FS7: Red Raven and FS7

Liam Hall said:
I agree Grug, getting a basic useable grade with Slog3 is easy, particularly in PremiereCC. Only times I have to tweak is when there's odd mixed artificial light or if I've screwed up.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this, but would continue down that line and say that to make the FS7 footage look good is easy if you've shot it right. To make FS7 footage look great if you spend a bit of time on it. To make it look stunning requires not only skill but often a bit of luck too. Often I can get stuff to within 5-10% of what I'd like.

I always found the Epic/Scarlet a much more precision tool that I could nail what I was going for. With the FS7 it's always a case of reviewing the footage that evening and hoping it came out like you think it did. But maybe that's just me and a preference for a redcode raw workflow over slog/Cine EI one which seems to have way too many quirks and gotchas for my liking.
 
From a marketing stand point it makes sense to claim you'll get about the same look from a Sony S35 camera or BMDCC compared to an Alexa and it's not totally wrong, but still each camera have its own look.

I recently worked with an Amira and what a lovely camera it was to operate and images do look great. But I actually prefer to own the FS7 as it's good enough and I have to dig in my own pockets to finance it.
 
Last edited:
Does it matter if you can't tell which is which? I can make an FS7 look like a GoPro. Whilst I can make contrast and palettes match, I can't do the reverse for a shot duration longer than about 2 seconds.


If that work is yours above by the way, it was lovely. Well done :)
 
I shot 2 of the 4 stories in that piece trying to match the style of the previously shot pieces. Amira/Epic/Fs7 all intermixed depending on the story.
 
A better question might be whether you saw many differences in the quality of the footage both before after it was corrected.
 
^The answer to Leni's question is no I didn't. Granted I was viewing it compressed online. There was some color matching issues with ND filters on the stuff I shot, which they still didn't really grade out, but that is partly because I need to buck up and get a color matched set, and two there wasn't budget for a solid prep day, cutting corners makes a difference. After using most cameras on decent budget shoots I just think most people blow the differences out of proportion. Yes there are differences. They are minor. Each camera has it's slight advantages. Every camera needs to be treated slightly differently, but they can all perform on a professional level and everything else that I and Grug have already mentioned makes a way bigger difference than a camera.

Basically, your stuff doesn't look like you want it to. Figure out why and make it better in the future. Once your camera is at a certain level, it is almost never the camera. It is everything else that goes into making an image.
 
A better question might be who did the grading, what was their skill level, and what was the budget or hours that went into it?
 
I have graded material from most of the cameras out there. Yes, you can pull many things out in post, however some material is much more difficult to manipulate than others. Blackmagic RAW has signifigant issues in terms of color saturation. It takes quite a lot to pull out the colors to realistic levels. I definitely see a kind of pastel issue that creates crossover from magenta to green once the color is pulled up to proper levels. This issue is revealed on the edges when falling off into other hues. I really think BM needs to improve it's color science. RED RAW also has issues when it comes to skin tones. It suffers from a lack of nuance in the RED layer, even with the newer Dragon sensor. So under certain lighting circumstances it can have a wooden quality to skin tones which can be troubling, Occasionally a whole face shifts in color with only a slight correction and the more sensitive areas like the blush in cheeks is swallowed up. Sony has fared better than most would believe here. I feel "the Sony look" is a fallacy today with it's more modern cameras. The F65 is a dream. I also still think the F3 produces great images and this is because of it's larger pixel size than many of it's bigger brothers. The Alexa is of course top notch in terms of highlight roll off and skin tones. It fares less well in the shadows....
All this to say is that once you understand the limitations of each sensor/camera/color science, you can treat each of these cameras like film stocks. Better to know going into a project your WHOLE workflow from beginning to end and what kind of image that achieves. Most DP's test the hell out of a camera configuration before a major project, right into the grading stage. I strongly suggest that other's out there do the same.
 
Last edited:
yoclay -
Thanks - very valuable info. In addition to ease of grading do you feel you've seen any other "j'n sais quois" qualities to the different cameras. A number of posters here have said for example that RED just seems to make more cinematic pictures than the Sonys.
 
Ben Scott said:
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.
Click to expand...

Come one now. You known that for the battle scenes of Ryan they purposely changed the shutter angle to eliminate motion blur and get a heightened effect. You're citing a special case that was used for effect like the playback scenes in Braintorm that were shot and played back at an elevated frame rate to make them look hyper real.

If you really feel that 24fps and a ~180 degree shutter are irrelevant to people's perception of an image being cinematic, then I have a suggestion. Shoot your next project at 30 or 48fps instead of the usual 24 fps and see what the reaction of your clients is.


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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there is this thing called biology that doesn't care about opinions. You're brain perceives certain temporal phenomena in a certain way and there is nothing you can do about it. There is a lot that goes into making something look cinematic, but temporal perception is way at the top of the list and at this point in time the standard recognized by the public is 24fps with a 180 degree shutter.
 
