FS700 without O7Q & Cine Looks

C

cs259

Member
Hi, so I have used my FS700 for more than a year. I don't use any external recorder. I never get cinematic looks with it. Even if I use S-Log2 PP, I still don't get the cine looks. The color grading is a little bit hard, and the image which I shot is not sharp. I know that lighting and lens does matter. I usually use the stock lens (18-200mm f3.5 - 6.3). Does anybody know why I still don't get the cine looks? Maybe are there any good FS700 PP to make the color grading process easier? Or maybe are there any lens recommendations? I'm a big fan of Canon L Series Lenses. Never use third party lenses and Sony Zeiss lenses, but if there are good third party & Sony Lenses, let me know :) Thanks.
 
what do you mean by cinematic looks? Do you get cinematic looks with other cameras? If you are having trouble grading, try just using a LUT like the Impulz LUTs or the Sony 709 type A LUT. Most likely you need to work on your lighting and composition?

I tend to think the lens itself is less important than an operator that knows what to do with it, but some other lenses might not hurt. If you definte cinematic look by shallow depth of field as some might, a faster lens or a speedbooster might help, but I'd hardly think that is required for "cinematic" imagery since much of cinema is shot at f4-5.6
 
The biggest factors, IMHO, that define a cinematic look are dynamic range, highlight roll-off, and grain substructure. The native FS700 is 8 bit with about 10-11 stops of useful dynamic range. IMHO, this will never be good enough for a real cinematic look. But, there are steps you can take to mitigate the video look. Never, never blow out the hilites! You can fight the limitations with lighting(to reduce the scene DR), but, you can never really overcome the nature of the electronic noise produced by an electronic sensor. The natural color rendition of the FS700 is, by design, constrained by REC709. With some work in post, you can emulate D7, but, it's difficult. Newer technology, with sensors designed for a REC2020 color space, with 14 stops of DR, and a skilled operator, can begin to approach that long sought after film look.
 
My A cam is an F5. Don't need no stinking FS7. The form factor is all wrong, the camera is still under development, software-wise, I'd still be stuck with that dumb prosumer emount, the RAW capable add-ons are outrageous and extraneous, and there's no RGB444 capability. No thanks. My FS700+O7Q works perfectly, for me, for those smaller jobs that don't want to pay for the F5. The smaller clients shiver at the cost of media on the FS7.

Maybe when REC2020 monitors get to be de riguer, or when a smaller client even knows what HD is, and when pigs fly.....don't hold your breath.
 
Last edited:
Hi cs259, can you post some examples of your work that you are not happy with? We might be able to better guide you as how to achieve the look you are trying to achieve.

I believe that you can make something that looks very cinematic with this camera even without using an external recorder.
Here is an example I shot on with my FS700 using the internal 8-bit AVCHD codec.

https://vimeo.com/65327576

I feel that it looks pretty cinematic right?
Understanding your cameras limits and virtues and pushing them just to the edge will help you achieve what you are looking for.
Run a bunch of tests with your camera until you really feel like you know it inside and out.
Once you are able to get close to the look you are trying to achieve in camera then take it into post and use color correction only to slightly enhance the look.
It shouldn't need much?
Pay attention to the "mise-en-scene" what is the composition and design elements and how do they help you achieve story?
Controlled lighting and set design were the key elements that helped me achieve the cinematic look in the footage I posted.

And finally lenses.
I shot this with a set of Rokinon prime lenses nothing fancy.
The 18-200 kit lens has it's place but I rarely use it unless it's run-and-gun and I need to quickly change focal lengths or need auto focus.

Once you are able to achieve a decent look internally with this camera an external recorder like the odyssey 7Q will only step up your game.
Hope some of this helps.
: )

Happy Shooting...
 
Similarly, I shot this piece all internal on the fs700. So 8bit AVCHD

https://vimeo.com/116317793

It's not what I'd call "cinematic"...but I also think what you're really after is just a nice, organic image with decent colors. I shot the piece above with a custom calibrated version of Cinigamma2. It came out of the camera mostly right, just tweaked it slightly in post. I'd recommend going this route, since 8bit AVCHD is not a very robust codec. Not to say that you can't get good results with Slog2 internal recording, because you can, just I think that calibrating a Cinegamma to give you a baked in look can be a very helpful place to begin with.

