Yea 60 p is cool on the7d.
The FS100 - A different perspective.
- Thread starter pulpfiction007
- Start date
PappasArts
Veteran
Kholi- Did the handle/grip feel as if it would unscrew and fall off too? :-D
--
Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/PappasArts
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Last edited:
It has been my experience, that the people who get the most work with DSLR's know what they DON'T do well. I regularly win out clients now because I explain to them the situations in which their scenarios are not well accomodated by a DSLR. I then augment for those situations with an appropriate camera. The paradox is that this B-Cam is often better than the A-cam! However, in terms of rental there is a lot of cost savings and the client is happy that I have a handle on the situation.
The reality of DSLR's remains however that their popularity is do to 2 things:
1) Most bread and butter work is talking heads, and aside from a few marching ants in bushy eyebrowed politicians, they do this astonishing well with their capacity for narrow DOF.
2) Multicam is now an affordable reality and is not going away anytime soon. This allows for more dynamic edits and also the ancillary benefit of cheaper costing/greater availability of lenses in the DSLR world.
My billing has tripled as a result in a period of deep recession these last two years.
People can bash DSLR's all they want, but my vote goes to where the money speaks the loudest truth.
Last edited:
No cost. Mostly fixed positions. I regularly shoot 3 cams with just a single assistant.
If it was shoulder mount stuff then yes, but even then every one of them out there owns at least one DSLR these days.
Though I defintitely agree with you that labor usually trumps material costs otherwise.
Really the days of a videographer showing up with a single camcorder are dwindling.
I have consistently noticed that clients don't so much prefer DSLR's, but rather multicam.
This is frankly more bang for the buck as far as they are concerned and I don't think they are at all ignorant of the trade-offs.
Most of them are visually educated and intelligent people. I don't like the client bashing I often see here for this reason.
In any case I am not arguing with the figures. This is what I see and the profit margins are bearing this out.
I don't shoot weddings, but I imagine this is equally true for that market.
Last edited:
Hater
Viddovation
Veteran
Honestly, this baffles me. We must have very different ideas of multi-cam.
You indicate that you're running all these cameras yourself. While in theory, more angles can be better, without separate operators, the value added of each additional camera diminishes.
Furthermore, without separate operators, shallow depth of field becomes a severe liability in most shooting situations. Which suggests to me that you're probably shooting with a deeper depth of field, thereby mitigating one of the key aesthetic advantages DSLRs potentially provide. It would follow you would also therefore encounter more aliasing and moire than if you were shooting shallow DOF. Also, given the 12 minute record limit, with less operators than cameras, you'll be doing a lot of floating to make sure you're still recording.
DSLRs also lack a number of features that immediately come to mind for multi-cam work, namely:
*Genlock
*Time code
*Clean feed SDI
*Lengthy record duration
*Servo-zoom. Of course, you can add this, but at considerable expense
Obviously, a happy client is key - and if DSLRs are keeping your clients happy, then you're doing something right.
But that doesn't feel like real mutlicam to me...
Not sure what "real" multicam is.
Here's an example of what I do. It is vastly different than a few years ago. Changing times require changing one's methodology.
Most interviews that I have worked on don't go 12 minutes before something comes up between the subjects and we can do a quick cut.
f4-f4.5 on a 5d is largely sufficient for achieving shallow enough DOF and still holding focus.
If I provide a tight shot on both the interviewer and the subject at 45 degrees, that's two cameras and then a 3rd wider camera on the both of them for instance that's already a situation where multicam trumps most traditional offerings.
Greater time savings keeps everyone happy in this case as well. When you have an important subject, you never have enough time. 15 min. with a CEO of a major corporation or a politician is practically unheard of. I definitely come back with more dynamic edits as a result of this simple configuration than the traditional vid guy who just shoots with one cam and a heck of a lot of DOF.
