FS700 Footage in 200fps and some thoughts

O

oron cohen

Member
Hi Everyone,

This the first time I'm starting a Thread.
I wanted to share this short clip I've edited which is entirely in slow motion.

Originally the director planned to make a short documentary about two brothers that are trying to make it in Motocross. So we shot interviews and action footage and some other bits and pieces for 2 days, but after the 2 days the director decided to abandon the project.
So, I've decided to only take some of the footage we shot in slow motion and edit it for fun.

I'm not an editor and never really edited anything, I'm also not a grader and always work with a colourist for grading. Here, I just did a quick and dirty Colour correction on FCPX.

My experience from working with the FS700 where mixed, I'm really not a big fan of the ergonomics of this camera, Also, I feel like there are no proper lens solution for any of the super35 sensor camera for doco work unless you go PL mount (Fuji 19-90 or similar). I really hope someone will offer a 20-100 light weight zoom for Super35 that is under or around 10K!.

Also, from what I've seen, if you shoot without an external recorder, in 200fps you're really losing resolution and the image is not as sharp.
The Dynamic range is good, but the highlight clipping is pretty harsh. The motion got this videoish look to my eye, especially when there is movement in normal motion i.e. 25p, on the old Sony DigiBeta/F900/DSR450 CCD cameras had a more of a pleasing motion.

All in all, it's a nice camera to use, and I think even though it got some drawbacks, it doesn't have any real competition at the moment.

Here is the link on Vimeo,

https://vimeo.com/91571713

Hope to hear some feedback! especially on the edit, it's literally the first time I ever edited anything...:-)
 
Nice work! Especially for a first edit :)

it it does take a bit of work to turn the fs700 into something you can use for doco work. It's not out of the box that sort of camera. Which picture profile did you end up shooting in ?

one thing you could try with slomo in edit which can produce good results is speed ramping. They've changed the speed tools in the most recent point release of fcpx to make it even quicker to use.

essentially without the intercut of regular speed other footage, you can fatigue very quickly watching everything in slomo. So you start fast ramp to slomo, ramp up again during a clip. Speeds up the feel and pacing to match your music a bit as well. For instance you might not want to show putting the helmets on all at slomo, you speed up the clip at the start of the action, slomo to give it that certain feel either in the middle and speed up again, or near the end go slow and stay slow depending on where you've cut.

Nice work. I bet it feels good to produce something visual like that start to finish :)
 
as for the power zoom, we just have to hope that the 28-135 new e mount cine zoom materializes as everything we are hoping and dreaming for.
 
Don't be afraid to increase your shutter speeds.
The motion blur you are getting doesn't really work well with your subject.
A lot of particles of dust and other dynamic stuff gets really mudded down because of your slow shutter.

That would be my biggest beef with your piece. Also try moving more when shooting slow mo. At 200fps , even hand held running looks fluid if you are ok with your hand.
Ads a lot of dynamism to shots, makes thing more interesting.

cheers and good day.
 
Last edited:
timmytimetravel said:
Nice work! Especially for a first edit :)

it it does take a bit of work to turn the fs700 into something you can use for doco work. It's not out of the box that sort of camera. Which picture profile did you end up shooting in ?

one thing you could try with slomo in edit which can produce good results is speed ramping. They've changed the speed tools in the most recent point release of fcpx to make it even quicker to use.

essentially without the intercut of regular speed other footage, you can fatigue very quickly watching everything in slomo. So you start fast ramp to slomo, ramp up again during a clip. Speeds up the feel and pacing to match your music a bit as well. For instance you might not want to show putting the helmets on all at slomo, you speed up the clip at the start of the action, slomo to give it that certain feel either in the middle and speed up again, or near the end go slow and stay slow depending on where you've cut.

Nice work. I bet it feels good to produce something visual like that start to finish :)
Click to expand...

Hi,

Thanks for your input. I used slog gamma picture profile. I'll def try to play with the ramping. I did the cut on Premiere CS6 because it felt easier to work with the native codec and generally I'm still need to get used to the way you cut on the FCPX. I then exported to quicktime prores 422 and imported to FCPX and did a quick grade and added some subtitles, which again felt easier to do on FCP rather on CS6.

One thing to note, I'm not FS700 owner, I just chose this camera after consulting with director as she wanted some slow motion shots as well as normal motion.

