FS100's ability to capture that "cinematic" look

D

duder1234

Member
Hey guys,

Been doing some lurking as of late, and thought I'd pop in and ask a question or two :Drogar-Happy(DBG):.

I've been doing some research for the past few weeks on DSLR's (especially the 5d mark ii) and I stumbled across the FS100. The camera seems to be much more "user friendly" than the DSLR's are for video. I dig the fact that it already comes prep'd for sound and has a nifty view finder, and all the other stuff DSLR's don't have.

Unfortunately, I really got hooked on the 5d mark ii's "cinematic" video image. Now, I'm not referring specifically to the shallow DOF, but more so to the soft/warm feel of the video (hope that makes sense).

After looking at some examples from the FS100, I feel that most of the images have a video"ish" sharpness/feel to them. They don't seem to have that "cinematic" quality like the 5d mark ii.

I've dug through tons of posts/forums and it seems that the issue could be any number of things: lighting,lens, picture profiles, camera operator ect...

My question is: CAN THE FS100 ACHIEVE A CINEMATIC LOOK and if so, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

Here are some examples of the direction(s) I'm looking to go:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=262&position=8

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=262&position=1

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=743&position=2

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=743&position=18

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=5&position=3

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=6863&position=2

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=6863&position=17

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=14492&position=4

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=14492&position=20

Thanks for any help...If I need to be educated on a few points...please clue me in!
 
In terms of capturing cinematic stills, I think the FS100 can do an even better job than DSLRs. Definitely don't judge the FS100's capabilities by the bologna you see on vimeo. Canon DSLRs, for example, come with a baked-in 'cinematic' look. The FS100 has much more picture profile options, great resolution, etc. It can look more videoy. But it can also look cinematic. Here are some of the better examples...

http://vimeo.com/28203770?iframe=true&width=80%&height=80%

http://vimeo.com/29042657

http://vimeo.com/28637473

Sometimes the motion looks a little funny, but if you dial down the detail and use a good profile, you should be in good shape!

Good luck!
 
It's NOT the camera but the operator. You can easily shoot "videoish" result even with the most expensive cameras. A case in point, I have never seen more crappy looking "test" videos from the new RED Scarlet owners.
 
Shoot flat and either learn to color grade at a professional grade or hand it over to a colorist, the FS100 takes the route of shoot then color grade, not the DSLR route of shoot and have some replica of what some technicians think is the 'cinematic' look


p.s, there is no such thing as the cinematic look, films from the 30s don't look like film's made last year, yet both are cinematic.
 
The videoish look was something that really bothered me when I first got this camera but I learned that there are some things you can do that help (like turning the sharpness down and under exposing your shot slightly). A good picture profile definitely helps but I caution against getting too comfortable with the "shoot flat and color correct in post" workflow. Like your DSLR it only has an 8 bit color space and if you stretch it you'll get some really undesirable side effects.

To answer your question more directly, if you're happy with the look from your DSLRs, you'll be more than happy with the look of this camera and how cinematic it can look.
 
Kyle McConaghy said:
Here are some of the better examples...

...

http://vimeo.com/29042657

...
Click to expand...

Damn. Case closed. Shot with relatively cheap glass too. Not 15k cinema glass.

Pretty much all the cameras that people talk about on dvxuser (5Dii, GH2, AF100, F3, NEX5n etc) can achieve a great image. Personally I think which camera to go for depends more on your overall budget. Someone on here once said that a camera should be about 20% of your kit value. Meaning don't spend 5k on a camera if you're then going to go and spend 4k all up for lenses, tripods, lights etc. Personally If I had a choice out of an FS100 and a cheap tripod and a GH2 and a quality tripod I would go the second option. So if your budget overall for glass, tripod, adapters, filters etc is under 10k then I would take a good hard look at the GH2. See this example for what this $800 camera is capable of with the hack and talented people in charge:

<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#0000EE"><u>

Good luck
 
Last edited:
It's not the sharpness, it's the composition and lighting. Rent any current 1080p movie and take a look at the sharpness, which is in many cases even sharper than the FS100. I have a 7D and a FS100 and the color science in the 7D is the same as the 5D. The problem with the 7D/5D is the softness say in skin tones is the codec just removing the detail. It's what some people refer to the 'plastic' look. I am still happy with the 7D and do shoot with it, but it's look is MUCH MORE baked in. The more detailed the image, like wide shots, the softer the image gets. I was NEVER happy with this. With extremely shallow DoF shots, you can get some decent sharpness in the focused part, but, you also get A LOT of false detail. We shoot a lot of urban backdrops and the 5D/7D are HORRIBLE with brick/roof/grill/ac fins.

Where the 5D/7D excel is in how the highlights blow out. In most cases, I try to avoid blowing out highlights. If I am going to anyways, I pay attention to what they are doing. Colors with strong secondary colors (cyan, yellow, magenta) can color shift. I use Cinematone2 and I think it does a better job protecting from that. But, even if you do blowout to an ugly color, you can fix it in post, which I've done.

I have NO regrets going to the FS100. We shot this last weekend with a 5D and a FS100. We've decided to not even use the 5D footage because it's just not as good, and not even close. These are the same scenes, the same setups, so it's easy to check. At 1080p, normal viewing, the editor and myself were EXTREMELY happy with the FS100 results.

A big thing for us as well is being able to have some more freedom in camera movements. The rolling shutter in the FS100 is twice as fast almost as the 5D. This REALLY helps with action scenes that we do.
 
If the difference in cost is not an issue, then there is no question, go with the FS100. I started shooting on film and was fortunate enough to have shot some long form fictional narrative films on 16mm film, before the DV revolution changed everything and forced us to shot on video. The FS100 is the first video camera that I have owned that I would prefer to shoot a fictional narrative project on as apposed to shooting on 16mm film. The FS100 is the only video camera I have used in 17 years that makes me feel like a cinematographer again. The image control with the picture profiles is amazing. The dynamic range and low light sensitivity of the FS10 blows my mind. The short flange to focal distance standard of the Sony E mount on the FS100 means that dang near any cinema or still photography lens ever made can be adapted to the camera. ... and did I mention the dynamic range and low light sensitivity of the FS100...?!! If you can afford the difference between a 5D and a FS100, then get the FS100. You won't be sorry.
 
Go for the FS100
I have the 5D,the AF100 and fs100
If you do a good ighting job, you learn about the "profiles" and color grading you'll get many great differnet cinema looks with the fs100 and without plastic faces.
If you are very new, with a 5D you'll get that easy cinema look like every body else and its a good point to start.
however when you get "hooked" to that look I"m getting very borred of that 5D look and I'm sure that soon many people will also get bored of it. I even get repulsed by those 5D images overly color corrected. Even on tv, these day's every body looks orange.
 
Rick Burnett said:
It's not the sharpness, it's the composition and lighting.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

"Cinematic" as most people know it is nothing more than motivated lighting & good composition.
Hand a talented DP any camera you feel like giving them and you will get the look you want. By
explaining the shots motivation/feeling. The DP will translate that concept to an actual visual.
And express mood and tone with composition and lighting.

I've shot video with a multitude of camera's from about all of the Canon DSLR's to the AF100 and
now the FS100. My lighting kit currently is the creative of the cinematic look.
 
LOL! soo true!
jetswing said:
It's NOT the camera but the operator. You can easily shoot "videoish" result even with the most expensive cameras. A case in point, I have never seen more crappy looking "test" videos from the new RED Scarlet owners.
Click to expand...
 
