FS7: Red Raven and FS7
- Thread starter Gene Sung
- Start date
+1
FS7 is a nice general purpose camera that will allow you to shoot very broad of things. It will get you to 95% of IQ but it leaves a space for another one that will give you 100% of IQ (in digital at least) that you want (at a cost of operability, ease of use and price). One perfect camera for everything does not exist but at least FS7 is coming very close.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I watched Sicario today on a great big screen in a near empty theatre (all of five of us in there for the early showing). It was, without doubt the best cinematography I've seen all year. It's magic had little to do with the camera tech and everything to do with shot and scene construction, camera placement, choice of lens, camera movement, composition and lighting. These are the elements that convey the film language we all love and along with the other core craft skills, editing, music, production design, deliver the cinematic experience. It could have been shot on an iPhone for all I cared.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
That sounds about right.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
C'mon, spill the beans already!
I graded it in NUKE, which was a blessing and a curse.
On one hand Nuke is insanely powerful and you can do things that would probably be impossible to do in a standard grading program. I also know Nuke very well, so that was a plus.
On other hand you are completely on your own when it comes to things like color science and such. That was a PIA. I've have been doing this for a very long time, but I'm not a color scientist. Therefore I had to do a lot of research to get it to work.
You're also missing basic things like a nice image store to compare shots, a timeline etc. You're basically grading the piece one shot at a time. Every shot is it's own node tree. Nuke Studio solves a lot of those problems but I only had access to a copy of NukeX.
There is also some voodoo in there that emulates a Technicolor camera...
I'm gearing up to start a new short next week. I'm going to give Nuke Studio a look, but I have a feeling it will be a combination of Nuke and Resolve...
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I was thinking about this and I don't agree that the concept of a camera having a cinematic look is entirely nonsense.
To me the deal breaker is motion cadence and frame rate. 24fps and roughly a 180 degree shutter looks cinematic to most people, even if they don't have a clue how to define it. You break that rule and even laymen say that something no longer looks 'cinematic', but like a soap opera or video. As an example I would put forth The Hobbit movies and Public Enemies. These were huge Hollywood productions with all the departments you list to produce the 'cinematic look', but both have been criticized for looking like elaborate TV shows due to their unconventional frame rates.
Now you could say that is only the case, because we are accustomed to seeing 24fps in theaters, but I think that is a legitimate argument. Our perception of so many things in life are formed by tradition and definitions that have been established over time. In comparison color science suddenly becomes a distant second in the discussion and almost a matter of taste.
That may change as the world is no longer divided into a handful of frame rates (24, 25, 30 fps). But at this point in time I feel that more than anything it is motion cadence and frame rate that determine if the output of a camera looks cinematic. We can argue about RED vs Sony vs Arri color, but I think all would fail if they did not produce motion cadence and frame rates that the world currently associates with what is traditionally associated with movies. Like I said, that may go out the window 10-20 years from now, but at this point in time I think it may be the decisive factor.
10 years ago I would have added that it needed to look like it was shot in film for people to say that something looked cinematic, because for the most part the world really was divided between movies shot on film and TV and the difference was really apparent. And again the laymen would pick up on this. But time have changed and we are now exposed to an enormous amount of looks from different devices, so the color science has become less of a factor in determining if something looks cinematic.
Last edited:
starcentral
Veteran
But it wasn't shot on an iPhone, and there's a reason the camera and/or format was chosen for the film. (Which happened to be ARRI)
No one's going to go through all those efforts as you described and then turn around and shoot it on an "iphone".
I get that fundamentally the camera itself is a very small piece of the pie but sorry people still go out of their way to pick the right tool for the job.
Last edited:
I've never seen Utopia, so here's a (NSFW) clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47tFA5t_d_o
A look that cuts in between film and "video" or, as been pointed out before, it looks digital (and more and more people are getting used to it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47tFA5t_d_o
A look that cuts in between film and "video" or, as been pointed out before, it looks digital (and more and more people are getting used to it).
