Brawleys first DNGs from the BMPCC

[Andrew Reid]

You are so smart Andrew, a daylight shot with a good sensor doesn't need any noise reduction, maybe these samples are just at some ISO they are not meant to be. The ship is definitely not a silhouette area, it's not shot against the sun altough it is in the "shadow", it's shot 90º off the sun with a lot of ambient light, looking east (if that is australia) at mid day, there should be no fucking noise at all. 

But hey, for vimeo videos, who cares... Let's wait for some lowlight samples, and the ETTR mystery solved.

 

Firstly, don't need the attitude problem in my backyard so quit it or be quitted.

 

You don't get how a raw image works.

 

With a DSLR, the sensor and image processor are 'gained up' to a set ISO. The ISO is baked into the image.

 

With raw, all the image is data is present and you can apply any ISO in post, to any part of the image. When you play with the levels in a raw file it is like playing with ISO on the camera.

 

Like shown in Zacuto Shootout, a DP uses a light meter to measure the ISO of different objects in a scene. This signpost would be rated for ISO 3200 and the bright sky for ISO 200. Then they can choose the appropriate film stock.

 

With John's raw DNG frame the default ACR exposure when dropping it straight into Photoshop does not go off the metadata of the file, it is a guess. It has already lifted the exposure considerably as you can see by dropping some of the other shots into Photoshop which immediately appear too bright and need bringing down.

 

By not crushing back the shaded red signpost in the shadows you're pushing the limits of the sensor in terms of high ISO noise.

 

If you'd tried to shoot this same frame on the GH2 and exposed it the same, that signpost would be unrecoverable and the noise would be far blockier and more compressed.

 

What you're suggesting is just incorrect. You're suggesting the sensor is noisy at ISO 200 in good light. It isn't. Check your facts with another source before posting more misleading comments.

[Andrew Reid]

Here's the actual exposure at ISO 200.

 

Now you see how far this anonymous forum guy 'araucaria' has lifted the shadows in his example, only to complain about the noise!

 

[Nikkor]

Firstly, don't need the attitude problem in my backyard so quit it or be quitted.

 

You don't get how a raw image works.

 

With a DSLR, the sensor and image processor are 'gained up' to a set ISO. The ISO is baked into the image.

 

With raw, all the image is data is present and you can apply any ISO in post, to any part of the image. When you play with the levels in a raw file it is like playing with ISO on the camera.

 

Like shown in Zacuto Shootout, a DP uses a light meter to measure the ISO of different objects in a scene. This signpost would be rated for ISO 3200 and the bright sky for ISO 200. Then they can choose the appropriate film stock.

 

With John's raw DNG frame the default ACR exposure when dropping it straight into Photoshop does not go off the metadata of the file, it is a guess. It has already lifted the exposure considerably as you can see by dropping some of the other shots into Photoshop which immediately appear too bright and need bringing down.

 

By not crushing back the shaded red signpost in the shadows you're pushing the limits of the sensor in terms of high ISO noise.

 

If you'd tried to shoot this same frame on the GH2 and exposed it the same, that signpost would be unrecoverable and the noise would be far blockier and more compressed.

 

What you're suggesting is just incorrect. You're suggesting the sensor is noisy at ISO 200 in good light. It isn't. Check your facts with another source before posting more misleading comments.

 

I remind you that you have chosen to run a public site, if you don't have the education to engage a public discussion hire someone to do so, because honestly you are making a fool out of yourself. 

 

The files posted at the beginning of this thread are interpreted the same way in ACR as they are in Resolve when you tell to readout the metadata.

 

I also invite you to learn about the way cameras handle ISO, in fact I can't believe you don't know. The same way I can't believe you are taking the gh2 into this conversation.

[AKH]

I also invite you to learn about the way cameras handle ISO, in fact I can't believe you don't know.

 

How do you think digital cameras in general handle ISO?

 

The sensor itself has a fixed sensitivity to light (native ISO) and doesn't vary.

[Nikkor]

How do you think digital cameras in general handle ISO?

 

The sensor itself has a fixed sensitivity to light (native ISO) and doesn't vary.

When you change ISO on a digital camera you are not changing sensitivity.

[Axel]

When you change ISO on a digital camera you are not changing sensitivity.

 

ISO is an analogy for the sensitivity of film stock. The use of this term is *helpful* for estimating the relative sensitivity of a sensor with a certain gain chosen. But actually vague and incorrect. Native ISO means the signal is neither amplified nor attenuated.

[Andrew Reid]

Gain can be applied in an analogue way to the sensor A/D converters or it can be applied digitally after the data leaves the sensor at the native ISO.

 

So this guy araucaria is increasing the gain digitally.

 

And gets annoyed at the noise.

 

That is really this argument in a nutshell. Utter time wasting.

[Oliver Daniel]

EOSHD is right. What a time wasting argument. 

 

Some of us come on forums like this to learn, and discussions like this just makes that process damn confusing.

 

Wrong information should be deleted.

[chrisso]

There is a free version of Resolve. Also a free demo version of Phase One's C7.

I probably wouldn't be basing my case against BMD's pocket raw by processing it in Photoshop.

