FS7: FS7: How much flexibility in post?

P

Paul Walker

Active member
I am thinking about buying an FS7 to shoot narrative with. Specifically, will shoot a feature film end of this year to learn how to shoot.

So when shooting with an appropriate codec for 4k, cinematic, how much flexibility do I have in post? I know it is not RAW but at the same time, want to know how far I can push the images. What is your experience?
 
CineEI is quite flexible. Not as flexible as RAW, but it's quite flat and malleable.

I just got the new Scarlet-W and doing a number of side by sides and the FS7 compares very favorably to the Red. For a good monitoring LUT or even a quick baked in look, BertLUT ArriLook compares very well to the Red in terms of color science and highlight roll-off. Get that for sure, even if you're just using it as a starting point.
 
IMO the internal Cine-I of the FS7 can provide pretty amazing results, pretty flexible as well as long as one is careful with exposure and color when shooting....its not raw but IMO it has much better DR then red epic MX and black magic 4k....
as far as cinematic look goes: whatever that means, the FS7 because it is so clean and smooth can look more like video then film but lens choices and especially post choices can add a little grit....i like (in this order) Koji Advance or film convert and color finale....plenty of options out there....
because the internal codec is only 10 bit, there is only so much you can push/pull....i find exposure less of a problem, you have to be a little more careful with color....once you start to tweak a 10bit file, things fall apart pretty quick....
i usually use a LUT i like/and fits the overall look i have in mind and go from there....
because of the DR, exposure is more flexible but i tend to overexpose more so then underexpose to keep the shadows clean even if that means letting the highlights go....
bu this was more or less how i work with red, except that with MX the sensor needed much more light, the shadows had more noise and the highlights clipped much earlier...dragon is of course better but i still find the shadows pretty noisy....
but again: the sony when shot and exposed correctly can provide a file without any trace of noise which some people don't like because it does not necessarily look cinematic or organic....
depending what final look you are looking for, lenses can make a big difference as well....i have some older canon and russian lenses with lower contrast and warmer color....great highlight roll off with those! and sharpness usually is not a problem anyway....
 
Paul S summed it up really well.

Also be careful with internet camera to camera comparisons, once you put footage in rec709 space for posting online etc.. more or less anything can be made to look close to one another and they often do with exception a small bias towards a color etc.. which is easy to grade and match if you know how. What's missing from these tests is actually giving the footage to a professional colorist or lab and asking how they fair out in terms of gradability, durability, and specific qualities that may be seen. It's almost like building a race car and only talking about the horsepower the engine has but never putting it on a track. It's incomplete.

So having said that, and sorry if I'm stating the obvious but I would suggest if you're doing a feature film that you test the crap out of your options so you come to learn some of the limitations working between the two formats. Involve a DIT and/or colorist and the producer, show them what X versus Y is and make THEM part of the decision making, don't let it rest on your shoulders alone.

No matter what though, for a feature film I would highly recommend shooting in RAW over slog. You'll have more data to work with and better image fidelity, and most importantly IMO you'll have more latitude with your exposure.

Good luck on what you decide, cheers,
 
Having played with the BMagic raw (not the F55 or arri raw) I.. hmm, well dont think the extra data is worth it - have you done the maths on your projected data loads?

I think the XACV Slog is great.

But is it not perfect the shadows can fall apart and the highlights can edge up.

There was rumour of a higher bitrate xavc - maybe for the 5/55.. that should be very sweet.

Depending on your budget IMO raw money could be better spent in other places like production design or more lights?

If you shoot nice (story lights actors) there is no reason XAVC will keep your film out of cannes or the oscars.

S
 
Paul Walker said:
I am thinking about buying an FS7 to shoot narrative with. Specifically, will shoot a feature film end of this year to learn how to shoot.
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

when you say 'learn how to shoot', roughly what sort of level are you coming in at? FS7 log footage has a huge amount of potential flexibility (and forgiveness ;-) ) in post, and frankly going by the camerapeople I know working with FS7s, F5s and F55s, in broadcast there is a heck of a lot more codec-based recording than raw; FS7 log XAVC is a common and high-quality path.

I would suggest that the best approach to exploring is rather dependent upon where you are coming from working with video cameras and on narrative projects,

Ben
 
Last edited:
Jim Ritscher said:
I admire your courage, but would it make sense to start out with a short first?
Click to expand...

Had a couple of shorts play in festivals in London and Toronto and one I worked on just won a prize in a minor fest in Seville. Been paid to shoot a few music vids and currently putting together a feature documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5HALvW69uc

My stuff isn't great and is missing that extra something but am working on that.

Am in pre at the moment and understand how incredibly tough it is to get something amazing. It is so extraordinarily difficult to make it good, a massive step up from shorts etc... and understand why so many feature films are so bad.

I have calculated the RAW / storage / time / cost issues (having shot on RAW before) and the FS7 with minimal workflow issues looks like a good, budget option and the advice here is really shaping my thoughts. Some good ideas on here.
 
Hi Paul,

I'm from Toronto, which festival did your film play in? I attend many local festivals regularly and had some work in them as well, maybe I saw your short.

I have some frames shot in XAVC 10-bit available for download if you want to play around with them to see how they perform. I can send you a PM with download links. Are you planning to shoot in HD or 4K? I ask because I know with RAW on the F55 it has more detail with finer objects than if you record in XAVC. What I wonder is if any members here have done a direct compare of XAVC to ProRes option on the FS7. But ProRes options on Sony are limited to HD but may fair out BETTER than the RAW on the FS7 because there are some problems with RAW on FS7 in the shadow end.

Food for thought.
 
Paul Walker said:
Had a couple of shorts play in festivals in London and Toronto... The FS7 with minimal workflow issues looks like a good, budget option....
Click to expand...

Okay, you've had some experience. Well, some features have been shot on F5 or F55, and the FS7 is very similar to the F5. On bigger-budget features, they would probably go for the Alexa. But I think you could do a great job of shooting on the FS7. Why not?
 
Paul Walker said:
will shoot a feature film end of this year to learn how to shoot.
Click to expand...

Why not? What could go wrong? :) If I may ask, what makes you want to shoot a feature with an fs7?

Only asking because I think most would be looking at many OTHER cameras for feature work(even if the budget is small).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top