alaskacameradude
Veteran
Very very nice work. Looks cinematic to me, definitely not looking 'videoish' from what I can see. Good stuff!
FS100 looks so video-ish
- Thread starter danstone
- Start date
Very very nice work. Looks cinematic to me, definitely not looking 'videoish' from what I can see. Good stuff!
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Are those all shot with those Zeiss lenses you have Frank?
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
All differnt projects.
#1 was the wedding of my brother in law - Samyang 35mm
#2 is a latitude test with my silly face (uncompressed BM Hypershuttle)- vintage Zeiss 50mm medium format
#3 and #5 is the kit lens
#4 is a vintage Zeiss 85mm medium format
I used my own "GlenColor" picture profiles - http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/new-glencolor-picture-profiles-for-the-sony-fs100/
They are a bit desaturated already, to prevent clipping of color channels. After using them for a while, I fine tuned them in the color section, cause
the sensor (or processing) seems to introduce some weird stuff in the red channel. - especially shadows. I do an update, on my blog when I have some time on my hands.
There was only some curve tweaking, nothing fancy - only the fake anamorphic streaks where made in MagicBullet.
Frank
#1 was the wedding of my brother in law - Samyang 35mm
#2 is a latitude test with my silly face (uncompressed BM Hypershuttle)- vintage Zeiss 50mm medium format
#3 and #5 is the kit lens
#4 is a vintage Zeiss 85mm medium format
I used my own "GlenColor" picture profiles - http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/new-glencolor-picture-profiles-for-the-sony-fs100/
They are a bit desaturated already, to prevent clipping of color channels. After using them for a while, I fine tuned them in the color section, cause
the sensor (or processing) seems to introduce some weird stuff in the red channel. - especially shadows. I do an update, on my blog when I have some time on my hands.
There was only some curve tweaking, nothing fancy - only the fake anamorphic streaks where made in MagicBullet.
Frank
Last edited:
I think many have missed the OP's point. Anything can be made look "filmic" if you process it enough. What OP was saying is that footage coming straight out of the camera, FS100 footage lack that organic filmic look compared to Canon DSLRs. And I would have to agree with that. My first reaction of looking at the FS100 footage was "This looks like it was shot by a home video cam...I've made a mistake by purchasing this camera". No, I did not return the FS. I still do prefer the look of Canon DSLR.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I don´t know anybody, that uses clips straight out of the camera but news and EB teams.
Everything else in the industry usually goes trough some sort of processing.
Frank
Everything else in the industry usually goes trough some sort of processing.
Frank
speedracerlo
Well-known member
Someone on the AF100 forum made a point that a lot of people disappointed with the AF100/FS100's raw footage are mostly people who got their feet wet in the DSLR video revolution without much knowledge on how to use true video cameras.
I think these new breed of cameras like the AF100 and FS100 create a new dividing line between the real pros and hobbyists who care not for all the tedious technical aspects of filmmaking.
I think these new breed of cameras like the AF100 and FS100 create a new dividing line between the real pros and hobbyists who care not for all the tedious technical aspects of filmmaking.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Is it shooting in Rec709? When I switched to the cinematone, I like the look immediately better to my eyes, which of course, was more of a crushed image that was similar to the crushing that the Canon DSLR have.
I have shot EXTENSIVELY with the 7D and all I can say is to me, even straight out of the camera, the FS100 with a few minor tweaks and not using Rec709 looks amazing to me, and to my editor. In fact, we had shot some scenes with both the 7D and FS100 and the look of the FS100 looked so much better, we've stopped using the 7D as much. One of the big things for us was handling reds. The 7D doesn't differentiate between reds as well and one of our heros of our new series wears LOTS of read. With the FS100, we can see more of the detail in the reds that was lost before.
There is NOTHING I can shoot on my 7D that I cannot shoot better in EVERY way with the FS100. And yes, that includes highlights, because I just fix them in post. It's just understanding what is different allows you to make many changes in camera (which I think is what you want) with a few required in post (which highlight handling is the one big one I can think of).
