So I got sold on the C300. Then I browsed the net for more clips to satify my deccision, and boy was I shocked by some of the crappy "Video-ish" C300 clips out there! I lost heart but searched further, and so found a few more that sold me on it. Then I remembered That I have always gotten a more pleasing look out of every camera I have ever owned since the sony pd150 (with settings, lighting, grading etc) compared to whats out there. So I jumped in, got the C300, and at first wasn't completely blown away, but after a few months Im getting pleasing results.
Then the Zacuto "Revenge" came out, and I was initially apprehensive to the method of camera comparison they employed by allowing each team to re-light the same scene (what good is that? Rather keep 1 light setup so we can deduct how each camera performs) but I realized this is a good thing, lets see how a team can make a scene work with what they have, and the results ( I tried to name from A to I and got 8/10 right!) were somewhat surprising. This test showed me that no matter what you have, you can make art, tell a story, and entertain people.
So I will be receiving my FS700 beast when I fly to London in a week and am confident I will get my "filmic" look with the usual work and sweat it takes everyday to get the look.
There's no magic camera, no magic number, no automatic film look. Funny, the harder I work, the film-ier I get
The "magic" of film is merely as many have been saying for donkeys years. Its about getting the best out your camera settings, and everything else infront/behind/around the camera, its about camera movement, acting, lighting, composition, appropriate depth of field for the story ( notice some A hollywood films have insane depth of field, the opposite of a 5D FF wide open on a 1.2)
Get rid of all sharpening in camera for starters and use at least double the shutter speed of the "magic" film shutter (in slow mo use quadruple the shutter). Im not saying go "Private Ryan", just eliminate that video 180 degree shutter and you'll make it look alot more pleasing. Look at many top end A grade music videos (especially hiphop) and you'll see many a reduced shutter (fast shutter) look, and they actually still look like the hollywood "Film" look
I was looking to upgrade my camera a few months ago, and upon investigation I stumbled upon "Mobius" by Vincint Laforet, and it looked amazing. So I got sold on the C300. Then I browsed the net for more clips to satify my deccision, and boy was I shocked by some of the crappy "Video-ish" C300 clips out there! I lost heart but searched further, and so found a few more that sold me on it. Then I remembered That I have always gotten a more pleasing look out of every camera I have ever owned since the sony pd150 (with settings, lighting, grading etc) compared to whats out there. So I jumped in, got the C300, and at first wasn't completely blown away, but after a few months Im getting pleasing results.
Then the Zacuto "Revenge" came out, and I was initially apprehensive to the method of camera comparison they employed by allowing each team to re-light the same scene (what good is that? Rather keep 1 light setup so we can deduct how each camera performs) but I realized this is a good thing, lets see how a team can make a scene work with what they have, and the results ( I tried to name from A to I and got 8/10 right!) were somewhat surprising. This test showed me that no matter what you have, you can make art, tell a story, and entertain people.
So I will be receiving my FS700 beast when I fly to London in a week and am confident I will get my "filmic" look with the usual work and sweat it takes everyday to get the look.
There's no magic camera, no magic number, no automatic film look. Funny, the harder I work, the film-ier I get
LeavingTheCandy
Well-known member
There's no magic camera, no magic number, no automatic film look. Funny, the harder I work, the film-ier I get
That's some real truth right there! The "film-look" is highly over-rated and steeped in BS and myth. I'd take a well-exectuted "video look" well before a crappy "film".
Are well-written stories less effective at 30 frames than 24? Hogwash.
rogar-Smoke(DBG):
Grug
Veteran
With a softer image, there's less contrast in the image, the lower contrast makes it harder for your eyes to discern the discrete steps between the 24 frames you see every second. That's why the movement appears to be smoother.
paulcurtis
Veteran
Today it's so easy to grab 1080p versions of films, the trailers at apple are a great resource for seeing the kind of detail and look that might be your ultimate target. Film is really soft in some ways, noisy but characterful. Starting with a pristine image it should be possible to get there, we used to do things like blur the red channel differently to the others (mimicking the way red light was less sharp on film) and all sorts of post things.
