GH5 Noise Reduction @high ISOs simply sucks...

[Emanuel]

Ditto.

Where fast glass + accurate exposure are keys -- between 400 and 800 ISO:

 

[Simon Shasha]

6 hours 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.

Ha. Calm down, mate.

Never said I was shooting in S-Log - not too fond of 50Mbps 8-bit 4:2:0 S-Log...but if you are, knock yourself out.

[kidzrevil]

What do you expect at 6400 iso ?....lol...wow

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.

Have you shot with the a7s ? Its clean up to 12,800 iso !!!!

[Davey]

9 hours ago, Emanuel said:

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.

Mushy at 3200 even with a low shutter speed and 1.4 glass in what is a well lit scene as far as 'low light' tests go. 1600 looks passable, mind, after YouTube has done its compression.  Either this is faked to make things look worse than they are or some of those clean 6400 examples out there have employed some trickery.

 

[webrunner5]

I have no clue in hell why people don't take advantage of newer cameras that can take still shots, video at high ISO's. People have been pissing and moaning about low light ability, and along comes a camera like the Sony A7s and they say well I am going to stay at a ISO a 10 year old camera they had did. What the hell!

It means you can have cheap LCD lights, hell use the light from your cell phone for that matter instead of 5,000 watt lights movie productions use. Use available light coming trough a window, a candle, the Moon, you get the point. A Sony A7s is a miracle and people don't take advantage of it, hmmm.

[Simon Shasha]

46 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Have you shot with the a7s ? Its clean up to 12,800 iso !!!!

In the end, the colour science and 8bit codec killed the A7S for me. I much prefer my Blackmagic Pocket and Micro.

A clean image at crazy high ISO isn't really something I look for, I'm more interested in colour-science and bit-depth - this is why I sold my A7S and A7RII, and still have my Blackmagic Pocket.

[kidzrevil]

41 minutes ago, Simon Shasha said:

In the end, the colour science and 8bit codec killed the A7S for me. I much prefer my Blackmagic Pocket and Micro.

A clean image at crazy high ISO isn't really something I look for, I'm more interested in colour-science and bit-depth - this is why I sold my A7S and A7RII, and still have my Blackmagic Pocket.

Agreed !

Im just saying who EXPECTS clean ISO at 6400 ?! Thats what blew my mind. If you have to push to 1600 with any camera both film and digital you know the lighting sucks. If I push to 3200 that is an emergency situation. 6400 means I absolutely,positively have to have that shot for my boss or my client. 

6400 iso one can expect the image to fall apart with grain,smudging & compression artifacts. I am not going to judge the gh5 or any camera for that matter based on its 6400 iso performance. Can't tell you the last time I went over 800 lol

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, Simon Shasha said:

In the end, the colour science and 8bit codec killed the A7S for me. I much prefer my Blackmagic Pocket and Micro.

A clean image at crazy high ISO isn't really something I look for, I'm more interested in colour-science and bit-depth - this is why I sold my A7S and A7RII, and still have my Blackmagic Pocket.

Well I, and probably everyone on here is not going to knock the output of a BMPCC, the buy of a lifetime in my book. But it has its limits. The Sony A7s is a FF camera that goes over 100,000 ISO I just don't think you can compare the two .

Hell not counting the A7s can do 4k with a external recorder. Yeah 8 bit, but we have been shooting 8b stuff for 20 years or more and it somehow has worked.

[j.f.r.]

3 hours ago, Simon Shasha said:

In the end, the colour science and 8bit codec killed the A7S for me. I much prefer my Blackmagic Pocket and Micro.

A clean image at crazy high ISO isn't really something I look for, I'm more interested in colour-science and bit-depth - this is why I sold my A7S and A7RII, and still have my Blackmagic Pocket.

All shot in SLOG at around  20,000 - 50,000+  ISO

 

 

[noone]

3 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Agreed !

Im just saying who EXPECTS clean ISO at 6400 ?! Thats what blew my mind. If you have to push to 1600 with any camera both film and digital you know the lighting sucks. If I push to 3200 that is an emergency situation. 6400 means I absolutely,positively have to have that shot for my boss or my client. 

6400 iso one can expect the image to fall apart with grain,smudging & compression artifacts. I am not going to judge the gh5 or any camera for that matter based on its 6400 iso performance. Can't tell you the last time I went over 800 lol

Sometimes I can not go UNDER ISO 3200!

I had the luxury of a gig on Friday night that the highest I needed was ISO 8000.

