FS7: First video I shot with my new FS7!

1

1027Films

Well-known member
Music video for Avi Jacob - Cannonball. I had just gotten my FS7 a day before we went to film this. I knew nothing about Sony cameras and the "correct" way to use them. I had always been primarily a Canon or sometimes a Red guy, so I knew I was in for a treat.

I now understand that these camera's especially in S-Log 3, LOVE light. Which as you'll see, in some shots I didn't give it the light it needed, so there is some noise. However, I personally LOVE this camera, its the first camera in this price range I have ever been able to afford, and I saved up during my four years at college for something like this, and since I am graduating this year.. I got myself a gift.

Anyway, I hope you guys like it! BTW, any shot that has the girl in it was shot with the Canon C100.

 
Even thought the lighting setups were pretty different, I thought the C100 looked much better than the FS7 in this video.

What picture profile did you use on the FS7? I'm just asking because I've been getting very different looks from the FS7, even in Blue lit situation.

Also, S-Log 3 the middle grey is at 42 so it's pretty much a normal camera in how much light it needs. S-Log 2 at 32 middle grey needs to be over-exposed much more. If you use CineEI and rate the ISO at 800, you should get a pretty low noise picture and it's much easier to figure out exposure with the LUT since it's basally WSIWYG.
 
Hmm interesting, yeah I'll have to play with it some more. But I just used it custom/slog3 (the way it comes out of the box). I'm curious, what do you mean you've been getting very different looks? The lights were just a daylight kino as the key on the left, and a lite panel led as a hair light. There was no fill.
 
1027Films said:
Hmm interesting, yeah I'll have to play with it some more. But I just used it custom/slog3 (the way it comes out of the box). I'm curious, what do you mean you've been getting very different looks? The lights were just a daylight kino as the key on the left, and a lite panel led as a hair light. There was no fill.
Click to expand...

Custom is the issue here IMO. Custom is based on the old Sony color science, aka "The Sony Look" that people seem to dread. I would personally stick to CineEI + Slog3 + SGamut3Cine, and for baked in or Monitor LUT stick to LC709a.

Alister Chapman, the Sony tech guru, wrote this in another post. I agree with this 100% and also feel this is best way to run the FS7.

Custom has a very different look than SGamut3.Cine. I always use LC709a as a Monitor LUT or baked in as it instantly has that cinematic feel.

I'll attach some files in a bit so you can see what I mean.

--------------

Alister Chapman Wrote:

The color science used in SGamut3 and SGamut3.cine is different to SGamut. They are all different to custom mode. Custom mode follows a similar color science to previous generations of sony cameras so gives a similar color response as say a PMW-200.

SGamut captures a very extended green range. This can lead to difficulty in grading, depend on the skills of the colorist.

SGamut3 and SGamut3.cine are based on new color science that provides IMHO much better blues and a less freen image compared to Custom mode and SGamut. Water and the sky looks less green and looks bluer. Plants and foliage look nicer.

Sure you can use S-log and the matrix together. There is nothing "wrong" with doing that. However most LUT's are designed around a fixed gamma/gamut combination, so you may get unpredictable results if you try to use LUT's or any other fixed colorspace conversion. If you are working on your own projects then use the workflow that works for you, it will only ever effect you, so it really doesn't matter how you get there provided you are happy with the end result.


My advice would always be to learn how to use CineEI properly, learn how to rate the camera at different ISO's to balance noise against dynamic range. Learn how to apply and use LUT's correctly, because once mastered it is very quick to get a huge range of different looks from the same original material. Using LUT's or a proper gamma conversion process (such as the S-log to 709 re-map that Resolve does when color matching a chart) will often result in less noise in the final image than manipulating the gain controls in post. Even on a fast turn around project CineEI can be easy to use, after all it only takes a couple of mouse clicks to add a LUT to give your desired look in post with the majority of editing software. Over time you will build up a large collection of LUT's for different looks, different types of scene.

Low light is the one time where Custom may have a clear advantage due to the noise reduction in the camera. But post production noise reduction can also be very effective.
 
Last edited:
gene_can_sing said:
Also, S-Log 3 the middle grey is at 42 so it's pretty much a normal camera in how much light it needs. S-Log 2 at 32 middle grey needs to be over-exposed much more. If you use CineEI and rate the ISO at 800, you should get a pretty low noise picture and it's much easier to figure out exposure with the LUT since it's basally WSIWYG.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you there Gene. Exposure should be the same between SLOG2 and SLOG3, the log gammas share the same base sensitivity (unlike the hypergammas).
 