Or, is it the highlights that are what are throwing off your perception of the FS100?
One easy thing to do is reduce the saturation of all the colors. Both the FS100 and AF100 have A LOT more saturation out of the box. Reduce those down while looking at the image off a CanonDSLR. You will be AMAZED at how much more color is there. Once you pull that down, the highlight handling is MUCH better!
I have shot EXTENSIVELY with the 7D and all I can say is to me, even straight out of the camera, the FS100 with a few minor tweaks and not using Rec709 looks amazing to me, and to my editor. In fact, we had shot some scenes with both the 7D and FS100 and the look of the FS100 looked so much better, we've stopped using the 7D as much. One of the big things for us was handling reds. The 7D doesn't differentiate between reds as well and one of our heros of our new series wears LOTS of read. With the FS100, we can see more of the detail in the reds that was lost before.
There is NOTHING I can shoot on my 7D that I cannot shoot better in EVERY way with the FS100. And yes, that includes highlights, because I just fix them in post. It's just understanding what is different allows you to make many changes in camera (which I think is what you want) with a few required in post (which highlight handling is the one big one I can think of).
Or, is it the highlights that are what are throwing off your perception of the FS100?
One easy thing to do is reduce the saturation of all the colors. Both the FS100 and AF100 have A LOT more saturation out of the box. Reduce those down while looking at the image off a CanonDSLR. You will be AMAZED at how much more color is there. Once you pull that down, the highlight handling is MUCH better!
LiamR
Well-known member
I think a lot of people are getting caught up thinking you can purely get a cinematic look straight out of a camera and in that case, directly with the camera, not true. A cinematic look is brought together mostly by other sources than the camera, especially lights. I recently shot a short with the FS100 and in some scenes we had GREAT lighting set-ups and were able to achieve a very cinematic look and in other scenes were lights were our enemy, we suffered.
A little example of what I am talking about:
This shot had lighting that we liked and could work with easily
This shot did not, and came out looking "video-ish"
Both with the same settings on the camera, which was most likely my downfall...
A little example of what I am talking about:
This shot had lighting that we liked and could work with easily
This shot did not, and came out looking "video-ish"
Both with the same settings on the camera, which was most likely my downfall...
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
For that second shot, I'd have moved the camera lower and pushed in a bit to get rid of some of that black. I find the farther back I am from subjects, the more towards the waist the camera goes to get the right perspective on the image. I spent A LOT of time watching movies and studying camera height with regards to composition as I was trying to figure out why some of my shots didn't look right.
I learned this too looking at behind the scenes of people shooting film. The camera would be on a dolly and the lens at waist height for action scenes. It's amazing what you can learn in behind the scenes footage!
I think another thing to consider is downloading some RAW Red or Alexa footage and compare that to what comes out of any Canon, Sony or Panasonic camera below $5k. I think you will be surprised at how uncinematic it looks. The image is exposed for the highest range of detail and it looks very unconstrasty to me, almost washed out. However, when you start applying your color correction and the look you want, you suddenly realize just how much information is there. It's really amazing.
With the Canon cameras, they crush the blacks and desaturate out of the box giving you a look that is cinematic in feeling. The AF100 and FS100 do not do this out of the box, but, they can do that, if you want them to. It just takes tuning the setting for what you want. Both cameras have A LOT of adjustment available.
Also, analyzing a piece of footage to understand why it doesn't look cinematic is a HUGE step into understanding the aesthetics of the image. You can easily shoot a scene with both the 7D and FS100. Do that, post the frames, and explain why you think one is less cinematic that the other. You could easily just crush the blacks a bit more in camera and desaturate the colors a bit (ESPECIALLY RED) and find you get something you like, in camera, very easily.
One must remember, there is a LOT of variety in what people want out of a camera. I don't think Sony or Panasonic pick the best settings out of the box for their cameras.
I learned this too looking at behind the scenes of people shooting film. The camera would be on a dolly and the lens at waist height for action scenes. It's amazing what you can learn in behind the scenes footage!