Of course, there's always the constant evolution of what we call film. It's certainly crispier these days and with 48fps on the horizon who knows what we'll be doing in a few years time. Attitudes change and so sometimes it's whether you're follow what everyone is doing, or just concentrate on what story you're telling and then trailblazing looks for the future. Somewhere in-between the two is perhaps the best place to be
cheers
paul
Of course, there's always the constant evolution of what we call film. It's certainly crispier these days and with 48fps on the horizon who knows what we'll be doing in a few years time. Attitudes change and so sometimes it's whether you're follow what everyone is doing, or just concentrate on what story you're telling and then trailblazing looks for the future. Somewhere in-between the two is perhaps the best place to be
cheers
paul
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I found out that Vimeo and Youtube probably too convert to 30p, which makes judging motion on that platforms useless (unless you shot in 30 or 60p)
When I watch my flicks at the computer, I watch 24 or 25p on a 60hz screen, that doesn't really help too.
So I burned some of my footage to a DVD and watched it on a regular 50hz TV - dang - big difference.
We need our footage looking good on phones, tablets, laptops, LCD-screens and CRTs, TVs, beamers and on the silverscreen.
All with different rates, bit depth and colorspaces.
Looks like we are screwed. There is no standard anymore, just a bunch of ever changing specs.
Not even a proper lowest dominator, that works.
It was way easier when all TVs run on 50hz (at least here in Germany) and so did all cameras.
The crazy thing is, most of the people (not us pixel peepers) seem to have already adjusted.
200Hz supermotion, vivdcolor andwhatnot gadgeds modern TVs have, that make my eyes bleed - they don't have no problem with it, even if they
recognize it at all. Or even worse, they adore it.
A lot of my friends don't even see (or care about) jerky motion on Youtube.
Frank
When I watch my flicks at the computer, I watch 24 or 25p on a 60hz screen, that doesn't really help too.
So I burned some of my footage to a DVD and watched it on a regular 50hz TV - dang - big difference.
We need our footage looking good on phones, tablets, laptops, LCD-screens and CRTs, TVs, beamers and on the silverscreen.
All with different rates, bit depth and colorspaces.
Looks like we are screwed. There is no standard anymore, just a bunch of ever changing specs.
Not even a proper lowest dominator, that works.
It was way easier when all TVs run on 50hz (at least here in Germany) and so did all cameras.
The crazy thing is, most of the people (not us pixel peepers) seem to have already adjusted.
200Hz supermotion, vivdcolor andwhatnot gadgeds modern TVs have, that make my eyes bleed - they don't have no problem with it, even if they
recognize it at all. Or even worse, they adore it.
A lot of my friends don't even see (or care about) jerky motion on Youtube.
Frank
Last edited:
The platform the footage is presented on doesn't matter too much. Phones, iPads, TV's, LCD's running at 59/60/120hz... I've watched the Matrix on multiple platforms and seen many types of media on multiple platforms and it generally stays consistent. The only exception would be truemotion, that is the one thing I've seen that will drastically change the aesthetic of visual media to the point where it's not what the original creators intended.
Only in regards to narrative type stuff, I'd want my production to approximate in the closest way possible the feel of film. Sony just has a hard time with it. I still think the most cinematic video ever to come out of Sony cameras (excluding the ultra high end cameras like F65 etc) was and is by the EX3 with a Letus 35mm adapter. It still blows me away when I see it.
After seeing the movie Monsters, I was pretty surprised to hear that it wasn't film. Too bad there wasn't away to get a Letus adapter that would work on the FS100/700, but not for 35mm DOF since that wouldn't make sense... but to get whatever else that the adapter injected into the footage. Before and after with the EX3 and then w/ the Letus adapter is amazing... aside from the DOF, the actual cadence of the motion seems to be clearly altered, in a very filmic way.
Only in regards to narrative type stuff, I'd want my production to approximate in the closest way possible the feel of film. Sony just has a hard time with it. I still think the most cinematic video ever to come out of Sony cameras (excluding the ultra high end cameras like F65 etc) was and is by the EX3 with a Letus 35mm adapter. It still blows me away when I see it.
After seeing the movie Monsters, I was pretty surprised to hear that it wasn't film. Too bad there wasn't away to get a Letus adapter that would work on the FS100/700, but not for 35mm DOF since that wouldn't make sense... but to get whatever else that the adapter injected into the footage. Before and after with the EX3 and then w/ the Letus adapter is amazing... aside from the DOF, the actual cadence of the motion seems to be clearly altered, in a very filmic way.
Retrospective
Well-known member
That still looks videoish, it doesn't have the same "feel" as the F3 for some reason.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
No kidding. This is like some hi-fi audio forum where people talk about "I feel more bass with this cable and that other amp sucks out the midrange". This is actually even worse.
paulcurtis
Veteran
That's a great comparison. Although i do feel that using non sony batteries have smoothed the voltage output and i'm pretty sure that the resulting cadence of the frames is much better with a little more highlight latitude too.
cheers
paul