GH5 Noise Reduction @high ISOs simply sucks...

[kidzrevil]

Ok and why are we shooting at 6400 iso again ?

asking for a friend.

On 2/15/2017 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.

Exactly ! If your first option is to crank up the iso your lighting is terrible or you just make poor decisions as a camera operator

[markr041]

"Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple. "

Not simple. The whole point is that location trumps equipment - choosing the right location to tell your story is critical, and should not be limited by the camera's shortcomings. Setting up the right lights may also not be possible, but at best it involves time (=money) and compromises.

[Kisaha]

@markr041 if you didn't do any locationing, have no budget, no production "values", no time, do not know how to light, or do not want to; sorry to say that, but no camera can save your life.

[fuzzynormal]

3 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Ok and why are we shooting at 6400 iso again?  Asking for a friend.

Well, I'd say run and gun docs might lead you into situations that have dark corners...but even so, I've rarely gone over 1600 myself.  At the very least one should carry a lens for those low light situations along with some modest small rig for supplemental lighting.  It doesn't take much.  A tiny LED would throw enough photons to add interesting rim/side light.  After all, a f.9 and a LUMIX camera is pretty competent in low-light up to 1600.

It'll capture pretty clean in a very dim room under those parameters.

But, seriously, if you have advanced knowledge going into a setting, you should be able to analyze the light, develop a strategy to handle it, and keep it controlled for your gear.  (not even saying you HAVE to do lighting, but you should understand it) Otherwise, WTHeck are you exactly doing?  A filmmaker should be at least a tiny bit concerned about the craft.

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

lights may also not be possible, but at best it involves...compromises.

You just wrote that using lights is a compromise?  As a filmmaker and photographer this makes my brain hurt.  I think I may have thrown up a little too.

[markr041]

40 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@markr041 if you didn't do any locationing, have no budget, no production "values", no time, do not know how to light, or do not want to; sorry to say that, but no camera can save your life.

Really? Thanks for this. I did think that a camera could save my life, but now I know better. Having more creative options, however, is what counts; cameras with limits, like in dynamic range (less so inconsistent AF), stunt those. And here is news for you: maybe you have an unlimited budget for lights, sets, locations etc. for whatever you shoot (if so I doubt you would be here), but most do not, at least of those who participate in this forum (yes, I am guessing at this).

21 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Well, I'd say run and gun docs might lead you into situations that have dark corners...but even so, I've rarely gone over 1600 myself.  At the very least one should carry a lens for those low light situations along with some modest small rig for supplemental lighting.  It doesn't take much.  A tiny LED would throw enough photons to add interesting rim/side light.  After all, a f.9 and a LUMIX camera is pretty competent in low-light up to 1600.

It'll capture pretty clean in a very dim room under those parameters.

But, seriously, if you have advanced knowledge going into a setting, you should be able to analyze the light, develop a strategy to handle it, and keep it controlled for your gear.  (not even saying you HAVE to do lighting, but you should understand it) Otherwise, WTHeck are you exactly doing?  A filmmaker should be at least a tiny bit concerned about the craft.

You just wrote that using lights is a compromise?  As a filmmaker and photographer this makes my brain hurt.  I think I may have thrown up a little too.

I hope you were able to wipe.

It is not the use of lights that is a compromise (you misread, sorry), but that the choice of lighting sometimes involves compromises (maybe there are places where certain lights cannot be hung, or there are restrictions on lights but the venue is just perfect for the story), just like the choice of cameras. There are always compromises and trade-offs, unless, of course, you too have an unlimited budget for "film" making. Every grownup understands limits, even those who are not "filmmakers".

As a filmmaker, I am surprised you do not seem to understand that using a wide aperture to shoot in order to lower ISO limits your DOF ( try a wide shot at f .9), which limits how you shoot. Another trade-off. It "doesn't take much" to just use a better camera for the situation. You write as if the only "strategy" is to use only one camera, and then you work around it (which is certainly a valid method), but on a real shoot, many types of cameras can be used. Maybe you need to be more than "a tiny bit concerned about craft."

[webrunner5]

Well I am sort of a big fan of the A7s because I don't see a lot of situations where you can use f .9 and get anything in focus. I know on a m4/3 camera that is really f 1.8, but that is still some narrow ass DoF to play with.

So I think using a A7s in dark portions of a shoot IS a damn good option to have. Would I have it as my main camera all the time. Well, if I had enough money to have it as a "B", camera well no. But as your Only camera, I can think of a hell of a lot worse ones to have.

Now trying to cut it into a movie with a Gh4, GH5, well that would not be easy as hell I would admit. With a A6300, A6500 now that works.

[noone]

Not everyone needs high ISO but if you shoot available light, then often enough you do (or I do anyway).

The last gig I shot was at a reasonably well lit pub last Friday.      The highest ISO I needed was  ISO 25600 and the lowest was ISO 100.  Many were around ISO 5000.

If I had used lights, I would have destroyed the atmosphere for everyone and also likely have been kicked out.   

I  will not add lights when I am not in control or if the stage lighting is part of the show ETC but will always prefer to shoot at lower ISOs.     I prefer available light most of the time too for stills and video.