I do feel great about editing something from start to finish! but also feel like I'd keep editing for fun when I've got footage to spare(rarely happens), I really prefer to be on a set with people, have crew with me and work with lights and cameras :-)
 
Sorenson said:
as for the power zoom, we just have to hope that the 28-135 new e mount cine zoom materializes as everything we are hoping and dreaming for.
Click to expand...
Sounds great, but lets wait to see the price? or did they announced it already? :-) I actually see this as a good opening for new companies, the same thing that happened with BMD or Digital Bolex for cameras should happen in the lens market, we need new players! even though I rent equipment, its very hard to convince a producer why you can't just take a 24-105 or 24-70 mark II instead of a cine zoom, the cine zoom cost per a day what the two still zooms will cost for the week :-)
 
Vinyl Stax said:
Don't be afraid to increase your shutter speeds.
The motion blur you are getting doesn't really work well with your subject.
A lot of particles of dust and other dynamic stuff gets really mudded down because of your slow shutter.

That would be my biggest beef with your piece. Also try moving more when shooting slow mo. At 200fps , even hand held running looks fluid if you are ok with your hand.
Ads a lot of dynamism to shots, makes thing more interesting.

cheers and good day.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Thanks for the advice! I did change the shutter speeds depending on the fps etc, also, most of the footage you don't see in the video was shot 25p 180degree shutter and I just don't dig the motion on the FS700/FS100, they just look less cinematic for motion from the C300, but those cameras got some nice tools the C series lacking like great mount that adapts to almost anything and Slow-motion and 4K and the list goes on...
 
oron cohen said:
Hi,

Thanks for the advice! I did change the shutter speeds depending on the fps etc, also, most of the footage you don't see in the video was shot 25p 180degree shutter and I just don't dig the motion on the FS700/FS100, they just look less cinematic for motion from the C300, but those cameras got some nice tools the C series lacking like great mount that adapts to almost anything and Slow-motion and 4K and the list goes on...
Click to expand...

What he was meaning was that you don't necessarily always have to use the "double your frame rate" rule for your shutter. You could use a shutter speed of 1/1000 when shooting 200fps if you want, it will cause things like little pebbles shooting through the air to be really sharp rather than blurred.

And just curious, how are the FS cams "less cinematic"?
 
jshbckr said:
What he was meaning was that you don't necessarily always have to use the "double your frame rate" rule for your shutter. You could use a shutter speed of 1/1000 when shooting 200fps if you want, it will cause things like little pebbles shooting through the air to be really sharp rather than blurred.

And just curious, how are the FS cams "less cinematic"?
Click to expand...
When I said that I've tried different shutter speeds, I meant what you suggested, so it's not like I only doubled the shutter speed when doubling the frame rate, I've tried various shutter speeds as you suggested, but I didn't have much time to test before hand to find the right combo I guess (even though I did make a quick test).

To answer you question about what is less Cinematic...god, this is so subjective I wouldn't know where to start. I would say that all of my DOP friends and all the directors I've worked with, would prefer (if not needing slow motion and 4K) to pick up a C300 or a Scarlet for Narrative/Doco work. It's something about the image. I really looked around on FS700/FS100 footage, watched shorts, watched tests, worked with the cameras myself, saw other kind of work my friends did with them, something about it just don't look filmic, the only camera Sony still got (okay, not really, as they don't make it anymore) that I really like and look very slick and cinematic is the F35! beautiful images. in the end of the day it's not about spec sheets and technical info for me, it's just about the images.
Sorry if this answer is not helpful enough, but I'm not good in explaining those things yet...
 
oron cohen said:
When I said that I've tried different shutter speeds, I meant what you suggested, so it's not like I only doubled the shutter speed when doubling the frame rate, I've tried various shutter speeds as you suggested, but I didn't have much time to test before hand to find the right combo I guess (even though I did make a quick test).

To answer you question about what is less Cinematic...god, this is so subjective I wouldn't know where to start. I would say that all of my DOP friends and all the directors I've worked with, would prefer (if not needing slow motion and 4K) to pick up a C300 or a Scarlet for Narrative/Doco work. It's something about the image. I really looked around on FS700/FS100 footage, watched shorts, watched tests, worked with the cameras myself, saw other kind of work my friends did with them, something about it just don't look filmic, the only camera Sony still got (okay, not really, as they don't make it anymore) that I really like and look very slick and cinematic is the F35! beautiful images. in the end of the day it's not about spec sheets and technical info for me, it's just about the images.
Sorry if this answer is not helpful enough, but I'm not good in explaining those things yet...
Click to expand...