I think another thing to consider is downloading some RAW Red or Alexa footage and compare that to what comes out of any Canon, Sony or Panasonic camera below $5k. I think you will be surprised at how uncinematic it looks. The image is exposed for the highest range of detail and it looks very unconstrasty to me, almost washed out. However, when you start applying your color correction and the look you want, you suddenly realize just how much information is there. It's really amazing.
With the Canon cameras, they crush the blacks and desaturate out of the box giving you a look that is cinematic in feeling. The AF100 and FS100 do not do this out of the box, but, they can do that, if you want them to. It just takes tuning the setting for what you want. Both cameras have A LOT of adjustment available.
Also, analyzing a piece of footage to understand why it doesn't look cinematic is a HUGE step into understanding the aesthetics of the image. You can easily shoot a scene with both the 7D and FS100. Do that, post the frames, and explain why you think one is less cinematic that the other. You could easily just crush the blacks a bit more in camera and desaturate the colors a bit (ESPECIALLY RED) and find you get something you like, in camera, very easily.
One must remember, there is a LOT of variety in what people want out of a camera. I don't think Sony or Panasonic pick the best settings out of the box for their cameras.
Grug
Veteran
Rick are you pulling down the saturation in post or in-camera to improve the highlights? Would you be able to post a comparison shot to show the difference? It would be hugely appreciated.
Cheers
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
In camera. I think the saturation is a bit much out of the box (same problem I had with the AF100). Barry was the first to really talk about this, but basically, by reducing the saturation, you are reducing how fast the colors blow out on the camera. When I compared my 7D to my FS100/AF100 I could EASILY see how this was happening.
If you have a camera you are happy with the saturation AND the highlight handling, compare a blown out scene between them.
Also, messing with the knee value is also how I adjusted the HL as well.
And and Postmaster will tell you, the FS100 is super RED out of the box
Not sure why, but pull that down!
LiamR
Well-known member
Yeah I agree with what you're saying and the second still is an establishing shot, the shot it leads into is a tracking shot from the waist down, we used the negative space and the wide-angle to accompany the narrative as we had to build up the fact that the character was alone in a field. But I did not shoot it from a lower angle, might try that next time!
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Shooting low helps a lot to prevent that hobby filmer look.
I often go way below waist level, especially on wide and master shots.
Frank
I often go way below waist level, especially on wide and master shots.
Frank
LiamR
Well-known member
I never thought about that until now, best piece of advice i've received in a long time.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Try it, the difference is astounding.
Frank
Frank
If you want the FS100 to look filmic, you need to bring down your super whites with a color grading program. Also, shoot in standard gamma to let you expose a bit lower, therefore protecting the higlights even more. Be careful not to underexpose too far; you want your subject to float around 30% luma at a minimum.
You then need to work delicately with cruves and levels to bring out areas of contrast. Emphasize darks a bit more without crushing blacks, and make your highlights look less clipped by having the curve scoop up in to the highest point. Then, you can adjust your levels to bring the highest white to just below 100%. After that, it's a matter of getting exposure right by adjusting mids, both through curves and levels.
You then need to work delicately with cruves and levels to bring out areas of contrast. Emphasize darks a bit more without crushing blacks, and make your highlights look less clipped by having the curve scoop up in to the highest point. Then, you can adjust your levels to bring the highest white to just below 100%. After that, it's a matter of getting exposure right by adjusting mids, both through curves and levels.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Yeah, I never realized how much camera high mattered until I was looking at some clips from a production one day and realized it didn't look right for some reason, why? I then spent time finding similar scenes in other movies and was like wow, now I see why it looked strange to me.
So then I started going through my own footage I'd shot over the last few years and saw the times I kind of deviated from this and realized that is why I didn't like the shots as much. (It's not a hard rule, as there are cases where it does work, but I think about it more).
This is one reason I don't mind the LCD on top of the FS100. The camera is typically lower then me (I am 6'4") so the display works great.