Rick Burnett said:
It's not the sharpness, it's the composition and lighting. Rent any current 1080p movie and take a look at the sharpness, which is in many cases even sharper than the FS100. I have a 7D and a FS100 and the color science in the 7D is the same as the 5D. The problem with the 7D/5D is the softness say in skin tones is the codec just removing the detail. It's what some people refer to the 'plastic' look. I am still happy with the 7D and do shoot with it, but it's look is MUCH MORE baked in. The more detailed the image, like wide shots, the softer the image gets. I was NEVER happy with this. With extremely shallow DoF shots, you can get some decent sharpness in the focused part, but, you also get A LOT of false detail. We shoot a lot of urban backdrops and the 5D/7D are HORRIBLE with brick/roof/grill/ac fins.Where the 5D/7D excel is in how the highlights blow out. In most cases, I try to avoid blowing out highlights. If I am going to anyways, I pay attention to what they are doing. Colors with strong secondary colors (cyan, yellow, magenta) can color shift. I use Cinematone2 and I think it does a better job protecting from that. But, even if you do blowout to an ugly color, you can fix it in post, which I've done.I have NO regrets going to the FS100. We shot this last weekend with a 5D and a FS100. We've decided to not even use the 5D footage because it's just not as good, and not even close. These are the same scenes, the same setups, so it's easy to check. At 1080p, normal viewing, the editor and myself were EXTREMELY happy with the FS100 results.A big thing for us as well is being able to have some more freedom in camera movements. The rolling shutter in the FS100 is twice as fast almost as the 5D. This REALLY helps with action scenes that we do.
Click to expand...
Should have specified that when people say "sharpness" they're talking about the camera's artificial sharpening. It's nasty and you'll want to turn it down unless you want that 'Betacam' look from the local news. The FS100 has pretty good resolution alone so the sharpening is not needed.
 
I started with a Letus Nikon lens Adapter to my EX1. When the 7D came out I ditched the Letus and got it, then I got the 5D Mk II after they upgraded the firmware to support different frame rates.

I would have to say that is easier to get the "5D" look on a 5D than a FS100. On a 5D Mk II, you just dial down the contrast, saturation and sharpness in the neutral setting, and you get the "5D" look. You can grade it a little but you basically have that look, which is a combination of fairly low resolution, i.e. 'softness' and a nice handling of the transition to highlights. I'm struggling just a bit in the FS100's highlight area, that's my only slight gripe on the FS100, you have to be pretty careful with the highlights, and this is said over and over here. This look is now so common that big productions are trying to emulate it, and you basically get it 'for free' from the 5D.

The FS100 has so much more resolution than the 5D though, and this sharpness sometimes is interpreted as a videoish quality. But because of that it is much more versatile a camcorder. Want it soft? Dial it down in camera or in post.

At some point I'm going to narrow down the 'formula' to get the 5D look from the FS100, it's just not 'built in.'

However, the FS100 is my "A" camera, and that's because I can rely on it for a lot of reasons such as no clip length limit, easy pro sound, and tunable profiles. I just want to be able to put some of my Canon glass on it, let's get those EOS adapters going!
 
kmoreau893 said:
I would have to say that is easier to get the "5D" look on a 5D than a FS100.
Click to expand...
I know it's early in the year but I want to put in a vote for the quote of the year. ;)

The magic behind the "5D look" is in its sensor. It's also present in when shooting stills photography. So it's not really the "low" resolution of 5D video but who its sensor renders the out-of-focus area and the transition. It's also something that can't be duplicated by opening up the aperture on a crop-sensor camera.
 
Hey Guys,

First, THANKS! for all the info and well wishes...I appreciate it.

The 5D look is pretty neat...but I'm more concerned with the FS100 being able to reproduce images similar to those I posted above.

Some of the stuff I've been shown is pretty darn cool, but I haven't seen anything yet that screams "heres what your looking for". The lighting/composition with the GH2 was getting pretty close though (MUSGO). No disrespect ment to the videos or images people have posted, I do appreciate the examples.

I understand that the images I posted are from "hollywood" pictures, but I'm trying to determine if this camera (when lit right/with the right lenses/ect...) is capable of achieving similar looks.

I've noticed that the term "highlights" is being thrown around alot. Are we talking about the transition from the highlight (brightest areas of the image) to the surrounding area?

Im liking everything about the FS100...but the image hasn't grabbed me just yet.

Hope I don't come off as "dense", just want to get the facts straight before plunking down the $$$$.

Thanks.
 
"the right lenses"

Your first shot looks to be an anamorphic cine prime

If you can afford that you will be able to rent a Scarlet which would be a better bet

The 5d is very impractical to use - its hard even to mount it solidly on a tripod - the FS100 is not impractical to use

The 5d has limitations to its image - soft - rainbows - but nice tones out of the box

The FS100 is great to use, tonally its harder to get a look

To me cinematic is both tone but also being in focus, free of jitter etc

If you are serious you should rent and test both cameras and maybe a Scarlet, F3 or C300 too

S
 
duder1234 said:
Hey Guys,First, THANKS! for all the info and well wishes...I appreciate it.The 5D look is pretty neat...but I'm more concerned with the FS100 being able to reproduce images similar to those I posted above.Some of the stuff I've been shown is pretty darn cool, but I haven't seen anything yet that screams "heres what your looking for". The lighting/composition with the GH2 was getting pretty close though (MUSGO). No disrespect ment to the videos or images people have posted, I do appreciate the examples.I understand that the images I posted are from "hollywood" pictures, but I'm trying to determine if this camera (when lit right/with the right lenses/ect...) is capable of achieving similar looks.I've noticed that the term "highlights" is being thrown around alot. Are we talking about the transition from the highlight (brightest areas of the image) to the surrounding area?Im liking everything about the FS100...but the image hasn't grabbed me just yet.Hope I don't come off as "dense", just want to get the facts straight before plunking down the $$$$.Thanks.
Click to expand...
In short, I'd say "yes". With proper lighting, a crisp set of lenses and the appropriate picture profile, you can certainly achieve a cinematic look that you'll be happy with. I hated the look of the camera at first but then learned to work the camera's strong points. You'll have to make some tweaks to how you shoot but I'd say the FS100 is every bit as filmic as the "Ds" and a lot cleaner (in a good way). Some things you'll miss are noisy low-light shots, nasty micro vibrations, blocky matrix- like compression artifacts and terrible audio.Will anyone mistake it for film or Varicam footage? No. Will you need it that good? Probably not. Would I shoot a feature on it? No. For your purposes you'll be very happy with the look and you'll like it much better than your Canons.
 
The FS-100 can get away with those kind of situations (like the ones you posted) better than the 5D. Those shots with prevalent dark areas, night exteriors, etc look amazing on the FS-100. I still have my 5D and will get a Mark III as soon as it's out, because they certainly are very different cameras.

But is it going to look EXACTLY JUST AS GOOD AS FILM. No. Nothing will. If you are considering buying a camera, rent first, shoot some tests, maybe a short, who knows... Light some night interiors/exteriors and see. I'm very happy with my FS-100, but I don't work with the picture profiles that came baked in, because they are, indeed, too "videoish"...
 
duder1234 said:
Im liking everything about the FS100...but the image hasn't grabbed me just yet.
Click to expand...

I know what are you talking about .. but let's take a look to the fact: Our imagination of what is "film look-like" based on narrow DOF wich is result of extremly fast lenses used in Cinematography, because the film was never sensitive enough to get proper exposure with slow lenses... so even on 35mm film format frame we see very narrow DOF .. In Canon 5D sensor is 2.5 time bigger that a regular film frame... so we get similar effect even with F2.8 lenses ... and color of 5D2 very different..
So.. If we use super fast lenses ( F 1.2 - F 1.8 ), 30fps to avoid stattering, reduce sharpnes to -7, and use proper Picture Profile with specific grading we will be able to get much better result ...

Take a look to some samples and tell me which of them do you like ??


Frame_03.jpg


Frame_05.jpg


Frame_07.jpg


Frame_08.jpg


Frame_01.jpg


Frame_04.jpg


Frame_09.jpg


Exposure_3.jpg


Frame_014a.jpg



AC-LOG_6b.jpg


ColorSet_01s.jpg


Frame_010b.jpg


Frame_011.jpg


Frame_012.jpg


Frame_02.jpg


( even they are taken with my usial Canon 2.8L lenses... and I'm sure with super fast T2.9 Zeiss of F1.2 -1.4 primes I can get much better result.. )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top