Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New FS100 Scene Files from Abel Cine Tech  (Read 5487 times)
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« on: May 23, 2012, 01:33:14 PM »
ReplyReply

http://blog.abelcine.com/2012/05/23/new-fs100-scene-files-from-abelcine/
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2012, 02:57:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I dont even know if im going to reply..

These PPs dont have any track record outside the studio yet.. use with care

He presents no evidence - no pleasant images

No evidence that the (flat) files dont collapse under a grade..

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2012, 03:03:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Andy's a smart guy, & I've been using his RANGE scene file for the AF100 almost exclusively, but always with an eye to grading.

When I showed ungraded footage to Panasonic Broadcast they thought it was well thought out too.

I'm not one to switch Scene Files often, but do understand the benefit of optimizing them to each scenario.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 03:05:48 PM by Bern Caughey » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 03:32:40 PM »
ReplyReply

.. but he's not a shooter
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2012, 03:54:05 PM »
ReplyReply

A pic from today (iphone pic of monitor.. the face isnt really blown)

See that gradient on the rear wall - I can say it takes only the most minimal grade before it bands

Thats why im personally super suspicious of flat profiles..

« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 03:55:47 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2012, 04:03:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I suspect opening the shadows (as with the RANGE scene files do) adds to banding, & am planning on testing soon. Canon's loaning a C300 for a week, & I'll be testing the AF100 at the same time.

May try to score a FS700 too, but more likely wait for the final firmware.

Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2012, 04:08:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Coots may step in but I believe he nearly gave up on the FS100 (and the 700 apprears little different) by taking 'internet famous' profiles as his start point.. just saying..

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2012, 05:02:45 PM »
ReplyReply

There is often a lot of confusion on those profiles when it comes to DR.
It doesn't boost or invent nor ad any DR that the cam is unable to record, in other words, the max DR of a device is always one and the same regardless of the profiles.

The information recorded is there even if you'd clip shadows with a S curve, you'll recover them in grading if needed. In fact those are just different interpretations of what is displayed of the recorded information.
So nothing is added nor rested, just parts of a unique range that are arranged differently.

The flat profiles are only usefull if the grading is done within an advance grading post wich includes masks and tracking. The wall gradient would band as easy as a teenage face covers with spots if all that is graded the brute way, I mean applying to the all image the same. No. Like we do in PS, layers and masks and selective corrections, specially, very specially with a 8 bits device. 
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2012, 12:56:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I used flat profiles, not used them, tested them side by side and all I can say is everything is very scene/lighting/color grading tool specific, especially for an 8 bit pre cooked file.

If your using resolve and matting and tracking then either way profile or shoot standard works, but once again, lighting/scene specific.

The biggest issue I have with the fs100 and most of these one level better consumer cams, is the accuracy of the viewfinder.

If you run an HDMI cable out to a semi profiled monitor that matches the exposure of your computer, then you can shoot the fs100 dead on "and it needs to be shot dead on which in my work means find the proper exposure and stop down 1/2 to 2/3's.

If you can't run an HDMI cable then you need to use the viewfinder to get set to control stray light and have the same angle of view on the camera lcd so your not fooled.

Now this is where the RED raw comes in.  Our RED 1's and Scarlet have a lot of room to move without anything that looks like a loss in quality.

The ability to move a RED file is very impressive.

As far as the FS700 . . . I'm very interested, but I want to see raw 4k footage and what you process it in before I write any more checks.

This tech stuff can send you crazy and there is no benefit in being a beta tester.

I love my RED 1's because by the time I bought them they were very well tested and had a lot of  firmware upgrades and the MX sensor makes it useable in most light.

So all I can say is just like all cameras, test it, test it, test it, in as close to the most severe shooting conditions you'll work under and then you'll know what works for you.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2012, 01:14:56 PM »
ReplyReply

The biggest issue I have with the fs100 and most of these one level better consumer cams, is the accuracy of the viewfinder.

If you run an HDMI cable out to a semi profiled monitor that matches the exposure of your computer, then you can shoot the fs100 dead on "and it needs to be shot dead on which in my work means find the proper exposure and stop down 1/2 to 2/3's.

