FS100's ability to capture that "cinematic" look

One thing about the FS100 that is more important than you'd think is its form factor. Though small, the camera still looks somewhat impressive when you put a set of rails, a matte box and follow focus on it.

Show up on set with a still camera and your client looks at you like, "you're kidding, right?" The it's-all-about-how-you-use-it thing only works for indie films and productions where you're trying to nonverbally tell your client: "This is what you get for cutting our budget." And putting all that goofy Zacuto stuff on it doesn't help - you just look like you're being attacked by a jerry-rigged Transformer.
 
Cinema is a technology driven "art". The "cinema look" is dictated by the technology that produces it. When it was orthochromatic film the art flowed from the posibilities and limitations inherent in that. Pan, colour, then colour film for digital edits, now digital sensors.

I think the whole idea of trying to match the aesthetic of a new technology to that of the previous one inhibits creativity. I like that the aesthetic of digital is much more jagged, especially when it comes to motion. That it is much more prone to over saturation and posterisation in colours. That it is "sharper" and less organic in texture.

These are all opportunities to be original creatively. They are only limitations if you are trying to repeat someone elses past.

I suppose I bring this up because I think the whole "cinematic" look that people talk about (which apparently the 5D does very well - I've only had my FS100 for a week or so and I am much happier with the cinematic quality of the images it is already producing than that of anything I have seen on any DSLR), is really a description of the characteristics of film.

In my opinion film was cinemas training wheels. Please can we go for a real ride now?
 
Last edited:
LaForce said:
Cinema is a technology driven "art". The "cinema look" is dictated by the technology that produces it. When it was orthochromatic film the art flowed from the posibilities and limitations inherent in that. Pan, colour, then colour film for digital edits, now digital sensors.

I think the whole idea of trying to match the aesthetic of a new technology to that of the previous one inhibits creativity. I like that the aesthetic of digital is much more jagged, especially when it comes to motion. That it is much more prone to over saturation and posterisation in colours. That it is "sharper" and less organic in texture.

These are all opportunities to be original creatively. They are only limitations if you are trying to repeat someone elses past.

I suppose I bring this up because I think the whole "cinematic" look that people talk about (which apparently the 5D does very well - I've only had my FS100 for a week or so and I am much happier with the cinematic quality of the images it is already producing than that of anything I have seen on any DSLR), is really a description of the characteristics of film.

In my opinion film was cinemas training wheels. Please can we go for a real ride now?
Click to expand...

As a guy who came up shooting film, my first reaction is to take the knee jerk Film Guy position and go off on a "Film Rules Rant"... but you are right. I think these new cameras have so much capability that can be tapped creatively that it blows my mind. To waste these creative possibilities JUST trying to emulate the conventional aesthetic of cinema with these cameras, it seems to me, would be a waste. I think that the FS100 is perfectly capable of delivering cinematic images, but why stop there with such a capable camera.
 
Just to clarify I also grew up shooting film and still only shoot film for stills (for stills the quality:effort ratio is much larger than for motion.. I only shoot medium and large format).

I love film. I just think if you want a film look shoot film. If you want to use the creative potential of these new technologies don't waste them trying to replicate a redundant (not obsolete) aesthetic.
 
Did anyone figure out a solution to the strange way FS100 renders motion? I saw reducing sharpness can help. Any other ideas?
 
I found out that having the monitor running at 50HZ if you shoot 50 or 25 frames and at 60HZ, if you shoot at 30 or 60 frames helps a lot.
That may sound like a bromide, but we here in Europe have the strange situation that we live in a 50HZ country with monitors (usually) running at 60HZ.

Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top