So you would be able to tell the difference between C300 footage and FS700 footage
pretty easily from viewing it?
 
oron cohen said:
When I said that I've tried different shutter speeds, I meant what you suggested, so it's not like I only doubled the shutter speed when doubling the frame rate, I've tried various shutter speeds as you suggested, but I didn't have much time to test before hand to find the right combo I guess (even though I did make a quick test).

To answer you question about what is less Cinematic...god, this is so subjective I wouldn't know where to start. I would say that all of my DOP friends and all the directors I've worked with, would prefer (if not needing slow motion and 4K) to pick up a C300 or a Scarlet for Narrative/Doco work. It's something about the image. I really looked around on FS700/FS100 footage, watched shorts, watched tests, worked with the cameras myself, saw other kind of work my friends did with them, something about it just don't look filmic, the only camera Sony still got (okay, not really, as they don't make it anymore) that I really like and look very slick and cinematic is the F35! beautiful images. in the end of the day it's not about spec sheets and technical info for me, it's just about the images.
Sorry if this answer is not helpful enough, but I'm not good in explaining those things yet...
Click to expand...

The 'cinematic' look is derived from three things(in my opinion).

1) Camera's ability to handle highlights
2) Camera's ability to handle dynamic range
3) DP's ability to handle the camera

Of those 3, the DP without a doubt has the most influence over the final "look" the camera produces. DP's that suggest one camera looking more cinematic over another, generally aren't very experienced or simply don't understand the cameras they are using/not using. Also an important point, the fs700 was never marketed as a "professional" camera. It is a prosumer camera that(I believe) shoots professional quality video. The fact that its a prosumer product means a very large portion of the talented DP's out there won't touch it.

The c300 is a "professional product". While I don't believe this statement holds as much water as it implies, it does mean a larger number of professionals are going to prefer it over a prosumer product, providing it performs(which it does). Saying the c300 has a more 'cinematic' look is a bit of a joke(and I AM, a big fan of the c300). They both perform similarly in dynamic range(in camera) with the c300 being able to resolve greater detail, AND having an advantage/disadvantage with the sensitivity of its sensor. GREAT in low light, very bad at controlling highlights. Saying a scarlet is more 'cinematic', is still a bit of a joke, albeit a smaller one due to its beautiful dynamic range and superior codec for post processing.

Truth be told the c300 IS no more cinematic then an fs700. I do believe there is more "cinematic" material out there(shot with the c300 and scarlet) for the simple fact that better DP's are using them more. I would even go so far as to say if you gave any of those DP's an fs700(especially equipped with an O7Q) we would see the same level of 'cinema' quality.

ps: every time I hear a "dp" or anyone for that matter, say one camera is more "cinematic" than another, I chuckle and walk away :) Chances are their work is more dependent on their equipment then their actual craftsmanship
 
Last edited:
LeoGrey said:
The 'cinematic' look is derived from three things(in my opinion).

1) Camera's ability to handle highlights
2) Camera's ability to handle dynamic range
3) DP's ability to handle the camera

Of those 3, the DP without a doubt has the most influence over the final "look" the camera produces. DP's that suggest one camera looking more cinematic over another, generally aren't very experienced or simply don't understand the cameras they are using/not using. Also an important point, the fs700 was never marketed as a "professional" camera. It is a prosumer camera that(I believe) shoots professional quality video. The fact that its a prosumer product means a very large portion of the talented DP's out there won't touch it.

The c300 is a "professional product". While I don't believe this statement holds as much water as it implies, it does mean a larger number of professionals are going to prefer it over a prosumer product, providing it performs(which it does). Saying the c300 has a more 'cinematic' look is a bit of a joke(and I AM, a big fan of the c300). They both perform similarly in dynamic range(in camera) with the c300 being able to resolve greater detail, AND having an advantage/disadvantage with the sensitivity of its sensor. GREAT in low light, very bad at controlling highlights. Saying a scarlet is more 'cinematic', is still a bit of a joke, albeit a smaller one due to its beautiful dynamic range and superior codec for post processing.