Exactly. That's why I completly abandoned the EVF option with the GH2, being a consumer cam. The most accurate in both color, expo accuracy and focus is still the good old 5 or 7" monitor setted to match the computer in post.
Same with the GH2, going to max exposure before clipping HH, or the exposure for a required look, and stop down 1/2 to 2/3.

As you point, shooting those consum cams are in fact more difficult than a much more expensive Red system because it has to be spot-on. No range, no flexibility, no mistakes allowed.

I'm more and more maniac about trying to get the look on set, effects included when possible, and reduce as much as possible the post.

I'm currently studdying the work of Jonas Akerlund, I think he lives in LA, very good works. and how he does the sets. (what is done on set and what is done in post. In fact, most is done on set as expected).

The Sony looks really interesting. I'd like to see a Panasonic proposal too.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 01:43:38 PM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2012, 01:26:37 PM »
ReplyReply


No evidence that the (flat) files dont collapse under a grade..



I agree, until I see various lighting scenarios, especially on location, I find that most of these very flat settings to just crunch up and band by the time they look good.  Maybe it's 8 bit, maybe it's lcd screens, maybe . . . well, I guess I really don't care.

What I do care about is the overall look of the file.  Does it look cinema or video like.    The RED One's look like film to me, the Sony FS100 video, the Scarlet somewhere in between.

I did buy the autofocus adapter to mount zeiss a mount glass on our fs100 and it focuses amazingly well, including tracking.  If only the file was as pretty as the RED One's.

The only downside to the new Sony adapter is you are stuck at f 3.5 regardless of the lens you use.  3.5 is pretty much a workable stop for most things but it's still kind of strange that it won't adjust, but the camera really does autofocus.

Now to see what the next Sony 4k is like, but that's probably going to be a while until it's 4k and they come out with some software or alliance to process out the files.

We'll see.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2012, 07:27:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I find that most of these very flat settings to just crunch up and band by the time they look good.  

BC

I agree with Morgan and BC. I was told by an Alexa owner some time ago to get used to flat setting as a "golden rule", but golden or silver, it bloody bands by the time it looks good. On the other hand I had less trouble trying to get the closest I could to the final look in recording, and as there are less manipulation, the banding or any other degradation are much less prone to appear.

Again, I think that this flat rule, understandable, comes very much from the high-end gear of the traditional workflow in film industry. In an Alexa, shooting flat is an advantage because the files stand still whatever you do in post with them, but on those 8 bits devices I think it's an unecessary hassle and ultimately a disadvantage.

And oh yeah, there is no gain in DR when shooting flat.


This video of a campaign from Recuenco has been shooted super-flat with very little post (Recuenco always shoot to have very little post prod, always the most of the final look is done on set): http://www.eugeniorecuenco.com/films/films_napoles.html
Looks typicaly "Alexa"
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 07:44:14 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2012, 11:52:00 AM »
ReplyReply

So all I can say is just like all cameras, test it, test it, test it, in as close to the most severe shooting conditions you'll work under and then you'll know what works for you.

I wouldn't consider Abel's "Range" profile to be super flat, but that may have to do with my tendance to light contrasty.

What I do like is it looks much more like film then any of the multitude of bubblegum profiles I tested. Lowering contrast, sharpening, & chroma, plus the use of a relatively neutral cine gamma, & matrix, leads to a softer look with minimized chroma clipping, & a more pleasing highlight roll off. In film terms think Porta NC, vs VC, or worse, Velvia.

But I've never used them with a FS100, only the AF100.

I'd love to burn in the look every time, especially as I'm often not available for the grade, but editorial would not be happy. Even switching profiles for each scenario would be difficult as I almost exclusively work multicam, & it's already too hard to keep all the cameras matched up.

But it goes further than that. When I shot film I chose just a few stocks. B&W was always Tri-X, color was NC. I knew these films, & how to light for them. I feel the same about profiles. Know them inside, & out, then forget about them, & move on to the tough stuff.





« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 11:53:50 AM by Bern Caughey » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2012, 11:03:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is a still from my latest effort with the FS100, just a little desaturated, I like it..

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad