FS7: FS7 or FS5 ?

Hi Amadou,

Morgan has given you some very good advice. It's perfectly possible to get excellent results from a 4 2 0 codec but you really have to get your exposure spot on every time. Expose your image with as much care as if you were shooting reversal film and white-balance as often as possible. Because so much more colour information gets thrown away when your image gets baked into the flimsier codec, you need to get as close as you can in camera before that stage because you'll never be able to get the information back later in the post process.

If you're shooting day exteriors, remember the colour temperature of daylight is changing all the time. Also be super aware of all the other factors that might affect your image such as a brightly coloured object reflecting on your actor's face, for example. If you're shooting under a canopy of trees your colour temperature will change every time the sun disappears behind a cloud (the stronger the sunlight, the greener the image).

If you're confident you can manage all this, then you'll be fine with a FS5. If you're less experienced, the FS7 will give you more leeway in post to correct any mistakes (and we all make mistakes from time to time, even Roger Deakins. Well, maybe not Roger, but still...) If you shoot 4 2 0, a good colourist can make a big difference to your finished film just by making subtle changes here and there but only if you have delivered good, solid images that don't need to be rescued. Remember, a camera is just a tool and the way you use it is more important than the tool itself.

I hope this helps, good luck with your movie!
 
In terms of 'making mistakes' one is only as good as the tools you have to nail your exposure and white balance.

Mr Deakins makes few mistakes not because he is good.. but because he is monitoring on a 20in calibrated monitor iniside a black tent, he probably has another monitor dedicated to a a large waveform.

Us mortals will make mistakes if we are trying to work with a small monitor in varying light - especially if we rely on a WFM the size of a finger nail in the corner of our 3in monitor.

Unless you have an excellent monitoring set up on location you will make mistakes.. and a good monitoring setup costs more than all of these cameras.

Another reason to allow yourself some wiggle room in post.
 
To me the entire debate boils down to 4:2:2 10bit 4K internal vs 4:2:0 8bit 4K internal. That is really the bottom line. As I said before, our last feature was filmed in 4:2:0 8bit HD using an EX1 and Letus Adaptor and we got away with it. If I had to film the movie today I would obviously use 4:2:2 10bit in HD. Both the FS7 and FS5 can handle HD in 4:2:2 10bit. And I therefore suppose it would be useless to get an FS7 is filming in HD as the FS5 can do the same job. However, the next step up is 4K. This brings me back to 4:2:0 8bit on the FS5. I'll never know what I missed until I try 4:2:2 10bit. Is it fair to say that the FS7 model 1 is the cheapest (and most cost effective) full sensor lens mount 4K 4:2:2 10bit camera out there? The reason I'm asking is because I don't want to be the spoiled kid on the block. :)
 
Last edited:
There is no footage to look at with the FS5 mark 2 and it does remain 8bit. What camera did you film the video with the two girls on?
 
Amadou said:
There is no footage to look at with the FS5 mark 2 and it does remain 8bit. What camera did you film the video with the two girls on?
Click to expand...

This is what that told me that the FS5 II has better color.

I shot the video in my signature with a lowly Sony RX100 IV. It's an awesome little camera, and the codec is the same 8-bit 4:2:0 XAVC as in the FS5 (on the RX100 they call it XAVC-S and in the FS5 they call it XAVC-L, but looking at specs and bitrate it seems to be the same thing). But please don't try to shoot a feature film with an RX100 unles you really really really need to :laugh:
 
My personal opinion.

To me choosing a camera for a feature, as in a dramatic narrative piece, is all about going with the best quality camera you can afford and the one you like the aesthetics of, before grading.

If you shoot with a camera capable of a great quality signal as opposed to just empty lines of resolution and empty codec containers, as well as one which you like the image of out of the box, you will save yourself a lot of money and most importantly, spare your nerves.

If you follow the fallacy that any camera can look like any other camera or anything you want, you will be just making things harder for yourself and setting yourself up for disappointment.

As for 4:2:0, I think in 2018 10-bit 422 is a bare minimum, if you really care about the way your feature will look.
 
The FS5 does 422 10 bit in HD. Why not film the movie in HD 422 and drop it into a Scope DCP which will yield a 2.20-1 aspect ratio without rescaling. The two black bars on the side will bother nobody and the picture quality will be the same as that of the FS7 at half the camera cost. Am I right or am I right?
 