I usually work with a single assistant. Usually at least one of the three cameras is wide enough that focus isn't much of an issue, it is also a safety shot if we don't hit our marks with the other two. Otherwise, I will take a 2nd operator for more complex stuff where everyone (including the subjects) are moving. This only happens rarely though.
This is just one scenario for instance amongst many that I see the benefits.
Pluraleyes works just fine for Post-sync of multicam in most situations, except noisy exteriors where the general ambiance is fairly saturated and a camera position is a fair distance away. A quick clap usually does the job, so the software can kick in later. Pluraleyes is pretty adequate with my lavs or a boomed microphone, so no issues with that either.
Servo Zoom as a style seems a bit old fashioned to me, most clients don't seem to want it happening in shot anymore. They say, "too 70's!" Therefore a traditional stills zoom works just fine for quickly changing focal lengths. Something like a Zeiss 35-70 f3.5 is ungodly sharp and a third the price. Zooms are mostly only important to me though when I am doing slider or dolly shots from a position which isn't easily shiftable.
I own about 30 still lenses at about the cost of 5 good quality traditional video lenses. This means that I always have several "lens kits" available, based on my needs. I even have TS lenses if I really want to do funky focus or architectural stuff. From a creativity point of view, it's great to be able to own rather than rent.
With DSLR's multicam is easy and we can be light on our feet too, popping a small camera off of a fluid head is a breeze. I have achieved fairly well stabilized images using only a neckstrap! Show me a camcorder with a large sensor that can do that!
I think that kind of flexibility is what the FS100 market is probably intended for. Do I think it's a well designed camera for my needs, well, I have my doubts.
Last edited:
squig
Veteran
My 2 cents.
From what I've seen and heard so far the FS100 appears to be the sub 6k camera to beat. I've just finished the 2nd draft of my feature script and I'm raising the money now to shoot it (If anyone has $3 million lying around pm me). Unless Canon brings out something better by the time I start shooting I'll use an FS100 recording to a ninja and a few GH13s as crash/b/helmet cams. I've got a full set of vintage leica glass and 3 iscorama anamorphic lenses to use on whichever body I end up getting.
Hey Kholi is it 10 bit out over HDMI? I've been going through the other threads but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. What does the sucker weight without anything attached except the battery?
From what I've seen and heard so far the FS100 appears to be the sub 6k camera to beat. I've just finished the 2nd draft of my feature script and I'm raising the money now to shoot it (If anyone has $3 million lying around pm me). Unless Canon brings out something better by the time I start shooting I'll use an FS100 recording to a ninja and a few GH13s as crash/b/helmet cams. I've got a full set of vintage leica glass and 3 iscorama anamorphic lenses to use on whichever body I end up getting.
Hey Kholi is it 10 bit out over HDMI? I've been going through the other threads but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. What does the sucker weight without anything attached except the battery?
I did a WTF when I saw your name in this thread. Haha. Honestly, I think your assessment is pretty spot on. But, I have to bite my tongue until I can say more.
P.S. ... the Ninja is such a nice module to have, man. Firmware updates will make it even better. These things might go through a shortage, so pick one up while you can.
I have no idea how to tell, actually. I am really confused as to why people want the 10-Bit, but I am sure there's a good reason. IMO, I'd be more interested in the 4:4:4 recorder I'm reading about, but to each their own. If someone tells me how to check I'll do so.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I think the best statement I've heard is "those who've been the most successful with the 7D are those who work around where it doesn't excel" (horrible paraphrased I know). I fit in this category for sure. I have absolutely loved working with my 7D. I also know that I've tried to push it where it doesn't do well and have been very disappointed with the results. My WHOLE reason for the AF100 was opening up what I could offer in my cinematic skill set. Two weekends ago I was able to shoot handheld action shots with my AF100 with an 85mm lens. That WOULD NOT work well on the 7D, which would even be a slightly wider shot. I'd have had jello all over the place, because i've tried doing that before. NOTHING you can add to the 7D is going to help you get better skew. My choices with the 7D would have been locking down the shot and then adding the shake in post with sacrificing more image quality with having to blow up the image.
