tommygdawg
Well-known member
What do you mean by "secondaries"? I've never heard that term before.
FS100's ability to capture that "cinematic" look
- Thread starter duder1234
- Start date
What do you mean by "secondaries"? I've never heard that term before.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
The camera is really the LAST link in a long production value chain.
Sort of but not really. When you're shooting film you ask yourself questions like "does his face have enough exposure?" and the organic look just falls into place. When shooting video you ask questions like, "does the lighting make it look like film?" and "why is the light falling off so quickly on his face?" and "how do we get rid of that specular?". You find yourself tweaking lighting for an hour before you shoot the first frame. The type of camera/format we use definitely has a huge impact on how we light.
Yep, that´s why many TV shows (series?) are still shot on film. I read an interview with a famous DP (don´t remember who or on what show exactly) and he said, it´s just too expensive to shoot digital because of the complicated lightning, that it consumes too much time in fast paced productions.
I'm gonna let you guys in on a little secret. Video look has a lot to do with over exposing skintones. Try as an experiment keeping your skintones around 50 ire as opposed to the "normal" 70 we've been taught for years. Use soft front lights to fill in the darker parts of the picture, and balance the now lower skintones. This way your highlights suddenly get an extra stop of lattitude, and you've artificially created "dynamic" range.
Its called lighting.
Its called lighting.
robmneilson
Veteran
I'm gonna let you guys in on a little secret. Video look has a lot to do with over exposing skintones. Try as an experiment keeping your skintones around 50 ire as opposed to the "normal" 70 we've been taught for years. Use soft front lights to fill in the darker parts of the picture, and balance the now lower skintones. This way your highlights suddenly get an extra stop of lattitude, and you've artificially created "dynamic" range.
Its called lighting.
But but...we don't HAVE to light anymore! I read it on the internet!
That´s correct. I always keep the zebra setting at 70 and don´t let it appear in the faces, so it´s at 60 or 55. But that´s just an aproximation. It would be a lot easier, if you could dial in zebras below 70.
Maybe a lightmeter would help for consistent correct exposures?
BTW: When shooting run´n´gun stuff with the Kitlens I set Exposure compensation to -0,7. Works great!
Maybe a lightmeter would help for consistent correct exposures?
BTW: When shooting run´n´gun stuff with the Kitlens I set Exposure compensation to -0,7. Works great!
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I'm gonna let you guys in on a little secret. Video look has a lot to do with over exposing skintones. Try as an experiment keeping your skintones around 50 ire as opposed to the "normal" 70 we've been taught for years. Use soft front lights to fill in the darker parts of the picture, and balance the now lower skintones. This way your highlights suddenly get an extra stop of lattitude, and you've artificially created "dynamic" range.
Its called lighting.
I LOVE it! I actually cannot say I knew this for certain so thanks for the tip. I do 'tend' towards doing this already as the FS-100 is just so clean,
that I tend to 'protect' the highlights and underexpose things a little. There really is almost no noise in the blacks, so not hard to bring them
up if needed.....however if you overexpose, you can't fix the 'blown out' area. It is also why even on 'landscape' shots, I set my zebras at 95%
instead of 100%.
Richard Allen Crook
Well-known member
Totally true! Timur, as an F3 owner with S-log, don't you think the dynamic range abilities, and log gammas couples with correct grading are a big part of that as well? I mean there is certainly something special with that LoG gamma. I seem to think that even with an 8 bit rec709 camera the "cinematic" look is more about dynamic range like Timur said. It's about a delicate balance in abilites in lighting, filters, camera exposures/latitude/profiles, and finally grading. I never have seen images come from any digital camera that looked filmic without all of these things. Like the folks who buy a RED cam and think it's a magic box that produces digital film. All of those things to create the dynamic range and proper grading I mentioned is still necessary. So much RED footage out there on Vimeo looks like super sharp video to me. It makes me think that the RED isn't all it's cracked up to be...and then you see Fincher's films and see a totally different image because every step...from lighting to exposures to lenses to filters to grading...etc etc...are done by top professionals. The camera is still the same one that the kid on Vimeo had.I'm gonna let you guys in on a little secret. Video look has a lot to do with over exposing skintones. Try as an experiment keeping your skintones around 50 ire as opposed to the "normal" 70 we've been taught for years. Use soft front lights to fill in the darker parts of the picture, and balance the now lower skintones. This way your highlights suddenly get an extra stop of lattitude, and you've artificially created "dynamic" range. Its called lighting.
