FS100 looks so video-ish

videohog said:
I take it you can't name picture profile with the names you want?
(about to be owner of 2 fs100s next week.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, that was kind of an inside joke from one FS100 owner to another. But you are correct, you cannot name picture profiles.....I think it
is one of the features requested in the 'Firmware update request' thread on this board.
 
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...

Thanks, glad they work for you.

Frank
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
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? :)
Click to expand...

Awesome quote. Awesome video.
 
"Film look" is 10% equipment, 90% user.

Hell, much of my GL2/DVX footage looks more like film than much of the fs100 stuff I've seen recently.
 
Honestly, sometimes when I watch a film these days I think "gee that shot (especially night scenes) would look awesome if it was shot on my FS100".

I should go on a film forum and post "how can I get film to look more like video?".
 
Mandrean, I agree with you, but, can you post the same example without grain structure. I would really appreciate it!

Thanx and cheers!
 
Postmaster said:
Thanks, glad they work for you.

Frank
Click to expand...
Hi, Frank!! I found something realted to your post about stuttering/ jitter on FS-100 - when I trying to find how to reduce it and shoot with -7 sharpering, slow panning and different fps speed I found that 30fps give me NO stattering at all !
I know - you are not able to test it till new fimrware for European FS-100, but what do you think about shooting with 30fps in general ? ( actually it's 29.97fps ) Personally, I prefer it since I shoot with 5D, and don't see any problems with it ... as in USA this speed is needed for TV anyway... :)
 
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
View attachment 40145View attachment 40146

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...

That looks very un-video-like - it actually made me feel hungry ;)

While I've been reading this thread, I had in my mind when I moved to a full HDTV, and bluray discs at home, I was quite shocked that there was so much resolution and colour saturation 'out of the box' that even films which I had seen theatrically and were shot on film looked frankly awful- so bad in fact that it destroyed the 'suspense of disbelief' actors looked like actors, and sets looked like sets, and you could see every pore and bit of makeup on A-list stars in high-budget productions. It was literally unwatchable, but as an editor and film-maker I was fascinated. Much of it was quickly relieved by tweaking picture settings-
- Reduced saturation
- Reduced contrast
- Increased brightness
Those alone made a huge difference, and made a much more organic picture, similar to what I would look at on a reference monitor. But it reminded me of what people have been advising on this camera. Further improvements were brought by-
- Turned 'sharpness' right down.
- Turned off all the flicker free/smooth motion/interpolation crap.
These also made an enormous difference. Sometimes if my brother comes to stay, he'll mess with the settings and put them back on 'standard', even SDTV is unwatchable with motion interpolation on. This also jibes with many of the comments here.

As a further experiment, I ripped hi-res file and added some film-grain, then burned a disc and played it through the same player into the same TV. The difference was remarkable- much more 'real' and watchable, all the enjoyment of the film I knew and loved was back.

My point is, a great deal of 'apparent' sharpness can appear from picture processing, either at capture, in post, or even in playback (the films I'm talking about were all shot on 35mm film and looked gorgeous in the theatre, yet looked worse than the most awful vimeo flick until I changed all the settings) and they can easily produce the 'you get what you see' which people have complained about here even when the source had none of that look.

It seems a combination of all the techniques people have been using here with picture profiles, grading, and possibly adding a little 'softening' grain work wonders. My bigger concern about this camera is how easy it apparently is to blow out highlights in a rather nasty way- it seems odd to have to underexpose and boost shadows in post when that's throwing away some of the dynamic range of the camera (expose to the right, and all that), so I'm wondering if anyone has found a profile which doesn't do that?

Also, regarding some of the observations on what the codec might be doing to the motion, and making it seem slightly surreal, has anyone noticed a difference while using external recorders which don't use gop codecs in this respect?

I suppose an obvious observation, though, now that the 5Dmkiii is out, would be- how do you think that compares, and is it easier to shoot on that rather than having to do so much work in post to make the FS-100 picture 'softer' and more 'organic' (and yes, I realise that the question, and those terms, are liable to stir things up- I'm not trying to, I'm just genuinely curious, as it is a camera I'm interested in).

Lastly, mandrean, do you have a workflow for how you scanned the film-grain? I have a minolta slide scanner, as I was a late adopter of DSLRs! Are you simply scanning a blank slide and then overlaying in post? Does that give you sufficient 'dance' in the grain? I'm wondering if there's a way to get moving organic grain like you do in film, rather than a static grain look- there's a difference, I think.

Nice to see so many talented people trying to get the best out of their equipment, and making some great artistic results!
 
Not to revive this too much with the fs700. I read someone trying to load fs100 profiles and messing their cam. They got it fixed. However.
are franks profiles and this thread still pretty relevant to fs700?

It it more of a case of just taking down the detail level on pp5/6 (cinegamma)? To un-video it a touch?
 
Postmaster said:
Hmmmm...

I don´t know. I think mine looks pretty cinematic.
Have a look at some of the stuff I shot with it and let me know what you think.

http://vimeo.com/user1323085/videos

Maybe we can figure out what is going wrong.

Frank
Click to expand...

Have just watched your latest showreel and it decimates the argument that FS100 footage isn't cinematic and the age old adage of a craftsman doesn't blame his tools is still true.

The Man of Steel BTS is great too and again shows why your work is so cinematic, some great support equipment too. Oh and not forgetting a wedge of talent that drives it all.
 
timmytimetravel said:
Not to revive this too much with the fs700. I read someone trying to load fs100 profiles and messing their cam. They got it fixed. However.
are franks profiles and this thread still pretty relevant to fs700?

It it more of a case of just taking down the detail level on pp5/6 (cinegamma)? To un-video it a touch?
Click to expand...
#

My profiles don't work on the FS700 - gammas are too different - sorry.

I don't have a 700 yet, since the IRS robbed me blind and crossed my camera plans.
But as soon I get my hands on a production model, I do release some PPs.

Till than, Gamma 4 and Knee full throtle and zero for a nice roll off and you are golden.
The 700 needs much less tweaking then the 100.

Frank
 
Nirv said:
Have just watched your latest showreel and it decimates the argument that FS100 footage isn't cinematic and the age old adage of a craftsman doesn't blame his tools is still true.




The Man of Steel BTS is great too and again shows why your work is so cinematic, some great support equipment too. Oh and not forgetting a wedge of talent that drives it all.
Click to expand...

Thanks Nirv,

and yeah, a little wedge of talent definitive helps - also the balls to ride the bumper of a Jeep, just to get that angle :beer:
And that damed thing was driving pretty fast.

7537671730_f3e8a16194_h.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top