+1 Dennis.
I haven't seen Sicario yet, but I would bet my house that it wouldn't look anything like it does if it was shot on an iPhone.
But you are right that lens choice, blocking, movement, locations etc is what makes a great looking film.
What a lot of people miss I think, is that we associate the cinematic look with big lights as well as all the other stuff.
People try to light a scene with a few redheads and ask themselves why it doesn't look anything like a Hollywood movie.
The square law is a *****;-)
I haven't seen Sicario yet, but I would bet my house that it wouldn't look anything like it does if it was shot on an iPhone.
But you are right that lens choice, blocking, movement, locations etc is what makes a great looking film.
What a lot of people miss I think, is that we associate the cinematic look with big lights as well as all the other stuff.
People try to light a scene with a few redheads and ask themselves why it doesn't look anything like a Hollywood movie.
The square law is a *****;-)
Liam Hall
Veteran
The iPhone comment was exaggeration for dramatic effect. Point is, it could have been shot on Red or F65 or any number of cameras and retained it's intrinsic cinematic feel.
See above
And go see the movie.
Grug
Veteran
I just don't think the situation is quite as bad as so many people make it out to be with these cameras (especially since the arrival of Sgamut3.cine and SLOG3). Yes, a lot of people struggle to grade Sony footage effectively, but it truly is simpler than most people make it out to be. And I have no qualms with the results.
So here are some grabs from a recent project I shot on the F5. I'm going to post three versions of each image:
- The original log file
- The Rec709a LUT and a simple contrast curve applied
- And then the Impulz Kodak 50D film-emulation LUT applied, with contrast curves and some minor tweaks
Now, none of these are extremes grades by any means. But you can see just how close the Rec709a LUT with a simple contrast curve comes to the final grades. There isn't an awful lot between them, and truth be told - if I'd handed the footage off to a colourist and got the simple Rec709a grades back, I'd be pretty happy with the results anyway.
For me, the real question is, would these images look any better (or worse), if they'd been shot with Alexa or Dragon? And honestly, I think they'd probably look very, very similar in the end. Because the colours, the contrast and the compositions would be the same. My lighting ratios and white balance choices would be the same. And all three brands of camera would give me the latitude in post to push them to where I want them.
With Sgamut3.cine, Sony's colour science simply isn't a bitter pill to swallow anymore.
DendriteStudios
Active member
This. Add all the other things that matter. Lens choice, filtration, location, wardrobe, makeup, etc make a way bigger difference on image than Arri vs. Red vs. Sony high end camera.
starcentral
Veteran
I have to repeat, no one said it's impossible to get good images out of Sony, but Mark you just acknowledged even in your own words that many people struggle to grade Sony footage effectively. For you it was just a 3rd party 3D LUT and some contrast tweaks, etc.. but then is Sony doing their own cameras justice with this?
I do agree with the Sony's there's a lot to work with in 10-bit 422 or 16-bit, PLUS it's better now that we have a cineon based gamma curve because it opens up use so many 3rd party LUTs meant for Log C… but it's sort of a joke that we even have to resort to 3rd party LUTs and experiment to mix and match them to "figure" out the davinci code behind the mysterious Sony camera.
ARRI built their "look" into the camera. RED has a multitude of color spaces and gamma space (REDlogFilm and REDgamma) to chose from and from day one Jannard's goal was to replicate the "look" or response of 35mm celluloid film. He sort of came close to his credit and to this day they still work to improve their color sciences.
What does Sony do? Release a 3d LUT that apparently Art Adams had to talk Sony into doing to fake bake an ARRI look into the image, which in reality doesn't to anything much except some color matching to ARRI REC709 and possibly desaturate the color based on the luminance strength. It's ok, but it's not ARRI or RED "film emulation" look by any means.