6400 is nothing these days with the better FF cameras.       For M4/3 though it is currently a stop to far most of the time.

 

[noone]

4 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Agreed !

Im just saying who EXPECTS clean ISO at 6400 ?! Thats what blew my mind. If you have to push to 1600 with any camera both film and digital you know the lighting sucks. If I push to 3200 that is an emergency situation. 6400 means I absolutely,positively have to have that shot for my boss or my client. 

6400 iso one can expect the image to fall apart with grain,smudging & compression artifacts. I am not going to judge the gh5 or any camera for that matter based on its 6400 iso performance. Can't tell you the last time I went over 800 lol

Actually, one thing.     If you need high ISOs, it doesn't mean the lighting sucks, it just means it is low.      I want to be able to take photos when I want, not just half the day.

I would hate to go to many shows or gigs or restaurants ETC where the light was bright.     It would destroy the atmosphere a lot of the time.

Having better high ISOs just means you can shoot longer or with faster shutter speeds.

 

[kidzrevil]

2 hours ago, noone said:

Sometimes I can not go UNDER ISO 3200!

I had the luxury of a gig on Friday night that the highest I needed was ISO 8000.

6400 is nothing these days with the better FF cameras.       For M4/3 though it is currently a stop to far most of the time.

 

Idk the lighting there but you could get good results between 800-1600. With a fast lens you should be able to take that shot under 6400

[noone]

47 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Idk the lighting there but you could get good results between 800-1600. With a fast lens you should be able to take that shot under 6400

The lighting there is the best.      Rapidly changes and has all sorts of different lights.    I love that stage but never know what the light will be in the next second.    

I have ISO set to auto at 51200 often but it never had to get anywhere near that for THAT gig (often it does even at that venue).    I used three lenses, a 17mm f4 for full band shots  and at 5.6 mostly, a 55 1.8 (the above shot was with) and a Canon 100 f2.

I was using aperture priority and knowing the minimum shutter speeds the camera will set with each lens.

The above shot was at 5.6 as at the time I was trying for a bit deeper DOF (if I had a couple of the band members in shot - not the drummer).   It was 6400 for that shot because that is what the lighting gave me at the aperture I chose and with that lens, knowing the camera would use at least 1/60.     Plenty of other shots at different times with the same settings, the camera would have given me a lower ISO and at other gigs, a higher one.

With film cameras I would have HAD to use fast lenses wide open, with the first DSLRs I used, I would have been able to use slight slower lenses or stop down just a bit more.    Each generation gives me more options.

With the A7s, it is my choice what I use.     ISOs for that gig ranged form ISO 100 to 8000 with only a handful at 6400 to 8000.

This one was with the 55 at f2 and I got ISO 640 but again, it COULD easily have been much higher.

[kidzrevil]

@noone awesome shot !

me personally I wont even consider using a m43 camera with a lens that doesn't at least go to f1.8 ! I've been using nikkor lenses with a speedbooster to give my 2.8 glass a bit more light. The m43 sensors are way to noisy for me above 1600. Thank god for the ibis you can get clean shots around 400-800 @ night

[webrunner5]

You can't shoot everything wide open at f1.8 or less and expect to get much in focus. That is where the Sony A7s shines. He can shoot at f5.6 and get stuff in focus without worrying if he blew the whole thing focus wise. That is a hell of a great luxury to have as an option. MFT in a bar at night is not my idea of hog heaven, especially using a f1.2 lens. IBIS only helps you with motion blur, not lens focus. But true like you said you can shoot  lower ISO. But it's not like Sony doesn't have stabilized lenses.

What would really be nice if we had the money to have 4 or 5 camera systems. Nobody has the perfect camera, or if that was the case we would not need to be on here! I would not really like to use the A7s all the time in reality. The sucky battery life, limited recording time what like 12 minutes, no internal 4k, kind of on the small size, no IBIS on the first one, etc.

[Simon Shasha]

9 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Agreed !

Im just saying who EXPECTS clean ISO at 6400 ?! Thats what blew my mind. If you have to push to 1600 with any camera both film and digital you know the lighting sucks. If I push to 3200 that is an emergency situation. 6400 means I absolutely,positively have to have that shot for my boss or my client. 

6400 iso one can expect the image to fall apart with grain,smudging & compression artifacts. I am not going to judge the gh5 or any camera for that matter based on its 6400 iso performance. Can't tell you the last time I went over 800 lol

For sure - when I pre-ordered my GH5, I did it knowing that I will, most likely, be limited to ISO1600 - which, as I stated before, is absolutely fine with my shooting style.