Truth be told the c300 IS no more cinematic then an fs700. I do believe there is more "cinematic" material out there(shot with the c300 and scarlet) for the simple fact that better DP's are using them more. I would even go so far as to say if you gave any of those DP's an fs700(especially equipped with an O7Q) we would see the same level of 'cinema' quality.

ps: every time I hear a "dp" or anyone for that matter, say one camera is more "cinematic", I chuckle and walk away :) Chances are their work is more dependent on their equipment then their actual craftsmanship
Click to expand...

I think your post is a bit arrogant implying I don't have experience etc. I've done great works on many different cameras, from Sony V1 HDV to Super16/35mm and Red ONE, Epic and Scarlet, JVC HD100, Sony DigiBeta, DSR450, FS700m, Canon C300/100 and more and more cameras and adapters but I choose the camera according to the project.

The camera is an essential tool in my work as a DOP(together with light), but in documentary work I'm more reliant on the camera to produce the goods.
I also feel your statement: "Chances are their work is more dependent on their equipment then their actual craftsmanship" is false. Choosing the Camera is PART of the actual craftsmanship! btw, I'm not sure if you're a DP or Director, but walking away on a DP because he prefers one camera over another is not a smart move, as you will have the potential to lose on some amazing DP's, Roger Deakins for example, that said a few times he prefers the Alexa as it finally got the IQ he was looking for...but by what you say, he doesn't know what he is talking about, even if used FS700 his work will be the same?!?

So just for you I'll repeat the "joke", C300 looks more cinematic than FS700 without using external recorders. Scarlet looks better than both. F35 looks better than all three. This is, if I have the same lighting conditions, same everything else. It's just my personal view, and it's not making me less professional than you.

How all of this got to do with a short clip I edited from footage I had I'm not sure :-)
 
alaskacameradude said:
So you would be able to tell the difference between C300 footage and FS700 footage
pretty easily from viewing it?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking the answer is yes. Unless the images didn't go through heavy post production etc. Have a look at the Zacuto tests, most DP's could spot the better cameras most of the time.
 
oron cohen said:
I think your post is a bit arrogant implying I don't have experience etc. I've done great works on many different cameras, from Sony V1 HDV to Super16/35mm and Red ONE, Epic and Scarlet, JVC HD100, Sony DigiBeta, DSR450, FS700m, Canon C300/100 and more and more cameras and adapters but I choose the camera according to the project.


The camera is an essential tool in my work as a DOP(together with light), but in documentary work I'm more reliant on the camera to produce the goods.
I also feel your statement: "Chances are their work is more dependent on their equipment then their actual craftsmanship" is false. Choosing the Camera is PART of the actual craftsmanship! btw, I'm not sure if you're a DP or Director, but walking away on a DP because he prefers one camera over another is not a smart move, as you will have the potential to lose on some amazing DP's, Roger Deakins for example, that said a few times he prefers the Alexa as it finally got the IQ he was looking for...but by what you say, he doesn't know what he is talking about, even if used FS700 his work will be the same?!?


So just for you I'll repeat the "joke", C300 looks more cinematic than FS700 without using external recorders. Scarlet looks better than both. F35 looks better than all three. This is, if I have the same lighting conditions, same everything else. It's just my personal view, and it's not making me less professional than you.


How all of this got to do with a short clip I edited from footage I had I'm not sure :-)
Click to expand...

Two things :)

1) My apologies if you feel I insulted you in any way, that was truly not my intention. It also wasn't my intention to "imply" anything about you OR your experience. I made sure to mention it was only my opinion and in no way did I intend to come off as arrogant

2) Putting words in someone's mouth or twisting what they say is not a smart way to go about communicating your opinion. Neither is taking posts on a public forum personal. All I was simply saying was that(in my opinion) of the cameras you spoke of, none of them look any more "cinematic" then the other. I didn't mention anything about professionalism either, not sure where you got that from.

To make things a little more clear, I work both as a director and DP :) I don't own an fs700, c300 or a scarlet(but do enjoy the results I have gotten from all 3). I also don't "walk away" from DP's that have a camera preference. I walk away from the ones that make claims of one camera looking more "cinematic" then another. Of course choosing the camera is an integral part of the process, but it has little to do with the craft of filmmaking!

True in fact each camera renders light, color and detail differently, but it's more the choices we make with (X) camera that determines how "cinematic" it looks. (in my opinion)

A really good example is the tv series, breaking bad. Watching many episodes I thought to myself(wow, that looked incredible video'ish) and it's being shot with an ALEXA. So by your mindset, that camera doesn't look "cinematic". Wouldn't a better explanation be that due to the rigorous requirements of production not every scene could be setup and crafted to look beautiful? Maybe we are saying the same thing, although I definitely don't derive any of my knowledge from sites like zacuto or other review sites with an agenda.

ps: If Roger Deakin's shot a movie with an fs700(or even an iphone) it would probably STILL blow minds everywhere and dp's across the globe would be raving about how "cinematic" it looked =) Sorry, I had too!
 
Last edited:
"Truth be told the c300 IS no more cinematic then an fs700. I do believe there is more "cinematic" material out there(shot with the c300 and scarlet) for the simple fact that better DP's are using them more."

Very well said.
 
oron cohen said:
Generally speaking the answer is yes. Unless the images didn't go through heavy post production etc. Have a look at the Zacuto tests, most DP's could spot the better cameras most of the time.
Click to expand...

Really? I seem to recall several of them picking the GH2 over much 'better' cameras. Do I remember that wrong?

Is this 'more cinematic' look something subtle or is it easy for you to spot? For example, if I posted several
video examples, some shot on the FS700 and others shot on the C300 online, would the vimeo compression make
it hard to pick out which was which, or does the 'uncinematic' qualities show through, even on web videos? I'm
curious about this as I've had others tell me this as well. I personally can't tell the difference, but it doesn't mean
someone else couldn't.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Really? I seem to recall several of them picking the GH2 over much 'better' cameras. Do I remember that wrong?

Is this 'more cinematic' look something subtle or is it easy for you to spot? For example, if I posted several
video examples, some shot on the FS700 and others shot on the C300 online, would the vimeo compression make
it hard to pick out which was which, or does the 'uncinematic' qualities show through, even on web videos? I'm
curious about this as I've had others tell me this as well. I personally can't tell the difference, but it doesn't mean
someone else couldn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for some reason I thought the big takeaway from the shootout was that we are in a renaissance of digital filmmaking. While there are differences between cameras, we have a lot of incredible tools at our disposal, with even the "worst" of the cameras yielding impressive results if you cater to its advantages and accommodate its downfalls.
 
jshbckr said:
Yeah, for some reason I thought the big takeaway from the shootout was that we are in a renaissance of digital filmmaking. While there are differences between cameras, we have a lot of incredible tools at our disposal, with even the "worst" of the cameras yielding impressive results if you cater to its advantages and accommodate its downfalls.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what I got from it too.

For what its worth, I've worked with both C300 and FS700. One of the
interesting things too me is this notion one of them is 'cinematic' and the other 'video ish'.
Interesting, because there are about 3 million ways you can set things to make either one
of the cameras look different. Different gamma curves, black level, black gamma, color
matrix, knee curve and slope, detail (lowering this seems to make some people like the
motion from the Sony better than when it is at default). I personally don't see a big difference.
Yeah, they are different 'out of the box' but I can match them pretty close without much
trouble (probably because they both have a similar size chip, with similar number of pixels).
The C300 built in codec is nicer, but with the 7Q '4K2HD' the FS700 catches back (and
surpasses) the C300 codec. Yet some people persist in saying the C300 is more cinematic.
I personally don't see it and put it down more to a 'personal preference' on how C300
generally looks. Similarly, I've had people tell me the GH2 is more cinematic than other
cameras or the BMD is 'the most cinematic'.....again I think it's just personal preference.
But, maybe I'm wrong and there is something too it. Maybe I just don't have that 'DP'
eye to see the strange motion rendering from the FS700. That's why I was asking if
those who see it, can tell fairly easily, even on vimeo or the like or if it is very subtle.
 
LeoGrey said:
A really good example is the tv series, breaking bad. Watching many episodes I thought to myself(wow, that looked incredible video'ish) and it's being shot with an ALEXA.
Click to expand...

I am quite sure it was shot on 35mm film.

edit:
I re-checked it as it was a time ago when I was looking for it
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903747/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

I was wondering about missing shallow of depth of field and a tendency
of skin tones towards purple. I was really surprised learning that it was 35mm
(so much for: what is cinematic in relation to your camera)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top