Maybe my bad here. On my FS700 S-Log 2 was 32 IRE and isn't the FS7 at 42IRE? So wouldn't you expose the two S-Logs differently since there is a 10 pt difference?
 
gene_can_sing said:
Maybe my bad here. On my FS700 S-Log 2 was 32 IRE and isn't the FS7 at 42IRE? So wouldn't you expose the two S-Logs differently since there is a 10 pt difference?
Click to expand...

No, that's just where the gamma curve places middle grey on SLOG2 relative to SLOG3.

So if, for example, you metered your key light at f/4 and set your lens at f/4 - then a grey card placed in that key light will register as 32 IRE when shooting SLOG2 and 42 IRE when shooting SLOG3. The exposure doesn't change, just the gamma curve. It's why your blacks look much blacker in SLOG2 than SLOG3, because they're placed much lower on the curve - SLOG3 lifts black values comparatively, which is why SLOG3 footage looks so much flatter and less contrasty than SLOG2 (but the exposure doesn't change between them).
 
So help me out here a bit wih how to properly expose.

On my FS700 S-Log 2 and I would find 32 IRE and since the rule was over expose by 2 or even 3 stops to avoid noise, most of the info would be at or above the 32 IRE mark.

But with CineEI since 42 IRE is the mid point and from what I understand it should be exposed normally, most of the waveform should be around 42IRE or even under.

Thats how I've been doing it and I seem to be getting good images. Does that sound like the correct methodology?

For me, it's been a lot easier to get proper exposure with the FS7 because of monitor LUTS and the ability to rate the ISO virtually.
 
That's correct methodology on the SLOG3 recording (expose for middle grey to be 42 IRE), but way off 'proper' exposure for SLOG2 (which is supposed to have middle grey exposed at 32 IRE).

Logarithmic gamma curves compress highlight information in order to be able to capture greater latitude in the highlights of an image. If you're overexposing by 2-3 stops, you're putting your mid-tone detail (which is your most important detail) up into the compressed sections of the curve (and your highlights into the most compressed sections of the curve) which should be reducing your mid-tone tonality significantly.

Are you recording externally with the FS700 or to the camera's 8-bit internal recording?
 
There are indeed differences between the color science (and hence results) between Custom Mode and CineEI mode, DVInfo.net published a huge article http://cinetiny.com/pU0mzlTD I wrote about it along with X-Rite color charts to give you a better idea of the differences. They can also be download too if anyone wants to play around with them in post.

But even despite these color differences, or advice from one person with an Internet presence who likes to shoot a particular way, there are fundamental operating differences between modes that still on many occasions will create the need to work in custom mode over CineEI mode. Custom Mode is not the end of the world. If you use a custom profile or know how to grade the image in post it's workable. I've also gotten some pretty good images straight from the camera as have many others here on DVX.

For all these reasons, rather than Internet voices telling people to "learn this or that" or "do it this way or the highway" (and quoting them) what Sony really needs to do is pick one color science and stick with it. ARRI would never put multiple color sciences behind their REC709 for example would they? It's kind of the same thing and its this that largely bites Sony in the rear if you ask me.

A lot of people respect my knowledge in the latest series of Sony F cameras but in reality people shouldn't have to look at the Sony cameras as a rubix cube of possibilities and need the constant explanations. This to many respects is the greatest fault with these cameras.
 
Grug said:
That's correct methodology on the SLOG3 recording (expose for middle grey to be 42 IRE), but way off 'proper' exposure for SLOG2 (which is supposed to have middle grey exposed at 32 IRE).

Logarithmic gamma curves compress highlight information in order to be able to capture greater latitude in the highlights of an image. If you're overexposing by 2-3 stops, you're putting your mid-tone detail (which is your most important detail) up into the compressed sections of the curve (and your highlights into the most compressed sections of the curve) which should be reducing your mid-tone tonality significantly.

Are you recording externally with the FS700 or to the camera's 8-bit internal recording?
Click to expand...

Thanks Grug,

Just to clarify, on the S-Log 2 I was referring to FS700 variant of S-Log 2 which is probably different than the FS7, F5 variant (which I have not used yet since I've only been using S-Gamut3Cine + Slog3). On the FS700 S-Log2 (which felt like a last minute add on as it had terrible color inaccuracies with red colors), according to pretty much everyone on DVXUser, you need to ETTR quite at bit (1 to even 3 stops) or else the noise was really bad, so it did need a bit more light than the FS7, which I feel can just be exposed like a normal camera.

Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the help.
 
starcentral said:
There are indeed differences between the color science (and hence results) between Custom Mode and CineEI mode, DVInfo.net published a huge article http://cinetiny.com/pU0mzlTD I wrote about it along with X-Rite color charts to give you a better idea of the differences. They can also be download too if anyone wants to play around with them in post.