Then, having zebras at 95% and ETTR only slightly gave me the results you see above. Of course, the location didn't push the limits of the camera in terms of dynamic range. It's important to know what the camera can do well and stay within those limits.
 
Sorry for late reply, guys. Thanks for all the answers. I can't open vimeo because it's been blocked by my goverments. I usually use S-Log2 as my PP and Magic Bullet Looks as my color grading software, but I can't achieve the "Cine Looks" that I want. Recently, I am learning to use Davinci Resolve but I can't import .MTS file to it. Does somebody have an idea to solve that problem?

Here is the screenshots of my works:
http://tinypic.com/a/3dimh/2
All of those screenshots are shot with FS700 with kit lens and S-Log2, color graded in Magic Bulet Looks.

The "Cine Looks" that I want is like these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAD0BtEv6-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clRjbYa4UWQ
https://vimeo.com/102128538 (I had watched this video before my goverments blocked vimeo :undecided)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz2rAgXjkCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhqN6k3wvR8 (even "The making of" looks cinematic)

I know some of them use RED or ARRI which has huge DR and RAW capabilities, but are there any tricks to make FS700 achieve that "cine look" without using O7Q?

IMHO, FS700 kit lens is not sharp for filming. I tried the kit lens and attached it on Sony A7s, the image looked terrible.

One last question, If I use the same PP in FS700 and A7s, would they look the same? So the color grading could be easier.
 
Last edited:
I think your screen grabs look nice. To me, motion determines the cine look more than color rendition. It's easy to tweak an image to have cinematic qualities....but tweaking the motion is a lot harder. It's important to get the right frame rates, shutter angles and codec.

While both the A7S and FS700 will shoot in Slog2, they are different cameras with different sensors and will produce different images. However, if you shoot with the exact same settings on both, yes it will make grading much easier.

You can add some midtone detail with Davinci and that will improve the sharpness of your images greatly.
 
seanmc said:
I think your screen grabs look nice. To me, motion determines the cine look more than color rendition. It's easy to tweak an image to have cinematic qualities....but tweaking the motion is a lot harder. It's important to get the right frame rates, shutter angles and codec.

While both the A7S and FS700 will shoot in Slog2, they are different cameras with different sensors and will produce different images. However, if you shoot with the exact same settings on both, yes it will make grading much easier.

You can add some midtone detail with Davinci and that will improve the sharpness of your images greatly.
Click to expand...
For me, the screen grabs are far than the video refference I've posted. I want to buy 3-axis gimbal system but It's way too expensive. I have Glidecam HD4000 + Glidecam smooth shooter but they aren't convenient. Thanks for the tips!
 
cuervo said:
My A cam is an F5. Don't need no stinking FS7. The form factor is all wrong, the camera is still under development, software-wise, I'd still be stuck with that dumb prosumer emount, the RAW capable add-ons are outrageous and extraneous, and there's no RGB444 capability. No thanks. My FS700+O7Q works perfectly, for me, for those smaller jobs that don't want to pay for the F5. The smaller clients shiver at the cost of media on the FS7.

Maybe when REC2020 monitors get to be de riguer, or when a smaller client even knows what HD is, and when pigs fly.....don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

Sounds like theres someone whos a little bit angry, cause he spend way too much on a F5 when he could have had an FS 7
with almost the same features and 4k ;)
 
Hey CS259,

I'd say that there's three things that you feel you're missing. The first is lighting. All of the references you've presented have good lighting - quite a lot of them have a strong back light - or a 3/4 back key light that gives a nice shadow to the face. A lot of them have soft keys.

In comparison none of the screen shots you've presented look like they have been 'lit' (i.e. no additional lighting), none of them have a strong backlight (which separate the subject from the background), none of them have particularly high contrast in terms of lighting (which often feels more 'filmic') - there's no great sense of areas to light and areas of darkness. The overall composition tends to be stronger as well - more geared towards focussing upon the subject.

Next I suspect you're operating at quite a closed Iris (f6.3 and above) so you're not getting the shallow focus that many now associate with cinema (which also helps separate out the subject)

Finally everything has had a serious grade added to it: strong colours, strong colour choice, strong blacks, lots of work on the skin tones etc.