[Germy1979]

Camera threads always seem to get hostile..  It is a mathematical fact.  :rolleyes:

 

I will say this:  (and not to get off topic) ...I've been through - "3" - bmcc 2.5k cams in 4 months... Each replaced by BMD support.. each an acknowledged legitimate problem with the cam.  My ego doesn't have enough in the bank to stand off if someone tells me the problem is operator error, so I'm all about a solution considering the shipping is $50 every time I send it to California..  But 3 in a row is either an issue in the Q.A. area, ...or really shitty luck.  The first one had noise in the green channel so bad, all you could do is barely push it, much less add any post sharpening.  The second had the back focus issue.  My last one produced what looked like bad web compression on the rear display with blocky shadows and smeared details, & "rolling noise" waves that would roll up the scene in dark areas.  (Truly a weird problem to have, but others had it also: http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12588)

 

Yes the pocket cam is a different camera altogether of course, & I'm not bad mouthing BMD.  Plenty of people have perfectly functional cameras from them.  (just not me, lol.) In these early days of release however, I'm just saying if you get a Blackmagic camera, put it through its paces before your return window expires..  Make sure you get a good one while you can!... Even if it starts feeling like harassment.  They're cheap, everybody wants one, and BMD have a delivery reputation to mend.   

[Axel]

You don't get how a raw image works.

 

With a DSLR, the sensor and image processor are 'gained up' to a set ISO. The ISO is baked into the image.

 

With raw, all the image is data is present and you can apply any ISO in post, to any part of the image. When you play with the levels in a raw file it is like playing with ISO on the camera.

 

 

Gain can be applied " to the sensor A/D converters or it can be applied digitally after the data leaves the sensor at the native ISO.

 

I'd like to know more. In layman's terms, are there actually two concepts how to understand ISO when dealing with raw? The BMPCC manual says:

 

 

ISO settings are helpful when you are shooting in a variety of light conditions. The optimum ISO setting for the Pocket Cinema Camera and Cinema Camera is 800ASA. For Production Camera 4K choose the lowest ISO for the available lighting conditions.

Depending on your situation, however, you may choose a lower or higher ISO setting. For example, in low light conditions 1600ASA would be suitable but may introduce some visible noise. In bright conditions 400ASA would be best to record richer colors. 

 

So it seems there is a weakened signal ("in an analogue way") when I choose i.e. ISO 400 before recording, and it gets "baked into" the raw clip. And then when I raise exposure in post, I will see noise as if I had recorded at higher ISO?

 

Something confuses me here. Help me to let the penny drop (if this is the proper idiom).

 

Camera threads always seem to get hostile..  It is a mathematical fact.   :rolleyes:

 

This is nothing. You should see the flamewars elsewhere, especially dealing with platforms. Andrews moderation is moderate. Certainly less 'personal view' from his side would generate more traffic, but also attract more trolls. It's a question of delicate measure.

 

 

[Axel]

I have researched on the topic, but there is confusion about it everywhere. It seems reasonable to assume the following (please correct this, preferably with a link to your source, and excuse my awkward english):

 

1. Native ISO in a digital camera equals the analogue charge, at which the sensors record nothing in complete darkness and are fully loaded in maxiumum light (whatever that means). If it is marked as "800", this says nothing about what's actually happening, but is a rough hint what to expect compared to analog film.

 

2. If the camera is set to ISO 1600, analog gain happens, some double electronic load or so (arguable, some say it's not, see point 4). Since now everything is enhanced, the dynamic range is lower.

 

3. The DR also is worse at ISO 400, 200. I am not sure why.

 

4. Here is the problem: Some state that all increments of ISO dividable by the native ISO are analog, whereas others were digital, but that the smaller values were digital too. Others seem to say that all non-native ISOs are derived by digital processing. But what would this mean for raw?

[chrisso]

In the manual, BMD state the native ISO is 800, but that colours might be richer using 400 in extremely bright conditions.

That gives me enough to work with, with fast lenses for gloomy conditions and ND filters on bright days.

I would therefore not plan to shoot at 1600 or 200.

[Germy1979]

In the manual, BMD state the native ISO is 800, but that colours might be richer using 400 in extremely bright conditions.
That gives me enough to work with, with fast lenses for gloomy conditions and ND filters on bright days.
I would therefore not plan to shoot at 1600 or 200.

When I had to send my first bmc back to Blackmagic, the process of sending DNG's back and forth was between 400 and 800 Asa.
They basically said 200 and 1600 were irrelevant. Even then, it was "stay at 800." The thing with these cams is, they have options.
But why? Lol

[Bruno]

The thing with these cams is, they have options.
But why? Lol

 

Prores.

[Germy1979]

Prores.

Right. I guess you just slap an L lens on, set it at RAW, 800asa, Film, push the iris button, record.

I mean it really is the people's cam. Lol

[chrisso]

The stay at 800 advice goes for prores also.

 

The way to bring light down is aperture and/or ND filter. The way to bring more light in is very fast lenses.....or lighting.

[Axel]

The stay at 800 advice goes for prores also.

The way to bring light down is aperture and/or ND filter. The way to bring more light in is very fast lenses.....or lighting.

Good to know. Thanks.

Weird, that most cameras bake in values that could actually be better refined in post, isn't it? I never again shot a jpeg after learning about raw photography. It's just fabulous that I will get this for video too.

I used to be skeptic about the raw hype, looks like I become a believer.