But even despite these color differences, or advice from one person with an Internet presence who likes to shoot a particular way, there are fundamental operating differences between modes that still on many occasions will create the need to work in custom mode over CineEI mode. Custom Mode is not the end of the world. If you use a custom profile or know how to grade the image in post it's workable. I've also gotten some pretty good images straight from the camera as have many others here on DVX.

For all these reasons, rather than Internet voices telling people to "learn this or that" or "do it this way or the highway" (and quoting them) what Sony really needs to do is pick one color science and stick with it. ARRI would never put multiple color sciences behind their REC709 for example would they? It's kind of the same thing and its this that largely bites Sony in the rear if you ask me.

A lot of people respect my knowledge in the latest series of Sony F cameras but in reality people shouldn't have to look at the Sony cameras as a rubix cube of possibilities and need the constant explanations. This to many respects is the greatest fault with these cameras.
Click to expand...

Right on, Dennis!
 
starcentral said:
For all these reasons, rather than Internet voices telling people to "learn this or that" or "do it this way or the highway" (and quoting them) what Sony really needs to do is pick one color science and stick with it. ARRI would never put multiple color sciences behind their REC709 for example would they? It's kind of the same thing and its this that largely bites Sony in the rear if you ask me.

A lot of people respect my knowledge in the latest series of Sony F cameras but in reality people shouldn't have to look at the Sony cameras as a rubix cube of possibilities and need the constant explanations. This to many respects is the greatest fault with these cameras.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. Arri and Cannon (and doesn't RED?) more of less offers 1 color science. On Canon, you have variations on the in-camera saturation / contrast levels, but it's still the same basic color science.

Sony has a number of different color sciences and looks in each camera, most of which look pretty terrible IMO. Since they finally came up with some really good looks, CineEI and LC709, they should just make those the defaults and really fix the shortcomings (no preset WB or grey card WB) and maybe come out with several high quality look profiles like LC709a which can emulate film stocks in camera. Keep only the good stuff.

These cameras look really top notch when shot in the right configurations, but the camera defaults to Custom and many people use the Hypergammas and just don't get the full potential of the camera. I agree with you that Custom can be made to look good, but it requires a bit more knowledge of the camera and certainly a lot more grading chops. Getting good at coloring takes years of practice because it's all about the subtleties and minor shifts, so Sony should just spare people that pain and just offer their best and easiest to deal with color science right out of the box.

I think rubix cube mentality that Sony has really hurts the camera from a marketing perspective because when the FS7 came out, there were so many bad videos probably because people were just using the default settings and doing bad grades. For the first time IMO, Sony has come out with a really good in-camera look with LC709a. Maybe just make that the default so people can right away be shooting a nice looking image and then figure out how to mess up the settings and make bad images. :)

Making a good first impression is so important. My wife (who knows nothing about photography) loves taking pictures with my Canon 60D because the defaults settings makes newbies feel like a pro. Sony should adopt this thinking as well. Canon is smart because the default settings are pretty nice, but for someone who has no knowledge of the camera they are instantly shooting pretty great looking video.

Or as Dennis suggests, just stick to one color science.
 
Last edited:
I think the fact there are choices now was really because people weren't happy with the "Sony Look". Sticking to it would bring the same amount of complains as of having the other options. Probably what needs to happen probably is for Sony to rethink and redo their color science. And, yes, stick to it!
 
SPZ said:
I think the fact there are choices now was really because people weren't happy with the "Sony Look". Sticking to it would bring the same amount of complains as of having the other options. Probably what needs to happen probably is for Sony to rethink and redo their color science. And, yes, stick to it!
Click to expand...

It should be remembered that the 'sony look' is from a culture of live broadcast. Consider a sports game where the camera pans from bright sunlight to deep shade (shadow of the stadium) and the camera must keep the image understandable, viewable and broadcast legal - well you are going to need a pretty horrid curve or knee to make that into acceptable image... you need 'the sony look'

Clearly controlled shoots, not broadcast live and moving into a grade require a completely different image setup. This does not make the sony look a bad thing.. just a look that most of us 'film makers' dont want or need it, for most of our jobs.

S
 
One bummer for me trying to use the FS7 with the 7Q+ is that the 7Q+ only supports non-cine Sgamut3. I prefer the cine version... So I don't know if I should just avoid using the 7Q+ or if I should flip back and forth.
 
Josh, I believe that Sgamut3.cine will be supported by 7Q/7Q+ in future update. That's a Mitch question.

Meanwhile, I am very pleased with my 7Q+ and look forward to its future development.

Ned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top