[quote author=Axel link=topic=570.msg3947#msg3947 date=1334383472]
[quote author=AndrewP link=topic=570.msg3945#msg3945 date=1334374811]The short films that I've seen done with the FS100 just don't seem convincing in a "cinematic" way... I don't necessarily mean "filmic" or any of the other annoyingly ambiguous terms that constantly get thrown around. It evokes a very grounded in reality, behind the scenes-esque , News Style, Travel Channel HD Expose, Top Chef / Cooking Show, Reality TV / Fear Factor vibe.[/quote]
In german, with it's many anglicisms, you say "Filmlook". This refers only to the image itself, not to the motion-emotion-part of "filmic" and "cinematic". A kind of Filmlookology developed, and the rules and characteristics are concrete and available:
1. Filmlook can only be applied to video, not film. In the german pendant to the magazine [i]The Cinematographer[/i] (Der Kameramann, # 4/2012) there was an article about how modern digital cameras are used in a way to make their videos look like analogue film. In other words: Filmlook is desired where Videolook becomes apparent and annoying. Audiences hated the look of Michael Manns [i]Public Enemies[/i] (filmed in 30i). Since [i]Cloverfield[/i] was supposed to look like video, it was okay there. So it's not just limited to amateur movies.
2. Because video cameras traditionally had small sensors, you'd use shallow DoF. Needless to say.
3. Because video cameras traditionally had interlaced video, you'd use progressive video. Also obvious. The artifacts of "i", though perceptible, are a minor issue. What is more important is the [i]temporal resolution[/i]. 24 fps have become a viewing habit to us, they tell us subliminally that the time of the film is [i]narrated[/i] time and not real-time. 25i/30i, but also 48p/50p/60p signal real-time, which is good for docs, news, porn and our baby. Watch Laforets [i]Reverie[/i] again, with it's 30p (5D before the first FW-update): The 6 frames more are enough to make it look less, uhm, [i]cinematic[/i]. Time in a film is too important to allow it to look real. I think nobody disagrees.
4. Films we watch in a cinema use style to be instantly distinguishable from reality. To postpone our disbelief, to draw us into the movie, a lot of techniques are used to create a suggestible mood. Trance-invoking techniques. Ironically these have not to do with more details (not [i]at all[/i]) and high-fidelity-colors (not [i]at all[/i]). Nobody even cares for those attributes. The Videolook of the FS100 comes from people who approached it like a classic video camcorder, resulting in a clean and neutral look. "No style" is seen as realistic style, as the recording of real events, meaningless, uninteresting. A style that fits the emotion you want to express by the image is seen as fictional, meaningful, interesting. You get the feeling that this might lead to something.
To let these FS100 users understand all ambiguous terms connected to what is exciting about DSLR filmmaking, they should read EOSHDs articles. Let Andrew ("R") test some adapted lenses on the FS100, and the magic will come. With the native Panasonic MFT-lenses the GH2 videos also don't look particularly sexy.
EDIT: What you described for the FS100 is also true for every video with higher framerates. Okay, higher framerates are one factor that can cause Videolook, but just because it has always been like this, it doesn't have to be true for all times. One can easily imagine an action sequence that looks shockingly hyperrealistic with 48p or more. What we see instead are stills, nearly motionless. 4k has the same effect. It adds nothing to the image but cleanness, and so cleanness becomes the content of the demo. Incredibly boring.
This is the most sensible post on the subject that I've ever read, I completely agree.
Andrew, thanks for this brief review, I've had my eye on this camera for a while as a possible step-up from my 5Dii, and had only been put off by some hysteria surrounding highlight rolloff (or lack of). I await your further tests with interest!