FS100 looks so video-ish

Postmaster said:
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. The great thing is, you can get away with just practicals and reflectors, if you know how to light.
Click to expand...

That's good news for me because I love the natural look. I have been shooting without any additional lights but on my last short film I wanted to add just a touch of control to the light. I've been thinking of getting a couple of low wattage fresnels. Thinking of the Mole Richardson Inbetweenie 100w/200w link. I like to go "old school" and I thought they would be good for just "tweaking" the natural light- especially for lighting faces a touch. I'd love your opinion because you obviously understand how sensitive this camera's sensor is and how minimal lighting is perhaps the way to go. Thanks.
 
Yeah, you can´t go wrong with a Mole. The Inbetweenie is just right, you probably want some additional diffusion , some frost sheets will do the trick.
Also get an assortment of gels, especially CTB in all grades. The FS100 likes colder tones.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
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
Click to expand...

That looks fantastic Frank. It doesn't look 'videoish' it doesn't look 'digital', it just looks good.
 
Postmaster said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree... this looks fantastic. My point is that you have to work differently with this camera than a more "organic" camera. In many instances you can not light the same way with this camera as you would for film (or a camera that gives more organic results like the Varicam, for example). This camera requires much more thought and control.

When we filmed our "test film", we got good results but there were still a few shots that were just unpleasing to an eye that's used to an organic filmic image. Two of our interns and my girlfriend (all relatively untrained eyes) all said the same thing which was something to the effect of, "yeah, I don't know what it is but it looks different... almost too real."

As an example, your teaser looks absolutely AMAZING. Still, even in the hands of a pro like yourself, there are a few shots that lack that organic film-like look and feel. Granted, I'm looking for it and your target audience probably won't notice or care.

It goes back to what someone said earlier... there are some cameras that don't look like video if you tried. The FS100 just isn't one of them. That's not to say it's not an amazing image.
 
I think, except for messing with the picture profiles, adding a grain structure to the footage would make it look more organic, "film-like" and less video-ish. The footage from the FS100 is extremely clean from noise. Much more so than any DSLR, even with some gain, which I think adds to the "tv-news betacam look".

Also: Don't take my word on it, it's just a feeling - but I think the AVCHD codec is playing some tricks with motion rendering, adding to the video-look. Could someone comment on this in a more scientific way?

Here's a nonsense clip to demonstrate my point with adding grain: http://www.mediafire.com/?54knmbn1knocdn8
Skärmavbild 2011-09-16 kl. 15.30.32.jpgSkärmavbild 2011-09-16 kl. 15.30.59.jpg

1080p24 with newest GlenColor PP2 (blow-out allowed) with grain structure from a real 35mm film stock added in After Effects, and saved as 720p24 prores 422 lt. No grading.

And in a more high-end situation with controlled lighting of foreground and background, a tripod/crane/rig/steadicam/whatever, grading, more work on the noise structure, more work on composition, camera movement etc. I think this camera can do wonders, superior to what any DSLR could do image-wise.
 
Last edited:
mandrean said:
I think, except for messing with the picture profiles, adding a grain structure to the footage would make it look more organic, "film-like" and less video-ish. The footage from the FS100 is extremely clean from noise. Much more so than any DSLR, even with some gain, which I think adds to the "tv-news betacam look".

Also: Don't take my word on it, it's just a feeling - but I think the AVCHD codec is playing some tricks with motion rendering, adding to the video-look. Could someone comment on this in a more scientific way?

Here's a nonsense clip to demonstrate my point with adding grain: http://www.mediafire.com/?54knmbn1knocdn8

1080p24 with newest GlenColor PP2 (blow-out allowed) with grain structure from a real 35mm film stock added in After Effects, and saved as 720p24 prores 422 lt. No grading.

And in a more high-end situation with controlled lighting of foreground and background, a tripod/crane/rig/steadicam/whatever, grading, more work on the noise structure, more work on composition, camera movement etc. I think this camera can do wonders, superior to what any DSLR could do image-wise.
Click to expand...

What is GlenColor PP2?
 
Rick,

Have you posted yours somewhere? I'm taking a look at as many PP's as I can. I find it really interesting to see the differences between everyones.....kind of
fun to play around with.
 
Postmaster said:
Yeah, you can´t go wrong with a Mole. The Inbetweenie is just right, you probably want some additional diffusion , some frost sheets will do the trick.
Also get an assortment of gels, especially CTB in all grades. The FS100 likes colder tones.

Frank
Click to expand...

Thanks Frank! And forgot to mention that your work looks great.
 
I haven't posted mine yet. We are about to spend a few days going through the PP settings we had and from here and seeing what we like best.
 
Sony always had crappy exaggerated oversharpening/"detail"/whatever.

Canon cameras even having wacko colorimetry in some aspects gets the attention because it's soft (a happy accident on its DSLRs) and handles highlights nicely (good rolloff).

When people shout "videoy" I notice some basic things:
- Crappy lighting/cinematography (contrast filters and nd-grads exist for a reason, you know? Optical filtering is still the best way to filter)
- Crappy grading (badly done color casts, too punchy, MBL-like 3way madness)
- Crappy camera settings ("default" sharpening on camera, no, it's not default just because the manufacturer says so)
- Modern glass, too contrasty and sharp (like Panasonic lenses)


If all is lost, you can still save a bit with careful grading.

And I always wonder what people mean when they say it doesn't look like film... It doesn't look like it was shot on a camera that costs 10x more in a medium that evolved over a century being shot by an experienced cinematographer with thousands of dollars worth of glass, light and grip? Really? :)

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's important to master your tool (and craft) completely and do your best with what you got, both by taking simple effective solutions and avoiding creative choices that will not be supported by your current infrastructure and/or expertise.
 
Frank,

Thanks for your updated PP's. I just used your outdoors PP on a sunny day here in Alaska. It really worked awesome. I'm going to give your two PP's
an honored place in my FS 100 as.........hmmm........well I guess they will be PP1 and PP2 :-)
 
alaskacameradude said:
Frank,

Thanks for your updated PP's. I just used your outdoors PP on a sunny day here in Alaska. It really worked awesome. I'm going to give your two PP's
an honored place in my FS 100 as.........hmmm........well I guess they will be PP1 and PP2 :-)
Click to expand...

I take it you can't name picture profile with the names you want?
(about to be owner of 2 fs100s next week.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top