Last edited:
+1

I see the same issues and traits.

yoclay said:
I have graded material from most of the cameras out there. Yes, you can pull many things out in post, however some material is much more difficult to manipulate than others. Blackmagic RAW has signifigant issues in terms of color saturation. It takes quite a lot to pull out the colors to realistic levels. I definitely see a kind of pastel issue that creates crossover from magenta to green once the color is pulled up to proper levels. This issue is revealed on the edges when falling off into other hues. I really think BM needs to improve it's color science. RED RAW also has issues when it comes to skin tones. It suffers from a lack of nuance in the RED layer, even with the newer Dragon sensor. So under certain lighting circumstances it can have a wooden quality to skin tones which can be troubling, Occasionally a whole face shifts in color with only a slight correction and the more sensitive areas like the blush in cheeks is swallowed up. Sony has fared better than most would believe here. I feel "the Sony look" is a fallacy today with it's more modern cameras. The F65 is a dream. I also still think the F3 produces great images and this is because of it's larger pixel size than many of it's bigger brothers. The Alexa is of course top notch in terms of highlight roll off and skin tones. It fares less well in the shadows....
All this to say is that once you understand the limitations of each sensor/camera/color science, you can treat each of these cameras like film stocks. Better to know going into a project your WHOLE workflow from beginning to end and what kind of image that achieves. Most DP's test the hell out of a camera configuration before a major project, right into the grading stage. I strongly suggest that other's out there do the same.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Lime said:
Come one now. You known that for the battle scenes of Ryan they purposely changed the shutter angle to eliminate motion blur and get a heightened effect. You're citing a special case that was used for effect like the playback scenes in Braintorm that were shot and played back at an elevated frame rate to make them look hyper real.

If you really feel that 24fps and a ~180 degree shutter are irrelevant to people's perception of an image being cinematic, then I have a suggestion. Shoot your next project at 30 or 48fps instead of the usual 24 fps and see what the reaction of your clients is.




Yes, but there is this thing called biology that doesn't care about opinions. You're brain perceives certain temporal phenomena in a certain way and there is nothing you can do about it. There is a lot that goes into making something look cinematic, but temporal perception is way at the top of the list and at this point in time the standard recognized by the public is 24fps with a 180 degree shutter.
Click to expand...


Absolutely....and, it must be graded teal and orange. Because every film, TV show and poster I've seen in the last two days is.
 
Lenilenapi said:
yoclay -
Thanks - very valuable info. In addition to ease of grading do you feel you've seen any other "j'n sais quois" qualities to the different cameras. A number of posters here have said for example that RED just seems to make more cinematic pictures than the Sonys.
Click to expand...

I don't feel that RED is any more cinematic than most cameras. In fact for me "cinematic" in the classical sense, has to do with film stocks and global shutter. RED put next to a project shot on film looks very different. It is not old style video, nor is it film. It is it's own thing. The reason why people speak of a Sony look by comparison to RED, is simply because most people don't shoot Sony RAW. You can't compare a REC 709 Cinegamma image with a RAW image from RED. But shoot in SLOG and you are a heck of a lot closer. I actually prefer SLOG images to RED RAW. I find them more delicate, less graphic. I also feel that high resolution frequently detracts from an image, taking it further away from classical film. Ever see a 4K film on a plasma screen? Suddenly all the actors appear to be middle aged adolescants with bad skin and enough makeup to appear as if they were a part of the mid eighties group The Cure. Is that cinematic? There is a reason ARRI has taken so long before bringing the Alexa to 4K. Lower resolution is actually more flattering and forgiving.

I am overstating all of this to some degree. The reality is that what makes a film the most cinematic is high production values. Not cameras. When you have got good writing,casting, blocking, machinery, deco, styling, lighting and the money and time to make something good, you have got a film.


PS: My advice to most young shooters when asked what camera to buy, is to go out and get a used Sony F3 for less than $2500 and shoot in SLOG 1 on an external recorder. It is great value at that price and a far better investment than spending many thousands more on another system. Even though it is only Full HD, it justs looks damn good, somehow more "organic", for lack of a better term. Better than most of the 4K stuff I see and certainly nicer for skin than most RED up until the arrival of Dragon, which is far improved. Frankly, until you have to deal with clients who are expecting a specific modern camera for their money, it is a great camera to shoot projects on. It has that "je ne sais quoi" that you speak of and it is because of the 12 micron pixel pitch. Give me larger pixels compared to higher resolution any day of the week.
 
Last edited:
Is this really going to descend into yet another dull 'what's the most cinematic camera' thread?'

I've been doing this for 20 years mate. You really don't need to condescend about the 180deg shutter rule to me. But if for some weird reason I could choose only one, I would take good set design and art direction over a locked 180deg shutter every time.


Cinema is an evolving language. People get used to new vocabulary gradually entering the lexicon. Plenty of films use different shutter angles to aid their storytelling.
 
Funny because the best looking skin tones I've shot in quite awhile were on an Epic, but I also had a great big source and the subjects were all around 18-21 yrs old. They just glowed.
I've wondered whether i could have gotten such a pretty look from my FS7, but unless they're side by side you don't really know anything.
I agree the best deal out there on a camera these days is an F3 hands down. I cried when i sold mine for around $2700 with the 444 card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top