GH5 Noise Reduction @high ISOs simply sucks...

[noone]

27 minutes ago, Simon Shasha said:

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I shoot live bands in whatever light is available to me and have done so with many cameras since film SLRs.

I can not change the location and I can not add light.

Each generation has gotten better and better but for me, the A7s is the camera I always wanted as it means I can use 5.6 or even f8 if I want to.    I just don't worry about ISO anymore.

I do use ISO 51200 and even higher from time to time (ISO 80,000 is fine for me often and sometimes 102400 is as well).     The bands, and odd newspaper have been happy to use some of my shots at 51200.

I use auto ISO and what I use depends on where I am aiming at and the light available.     I would prefer if it stayed at lower ISOs but sometimes, in some of the bars and pubs I shoot, there is just no choice. 

With each camera I have used, I have had my limits.      Original A7 was 12800 with the odd shot a bit higher, Pentax Kx was ISO 6400, sometimes ISO 8000,  My GX7 (I have only used for live music on the odd occasion), I don't like over  3200 (6400 in a pinch).     Earlier DSLRs were a bit lower.      Film and ISO 3200 was mostly very grainy but I was restricted most of the time to using fast lenses.

 

A few years ago I shot in a club/bar that was lit by a couple of shaded table lamps.     I was using an APSC DSLR at the time and ended up with very few usable shots.     I would have loved to have an A7s there.    Many of my current venues are just pub corners and one is an outdoor beer garden with all gigs at night.

I mainly shoot stills but I use the same lenses with the same  auto ISO settings for video and have been very happy so far.     

[Emanuel]

5 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@Emanuel the most money I earned the last couple of years are coming from C100 cameras, and those haven't the best codecs in business, or maybe, they do have!

I believe my greatest achievement so far was a media installation I did in film school (art department) were I had only a tiny light for orientation purposes, and all the performance was a wall of sound (achieved by a tap of water, a telephone analog signal, a Budha box and a few guitar effects and an amp). The key was that the lack of sight enhanced imagination. It is how you use your tools I guess.

 

I do firmly believe the most part of us here can only concur with your two cents there : ) My other two and leitmotiv for POV of this thread is only to point out the fact: 4/3" sensor size by Panasonic seems to not match its competitors, the sister Olympus included, at least; as it should be supposed to be, I guess. Lame chance for the new toy : ( But, to be able to beat any other camera in the right hands? But anyone doubts? A camera is not only high ISOs, fancy NR algorithms or stupid marketing strategy trying to mimic the other Sony girl.

I also want to believe that internal 10-bit 4:2:2, 4K/60p (not internal@4:2:2), etc is a proof of solid mature attitude to defy the major players outside and break the waves pushing the envelope further. I just think pretty immature all this NR nonsense. For once and ever, there's nothing videoish about grainy outcome, but filmic! Truly disappointing from their own to my book.

[webrunner5]

Well one thing sometimes you MIGHT want to shoot with a large DoF. Ergo get shit All in focus. Means maybe f11 at night, horror film in a dungeon, one flickering far away candle, you know the creepy guy with a sinister shadow on the wall thingy, creeping toward a screaming ass hot young Blonde.

I don't think having a camera that sucks in low light fits that need. Plus I am too old to carry lights. And No room for my beer.

[leeys]

5 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Sporting event videos and run n gun shouldn't require 25,600 ISO. If you shoot horror films fine, but as I said, 'how many' really have this need? That doesn't imply 'nobody' has the need, but rather not many.

No one really shoots horror films at that ISO either - you still light the scene with proper lights, it's not like they're filmed in pitch darkness.

[Snowfun]

7 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

How many people actually have a need to shoot at ISO 25,600 or anything near it?

I do.

Filming aurora. (A7S, Shogun, Samyang 24 T1.5)

[Simon Shasha]

10 hours ago, noone said:

I shoot live bands in whatever light is available to me and have done so with many cameras since film SLRs.

I can not change the location and I can not add light.

Each generation has gotten better and better but for me, the A7s is the camera I always wanted as it means I can use 5.6 or even f8 if I want to.    I just don't worry about ISO anymore.

I do use ISO 51200 and even higher from time to time (ISO 80,000 is fine for me often and sometimes 102400 is as well).     The bands, and odd newspaper have been happy to use some of my shots at 51200.

I use auto ISO and what I use depends on where I am aiming at and the light available.     I would prefer if it stayed at lower ISOs but sometimes, in some of the bars and pubs I shoot, there is just no choice. 