After stylizing images from any camera it can become a bit harder to know which camera it was from, but the last way I can attempt to describe what's missing from Sony is that you take a snap with a DSLR in RAW and shoot the same frame with a Sony camera, then a RED camera, and compare the results. No heavy styling or grading. Just open the Canon RAW still in Lightroom or Photoshop and observe the smooth tonality of the image, and same with RED, try a few RED color spaces and gamma space combinations and see how the image itself lends something similar to a still frame from a photograph. For the Sony frame add whatever LUT or voodoo magic combination of rain-dancing you need in post to get what you think is comparable. Right there in that last step, 1.) there are so many variables that results will vary, 2.) for the lucky bunch that can nail the post voodoo it still will lack this sort of "photographic" look which I do find difficult to describe in words.
Perhaps I will go out and shoot some RAW stills with my Canon and the F55, and post them. Maybe then it will be easier to see.
I do agree with the Sony's there's a lot to work with in 10-bit 422 or 16-bit, PLUS it's better now that we have a cineon based gamma curve because it opens up use so many 3rd party LUTs meant for Log C… but it's sort of a joke that we even have to resort to 3rd party LUTs and experiment to mix and match them to "figure" out the davinci code behind the mysterious Sony camera.
ARRI built their "look" into the camera. RED has a multitude of color spaces and gamma space (REDlogFilm and REDgamma) to chose from and from day one Jannard's goal was to replicate the "look" or response of 35mm celluloid film. He sort of came close to his credit and to this day they still work to improve their color sciences.
What does Sony do? Release a 3d LUT that apparently Art Adams had to talk Sony into doing to fake bake an ARRI look into the image, which in reality doesn't to anything much except some color matching to ARRI REC709 and possibly desaturate the color based on the luminance strength. It's ok, but it's not ARRI or RED "film emulation" look by any means.
After stylizing images from any camera it can become a bit harder to know which camera it was from, but the last way I can attempt to describe what's missing from Sony is that you take a snap with a DSLR in RAW and shoot the same frame with a Sony camera, then a RED camera, and compare the results. No heavy styling or grading. Just open the Canon RAW still in Lightroom or Photoshop and observe the smooth tonality of the image, and same with RED, try a few RED color spaces and gamma space combinations and see how the image itself lends something similar to a still frame from a photograph. For the Sony frame add whatever LUT or voodoo magic combination of rain-dancing you need in post to get what you think is comparable. Right there in that last step, 1.) there are so many variables that results will vary, 2.) for the lucky bunch that can nail the post voodoo it still will lack this sort of "photographic" look which I do find difficult to describe in words.
Perhaps I will go out and shoot some RAW stills with my Canon and the F55, and post them. Maybe then it will be easier to see.
Last edited:
Grug
Veteran
Hey Dennis, perhaps I need to sit down and record a short grading tutorial to show how simple the process I use is.
I guess I have to disagree with the assertion that Red and Arri nail 'filmic' colour responses natively, since I've never once used the native colour science of either. I've only shot Alexa and Red One/Epic/Dragon for narrative jobs but I don't like the default Arri Rec709 look, and I don't like the default RedColor options either. My grading process for all digital log footage, whether from Red, Arri, Sony, Canon or Blackmagic is always the same. I apply a LUT to perform an initial colour transform that pushes the colours towards a film stock that I find suits the colour palette of the project I'm working on, and then I tweak contrast and colour balance to taste.
Unless there are colour balance or exposure problems with the image, it's all very straightforward - and the process is indentical between all camera brands.
If you have to nail a look in camera, or can't do more than tweak the camera's native colour science in the grade, then sure; pick a camera that does things you like internally. But that process seems unnecessarily limiting, when the grading process is really no different to applying preset looks to stills in Lightroom, and then tweaking to taste.
My reason for posting the Rec709a grabs alongside the full grades, was to show just how close the two are to one another. The Rec709a results are a nice neutral starting point that will give anyone nice colours to start with, that they can then easily tweak to taste.
