Samsung NX1 Optimal ISO?

[NX1user]

I'm still pretty new to video, so excuse me if I'm missing something obvious. I figured the optimal ISO would be 100. I've learned that isn't necessarily true and that optimal iso for video varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

I'm not talking about best settings in low light, I actually have decent grasp of how the NX1 deals with that. I'm talking about the absolute best picture under properly-lit conditions.

What are people finding the least noisy ISO is for the NX1 under good lighting conditions?

[caseywilsondp]

Iirc cinema 5D in their testing figured there wasn't a significant increase in quality over the range of 100-1600. I'll look for the link if I can find it. Of course that's with latitude really being their main concern (though in their testing the nx1 performed pretty poorly, and I believe Andrew figured their testing was suspect). If you're speaking noise-wise I haven't seen much change between 100-800, but that's shooting to a shogun so the higher bitrate might mean different results.

Edit:

Here is the link

https://***URL not allowed***/lab-review-samsung-nx1-video-mode-frustrating/

They claim no difference in latitude from 100-3200 in the normal gamma at -10 contrast.

[NX1user]

Iirc cinema 5D in their testing figured there wasn't a significant increase in quality over the range of 100-1600. I'll look for the link if I can find it. Of course that's with latitude really being their main concern (though in their testing the nx1 performed pretty poorly, and I believe Andrew figured their testing was suspect). If you're speaking noise-wise I haven't seen much change between 100-800, but that's shooting to a shogun so the higher bitrate might mean different results.

Edit:

Here is the link

https://***URL not allowed***/lab-review-samsung-nx1-video-mode-frustrating/

They claim no difference in latitude from 100-3200 in the normal gamma at -10 contrast.

Thanks. I value your opinion more than cinema5D because you are shooting with the newer firmware and actually out in the world using the camera, not filming static things in a studio. My limited experience so far is the same as yours, not a huge increase in noise between 100-800. 

[DPStewart]

The deal is that sensors have what they call a "native ISO", which is their own internal native functioning gain level within the device. So all other ISOs are either an amplification applied to that or an attenuation applied to that, so that's why some cameras might give its best result at say 400 ISO.  But like you've heard - it varies from camera to camera.

As far as I have been able to see, the response of the sensor in the NX1 doesn't seem to show any bias towards any one ISO - meaning that it all just looks equally clean in the lower range regardless of what its "native" ISO might be. That's good engineering.
 

I agree with Casey. Just follow normal exposure and ISO techniques and the NX1 should respond with no surprises.

Hell of a camera...ain't it?

 

[Geoff CB]

I've found similar to above. For clean image quality:

100-1600 in 4K/UHD

100-800 in 1080p

You can push in certain situations, but these are the safe limits. 

[caseywilsondp]

I have noticed slow motion seems to want even lower isos. I think with 120 you might even be safest at 100. But I'd be ready to be wrong if other people have different findings, I haven't done much testing there.

[NX1user]

I have noticed slow motion seems to want even lower isos. I think with 120 you might even be safest at 100. But I'd be ready to be wrong if other people have different findings, I haven't done much testing there.

What I've noticed with 120p is it needs more light than normal. That may be physics though and not the camera.

Once you figure out its quirks, the 120p can look really nice. I'm new to video and this camera gets me great results.

https://youtu.be/dfssnbAYwYk?t=41s

From :41 to 1:19 There are some 120p shots in there and they came out way better than I thought they would (the compression artifacts are all youtube).

[M Carter]

I generally bring a shit-ton of lighting to shoots, but I've had several more editorial-style gigs with the NX1 and shot as hight as 3200.

1800-2200 or so is still remarkably clean; and there's something cool about higher ISOs with the NX sensor; it's not that soupy mush you get from previous Nikon and Canon DSLRs - it's just kind of "snappy" for lack of a better word. And really crazy clean considering. I try to get the shadows opened up so I can crush 'em back down - at 4K you can see some fine mosquito noise at higher ISOs. 