I would rather shoot 4k and then drop that into a 1080p timeline. You get 4:4:4 color and the ability to reframe shots when needed. The files are bigger but with XAVC-S still definitely manageable. And a modern computer will cut that without any issues (it may slow down when you add lots of color adjustments, but I think it's worth the -very moderate- pain).
 
I'm not quite sur I understand you. Do you mean I should shoot 4K on the FS5 and scale it down or 4K on the FS7 and scale it down? Insofar as scaling down is implied, UHD should be enough. Could you clarify what you mean? Thank you.
 
I would shoot 4k and not downscale: keep it on a 4k timeline (but reframe if necessary).

If you don't need to output a final 4k file, or the computer you'll be working with can't work smoothly like that, then I would shoot 4k and put it on a 1080p timeline (downscale it to 50%, or 50-to-75% if you want to reframe a shot in post).

Any of the options above will give you more color resolution than shooting 1080p 422 (the first one gives you 3840x2160 luma and 1920x1080 chroma, the second one gives you 1920x1080 luma and 1920x1080 chroma; 1080p 422 on a 1080p timeline would give you 1920x1080 luma and 960x1080 chroma).

And I'm always talking about FS5, not FS7 (it seemed to me you made your mind about this already) (on FS7 it would be the same, except the first option gives you even better chroma resolution: 1920x2160).
 
Thank you. That's good to know. On this forum I learned that 420 8bit is too weak for Slog because grading will break the image apart. So one should avoid slog on the FS5 and one should always strive to film in 4k and scale it down rather than bothering with filming HD 422. Actually I have not given up on the FS7. I am actually closer to buying the FS7 than the FS5. Its just that I dont want to get stuck with a camera that does more than what I need. At 7500 euros one needs to really know why one is spending twice as much as an FS5. Thank you for the input.
 
stokstad said:
If your shooting a feature I would look into the Panasonic EVA-1 or the Canon C200 aswell.
Click to expand...
For a feature a Kinefinity Terra 4K would be at the top of my list.
With the Panasonic EVA1 2nd.
And a Sony PMW-F5 as the wild card (because secondhand they're extremely affordable now!).
 
OnSet said:
FS7 with XDCA adapter on the back of it.
When someone says feature, I'm assuming that not only will you need director's monitor (and possibly assistant's monitor) outputs, but that you will have an audio person who will want to sync time code, hence the XDCA.
Click to expand...

It is not that he (the location sound recordist) wants to but that you will want your post team to be syncing with timecode!

So you're doing timecode for post, is good to keep that point clear. Sound doesn't need TC at all when it comes to capturing any sounds, rather they're just doing the job to help you out with your post production phase.
 
IronFilm said:
It is not that he (the location sound recordist) wants to but that you will want your post team to be syncing with timecode!

So you're doing timecode for post, is good to keep that point clear. Sound doesn't need TC at all when it comes to capturing any sounds, rather they're just doing the job to help you out with your post production phase.
Click to expand...

You're right. I'm not blaming the audio guy, and it is the edit room that wants matching time codes on cameras and audio. (though on my shoots it's the audio guy who gets the phone call from the edit room if the time codes don't match, not me).
 
I'm always shooting slog2 on 4k 8-bit 420 XAVC-S and grading it in post and I don't have any issues with it. For some reason it does break down badly if you use a LUT, or certain adjustments in plugins like MB Looks or Colorista, but I can get away with strong-ish grades if I avoid those particularly problematic tools. It does limit what I can do, and I look forward to shooting RAW on the pocket 4k, but saying grading slog can't work well with 8-bit footage is a bit too much.

That said, yes, the FS7 does look better than the FS5 (maybe the FS5 II will close that gap), but it all depends on whether you personally can justify the bigger expense.
 
Hey Samuel, I did not say grading s-log in 8bit can't work well, I said "all LOG shooting should be done in 10bit for the best results". Optimally you want 10bit as you know but that statement does not say anything about 8bit's capability. Just that if you are planning, 10bit is your optimal choice.
 
Yes, 10-bit is a lot better than 8-bit, but nowhere near as good as 16-bit with the RAW recorders on my F55 and FS7. 16-bit is my optimal choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top