Even further, there were shots in a neighborhood, with bricks and shingles. I wanted deep focus on these shots. I can not do those sorts of shots easily on the 7D. With roofs, more often than not they alias/moire in rainbows. Once again, with the 7D I have to change what I want in the scene to overcome a limitation in the camera.
I was fine with this for a long time, but it was really a big pain having to add one more level of checking the subject matter when I was filming. It required me to have an external monitor attached so I could see the moire as you CANNOT detect it in camera.
How can we quantify a price on this? The AF100 sensor is TWICE as fast as the 5D (little less than twice for the 7D as the 7D is faster than the 5D). I think that is significant in itself.
And as for the 720p60 in the 7D, it is absolute crap. I feel like I've earned the right to say that. We shot SO MUCH stuff with the 720p60 and the aliasing/moire from the 7D is unbelievable. I think it's the worst 720p I have ever seen!
When I shot 1080p60 on the AF100, I think a tear might have dropped from my eye! Haha.
But, all that said, I still tell people to get the GH2, t3i, 60d, t2i, 7d, 5d because I realize not everyone has reached the level of the AF100/FS100. Needs are not universal. And people are at all levels of 'video' requirements. I still use my 7D on some things when I don't want to lug out the AF100 when it isn't important. The 7D is small and unobtrusive. If you can't see the benefit in the price difference jumping up to the AF100/FS100, then DON'T do it. It's not the camera for you. I think nothing less of people that don't want to make that jump. However, I am SURE to point out to them when they ask for my input, all the skew, jello, moire, aliasing, and bad compression.
It's funny as I've been in a lot of discussion over the AF100 and FS100 because I am contemplating moving to the FS100. I've had people picking my brain thinking there is some magical feature of the FS100 that I want, or I am hiding something about my AF100, and it's just not true. The FS100 interests me because it's smaller and lighter. That's THE driving force. I can add ND filtering to the FS100, but I can't remove weight beyond the handle and side grip of the AF100.
Getting back to the original point, I agree. I think that is a good perspective to look at.
Even further, there were shots in a neighborhood, with bricks and shingles. I wanted deep focus on these shots. I can not do those sorts of shots easily on the 7D. With roofs, more often than not they alias/moire in rainbows. Once again, with the 7D I have to change what I want in the scene to overcome a limitation in the camera.
I was fine with this for a long time, but it was really a big pain having to add one more level of checking the subject matter when I was filming. It required me to have an external monitor attached so I could see the moire as you CANNOT detect it in camera.
How can we quantify a price on this? The AF100 sensor is TWICE as fast as the 5D (little less than twice for the 7D as the 7D is faster than the 5D). I think that is significant in itself.
And as for the 720p60 in the 7D, it is absolute crap. I feel like I've earned the right to say that. We shot SO MUCH stuff with the 720p60 and the aliasing/moire from the 7D is unbelievable. I think it's the worst 720p I have ever seen!
When I shot 1080p60 on the AF100, I think a tear might have dropped from my eye! Haha.But, all that said, I still tell people to get the GH2, t3i, 60d, t2i, 7d, 5d because I realize not everyone has reached the level of the AF100/FS100. Needs are not universal. And people are at all levels of 'video' requirements. I still use my 7D on some things when I don't want to lug out the AF100 when it isn't important. The 7D is small and unobtrusive. If you can't see the benefit in the price difference jumping up to the AF100/FS100, then DON'T do it. It's not the camera for you. I think nothing less of people that don't want to make that jump. However, I am SURE to point out to them when they ask for my input, all the skew, jello, moire, aliasing, and bad compression.
It's funny as I've been in a lot of discussion over the AF100 and FS100 because I am contemplating moving to the FS100. I've had people picking my brain thinking there is some magical feature of the FS100 that I want, or I am hiding something about my AF100, and it's just not true. The FS100 interests me because it's smaller and lighter. That's THE driving force. I can add ND filtering to the FS100, but I can't remove weight beyond the handle and side grip of the AF100.