I COULD shoot at lower ISOs last Friday but I don't always have that luxury.

I don't know what I am going to get most of the time until I get there.

Was trying to upload two shots but going very slow.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

It is not the use of lights that is a compromise (you misread)

Guess I mis-read then.  Compromises are certainly a decision of priority regarding what to do.  I'd say that raising ISO is low on my priority list.  As I mentioned, I shoot docs, so I find myself in dim situations often.  I like to go with faster lenses to compensate. 

Nothing wrong with having a good low-light camera either, (soft gentle light can play very dramatically) but my point is that utilizing light in a wise way is fundemental to capturing images.  

Assuming that just using a more light sensitive camera is the panacea for shooting would be a mistake.

Now, all that said:

 

[noone]

55 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Guess I mis-read then.  Compromises are certainly a decision of priority regarding what to do.  I'd say that raising ISO is low on my priority list.  As I mentioned, I shoot docs, so I find myself in dim situations often.  I like to go with faster lenses to compensate. 

Nothing wrong with having a good low-light camera either, (soft gentle light can play very dramatically) but my point is that utilizing light in a wise way is fundemental to capturing images.  

Assuming that just using a more light sensitive camera is the panacea for shooting would be a mistake.

Now, all that said:

 

There is SO much wrong with that video.

He really handicaps the larger sensor cameras by not using primes (he prefers to use zooms) and only one particular zoom (he could have used the other 1.8 zoom I guess too).

      The ONLY way the GH5 "wins" is IF you use the 1.8 Sigma zoom and a Speedbooster and you don't use a similar fast zoom (Sigma 24-35 f2) with or without a focal reducer OR a fast prime on the larger sensor cameras.

On top of that I don't see the Gh5 "winning" there in many instances at all even as it is.

What happens if you need deeper DOF at high ISOs or if you are at ISO 25600 and up and are using a fast prime as well?

GH5 looks very nice and that combination (GH5, Speed Booster and Sigma 1.8 zoom) will be usable in lower lighting than a FF camera and slower lens in many cases but that does not make the GH5 a better low light camera than the others "tested" there.

I will still gratefully accept any GH5 that isn't wanted by the buyer.        Would love to use one as a decent daytime/good light/controlled light camera.

[fuzzynormal]

28 minutes ago, noone said:

I don't see the Gh5 "winning" there in many instances at all even as it is.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they?  I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.   

[webrunner5]

I think a lot of you are not really thinking this through. Sure they use lighting in movies. But hell guess what, the movies we go see have lighting rigs that that a f ing semi truck to get them there. 6,000 watt lights that take a generator to run them.

You are not going to light up half a city block with little piss ass LCD lights from Amazon we can afford! Get real.

[noone]

40 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I think a lot of you are not really thinking this through. Sure they use lighting in movies. But hell guess what, the movies we go see have lighting rigs that that a f ing semi truck to get them there. 6,000 watt lights that take a generator to run them.

You are not going to light up half a city block with little piss ass LCD lights from Amazon we can afford! Get real.

That is true but it does get really annoying in a dark pub or club at a gig to even see someone using even a small light with the tiniest video camera.      It also annoys me when someone uses flash endlessly for stills too (and it often annoys the bands no end).       A few times I have shot alongside other photographers using flash almost every shot and sometimes the band would tell them to stop.     One has since upgraded his kit and now shoots without flash a lot more.     He also does video now too and (thankfully) without lights.

 

If I remember, next time I see someone with a video light at a gig, I will take a photo.

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, noone said:

That is true but it does get really annoying in a dark pub or club at a gig to even see someone using even a small light with the tiniest video camera.      It also annoys me when someone uses flash endlessly for stills too (and it often annoys the bands no end).       A few times I have shot alongside other photographers using flash almost every shot and sometimes the band would tell them to stop.     One has since upgraded his kit and now shoots without flash a lot more.     He also does video now too and (thankfully) without lights.

 

If I remember, next time I see someone with a video light at a gig, I will take a photo.

Well the big problem about using flash and lights, is that it changes the look of what you are trying to shoot. There is hardly any bar or concert in the world that has the band all lit up when you go see them. Bars are the worse hands down. But if you light it, it looks unnatural as heck.

Hey I am not against lights, and lighting. It does add drama, a scary effect, and compliment people, especially women's faces. But we now live in a new era, where we have cameras that Are good at shooting on low light. We don't always have to do the same stuff people did 50 years ago. They would not have done it always either if they had a Sony A7s then. Think outside of the box.

Plus we can't afford tons of lighting equipment, or the people skilled at using them. Now if you are doing a sit down interview, well yeah, you Need lighting.

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

You are not going to light up half a city block with little piss ass LCD lights

With current camera sensitivity across all brands you wouldn't have to.  If the ambient light "floor" is decent for what you require, then you can concentrate on using small simple elements for moderate fill.  I do this often with my documentary production.  Every situation is different though.  And other shooters have different tastes in lighting.  Ironically,  I'm more of a minimalist/naturalist.  But knowing what's needed or might be needed is the main thing.

