FS100's ability to capture that "cinematic" look

duder1234 said:
Im liking everything about the FS100...but the image hasn't grabbed me just yet.
Click to expand...

I just spend the afternoon in a friend´s speed shop, to build a new dolly.
Since I had nothing else to do but watching him, bolting my construction together, I grabbed the FS100 and shot some random material of the process.

Maybe this grabs you ;-)

Frank

 
Last edited:
There you go!

Frank proving it can be done like always.

As a quick request Frank, can I see an ungraded screen grab from that?
Also for grading did you just use a LUT?

Haven't used your K-Tone profile I plan to later this weekend however.
On another side note Able Cine's color depth is a main culperate in
making red do strange things. Especially with skin tones. Your GLog
color depth makes skin tones perfect. I attribute this mostly to the
correct color depth settings you have provided.

Can the K-Tone profile be used as a somewhat out of the box everyday
shooting profile? I'm using GLog this way but struggle when I'm not doing
the post production on whatever I'm shooting. Or should I say others
are struggling...

Come state side so I can get you a drink!
 
I post a grab tomorrow - I´m already at home now.
Yes, i used only the LUT and some minor tweaking of the shadows on some shots.

The K-Tone is an "out of the box" profile, that gives nice results without the absolute need of post production.
You don´t even "need" the LIT - it´s just for pushing it even more in to the Kodachrome look than I was able in camera.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
Maybe this grabs you ;-)

Frank

TQd_jUiZMwI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQd_jUiZMwI
Click to expand...

FRANK !! ...as always .. You drive me crazy!! :love4: ... you are the best !! :)

I hope OP will find this as a perfect sample of "FS100's ability to capture that "cinematic" look" ..when the camera in the right hands... :Drogar-Happy(DBG):
 
SergeSmArt: The 1st and last images in your post are getting closer to what I'm looking for. Thanks for the info, too.

Postmaster: Thanks for the quick edit, looks nice. Like the camera work. Not bad for an edit composed of "random material" ;)

DM_rider: Your videos are really nice. The "leve v2" is probably the closest to what I'm looking for so far. Some of the shots/lighting were starting to evoke "the feeling" ;)

I think part of the problem I'm having, is that none of the examples have been actual scripted dramas...like a movie. So its tough to gauge...

Still have alot of research left to do, so any info at all is more than welcome!

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
duder, I think I was in the exact same position as you are in right now. I was searching for that ever elusive "cinematic" / "filmic" look, which in general, serious video professionals do despise when you mention it (I am not one, obviously). I believe one of the attractions that you are blindly chasing (like I was), which many people don't quite see, are the specific motion characteristics of film. It doesn't all come down to just 24p. I've noticed that specific lenses, nd filters etc will add or change the features of motion blur in such a way that it will completely change the look of what you're capturing.

There is a "cinematic" way of shooting video which captures the essence of the "Hollywood" look: DOF, lighting, composition etc. all lend their helping hand in this respect. But these are descriptive elements of a style rather than the specific characteristics of 16mm & 35mm film. For example, did you see the movie Public Enemies? While I did enjoy the movie, no amount of special lighting, composition, directing or other good practices could have fooled me into thinking it was shot on film stock. Now the movie wasn't bad by any means because of this... but the point stands.

I have chosen to shoot on a GH2. Now, I'd be lying if I said this wasn't in part due to money. But, I can honestly say, that if I found ANY camera that could replicate film closer than this camera could for 8k or under, I would own it, no matter what it took. Now I'm sure you've heard about this camera and have seen clips here and there and you might not be all that interested. I would ask you to reconsider; The "look" this camera can give you by modifying it with 1) the hack, 2) good lenses, varies by an extremely wide margin, more so than most of the cameras I've looked at over the years.

Here are some interesting examples from the GH2, if not solely for the purpose of judging it for the "film look" that you might be looking for... :cheesy:

http://vimeo.com/36197409
[URL="http://vimeo.com/33016592"]http://vimeo.com/33016592
[URL="http://vimeo.com/35999739"]http://vimeo.com/35999739
[URL]http://vimeo.com/26818589
http://vimeo.com/36182092[/URL][/URL][/URL]
 
L1N3ARX said:
duder, I think I was in the exact same position as you are in right now. I was searching for that ever elusive "cinematic" / "filmic" look, which in general, serious video professionals do despise when you mention it (I am not one, obviously). I believe one of the attractions that you are blindly chasing (like I was), which many people don't quite see, are the specific motion characteristics of film. It doesn't all come down to just 24p. I've noticed that specific lenses, nd filters etc will add or change the features of motion blur in such a way that it will completely change the look of what you're capturing.