With each camera I have used, I have had my limits.      Original A7 was 12800 with the odd shot a bit higher, Pentax Kx was ISO 6400, sometimes ISO 8000,  My GX7 (I have only used for live music on the odd occasion), I don't like over  3200 (6400 in a pinch).     Earlier DSLRs were a bit lower.      Film and ISO 3200 was mostly very grainy but I was restricted most of the time to using fast lenses.

 

A few years ago I shot in a club/bar that was lit by a couple of shaded table lamps.     I was using an APSC DSLR at the time and ended up with very few usable shots.     I would have loved to have an A7s there.    Many of my current venues are just pub corners and one is an outdoor beer garden with all gigs at night.

I mainly shoot stills but I use the same lenses with the same  auto ISO settings for video and have been very happy so far.     

I shot live music for a long time (video below). All on Canon 7D and 60D. Pretty much only had one lens (Sigma 30mm F1.4), and would rent a Sigma 20mm F1.8, or Canon 70-200 here and there/when needed:

The Canon 7D and 60D were not ISO champions, they pretty much fell apart after ISO 640.

When I bought my A7S, I wasn't that impressed. Sure, I could shoot crazy high ISO, but given my experience with the 7D and 60D, I didn't really need it in the end. Not for the shooting style I had developed by that time, anyway. Fast aperture made the difference. Most of the time. I'd gotten so used to pulling focus at F1.4 - F1.8. Would drop the shutter to 1/40, 1/30, if the lighting being used allowed it. Was never fond of shallow depth of field. Tried to keep my shots wide to avoid it. I always found very shallow depth of field disorientating. I never used my own artificial light - I always found it visually obtrusive, fake. I wanted viewers to feel like they were there.

I guess I had to really choose my shots back then. Wait for the light. There were many times where I wouldn't be shooting at all, just waiting on the sidelines for the light to change. If I got the shot, I got the shot, if I didn't, too bad. Sometimes I think it was better this way - stopped me from over-shooting. The only downside was having to pay attention non-stop to the lighting...but I guess that's our job in the end, no?

[Kisaha]

@Simon Shasha we all worked with 640ISO for many many years!

The truth is that until a couple of years ago and the sales of A7S cameras noone was shooting above 3200, and that number was even lower a few years ago, and if we go back to film, well..you get the point. I seriously do not understand how instantly we negate 100 years of motions pictures because couldn't shoot in pitch dark.

Photography= phos(light)+graphy(writing)= you search for the light, not the luck of it

Obviously I am not sad that machines will be able to see in total darkness soon, just ain't that anxious about it. When it happens it happens.We shot Kodachrome film in Super 8 cameras, never complaint that we didn't have the Cubrick lenses!

[Don Kotlos]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

 

Photography= phos(light)+graphy(writing)= you search for the light, not the luck of it

Yes but for cinematography = cinema(movement) + graphy(writing) sometimes you want to capture the motion with a deep DoF which needs a sensitive sensor even at typical indoor events. Then there is the moonlight .

But jokes aside, I don't think anyone here is arguing for A7s level sensitivity but for less processing. For example, I used to get very nice footage from the BM pocket even at low light, mostly because I ended up with a nice looking noise and not an overprocessed image. So I believe GH5 can be even better once they allow us to turn these artifact generating algorithms off . 

[noone]

Three shots.      The first from 2005 with a IST*D at ISO 3200 (Adalita from Magic Dirt)

The next from 2011 at a festival I was shooting for with a Kx at ISO 3200 and the last from 2015 with a A7s at ISO 102400 (US rock band 10 years)..

I used a fast shutter speed for the A7s shot as the band is very fast moving and the light was also changing rapidly.

While not great, I think the A7s shot is far better than the IST*D shot.     These days I would likely delete that IST*D shot but back then some from that gig were used on their 2005 Warner album Snow White at small size in the collage.

 

I have shot several festivals, sometimes for the festival and sometimes you just have to take what light you get.

The A7s shot was in brighter light than the Magic Dirt shot but that is another advantage of better high ISOs - I can use much faster shutter speeds when I want.

I never even tried my Canon 7d for live music.    That camera was for other things.