The first camera I was trained on back in 2005 was a Canon Scoopic 16mm with film speeds of ASA20 to ASA640. I guess that experience shaped my shooting style till this day.

7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I, and probably everyone on here is not going to knock the output of a BMPCC, the buy of a lifetime in my book. But it has its limits. The Sony A7s is a FF camera that goes over 100,000 ISO I just don't think you can compare the two .

Hell not counting the A7s can do 4k with a external recorder. Yeah 8 bit, but we have been shooting 8b stuff for 20 years or more and it somehow has worked.

Definitely has its limits in low-light - if people are shooting in situations that require ISO100,000, then Blackmagic is not for them.

I had an A7S with a Atomos Shogun. I thought the 4K 8-bit 422 would help with the colour-science and banding. After multiple tests side by side against my BMPCC, I sold the A7S and Shogun combo immediately.

I think I was spoilt by being taught on 16mm. The magic of having my first 16mm footage projected really ingrained (no pun intended) in me the type of fidelity I wanted my images to have. I've been chasing it ever since. I think that's why I love the BMPCC so much - it's the closest I've ever gotten to it by means of a digital format.

I'd shoot 16mm if I had the funds, but what's more, it's next to impossible here in Australia - have to send the film away off-shore to have in processed. Hard to rent high-quality 16mm cameras and lenses too.

I really hope Blackmagic releases a BMPCC 2.0 - perhaps with the 2.5K sensor and 60FPS - that would be beautiful.

[webrunner5]

36 minutes ago, Simon Shasha said:

I really hope Blackmagic releases a BMPCC 2.0 - perhaps with the 2.5K sensor and 60FPS - that would be beautiful.

Jesus they would sell more than they could make! Oh I would not put it past BM to do it though.

I am going on 70 years old so everything when I was young, and not so young, was all film based. I started with a 8mm movie film camera as a teenager making car chase movies, gangster style with a old 39 4 door Ford. We laughed till we nearly peed our paints doing that stuff. Nothing beats the look of film, nothing.

But you are right for what money the average person can afford the BMPCC, BMCC is as good as it gets to the look we all crave. It is a great editing learning tool also.

[Kisaha]

So, the conclusion is that every camera NOT named A7s should be destroyed immediately?

"Yeah 8 bit, but we have been shooting 8b stuff for 20 years or more and it somehow has worked." We are shooting without a A7s cameras for more than 100years and somehow has worked..

I have used the A7s on a few projects, never thought to buy one, maybe the A7Siii will be amazing, and the high ISO is a plus, but right now I enjoy more to work with other cameras.

[webrunner5]

21 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

So, the conclusion is that every camera NOT named A7s should be destroyed immediately?

"Yeah 8 bit, but we have been shooting 8b stuff for 20 years or more and it somehow has worked." We are shooting without a A7s cameras for more than 100years and somehow has worked..

I have used the A7s on a few projects, never thought to buy one, maybe the A7Siii will be amazing, and the high ISO is a plus, but right now I enjoy more to work with other cameras.

Yeah but you are wierd lol. Just Kidding. Oh I am sure the new A7s will be amazing! The old one is also, you just didn't realize it. I know the feeling, I just can't get into certin cameras either.

I never owned a GH4 and really not too big on even the new GH5.  But I do have a Panny G7 for the 4k. The sensor size is just too limiting both DR and low light wise, and limited DoF when you want it. And it is not going to get better.  But I don't think the GH5 can be beat for the money, no way. Well maybe a Sony 6800 might??

[Kisaha]

@webrunner5

I am not that weird, as sale figures indicate! 

I am not big on m4/3 either, I still use GH4 but I never owned one, and I use full frame cameras for video, but again, I never owned one; 

there are perfectly good cameras for specific jobs that I enjoy more.

My sweet spot is S35 and APS-C cameras that are close to S35, and Sony APS-C offerings in both bodies and lenses are not pro material, so a GH5 with a speedbooster is closer to my style than the a7s, plus I know that Panasonic will deliver something that will work as it is advertised, and it is advertised as a video work horse, definitely not a low light freak.

Whatever works really, I understand one man band people like the A7s so much, but video productions are team work, and I am trying to change this "lone-wolf" mentality, even in my lowest budget jobss I try to employ 1-2 more persons (DP and/or after effects specialist), even if that means that I am earning silly money in the end.