Definitely well put both of you. I have worked on stuff in the past shot on an HMC150 that looked like film based on camera settings, the way the set was set up, how it was lit, the lights and screens that were used, as well as even down to the clothing the actors were given to wear ect...
I must add though that there was some time involved in accomplishing these tasks, but thats how it was done
I must add though that there was some time involved in accomplishing these tasks, but thats how it was done
Last edited:
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I'm gonna let you guys in on a little secret. Video look has a lot to do with over exposing skintones. Try as an experiment keeping your skintones around 50 ire as opposed to the "normal" 70 we've been taught for years. Use soft front lights to fill in the darker parts of the picture, and balance the now lower skintones. This way your highlights suddenly get an extra stop of lattitude, and you've artificially created "dynamic" range.
Its called lighting.
Nailed it Timur. I have been going over that in my mind for a while now and think that a lot of video shot for fictional narrative work is overexposed.
Putting the skintones at IRE 50 makes sense. For consitancy, where would you put 18% grey, a stop under?
squig
Veteran
A table lamp behind the actor with a soft key would work wonders. When I shoot indoors I take lots of CFL globes and a few hand held CFL work lights that I can throw under furniture. The space just looks really flat which makes the image flat. As mentioned by others DOF is also an issue. I lit a living room for a short with a table lamp and an LED flood and it looked great. The colour of the walls can also make a huge difference (you can't always repaint your mates apartment however) Grading helps but don't expect miracles. If the shot looks like video on the LCD you have more work to do with the lighting and the art direction.
Kyle McConaghy
Well-known member
Agreed on all points. Lighting, composition and grading are certainly going to affect your 'look' the most. At the same time, I do think there is something inherently kind of off and un-'cinematic' about the FS100's motion rendering. I'm a proud owner, but sometimes the motion just looks kind of weird. A lot of videos posted on here look great and the still grabs certainly look cinematic, but they still –especially the European ones (maybe it's the 25p/60hz discrepancy)– look kind of odd, motion wise.
Richard Allen Crook
Well-known member
I totally agree here. Even my DSLRs don't have that jerky motion. I just saw a clip that had a dolly shot and the stuff passing by the camera in the foreground as it tracked made the clip almost unbearable to watch. Mostly it's not that bad...but yeah, I know what you mean Kyle. Ive been meaning to drop Twixtor onto some test clips to see if it can't smooth things out. But what a hassle even if it works. After 8 months of using the cam, this is the most unpleasing aspect IMO. I have been contemplating upgrading to the f3...but mostly because the log and 10 bits fit my grading style.
This is what I've been saying for years. The most important part of why DSLRs took off in the first place, imo, was the distinct motion rendering which totally changed the feel of what was captured. Ever seen a movie on a 120hz display and how "cheesy" it looks? Same great lighting, composition and camera work... but it looks almost un-watchable; this is solely due to the way the motion has been slightly distorted. As far as creating or replicating characteristics of film stock, DLSRs are still the best bet to mimic what many people have a hard time pinpointing as the "filmic" look.
By all counts, the FS100 is a superior camera in every way conceivable, and to compare it against any DSLR might seem silly. However, for whatever reason the unique way motion is rendered in Panasonic and Canon DLSRs specifically, create this odd magical look that many people seek. It may only be one part in a very long pedigree for creating something that appears cinematic, but don't fool yourself, it is absolutely key.
Kyle McConaghy
Well-known member
"I have been contemplating upgrading to the f3...but mostly because the log and 10 bits fit my grading style." >>
I haven't studied the F3 very much... is the motion from that cam better than the FS100?
I haven't studied the F3 very much... is the motion from that cam better than the FS100?
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
Canon DSLR'S even the C300 some how looks like film. Canon has a unique way of processing video and it comes out looking as close to film as possible IMO, Not even RED looks like film to me. Go Canon!
I really don't feel anything looks like film short of the Alexa.... the F3 and C300 get close to the alexa... but not to film.
RED being a distant 4th.
RED being a distant 4th.
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
Not to me, Canon's has a uniqueness RED cant even touch, RED to looks so digital it's not even funny looks like the 120hrtz tv's but that is what makes us individuals, we see things different Sony FS100 looks allot like RED footage at times online I mean because of compression. All beautiful in their own rights=)