Although please don't take this as a criticism! We can all improve our work. What I'd suggest is:

1. Get a couple of lights - they don't have to be fancy, 2-3 1ft LED panels would help you out a lot, and a reflector with diffuser disk. Key your subjects with one or two panels through the diffuser an add another as a backlight on the opposite side. Then start playing around with other lighting set ups. Analyse the light in videos you like and try to work out how they were lit. Also pay attention to the real world around you - when you see something that is naturally lit beautifully have a think about how that is happening.

2. Get yourself a faster lens - it doesn't have to be expensive, old M42 glass is quite cheap and can give you some nice shallow shots (although not all of it is particularly sharp). I had an 50mm SMC Takumar f1.4 that was okay and an 85mm Jupiter-9 f2 that I really liked. Likewise the old Canon FDs can be nice and not to pricey.

3. Carry on working with Resolve (use a programme like 5D to RGB or Clip wrap to convert the footage to Apple pro res before grading - or edit and export from your edit programme to send it to Resolve for grading, you can always use the scene detect function to chop up the edit for grading). Again try analyse the grade on videos that you like - what have they done to the blacks, mid tones, highlights, skin tones, colour saturation etc. Have a think about what is different about them compared to what you've been doing.
 
Colinelves said:
Hey CS259,

I'd say that there's three things that you feel you're missing. The first is lighting. All of the references you've presented have good lighting - quite a lot of them have a strong back light - or a 3/4 back key light that gives a nice shadow to the face. A lot of them have soft keys.

In comparison none of the screen shots you've presented look like they have been 'lit' (i.e. no additional lighting), none of them have a strong backlight (which separate the subject from the background), none of them have particularly high contrast in terms of lighting (which often feels more 'filmic') - there's no great sense of areas to light and areas of darkness. The overall composition tends to be stronger as well - more geared towards focussing upon the subject.

Next I suspect you're operating at quite a closed Iris (f6.3 and above) so you're not getting the shallow focus that many now associate with cinema (which also helps separate out the subject)

Finally everything has had a serious grade added to it: strong colours, strong colour choice, strong blacks, lots of work on the skin tones etc.

Although please don't take this as a criticism! We can all improve our work. What I'd suggest is:

1. Get a couple of lights - they don't have to be fancy, 2-3 1ft LED panels would help you out a lot, and a reflector with diffuser disk. Key your subjects with one or two panels through the diffuser an add another as a backlight on the opposite side. Then start playing around with other lighting set ups. Analyse the light in videos you like and try to work out how they were lit. Also pay attention to the real world around you - when you see something that is naturally lit beautifully have a think about how that is happening.

2. Get yourself a faster lens - it doesn't have to be expensive, old M42 glass is quite cheap and can give you some nice shallow shots (although not all of it is particularly sharp). I had an 50mm SMC Takumar f1.4 that was okay and an 85mm Jupiter-9 f2 that I really liked. Likewise the old Canon FDs can be nice and not to pricey.

3. Carry on working with Resolve (use a programme like 5D to RGB or Clip wrap to convert the footage to Apple pro res before grading - or edit and export from your edit programme to send it to Resolve for grading, you can always use the scene detect function to chop up the edit for grading). Again try analyse the grade on videos that you like - what have they done to the blacks, mid tones, highlights, skin tones, colour saturation etc. Have a think about what is different about them compared to what you've been doing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer, your answer is absolutely helpful!


First, about the lighting, I have 3 RedHead 800 watt which are quite hot and use a lot of power, I usually use these lights to lit the background (by bouncing light to the ceiling) or using it as a back light. Sometimes I use them as my keylight but they are very hot and hard light (putting a reflector in front of them is not so helpful since the intensity of the light decrease). I also have 3 small LED Lights (LEDGO CN-B150) which aren't really useful. I am considering to buy more lights but I'm confused to choose which light I should buy, LED or Fluorescent?


How about outdoor lighting setup? How to solve the problem when cloud is moving? When clouds cover the sun, we don't have light source to bounce with reflector.


Second, about the faster lens, they also need to be sharp, needn't they? I am considering to buy some (maybe 2 or 3 if they're cheap) Rokinon / Samyang Cine Prime Lens. What do you think about them? Or should I buy Sigma / Canon primes? Which focal lenght do you recommend? 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, or any others?


Third, thanks for the Resolve tips, I will try to analyze how they color grade the scenes. About the converting footages, will it decrease footages quality?


I got one last question, what do you think about the external recorder which can record 4:2:2 & 10-bit? Does it make the image sharper / make the color grading process easier? Thanks before! :)
 
Fader8 said:
Sounds like theres someone whos a little bit angry, cause he spend way too much on a F5 when he could have had an FS 7
with almost the same features and 4k ;)
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'm not angry at all. Both cameras were available when I made my purchase; and, I don't regret my choice. What is irritating, tho', is the constant barrage of fan-boi praising of the latest cam dujour, which, in truth, looks like a bit gimicky and completely awkward shoulder mounting. As I said, I hate the retro form factor.I expect the F5 to be as enduring as the F3. I'll be willing to bet the FS7 goes the way of the FS700 and FS100 in a year's time. I am loving the Sony SR codec, something not available on the FS7. And the stability of the PL mount is unquestionably better than the sloppy e-mount. I know you R&G guys love your auto everything, auto exposure, auto focus, but, I have no need for such fancy electronics that works sometimes, at best. No, I don't regret my choice.

The F5 is almost fully developed firmware, something the FS7 is still struggling with. That's enough of a reason, AFAIK, right there. By the time you add the add-on unit, the price is competitive with the F5. And in a year's time, I can upgarde my F5 to an F55. Something the FS7 will never do without selling it and buying the next cam du jour.

And, finally, while I can understand a R&G shooter's need for XAVC-long, personally, I'd never shoot it. XAVC-I is stunning and I wouldn't compromise it's quality to save a little storage space. So, to me, having XAVC-L is just wasted space.

I've observed that Sony has a recurring business model of developing technology on their higher end models, then making that technology available to prosumer cams once their non-recurring costs are recovered; and, proven on the upscale models, finally trickling down to their consumer cam offerings. This is just good business tactics. While it's a bit irritating for those who do buy into the more expensive models, we all make a choice, hopefully intelligently and not as fan-boi's responding to some paid endorsement, by a popular shooter, when a new model is released.

These two cams really are totally different applications for totally different shooting styles. I just get tired of wading thru all the FS7 inane chatter in the Cinealta categaory and this category. This is exactly the kind of posting I'm referring to, that has no value to what should be a technical forum. I wish the FS7 would get its own category rather than overwhelm the Cinealta category. Maybe the moderators should have an FS7 Social Networking forum for you guys. I still wade thru this FS700 category because I still have my FS700. Occasionally there's a relevant, intelligent bit of technical info, here. Otherwise, these perpetual and childish dialogues are just a waste of my time.

edit: My apologies, in advance, to those professionals who have an FS7 because it fit their budget. It shoots images almostr as good as an F5/F55. I would have bought one to replace my FS700, if cost was a constraint for me, but, seriously, by the time you get the RAW back on the FS7, it's cost is almost the same as an F5. And, after some careful shopping around, an F5 or, F55 on the used market, is a MUCH bigger bang for the hard earned buck.

...and Sony hasn't paid me a dime for my opinion...LOL....maybe because it's not worth it to them...HAH! I don't see very many paid endorsements coming from Arri...I wonder why? I see comparative tests between Arri, F55, F3, but, never FS7 to Arri....why is that?
https://vimeo.com/119874909
 
Last edited:
cs259 said:
Thanks for the answer, your answer is absolutely helpful!


First, about the lighting, I have 3 RedHead 800 watt which are quite hot and use a lot of power, I usually use these lights to lit the background (by bouncing light to the ceiling) or using it as a back light. Sometimes I use them as my keylight but they are very hot and hard light (putting a reflector in front of them is not so helpful since the intensity of the light decrease). I also have 3 small LED Lights (LEDGO CN-B150) which aren't really useful. I am considering to buy more lights but I'm confused to choose which light I should buy, LED or Fluorescent?
Click to expand...