Getting back to the original point, I agree. I think that is a good perspective to look at.
I agree with you, Rick. You can add an ND filter, but you can't shrink the camera. And moire and aliasing are like incurable diseases, the gifts that keep on giving.
My criteria for choosing a cam for either paid or casual shoots is 1) no moire (which means no Canons) 2) size and weight (I'm too old to lug around big, heavy cameras). I am presently a GH2 shooter, but am on this forum because I am seriously looking at the FS100.
Have you looked at trading in the 7D for a GH2 as a B-cam while you wait for the Sony? Compatible lenses, a lot less moire and aliasing than the Canons, smaller form factor than the AF100.
I'm not usually a pixel-peeper, but these slashcam.de chart results for the GH2, AF100/101 and 7D are interesting:
GH2
AF100
7D
Source material (translated from German) here and here
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
Viddovation
Veteran
Okay. So what you're talking about is using multiple cameras on a 1 person interview. That makes a sort of sense. I certainly do that when I can, althougth I tend to do so using cameras with Letus DOF adapters or now - my PMW-F3.
When you said multi-cam I got the impression you were trying to cover a stage or venue. The 1 person interview means all your cameras are probably within 6 feet of each other. But for larger venues... that's not a practical answer.
So yes, what you're doing makes sense... but not in other multi-cam scenarios.
The FS100 interests me because it's smaller and lighter. That's THE driving force. I can add ND filtering to the FS100, but I can't remove weight beyond the handle and side grip of the AF100.
Getting back to the original point, I agree. I think that is a good perspective to look at.
The FS is smaller, but I don't think the weight between the two cameras will be much different. The AF100 is one of the lightest pro cameras I've held. What the FS can do is reduce to a very small, unobtrusive, compact package. I can see the benefits of that.
Right now, I like the FS better than the AF for purely aesthetic reasons - I just like the design better. It's very much in the mold of Epic and Scarlet, gotta give Jannard his due there. Now that the FS is out, I wonder if the Scarlet will go back for yet another design change?
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
The FS100 without battery I think is 1.9 pounds whereas the AF100 is 2.6. That's significant to me. But I agree with the size issue more. I really don't use the EVF so it just sits there taking up space.
As far as the charts go, I am very familiar with those charts. Yet, what baffles me is we went out and shot with the GH2 and AF100 in a neighborhood and the AF100 had NO aliasing and moire, yet the GH2 did, especially on the fins of an AC unit beside a house, and I believe on the brick structures.
I'm just glad no one puts test patterns on their roofs or walls
But I agree with the size issue more. I really don't use the EVF so it just sits there taking up space.As far as the charts go, I am very familiar with those charts. Yet, what baffles me is we went out and shot with the GH2 and AF100 in a neighborhood and the AF100 had NO aliasing and moire, yet the GH2 did, especially on the fins of an AC unit beside a house, and I believe on the brick structures.
I'm just glad no one puts test patterns on their roofs or walls
Danielvilliers
Veteran
The reason is very simple, in a 8bit image you get only 256 steps/shades of red, green and blue in an rgb image. While 10bit brings it to 1024 and is another order of magnitude. For normal shooting where the person does not color correct the image much it should not cause too much problem (even then you might get steps in fine gradient like the sky for example). But if you intend to do some medium to heavy color correction then it will cause some heavy posterisation. Some will say that you have to shoot to edit but there are many modern look (some old also) that are impossible to do in camera. If you are into fantasy or the Hollywood in vogue yellow and teal look are impossible just shooting in camera. When you take the known quality of F3 sensor and put only a 8 bit output, many will feel that it is really crippling its performance.
God I hope not, I'm ready for the damn thing to be released. Plus, I don't think this thing really competes with the Scarlet.
The AF100 is a pro camera. The FS is not. not to say it cant be used for pro work, but the feature set is not a professional feature set. Its going ot be interesting, but its just an odd odd camera.....