Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Scarlet #81 1600 ISO Test

ah, i wasn't worried about it... not much point on a test unless you want some practice.
 
Michael, thank you very much for these tests! Do keep them coming! My suggestion, if this is not asking too much, is that you do a "Laforet". Just go outside with the camera, no lights, at night, and shoot some beauty street shots, maybe add one or 2 characters bellow street lamps. Try to use street lights more. This should be a "real world" low light night shoot test. This would really be helpful to all and clear people's doubts once and for all. I believe iso 1600 or 800 is more than enough, but going 2000 for certain shots would also be great to see.
 
Francesco Cammarata said:
Here original clip right from the Sony NEX FS100 to compare in low light:

http://www.mediafire.com/?e5djvt4tq1wx4lw
http://www.mediafire.com/?rcs6uwslv4r1uwd

Lens Sony 16mm 2.8
db +21 = 6400 ISO
Color Profile FLAT

Handheld nothing artistic, only for test.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the test fransesco, i owned several panasonic cameras before and thought about the af100, unfortunately its short of latitude comparing to a scarlet along with 2k,3k,4k and of course RAW options
 
Francesco Cammarata said:
It's a pleasure. Roshdi.
Like I say this are only to compare in low light
Click to expand...

Looks pretty darn good, i opened it just needs a bit of correction and viola.

I would've done something similar in exterior dark street or alley if i had my scarlet x :)
 
Great looking! Michael, were you shooting at 8:1 compression? Have you tried out the other compression settings, i.e. 12:1?
 
Michael, thanks so much!

If I could think of one test, it would be the one you just did. But here is the next BRUTAL AND UNFORGIVING test!

Different light sources and types by themselves, including LED, Tungsten Edison Bulbs, Halogen, Fluorescent, HMI (if you have access to one), and a couple street lights. Then, my fav, Open Flame (like a torch, not a match). If you can dim the LED to a couple settings besides just full, that will tell some tech stuff to look out for.




Here is me playing with your shot. I really enjoyed this. Added noise or not, I was able to keep as much or as little noise as I wanted where I wanted it. If this is the kind of shot where someone wants NO noise, then you light it differently. First is the original, then I just went with the different feels I thought were appropriate for the subject... then did a 100% grab of one and a fun chroma key play for no good reason.

CigarOriginal.jpg




Cigar1.jpg


Cigar2.jpg


Cigar3.jpg


Cigar4.jpg


Cigar100percent.jpg


CigarBWkey.jpg
 
Thanks Dave! How is your Epic treating you?
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
Michael, thanks so much!

If I could think of one test, it would be the one you just did. But here is the next BRUTAL AND UNFORGIVING test!

Different light sources and types by themselves, including LED, Tungsten Edison Bulbs, Halogen, Fluorescent, HMI (if you have access to one), and a couple street lights. Then, my fav, Open Flame (like a torch, not a match). If you can dim the LED to a couple settings besides just full, that will tell some tech stuff to look out for.




Here is me playing with your shot. I really enjoyed this. Added noise or not, I was able to keep as much or as little noise as I wanted where I wanted it. If this is the kind of shot where someone wants NO noise, then you light it differently. First is the original, then I just went with the different feels I thought were appropriate for the subject... then did a 100% grab of one and a fun chroma key play for no good reason.

CigarOriginal.jpg




Cigar1.jpg


Cigar2.jpg


Cigar3.jpg


Cigar4.jpg


Cigar100percent.jpg


CigarBWkey.jpg
Click to expand...


Beautiful grades Jeff.

I don't understand people complaining about noise. If you light properly, which obviously we didn't just to test it out (knowing we would get noise), then you will have no problem with noise.

There is more to movie making then point, shoot, and hope the results are good. You have to do so much more to get exactly what you want.

I will hopefully post more stuff soon! If I ever get that side handle in, I will go out and actually shoot wildlife scenes.

Keep the grades coming man!
 
Michael Millichamp said:
Beautiful grades Jeff.

I don't understand people complaining about noise. If you light properly, which obviously we didn't just to test it out (knowing we would get noise), then you will have no problem with noise.

There is more to movie making then point, shoot, and hope the results are good. You have to do so much more to get exactly what you want.

I will hopefully post more stuff soon! If I ever get that side handle in, I will go out and actually shoot wildlife scenes.

Keep the grades coming man!
Click to expand...


Thanks Michael.

I think we are living in a world where you either get most of the look in camera, or all in post.

And to be fair, you can't dismiss the "in camera" people. I was just on a fairly large network tv type shoot where the DP and Cam people were very good, but the end product is just OK to the average viewer, because (IMHO) there was no post color work done. There just wasn't much post work at all! I was very surprised!

I personally shoot everything as "neutral" as I can, keeping in mind what I THINK I want in post, but leaving the most options. For instance, if I want cool hair lights, and warm key, I white balance for the key, blue the highlights, and expose it well. But I don't try to push it in any direction in terms of saturation, contrast, or exposure until post. In case I change my mind. There is just more flexibility! Obviously we light for mood and tone, but I leave maximum flexibility for later.

But in the case of the folks working on that network TV shoot, they definately needed every bit of it looking good IN CAMERA because no one had their back in post!




Still, none of this has relevance to your current test, because you shot what you wanted to, then it was up to me to do what I could in anticipation of my fictional clients desires. I am happy with the results, even if I only did a few of the dozen ideas I had! haha

keep up the good work! Looking forward to whats next.
 
Because Cooper, your shadow goalpost was probably maxed and you were barely getting an image at 1600ISO. Michael's, on the on the other hand, wasn't nearly as dark so when he brought it up to 1600ISO, it didn't boost/amplify the noise in the image as much as it brought up what exposure it had.

That's the problem with RAW; the sensor's exposure is essentially fixed (ISO is metadata)... Even if Dragon is clean at ISO2000, it might not be any more sensitive in the traditional sense (you'd still require the base amount of light for the image to register on the sensor as something other than noise)... ...I feel like I may not have articulated that too well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top