There is a "cinematic" way of shooting video which captures the essence of the "Hollywood" look: DOF, lighting, composition etc. all lend their helping hand in this respect. But these are descriptive elements of a style rather than the specific characteristics of 16mm & 35mm film. For example, did you see the movie Public Enemies? While I did enjoy the movie, no amount of special lighting, composition, directing or other good practices could have fooled me into thinking it was shot on film stock. Now the movie wasn't bad by any means because of this... but the point stands.

I have chosen to shoot on a GH2. Now, I'd be lying if I said this wasn't in part due to money. But, I can honestly say, that if I found ANY camera that could replicate film closer than this camera could for 8k or under, I would own it, no matter what it took. Now I'm sure you've heard about this camera and have seen clips here and there and you might not be all that interested. I would ask you to reconsider; The "look" this camera can give you by modifying it with 1) the hack, 2) good lenses, varies by an extremely wide margin, more so than most of the cameras I've looked at over the years.

Here are some interesting examples from the GH2, if not solely for the purpose of judging it for the "film look" that you might be looking for... :cheesy:

http://vimeo.com/36197409
http://vimeo.com/33016592
http://vimeo.com/35999739
http://vimeo.com/26818589
http://vimeo.com/36182092
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm,

A few of those videos are looking pretty close. Kind of a Michael Mann "Collateral" feel (prob. because the train and night/city shots ;) ).

The blacks looked a little "solid" in some of the shots...hard to see into the shadows.

Yes, I have seen Public Enemies...its been a while though.

I'll look into the GH2 a little more. Thanks.

Michael Solomon: thanks for the examples!
 
Last edited:
duder1234, asking this question in the FS100 forum will give you an answer that may satisfy you momentarily when looking at cameras on the B&H website, but if you had asked the same question in the lighting or cinematography forum you would have gotten an answer that would help you grow as a cinematographer and ideas that will probably stay with you for a very long time.

In short, this isn't a camera question. It is a question of lighting and compositional skill, along with exposure and camera movement. I promise you that any camera mentioned here can give you footage that will blow you away if you know how to use it. Those that say it can't be done or who fight over the minutia of image rendering buried under a sea of settings would be better served by experimenting with a bounce board and a fresnel for 10 minutes then sitting behind a computer for hours trying to get the best conversion of their h.264 files for editorial. I promise you that.
 
I also can´t get rid of the videoish look. It´s just too clean, too digital, altough I usually add some grain.
Here´s an example. Intro for our New Year´s Eve Video.
http://vimeo.com/36501115

Lighted with 3 Arri fresnels und gels.
I really don´t know enough about grading....
 
FelixGER said:
I also can´t get rid of the videoish look. It´s just too clean, too digital, altough I usually add some grain.
Here´s an example. Intro for our New Year´s Eve Video.
http://vimeo.com/36501115

Lighted with 3 Arri fresnels und gels.
I really don´t know enough about grading....
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that video look is not because of the camera, but the way in which it is lit and the focal depth of your shots. The wall behind the actor is brighter than the actors face. There is no detail lighting in the room to pop the actor out, or, to balance what is in the room. The lights on the tree are dominating your top end and it makes everything else look like it is in the shadows. Second, the depth of field is always really deep. On the closeup of the face, getting the back to blur out a bit more gives you that cinematic focus. The composition of the shots is just off, with the space around the objects and the way the window is framed. Why spend so long with a static shot on the window. Shot it for a second then the outside should be full screened.

I think the most cinematic shot is the dog in the hallway. But, the problem here is mostly lighting and framing. This is no fault of the camera.
 
Rick Burnett said:
The wall behind the actor is brighter than the actors face. There is no detail lighting in the room to pop the actor out, or, to balance what is in the room. The lights on the tree are dominating your top end and it makes everything else look like it is in the shadows.
Click to expand...

Yeah I really have problems controlling the light. I usually use fresnels but equip them with diffusion gels so the shadows are not so harsh. I found no way to light the face, but not light the wall so bright.

Rick Burnett said:
Second, the depth of field is always really deep. On the closeup of the face, getting the back to blur out a bit more gives you that cinematic focus.
Click to expand...

The wide angle shots are deep deliberatly. The closer shots are made with an 85mm @ f2,0. But the room is just not really suitable for that kind of stuff. The wall is 5 centimetres behind him. Not even f0,9 would help there.
But usually I stay between f2.8-f5.6. I like to seperate the fore and background but not blur everything out completely. A Scarlet 2/3 would have been MY camera...

Rick Burnett said:
The composition of the shots is just off, with the space around the objects and the way the window is framed. Why spend so long with a static shot on the window
Click to expand...
Yeah that´s just because I´m no after effects guy. I needed it static to put my poor effects in it^^


I never said it´s the fault of the camera! It´s something wrong with the color correction.
Even if Wally Pfister did the compositons it would lack an organic look. I´m very satisfied with the skintones, but I think it´s something that´s in the grading. When I look at higher budget productions that used a digital camera like the Red one, e.g. Skyline, Social Network, Survival of the dead, it gets close to film. But when some noname guys post stuff shot on red, it mostly looks like my stuff. Just pure digital.

Another good example: Crank 2! Shot with Canon HDV cams often it seems only with available light. But they did something in postproduction that really made it look high class.
 
Last edited:
FelixGER said:
Yeah I really have problems controlling the light. I usually use fresnels but equip them with diffusion gels so the shadows are not so harsh. I found no way to light the face, but not light the wall so bright.



The wide angle shots are deep deliberatly. The closer shots are made with an 85mm @ f2,0. But the room is just not really suitable for that kind of stuff. The wall is 5 centimetres behind him. Not even f0,9 would help there.
But usually I stay between f2.8-f5.6. I like to seperate the fore and background but not blur everything out completely. A Scarlet 2/3 would have been MY camera...


Yeah that´s just because I´m no after effects guy. I needed it static to put my poor effects in it^^
Click to expand...

Lighting can be hard, but with the FS100, you get a lot of freedom in it being so sensitive, you can use less powerful lights. I'd have used lights with barn doors and diffusion to be able to get more contrast in that shot. I wish I could share some stuff we just shot at night, but we used a couple lowell lights and the scene is awesome. It's VERY cinematic looking.

With the face shots on the FS100 I am always using 30mm F1.4 and that hits exactly what I am looking for. 85mm I don't use as much in a situation like this because it flattens the rooms a lot. For action shots I like it, because it sells the hits, but for this, I just don't find it getting what I want. I also mean more on the angled shots of his face, where the background is still pretty much in focus. Put a 30 or 50mm on there and light him more and it will pop more.

I use a lot of after effects. If it were me, the first shot I'd push in a bit in post (keyframe the scale), then just shoot with a tripod out the window locked down. If I want a little movement, I put a piece of tape on the wall, film the tape, then use motion tracking as I film the tape hand held. Then I scale up my footage a bit that was locked down and use the motion that I handheld on something else. Works like a charm! :)

Of course, like cinematic, these are just opinions :)
 
Yeah, don't feel bad about your shooting - it's not bad. This is an excellent example of what I was saying in another post. Film and video sensors just interpret light differently. A lot of people think that if you make it crazy shallow depth of field, put the camera on a dolly and add grain it magically looks like film. Those have very little to do with the look of film. In fact, we shoot 75% of our commercials on film and 1. there's no visible grain in the final and 2. we constantly fight for deeper depth of field.

When you shoot on film, you can throw a single light up anywhere and it'll look beautifully organic. If you do the same with video, it'll look like you just threw a light up - and you're shooting on video. Coming from someone who shoots on film a lot I can confidently assure you that it's a fact of life that you have to work twice as hard lighting for video than you do lighting for film. With video you have to shape the light very carefully. A little goes a long way.

Here are some quick and dirty tips:

1. Lighting: Don't light a scene how you think it should be lit. Step back, clear your head and think about how you want the scene to look. In real life, where would light be coming from? The tv? A table lamp? Your lighting is not bad at all... it just needs to be shaped and majorly softened. One of the best investments you can make for your light kit is a soft box (Chimera or the like) with grid louvers on the front. It softens the light and directs it. For me it's always a 4x4 Kino with louvers.

2. Sharpness: Turn your camera's sharpness all the way down (-7). The sharpness gives you ugly edges which is great if you're going for a Betacam look but not so great for an organic look.

3. Color Correction: Learn to use secondaries so you can adjust different elements of the scene independently. That way you can adjust skin tones independently from the rest of the scene. As a final step, raise the blacks a little bit across the entire piece. It'll do wonders for a quick and dirty film look.

Good luck!
 
Thanks for your input. I´ve been pretty afraid of using secondaries on 8 bit AVCHD material and avoided it whenever possible.
But I will give it a try! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top