For example, more than a few people here on EOSHD use modest implements and make it work.

14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Bars are the worse hands down. But if you light it, it looks unnatural as heck.

I used to be in a shitty bar band and I used to do video production for it as well.  Often I'd work with the venue to adjust lights on hand.  Without fail they were always positioned wrong and set to unflattering angles.  With only a little tweaking and collaborations with the bar we could usually improve it.  Assuming they tolerated my input and modifications.  The main thing was typically keeping the illumination variance under control and creating useful pools of light for the singer and band members.  The other big thing was to avoid direct key.  Anything straight on ruined the vibe.  The lighting had to still have some drama to it.

[webrunner5]

9 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

With current camera sensitivity across all brands you wouldn't have to.  If the ambient light "floor" is decent for what you require, then you can concentrate on using small simple elements for moderate fill.  I do this often with my documentary production.  Every situation is different though.  And other shooters have different tastes in lighting.  Ironically,  I'm more of a minimalist/naturalist.  But knowing what's needed or might be needed is the main thing.

I used to be in a shitty bar band and I used to do video production for it as well.  Often I'd work with the venue to adjust lights on hand.  Without fail they were always positioned wrong and set to ridiculous angles.  With only a little tweaking I could usually improve it.  Assuming they tolerated my input and modifications.  The main thing was typically keeping the illumination variance under control and creating useful pools of light for the singer and band members.  The other big thing was to avoid direct key.  Anything straight on ruined the vibe.  The lighting had to still have some drama to it.

Very good response. I agree with your points. Nothing should ever be written in stone on lighting. You know and I know music videos are probably lit like a Christmas tree.  But we probably don't see it in the finial output, they are very good at their craft, or they can afford to hire someone who is..

[noone]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Very good response. I agree with your points. Nothing should ever be written in stone on lighting. You know and I know music videos are probably lit like a Christmas tree.  But we probably don't see it in the finial output, they are very good at their craft, or they can afford to hire someone who is..

If the gig is for the purpose of the band shooting a video, then I am all for them lighting it as they see fit for video.     

Pub bands are mostly about being another way to get people into the pub to drink.     I have five pubs within two hundred metres of where I live.     Two have live music weekly or more, two have live music often but not every week (one has a nightclub a few times a week) and only one doesn't have any.     Even at the ones that are more than weekly, they don't even turn the TVs above the bands off sometimes.      

They all have some lights in place (some not so many/much) but they are not always used/aimed properly and some just turn the bar lights off and the band might bring a couple of lights with coloured filters.  

A couple of places (a bit further away) have excellent stage lighting.

I have been shooting bands for decades starting with film.

At first, I had to use fast lenses with as high an ISO film as I could, then with the first digital cameras, at most gigs, I could still only use fast lenses but was glad of ISO 3200 when I had it (it wasn't very good but at the time I thought it was ok).   

With each generations ISO improvement, the ability to shoot at higher ISOs has also meant the ability to use slower lenses for greater DOF or for using the lens at the aperture I think it is better at.

It simply gives me more choice.

I hate the look of photos taken using flash when the light at the bar is very different.

This is ISO 100, I will take it when I can (but if it had been ISO 25600 or whatever, I would have been happy to take that too).     I use the same lenses/settings for video with the only difference being for video I like to have the camera on a tripod or table.

[hmcindie]

12 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@markr041 if you didn't do any locationing, have no budget, no production "values", no time, do not know how to light, or do not want to; sorry to say that, but no camera can save your life.

Is anyone actually buying a GH5 to use on A BUDGET (a real budget, not music videos) shoot? I'd expect normal clients (i.e people that actually pay) to run away from you haha.

I have no budget in my own short films usually so a lot of stuff has to be creatively done. Also sometimes even for paying clients it works, we shot a music video for an artist (it was paid but not much) which featured two A7s shots done at 25,600 at moonlight (and an iphone). Those are the exceptions to the norm. But still, minimizing the size of lights you carry is quite significant in no-budget shoots.

If I'd take out all the "less than 1600 ISO" shots that I've ever done, I'd probably miss A LOT of extremely cool looking things. Though I do live in Finland which is in perpetual darkness.

[kidzrevil]

Not trying to troll I am honestly trying to figure out what are you guys are shootings that require you to hit 6400 iso on a regular basis ?! I have shot for the military,personal brand, corporate, blog etc. and if I have to use 800 iso im scared. 1600 iso ? Im having nightmares. 3200 ? Im changing to a fast lens and adjusting the lighting (if I have lighting). If not I pack it up and move to a location with better lighting and finish the shoot. Ideally I would be able to do some kind of prep work to determine how the lighting looks and what I need to bring. So again what are you guys shooting that you need such high iso's ? I hear run & gun situations which is my PRIMARY form of shooting and still have never went above 800 iso.

 

[Davey]

∆∆∆ 

Mr Kaewmani knows what he is doing. What a difference a skilled colourist makes.

[Chrad]

10 minutes ago, Davey said:

∆∆∆ 

Mr Kaewmani knows what he is doing. What a difference a skilled colourist makes.

Definitely, but wrong thread.