 

[Justin Bacle]

21 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't see m4/3 Ever being worth a crap in low light. When you use the comparameter? it is still rather dishearting how little Any camera has gained with great Low Light ability in the last say 6 years. 1 stop if we are lucky in that amount of time. Sony A7s is the only one that is sort of great in low light. And real life that is 25,600 at the top without biting your lip. Sure more if you HAVE too, but you sure as hell don't Want to. Most cameras are still 6,400 tops, 12,800 is Oh Shit stuff. Ain't happening on a m4/3 camera video wise.

The problem doesn't come from sensor size actually but more from pixel size. 

So you could make a great low light m4/3 sensor. But only at smaller native resolutions

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, Justin Bacle said:

The problem doesn't come from sensor size actually but more from pixel size. 

So you could make a great low light m4/3 sensor. But only at smaller native resolutions

Marketing stinks. Hybrid concept, not much. But sticks it anyway.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Ironically, it takes powerful lights to create the contrast ratio necessary for a traditional "dark horror" look. Horror sets aren't dark at all to the naked eye.

[sanveer]

Actually, the EMD-1 Mark ii seems to have quite impressive noise reduction (on par if not better than the A6500). If Panasonic can replicate that, it would be amazing, especially for video. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Also, keep in mind these are OoC JPEGs, not video frame grabs. Different sampling, processing, and compression applies.

[Emanuel]

9 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Also, keep in mind these are OoC JPEGs, not video frame grabs. Different sampling, processing, and compression applies.

Yes, as said in the first post.

I'd actually love to confirm our best hopes may happen.

I'm afraid the things can only be worse, though. Video versus stills...?? I'm really sorry. IMHO seems more a PITA if there's another girl to pick up in a special dating;

unless bitrate (more than 10-bit as I recall an old discussion with you some time ago) + a change on their approach to the whole high ISOs processing thing could save the grace, if not, a pity as first call.

Well, good lighting seems pretty recommendable and truly fair. Otherwise, no way.

Light is always key, even for low light and use of high ISO settings, I do bet and stand because we all know photography will never be made of only a bit of the cake but everything must count there. May motion be a bit different of it.

Here goes a sample of that, including post:

 

[Emanuel]

Motion can be a bit different of it, maybe less noticeable but hardly easier.

[sanveer]

9 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Also, keep in mind these are OoC JPEGs, not video frame grabs. Different sampling, processing, and compression applies.

I could be wrong, but the JPEGs will be 8-bit 4-2-0, whereas the video will be 10-bit 4-2-2. Neat Video should be able to improve the noise much better on the video. Plus some other tricks. Also, the noise reduction algorithm are not like they can't be improved. There is always room for constant improvement. 

[Emanuel]

49 minutes ago, sanveer said:

I could be wrong, but the JPEGs will be 8-bit 4-2-0, whereas the video will be 10-bit 4-2-2. Neat Video should be able to improve the noise much better on the video. Plus some other tricks. Also, the noise reduction algorithm are not like they can't be improved. There is always room for constant improvement. 

I don't think better chroma subsampling or color depth will help it at all. To be 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, 8-bit or 10-bit may end the same for that purpose, I bet. I wouldn't say the same about bitrate, though. As well, post tools and other tricks as you mentioned and I had posted in that video two posts earlier. As same as other resources. Let's stay at optical 'improvement' period for the subject matter, I guess ;-)

Take a look in the differences from 1600 to 3200 ISO, so the secret with this device is to keep it under control. Actually, as happens with all cameras. With a difference here: up to ISO1600 for acceptable response.

[j.f.r.]

On 2/16/2017 at 7:36 PM, Simon Shasha said:

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

Your post lacks any and ALL form of common sense, especially when the base iso for this camera (Sony A7s)  in S-log is 3200 iso..........

 

Now commenting on the GH5 or therefore any GH camera, it's not designed for high iso work. You need at a minimum an S35 sensor camera if you want to push higher iso's.......

 

From my experience GH cameras should be shot no higher than 800iso and in EXTREME cases 1600iso and will definitely need noise reduction.

[jonpais]

31 minutes ago, j.f.r. said:

Your post lacks any and ALL form of common sense, especially when the base iso for this camera (Sony A7s)  in S-log is 3200 iso..........

 

Now commenting on the GH5 or therefore any GH camera, it's not designed for high iso work. You need at a minimum an S35 sensor camera if you want to push higher iso's.......

 

From my experience GH cameras should be shot no higher than 800iso and in EXTREME cases 1600iso and will definitely need noise reduction.

Agree with the part about not pushing ISOs too much with m43.