I was shooting a gig last week about inner city grocers, and we were shooting products in a beverage cooler; my grip knew enough to look at the setup and say "are you sure we're not allowed to light this? Mannnn…" and I was like "Dude - look through the EVF…" He was kind of stunned. Punchy shots with a lot of life.

That said - watch for deep, deep blacks that really eat the light. Even at low ISO, a black knit sweater can look fine until delivery - then there's something about the NX's blocking that H264 sort of grabs onto and you may get some posterized shadows - kinda ugly and you have to tweak your compression for output. Try to get some big soft fill going, open the blacks, and cut your key a bit, balance it back in post. Or raise your ISO and cut your key back. I don't have months of this camera under my belt, but watch those intense blacks...

[Marco Tecno]

What I've noticed with 120p is it needs more light than normal. That may be physics though and not the camera.

Once you figure out its quirks, the 120p can look really nice. I'm new to video and this camera gets me great results.

https://youtu.be/dfssnbAYwYk?t=41s

From :41 to 1:19 There are some 120p shots in there and they came out way better than I thought they would (the compression artifacts are all youtube).

I really enjoyed those slowmo sequences! Which settings did you use for image and grading?

[NX1user]

I generally bring a shit-ton of lighting to shoots, but I've had several more editorial-style gigs with the NX1 and shot as hight as 3200.

1800-2200 or so is still remarkably clean; and there's something cool about higher ISOs with the NX sensor; it's not that soupy mush you get from previous Nikon and Canon DSLRs - it's just kind of "snappy" for lack of a better word. And really crazy clean considering. I try to get the shadows opened up so I can crush 'em back down - at 4K you can see some fine mosquito noise at higher ISOs. 

I was shooting a gig last week about inner city grocers, and we were shooting products in a beverage cooler; my grip knew enough to look at the setup and say "are you sure we're not allowed to light this? Mannnn…" and I was like "Dude - look through the EVF…" He was kind of stunned. Punchy shots with a lot of life.

That said - watch for deep, deep blacks that really eat the light. Even at low ISO, a black knit sweater can look fine until delivery - then there's something about the NX's blocking that H264 sort of grabs onto and you may get some posterized shadows - kinda ugly and you have to tweak your compression for output. Try to get some big soft fill going, open the blacks, and cut your key a bit, balance it back in post. Or raise your ISO and cut your key back. I don't have months of this camera under my belt, but watch those intense blacks...

This is a lot of good info. Thanks!

 

Where I'm noticing issues with blacks is when the camera is moving. I'm starting to think it's the sharpness of the camera overwhelms the bitrate and/or codec ability to keep up with all that detail. Shallower depth of field helps, but there are times when I can't use a shallower depth of field.

I really enjoyed those slowmo sequences! Which settings did you use for image and grading?

For shooting, I used the settings that Andrew recommends in his NX1 guide. The footage looked pretty good already and I wasn't so far down the color-grading rabbit hole yet, so in Premiere, using the Lumetri plugin on an adjustment layer, under the Creative section, I used the Cinematic 2 preset at 38% opacity.

But you should know that the chief factor in getting those forge sequences looking the way they do was lighting. The have a huge picture window on one side of the shop, just a couple of feet from the slo-mo anvil. That video was part of an assignment for a beginning cinematography class, so I also used lights. Mostly I was trying to maintain the look of natural light for the forge shots. I used a Kino Diva to raise the base illumination and an Arri 650 and/or 350 here and there to highlight stuff. Besides the camera, it's the lighting that's 90% responsible for how that footage came out.

[Marco Tecno]

Thx! Really great achievement!

[M Carter]

Where I'm noticing issues with blacks is when the camera is moving. I'm starting to think it's the sharpness of the camera overwhelms the bitrate and/or codec ability to keep up with all that detail. Shallower depth of field helps, but there are times when I can't use a shallower depth of field.