I guess I have to disagree with the assertion that Red and Arri nail 'filmic' colour responses natively, since I've never once used the native colour science of either. I've only shot Alexa and Red One/Epic/Dragon for narrative jobs but I don't like the default Arri Rec709 look, and I don't like the default RedColor options either. My grading process for all digital log footage, whether from Red, Arri, Sony, Canon or Blackmagic is always the same. I apply a LUT to perform an initial colour transform that pushes the colours towards a film stock that I find suits the colour palette of the project I'm working on, and then I tweak contrast and colour balance to taste.
Unless there are colour balance or exposure problems with the image, it's all very straightforward - and the process is indentical between all camera brands.
If you have to nail a look in camera, or can't do more than tweak the camera's native colour science in the grade, then sure; pick a camera that does things you like internally. But that process seems unnecessarily limiting, when the grading process is really no different to applying preset looks to stills in Lightroom, and then tweaking to taste.
My reason for posting the Rec709a grabs alongside the full grades, was to show just how close the two are to one another. The Rec709a results are a nice neutral starting point that will give anyone nice colours to start with, that they can then easily tweak to taste.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Who ever said that any of the F/FS cameras were made to look like an Alexa or RED camera? It's kind of stupid to expect different cameras to yield the same end result. In reality differences are there but most of these cameras look good albeit no the same.
I for one loved the look I squeezed out of my F3 and I certainly think my FS7 makes what I shoot look good. But neither look exactly like any other camera.
I for one loved the look I squeezed out of my F3 and I certainly think my FS7 makes what I shoot look good. But neither look exactly like any other camera.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Yeah the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan was really made less cinematic by having a 45deg shutter angle. Same as the action sequences in Gladiator.
See what I mean? It's a nonsense.
Having the skill and the budget and time to craft a scene is what defines looking 'cinematic'. Not simply your frame rate or shutter angle.
Ben Scott
Veteran
I believe someone posted that the Ursa Mini looks almost like an Alexa. Which is absurd.
Edit: i may be posting across two separate threads and getting them mixed up
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
It is difficult to compare FS7 images to Red images because Red shoots RedCode RAW 3:N (whatever) while most FS7 material is XAVC. Its like comparing the best output of the red to the not-the-best output of the fs7.
While preference is subjective, I think this comparison would have to be made between FS7 4k RAW and Red...not XAVC and Red. This would only be appropriate if FS7 was not capable of shooting RAW and its highest recording format was XAVC. But FS7 is capable of shooting Raw, so RAW should be the comparison benchmark against Red's RAW
Im not knocking Red because the work speaks for itself. But I have found my FS700 4k RAW to be really easy to work with, specially mastered to 2k. So I'm assuming the FS7 RAW would be even better. And that, to me, is key because having the ability to shoot RAW and XAVC or whatever codec is huge for anyone shooting a variety of work.
But it if you only shoot commercial and narrative, then I suppose codecs are not as valuable.
While preference is subjective, I think this comparison would have to be made between FS7 4k RAW and Red...not XAVC and Red. This would only be appropriate if FS7 was not capable of shooting RAW and its highest recording format was XAVC. But FS7 is capable of shooting Raw, so RAW should be the comparison benchmark against Red's RAW
Im not knocking Red because the work speaks for itself. But I have found my FS700 4k RAW to be really easy to work with, specially mastered to 2k. So I'm assuming the FS7 RAW would be even better. And that, to me, is key because having the ability to shoot RAW and XAVC or whatever codec is huge for anyone shooting a variety of work.
But it if you only shoot commercial and narrative, then I suppose codecs are not as valuable.
starcentral
Veteran
Osslund, it might be stupid yes but there are many people who want the look of the Alexa but want to pay Sony prices.
People request one-touch button centre crop mode, but I can't criticize Sony for not investing in it's color science.
It's ok, in March I will sell the F55 and get an iPhone. It's about filters, lighting and lenses after all. (maybe a hazer too and 1/8 BPM)
People request one-touch button centre crop mode, but I can't criticize Sony for not investing in it's color science.
It's ok, in March I will sell the F55 and get an iPhone. It's about filters, lighting and lenses after all. (maybe a hazer too and 1/8 BPM)