In terms of LEDs the Lite panel Astras pack a hell of a punch for the price. Otherwise the Hove lighting plasma units or K5600 joker 1600 look great - but reading your post I suspect all these are outside your budget. So... Maybe think about using the lifts your already have better: If I were you I'd use the red heads to light the subject -through some form of diffusion (or bounced off a wall) generally you want the subject to be a bit brighter than the background so they stand out more. Think one big soft (ie large diameter) source close to your subject rather than lots of little ones. A big source is like sticking the subject next to the window (which is another option). One or two lights well placed can look great (and each light can really be multiple lights pushed through diffusion or bounced off a reflector) - and very cinematic.

cs259 said:
How about outdoor lighting setup? How to solve the problem when cloud is moving? When clouds cover the sun, we don't have light source to bounce with reflector.
Click to expand...

generally it's called waiting! If you have the budget the best solution for a hard sun is to stick up a massive silk so the subject is partially shaded yet lot beautifully by the soft source of the sun through silk. Otherwise I generally try to shoot under he cloud, everyone bangs on about nice sunny days, but the light is much more flattering when it's cloudy - the hard sun is usually too much for me. If I have to have it I tend to use it as a back light and bounce or in to key they subject with a white reflector. But the main rule is - whatever you go for (shooting in sun or shade) stick with it! You can't mix half your shots in full sunshine and half in cloud.

cs259 said:
Second, about the faster lens, they also need to be sharp, needn't they? I am considering to buy some (maybe 2 or 3 if they're cheap) Rokinon / Samyang Cine Prime Lens. What do you think about them? Or should I buy Sigma / Canon primes? Which focal lenght do you recommend? 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, or any others?
Click to expand...

the Samyang 35mm and 85mm seem to have a good reputation. The others less so. A lot of people like this sigma f1.8, zoom - which might be a good bet. Personally I think sharpness is over rated. Some of the old lenses can be nice and a little soft in a nice way (while others are horrible). If you go for primes I'd definitely look at and 85mm and something wide like a 24mm or even a super wide like a 14mm. Then maybe a 35mm but I'd say I use my 24mm and 85mm the most.

cs259 said:
Third, thanks for the Resolve tips, I will try to analyze how they color grade the scenes. About the converting footages, will it decrease footages quality?


I got one last question, what do you think about the external recorder which can record 4:2:2 & 10-bit? Does it make the image sharper / make the color grading process easier? Thanks before! :)
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

i think there are fewer compression artefacts which give the impression the image is sharper. 10 bit seems to be more forgiving of mistakes than 8 bit - and a little better at holding the highlights. Personally I've found that having the O7Q has made a massive difference to the quality of my footage, but that's just me!
 
cuervo said:
On the contrary, I'm not angry at all. Both cameras were available when I made my purchase; and, I don't regret my choice.
Click to expand...

I bought my F5 in September, the day the FS7 was announced. I went with the F5 for the similar reasons, SR codec, OLED viewfinder and the PL mount. It was the right decision because I will be using the F5 for years to come. The more I use the F5, the more I like it.

I would love to have a play with the FS7 and compare. I don't like the FS7 form factor either and I would personally rather have a FS700. For some reason I still want to buy a FS700, not that I need one :smile:

cuervo said:
I just get tired of wading through all the FS7 inane chatter in the Cinealta category and this category. This is exactly the kind of posting I'm referring to, that has no value to what should be a technical forum. I wish the FS7 would get its own category rather than overwhelm the Cinealta category.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the FS7 should have it's own sub category as the amount of FS7 posts is a real turn off. Still, it's good to see more Sony cameras being used.
 
Fader8 said:
Sounds like theres someone whos a little bit angry, cause he spend way too much on a F5 when he could have had an FS 7
with almost the same features and 4k ;)
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that. Someone could say the same about FS7 buyers. 'You could have saved money and bought
a FS700 and used the Odyssey 7Q' The thing is, adding extra bits and pieces works for some, but not for others.
Ergonomics and all that. So an FS7 with the back, and an Odyssey 7Q may be closer to what he would be looking
at to 'replace' the F5. FS7 is nice, but I doubt many who have an F5 are wishing they had bought a FS7.
If you have the kind of money to buy a F5, you not in the same 'end of the pool' that the DSLR shooters wade in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top