This is what I'm seeing, but it's not dependable - this shot in particular had some problems - at first glance, it's a nice frame:

But look at the texture of the sweater at 100%; there's great detail in the scarf (which many camera would render as a mess of moire)… but the subtle texture - not moving, either - of the knit sweater… it's like the processor has no idea what to do with that. It definitely sort of dances on screen, and when I output to 720p, my usual compression just sort of latches onto it and makes it even worse. I think it should crush out OK, but it's very odd:

[kidzrevil]

On February 2, 2016 at 0:30 PM, M Carter said:

This is what I'm seeing, but it's not dependable - this shot in particular had some problems - at first glance, it's a nice frame:

But look at the texture of the sweater at 100%; there's great detail in the scarf (which many camera would render as a mess of moire)… but the subtle texture - not moving, either - of the knit sweater… it's like the processor has no idea what to do with that. It definitely sort of dances on screen, and when I output to 720p, my usual compression just sort of latches onto it and makes it even worse. I think it should crush out OK, but it's very odd:

I think its that damn noise reduction algorithim at play. It can make a mess of things sometimes. You need a super high resolution lens or stop down to "trick" it into understanding that is DETAIL do not touch it 

[caseywilsondp]

4 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

I think its that damn noise reduction algorithim at play. It can make a mess of things sometimes. You need a super high resolution lens or stop down to "trick" it into understanding that is DETAIL do not touch it 

Or an external recorder. I think you're right it might be NR, which would explain some of the more detailed shadows on external recordings... That along with higher bitrate.

[M Carter]

7 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

I think its that damn noise reduction algorithim at play. It can make a mess of things sometimes. You need a super high resolution lens or stop down to "trick" it into understanding that is DETAIL do not touch it 

That's a big problem for me - stopping down to address one area affects everything about the shot. The BG in that shot is just where I wanted it - you can tell she's in a library-type setting, but the books aren't distracting.

I need to experiment with this some more, but I'm guessing that for gigs with set-time to tweak lights, and post time to tweak and maybe even do some masking for correction, the key here is bring up some fill a stop or so, bring down your key so the added fill doesn't nail your skin and add things like blownout cheeks and noses, and then being your blacks back up in post and rebalance the image.

These interviews are like dozens I've done in the last couple months - limited setup time, sit the grip down (or the client) (or very often it's "me", all alone with the monitor turned around 180° and dozens of little footage rolls and checks), dial in the camera direction, framing, background, lights, get the mic placed… and the subject shows up, he's a foot taller than everyone with blue-pale skin and thick glasses. One thing you learn doing this is try to suss out what you'll do if someone is shorter, taller, sits on the edge of the chair or splays out against the back - make sure your BG is free of distractions well out of the frame. I tend to start with my key higher than usual in case there's eyeglasses, too.

[kidzrevil]

10 hours ago, caseywilsondp said:

Or an external recorder. I think you're right it might be NR, which would explain some of the more detailed shadows on external recordings... That along with higher bitrate.

Maybe they used nr as a way to effectively use the limited bit rate ?

[caseywilsondp]

17 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Maybe they used nr as a way to effectively use the limited bit rate ?

thats a thought. personally i feel if done correctly, in-camera noise reduction is preferable. broadcast sony cameras black balance to reduce noise, and red cameras map the noise on the sensor during calibration. of course that all depends on how the engineers implement it. 

[kidzrevil]

6 hours ago, caseywilsondp said:

thats a thought. personally i feel if done correctly, in-camera noise reduction is preferable. broadcast sony cameras black balance to reduce noise, and red cameras map the noise on the sensor during calibration. of course that all depends on how the engineers implement it. 

That's true, it does save us a step. I've been experimenting with putting filmconvert grain right underneath my color correction in adobe premiere lumetri and adding negative sharpness. Seems to blend in the grain organically and the contrast curve darkens it. I still use the grain very sparingly but in the end its kinda like adding the noise back to the image that the noise reduction removed. Really like the look of it just gotta work on my export settings for it