Music video shot with the FS100 & 5D Mark II

The director pushed this video out so quickly. Nothing was graded.... The 5D stuff was all shot with the technicolor profile..
 
Don't apologize for anythig man...it all looked good to me. Which shots were the 5ll? The night scenes?
EDIT: Okay the story material.
 
Last edited:
Good work overall! Great video. I don,t really like the compositing shots. Seems a bit cheesy and reminds me of music videos in the 90s. The editing in the first part is a bit slow, I was expecting more cuts to go with the pace of the music.

The FS100 shots are so great, so cinematics. Skin tones are spot on. i never thought I would say that, but the 5D shots looks more like video to me, less cinematic, with way too much contrast, low dynamic range, skin tones a bit of, lack of details.

Might be because of the grading or lack of it, or the compression.

I'm picky because I know you posted this here to get comments, but I really enjoyed it.
 
The band shots looked 'effortless' and 'expensive'. There were moments in the Graffiti wall sections where one just gets sucked into the performance. When our protagonist returns home to his partner, the Canon shots look VERY 'DSLR' - it's such a prevalent look for us in this forum, as you say - 'ungraded DSLR' - Technicolor needs grading. Are we over-exposed to the DSLR look? Is that why there's a freshness to the band footage whilst the DSLR moments are rich in a sort of 'meatball and gravy' way? The cab scene didn't feel airy, the studio scene, for my eyes, was a little too flattering in places. As a complete piece, it stands in its own right and it's great as such, but it's fun to pick a few fleas out of the DSLR stuff as FS100 owners!
 
I can definitely tell the difference between the 5D and FS100 shots but I don't think they are that incongruent (at least not on a web video, smaller screen). I also don't think the 5D shots weren't corrected - are you sure you didn't apply at least a LUT? TC profile usually looks much more washed out.

One thing for sure the FS100 looks very clean and very nice, a cut above the 5D. But you could also argue the 5D looks more filmic, mostly due to its softness. Some would say that's a bad thing. It all depends on your taste.

I'm kind of torn, personally. I came from a 5D2 to the FS100. The FS is so much cleaner and looks so much better, but I also miss that extrenely shallow depth of field that I got easier with the 5D. The 5D also has this filmic look that I think the FS100 isn't quite as good at. It's almost as if the FS100 is too good. And I have tried with many fast lenses: F2.8, F2, F1.4, etc. (It's probably the lensing that is throwing me off; I haven't shot on S35 sized sensors for a while so I got used to that FF style; I get the same issues with the 7D and 60D).

Don't get wrong; I'm not complaining. I'ts more of a shock coming from DSLRs at how good the FS100 looks. You almost have to degrade the Sony footage to make it cut better with a 5D or 7D, etc. That's saying something!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top