Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
ALSO canon has the best skin tones IMO
FS100's ability to capture that "cinematic" look
- Thread starter duder1234
- Start date
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I shot on the FS100 and 7D this weekend, and there was no question of the happiness in owning the FS100. I love my 7D, but comparing the footage, the FS100 was amazing. I like the skintones out of the 7D more, but the lack of detail in the faces just negates that for me. I can color correct the FS100 footage. I cannot add the detail back on the 7D.
I agree completely. Although, out of the C300 footage I've seen of late... I'm not sure what to think yet; the footage itself is wonderful, but not quite convincing as a replacement for film... I think Alexa hands down will always win any "film look" competition any day of the week. As far as having a budget of under 10k, the hacked GH2 with certain kinds of lenses, as of now seems to come the closest in my eyes. Not a "real" video camera, but if your willing to jump through some hoops and desperate to get close as possible to film, it may be the best option for a narrative style production... for now. If you're a serious video professional, the FS100 is absolutely the way to go in 99 out of a 100 times you need to shoot something properly in any serious job.
Richard Allen Crook
Well-known member
That's a great question. Perhaps someone who has used both here could let us know? Ive looked at a lot of footage online of both and don't seeit happening on f3 footage...but I def see it on the FS footage.
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
True =)
robmneilson
Veteran
You can get some great looks on longer lenses on the EOS, but I find it so easy to figure out what is shot on an EOS camera due to the lack of detail, "yellow" image, in addition to the moire. I like that with the FS-100 people often have no idea of what I shot on, other than that it looks good. It's no Alexa, but can't beat it for the price.
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
While most ppl spend over 20k on certain cameras, your stuff will look exactly the same if not better and you only paid, X ..amount! Internet compression is a ***** even 4k cannot escape it lol =) Oh and you know thine thing about internet compression..??? It's Fair...
Last edited:
Eh, there's definitely a reason some cameras cost more than others. It's just that some people don't appreciate - or need - the difference in quality. And that's okay. There's definitely a reason, though, that the FS100 costs more than the 7D. And there's definitely a reason the Alexa costs more than the FS100. The adage holds true: better starting point = better end result -- especially under internet compression.
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
Sorry to disagree with u but I have seen great FS100 footage put up against great RED footage and in terms of quality they are the same! That's the ***** about youtube, Vimeo, or any other compressed internet player it's sucks the money u spent right out and makes it less spectacular. Now on the big screen or displayed uncompressed, that is a whole different story then u will see why they cost different prices =)
The internet isn't the destination for a lot of people. HD broadcast, theatrical distribution and BRDisc are all good reasons to have best quality aquisition.
Chris Johnston
Veteran
but who uses a red or alexa to just put stuff on the internet?
paulcurtis
Veteran
It wasn't *that* long ago that theatrically released films were being shot on 720p Varicams, Vipers and F900. The FS can hold its own there in most situations. It's much more about the craft around the shooting and also good post work. Although post work enhances, not replaces well shot footage.
There's been some good discussion on this thread. I totally concur with being very careful about highlights and dynamic range. Usually when lighting you'd ensure that you have the range in the image. A very small bright patch in a dim scene which would enhance the sense of contrast. If the whole scene was dim the eye would be trying to brighten it up in the absence of any other information, it would look murky then.
cheers
Paul
There's been some good discussion on this thread. I totally concur with being very careful about highlights and dynamic range. Usually when lighting you'd ensure that you have the range in the image. A very small bright patch in a dim scene which would enhance the sense of contrast. If the whole scene was dim the eye would be trying to brighten it up in the absence of any other information, it would look murky then.
cheers
Paul
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
DUDE Allot OF PPL HAVE USED RED JUST FOR THE INTERNET>>>
Kraut69
Well-known member
We watch streaming Netflix movies on the internet, the internet reveals the quality of the shooting there for sure. Nothing wrong with the internet these days.
It's funny when I hear the argument of internet compression affecting in any way the look and quality of a production. It's like saying an amazing photo on flickr is less relevant when it's shown at the default size rather than blown up. The size or compression has absolutely nothing to do with the feel, look, "mojo" or the overall aesthetic of the footage. I could play a video minimized in a 2 inch vlc window and could tell you in seconds if it was shot on the 5d or red, I don't see how anybody couldn't... resolution / compression is but one thing on a very long list of metrics by which footage can be judged, and really it's certainly not the most important; if it was, I'd only watch videos on my 50" 1080p display or in the theater and wouldn't settle for anything else.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
The camera also don't completely control the feel, look or "mojo" of the material either, which depends on the post processing. I've seen example of Alexa/Red material shown at a lower resolution where I COULD NOT tell the difference in the footage at all, yet, at full resolution, it was clear who was who. The point is, at certain levels of reduction of image data, you cannot tell a difference. If I reduce 4 streams to 1x1 pixel, there is no way you can tell who is who
The camera also don't completely control the feel, look or "mojo" of the material either, which depends on the post processing. I've seen example of Alexa/Red material shown at a lower resolution where I COULD NOT tell the difference in the footage at all, yet, at full resolution, it was clear who was who. The point is, at certain levels of reduction of image data, you cannot tell a difference. If I reduce 4 streams to 1x1 pixel, there is no way you can tell who is who
Interesting, I've seen a few comparisons as well on just sd quality on vimeo, and it was completely night and day which was the red / alexa... at that size / resolution, but maybe you were watching something with far more compression. But yeah, I see what you mean, that if you were to reduce the image qualitatively speaking, there would be a point where the difference would eventually be indiscernible.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I wish I could find the example because it was actually scenes from a movie that was shot on the Alexa and Red and I was amazed at how close they were. The big thing is how different are they. Most people could easily distinguish between something shot on the PXL2000 and the Alexa at 100x100
We release mostly to the web, but, what drove us to the FS100 was resolution and rolling shutter. There are shots we can do on the FS100 that are in fact impossible on the 7D because the rolling shutter is not fixable. In this case, size of the resulting image does not matter, the rolling shutter would be seen because of the jello nature of this fast a movement. Sure, the answer is don't move the camera that fast, but that is the style we are going for in this particular shoot. And it's not shaky cam, it's hong kong style cinematography moves that are typically executed on film.