I'd still like to see someone shoot something on a Canon and on the FS100 and post a frame where they think one is filmic and the other isn't. It would make for a good discussion and I am sure we will all learn more about why, and what settings some might want with their FS100 for different results.
So then I started going through my own footage I'd shot over the last few years and saw the times I kind of deviated from this and realized that is why I didn't like the shots as much. (It's not a hard rule, as there are cases where it does work, but I think about it more).
This is one reason I don't mind the LCD on top of the FS100. The camera is typically lower then me (I am 6'4") so the display works great.
I'd still like to see someone shoot something on a Canon and on the FS100 and post a frame where they think one is filmic and the other isn't. It would make for a good discussion and I am sure we will all learn more about why, and what settings some might want with their FS100 for different results.
Hey guys,
Great discussion and totally appreciate all the feedback! We've done a TON of testing and definitely don't hate the camera.
We're film guys and, therefore, have gotten a little too comfortable with lighting and shooting, I think. We've gotten used to some certainties in film - like that it's extremely organic and very forgiving. When we film a commercial we light based on exposure and it looks beautifully natural. We get the footage back from telecine, give it a quick grade, legalize it and done. Our only other "video" experience has been with the old Varicam and the F900 CineAlta, which have looked equally as fantastic. In fact, we've used the Varicam with an ENG lens for a whole day of pick-up footage that blended seamlessly with 35mm footage. The client had NO idea.
To be honest, when we first got our RED it took us a little while to get the hang of the look, too.
With the FS100 I think we've figured out what's throwing us...
The FS100 footage looks very "real", like you're actually looking at what you're filming. In contrast, a true organic "film look" leaves a lot to be interpreted by your subconscious. On film, when you need more exposure on someone's face, you just throw up a Kino - and it looks natural (there's slightly more involved than that but you get my point). With video cams like the FS100 you need to light much more carefully. If it doesn't look natural in real life, it won't look natural on camera. Simply throwing up a Kino looks like you just threw up a Kino. If Quentin Tarantino, with his love of hard source lighting, had shot any of his movies on the FS100 it would look like a daytime soap opera rather than a film. With video-like cameras you also spend a lot more time in post wrestling with "film look" filters and grading/correcting.
I talked to a Panasonic guy who gave me a whole history on the incredible amount of work Panasonic did with the Film Look Studios guys (the first innovators of giving video a "film look") to give their high-end cameras that organic film-like light handling. I think what a lot of people don't understand is that there's more to the "film look" than shallow depth of field and grain (in fact, most of our 35mm stuff has no visible grain and we often fight for deeper DOF).
So far this week we've tested the FS100 with Zeiss SS glass, RED Pro primes and some cheapie old school manual Nikons. We've decked out the camera, filmed inside, outside, high-light, low light, colored in Color, graded in a DaVinci suite and displayed the footage in any way we can think of. Though personally I wouldn't use the FS100 for a client's commercial, we did get the footage to look pretty good.
Here are our takeaways:
- The camera has an insane amount of artificial detail. We turn the detail all the way down.
- The sensor seems to like lower-resolution lenses.
- The footage looked much less videoish in low light. Even then, underexposing by a stop or two helped.
- If you light, light very carefully. If it doesn't look natural to your eye, it won't look natural on this camera. Flat lighting looks much more natural to this camera than high-contrast lighting.
- If you're looking for a fantastically clean image, this camera is great. If you're looking for an organic film-look, get ready for some wrestling.
- Most of you know this but any sort of skinny shutter is out if you want a film look. On film you get 'Private Ryan'; on this camera you get news-style Betacam.
All in all, I'm very intrigued by this camera and am tempted to bring it on our next set to do a side-by-side comparison with film - just for kicks.
Great discussion and totally appreciate all the feedback! We've done a TON of testing and definitely don't hate the camera.