This argument goes around and around on here because people have different needs. I can live with the FS100 because my medium of delivery masks certain issues, and frankly, most people don't care. We've NEVER had a negative comment on our videos for anything quality related, and that was with the 7D including scenes with moire we just left.
If an HV30 with a 35mm adapter can make "cinematic" quality to a lot of people, then you start to realize, it's not the sensor as much as understanding how to use DoF and framing properly. I've seen AMAZING footage off of the HVX200 with a 35mm adapter, and I've seen absolute crap.
And I'll say this, I did audio for something shot on film once that I thought was video. They had overexposed the footage and it looked like crap. There was NOTHING cinematic about that footage. (Students at SCAD). Now, I worked with those students for 3 years on the side, doing scoring. The last few things they gave me were shot on a Red One and they were AMAZING. I was like, wow, this film work is really much better and they told me it was the Red One.
In truth, whether it's the 7D, 5D, GH1, GH2, AF100, FS100, F3, Red Epic, Red One, Red Scarlet, Alexa, they can all make cinematic material, I've seen it with all of them. The difference is how easy is it to make it. The difference is in knowing what limitations you have and working within them. Professionals don't want to use the GH2 because it lacks the tools they need, and the newbie who shoots on the GH2 doesn't understand why someone would pay more for the pro features of the AF100 because they've never had those tools to miss them. Everyone is right.
I don't use the FS100 because I have to use it, I could sell it and get any camera I want under $10k. I use it because I love what it can do. The camera isn't the limitation, I am.
We release mostly to the web, but, what drove us to the FS100 was resolution and rolling shutter. There are shots we can do on the FS100 that are in fact impossible on the 7D because the rolling shutter is not fixable. In this case, size of the resulting image does not matter, the rolling shutter would be seen because of the jello nature of this fast a movement. Sure, the answer is don't move the camera that fast, but that is the style we are going for in this particular shoot. And it's not shaky cam, it's hong kong style cinematography moves that are typically executed on film.
This argument goes around and around on here because people have different needs. I can live with the FS100 because my medium of delivery masks certain issues, and frankly, most people don't care. We've NEVER had a negative comment on our videos for anything quality related, and that was with the 7D including scenes with moire we just left.
If an HV30 with a 35mm adapter can make "cinematic" quality to a lot of people, then you start to realize, it's not the sensor as much as understanding how to use DoF and framing properly. I've seen AMAZING footage off of the HVX200 with a 35mm adapter, and I've seen absolute crap.
And I'll say this, I did audio for something shot on film once that I thought was video. They had overexposed the footage and it looked like crap. There was NOTHING cinematic about that footage. (Students at SCAD). Now, I worked with those students for 3 years on the side, doing scoring. The last few things they gave me were shot on a Red One and they were AMAZING. I was like, wow, this film work is really much better and they told me it was the Red One.
In truth, whether it's the 7D, 5D, GH1, GH2, AF100, FS100, F3, Red Epic, Red One, Red Scarlet, Alexa, they can all make cinematic material, I've seen it with all of them. The difference is how easy is it to make it. The difference is in knowing what limitations you have and working within them. Professionals don't want to use the GH2 because it lacks the tools they need, and the newbie who shoots on the GH2 doesn't understand why someone would pay more for the pro features of the AF100 because they've never had those tools to miss them. Everyone is right.
I don't use the FS100 because I have to use it, I could sell it and get any camera I want under $10k. I use it because I love what it can do. The camera isn't the limitation, I am.
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
Just saying I have seen FS100 footage look like RED footage, in fact one of my friends went on REDuser posted some of his FS100 footage and said it was his new scarlet footage and no one there new it wasn't a RED?? They all thought it was! And said how awesome the footage looked and to top it off said that it was one of the best footage of the scarlet so far LOL, he finally said it was Sony and got banned LOL but there u go internet compression...FS100 Rules!!!!
HAHA. So awesome! I've always wanted to do this! He should have documented the whole thing and then put in on youtube. Would have been great!