We're film guys and, therefore, have gotten a little too comfortable with lighting and shooting, I think. We've gotten used to some certainties in film - like that it's extremely organic and very forgiving. When we film a commercial we light based on exposure and it looks beautifully natural. We get the footage back from telecine, give it a quick grade, legalize it and done. Our only other "video" experience has been with the old Varicam and the F900 CineAlta, which have looked equally as fantastic. In fact, we've used the Varicam with an ENG lens for a whole day of pick-up footage that blended seamlessly with 35mm footage. The client had NO idea.
To be honest, when we first got our RED it took us a little while to get the hang of the look, too.
With the FS100 I think we've figured out what's throwing us...
The FS100 footage looks very "real", like you're actually looking at what you're filming. In contrast, a true organic "film look" leaves a lot to be interpreted by your subconscious. On film, when you need more exposure on someone's face, you just throw up a Kino - and it looks natural (there's slightly more involved than that but you get my point). With video cams like the FS100 you need to light much more carefully. If it doesn't look natural in real life, it won't look natural on camera. Simply throwing up a Kino looks like you just threw up a Kino. If Quentin Tarantino, with his love of hard source lighting, had shot any of his movies on the FS100 it would look like a daytime soap opera rather than a film. With video-like cameras you also spend a lot more time in post wrestling with "film look" filters and grading/correcting.
I talked to a Panasonic guy who gave me a whole history on the incredible amount of work Panasonic did with the Film Look Studios guys (the first innovators of giving video a "film look") to give their high-end cameras that organic film-like light handling. I think what a lot of people don't understand is that there's more to the "film look" than shallow depth of field and grain (in fact, most of our 35mm stuff has no visible grain and we often fight for deeper DOF).
So far this week we've tested the FS100 with Zeiss SS glass, RED Pro primes and some cheapie old school manual Nikons. We've decked out the camera, filmed inside, outside, high-light, low light, colored in Color, graded in a DaVinci suite and displayed the footage in any way we can think of. Though personally I wouldn't use the FS100 for a client's commercial, we did get the footage to look pretty good.
Here are our takeaways:
- The camera has an insane amount of artificial detail. We turn the detail all the way down.
- The sensor seems to like lower-resolution lenses.
- The footage looked much less videoish in low light. Even then, underexposing by a stop or two helped.
- If you light, light very carefully. If it doesn't look natural to your eye, it won't look natural on this camera. Flat lighting looks much more natural to this camera than high-contrast lighting.
- If you're looking for a fantastically clean image, this camera is great. If you're looking for an organic film-look, get ready for some wrestling.
- Most of you know this but any sort of skinny shutter is out if you want a film look. On film you get 'Private Ryan'; on this camera you get news-style Betacam.
All in all, I'm very intrigued by this camera and am tempted to bring it on our next set to do a side-by-side comparison with film - just for kicks.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I just returned from shooting a Histotainment show for a week.
I lit the whole thing only with the practicals that where there and some tablecloth as bounce.
One thing I learned was, that I have to rethink my lighting technique. Mostly flat and soft as possible (even soften Kinos), golden hour, overcast. If you want hard light , even a dimmed Dedo is often too much. You can use a lot of practicals. Avoid household florescent lamp at any cost, the green and magenta spikes is killing you skin tones. The great thing is, you can get away with just practicals and reflectors, if you know how to light.
Here is a quick and dirty teaser. I don´t think it looks too real or soap-operaish.
I think a lot of the look comes from the picture profiles.
Frank
I lit the whole thing only with the practicals that where there and some tablecloth as bounce.
One thing I learned was, that I have to rethink my lighting technique. Mostly flat and soft as possible (even soften Kinos), golden hour, overcast. If you want hard light , even a dimmed Dedo is often too much. You can use a lot of practicals. Avoid household florescent lamp at any cost, the green and magenta spikes is killing you skin tones. The great thing is, you can get away with just practicals and reflectors, if you know how to light.
Here is a quick and dirty teaser. I don´t think it looks too real or soap-operaish.
I think a lot of the look comes from the picture profiles.
Frank
Last edited:
Searcher
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing your findings. I use all old nikkors and shoot flat with natural lighting so far.
Last edited: