Shooting in low light

[Michael Frymus]

I've been going on a major debate as to which camera to purchase for a little while now.
The Red Scarlet or Epic is one of my choices. Epic being the top of the two.

I like the fact that there is the motion mount now available. That's great. That's what is pulling me in more.
But the one thing I really don't like about the Red, is the noise.

I've shot things on the Red One and the Scarlet, but not on the epic... and have experienced a lot of horrible noise.
I like my videos clean and sharp. No nice looking grain. I want clean video. I can always add grain. But removing it is hard.

Lots of times you cant light the scene, dont have the budget for more powerful lighting, etc. and will be slightly underexposed.
Or sometimes purposely shooting like that. Ex: A person is in a dark room, nearly black and lit with only a lighter or his flashlight.

Obviously it will be dark. But whenever I shot things, even way more exposed, the noise was horrible.
So if I were to shoot even darker, it seems it will be way worse.

How do you guys or those shooting the 'Hollywood' big budget films overcome the noise in really dark scenes/shots?
Is noise reduction applied in post for every shot?


-----------
Also,
I believe I know this, but I just want clarification.
I've heard you should shoot for 800 ISO but expose for 320 ISO. I dont think I understand this.

And you need the blue filter (whatever its called) when you are shooting under tungsten situations.

 

[Matthew Scott]

Shooting low light is tough with the Scarlet...but doable. I've just written an article about this exact thing: http://mattscottvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/8/mastering-low-light-contrast-detail-and-noise

 

[Paul Russell]

I use a fast lens, like the Sigma 35mm ART, which opens up to f1.4, or my Canon 85mm prime, which opens up to F1.2.

I shot a short film recently with those two lens using only a bunch of candles and 3 x 60 watt bulbs running at around 75% on a dimmer as light sources. I exposed 'to the right' and opened up the lenses to get a shallow depth of field, then stopped down in post. I also shot in 5K Hd so that when rescaled to 1080p the noise was reduced. By crushing the shadows in post with curves, there's plenty of shadow in the finished product, but it's noiseless.

ISO is only meta data. It's important to give the sensor as much light as you can.

 

[Andrew Gentle]

I used to think that my D800's video mode was more sensitive than Scarlet. I now think that, in reality, once you've performed some noise reduction on the footage at 4K and downsampled to 1080p, the difference is a lot smaller than I thought. Remember that RED cameras don't really do any of their own noise reduction (the slider in Redcine-X doesn't seem to affect the image much) and that with DSLRs, at least, you can't really disable it.

 

[Matt Ryan]

How about just use lighting?

You use it to augment your scene and give the perception that it's only being lit with a lighter. If you go on set of projects shot to look like night or dim, you'd be surprised how much light is used. It's all about exposing for the look you want but using enough light to get a proper exposure and no noise. Nothing is ever just lit by a candle, match, or other small source... If you plan on working in the industry I strongly suggest you learn to light rather than pick a camera where you don't have to light. One takes skill, the other not so much.

This was shot on the R1MX in downtown LA at 800 ISO with a RPZ 18-85 zoom wide open at T2.8 (student short from a couple years back):

While there is a bit of noise, it's mainly from the jpeg compression. I used HMI's for these shots, so no blue noise despite the low light levels.

And this is 500ISO made to look like a moody spaceship but in reality theres about 16k tungsten watts of light in the scene (to the eye on set it was pretty bright):

An important thing to remember is to bring your black levels down in post, otherwise you are exacerbating your low end noise. If you see your noise bar indicator lit up in camera, that is an indication that you need to crush in post to avoid noise.

The sensor is native 5000k color temp, so using tungsten lights is starving the blue channel. That is why it is recommended to use a blue filter to help correct the tungsten color temp closer to the native sensor color temperature. This will greatly help in battling the blue noise of typical underexposed tungsten noise.

Long story short is you need to light regardless of the scenario. That is the only way to avoid noise with any camera. I typically always set the camera to 800ISO and bring in more lights for night/low light scenarios to fill in the low end to battle noise. I'm not a fan of noise myself so I avoid it by lighting my scene a bit brighter and using my exposure to bring it back to the level I like.

Noise reduction is used on pretty much every project so don't be afraid to use it. The RED ecosystem is RAW so those adjustments are up to you in post. Cameras like the Sony's and the Canon's have in camera noise reduction so that is why out of camera they look less noisy. Keep that in mind.

If you need to shoot with no light, then go with a C300-500 or F5/55. Dragon should beat both of these in noise and dynamic range, but we shall see.

 

[Paul Schneider]

I've been going on a major debate as to which camera to purchase for a little while now.
The Red Scarlet or Epic is one of my choices. Epic being the top of the two.

I like the fact that there is the motion mount now available. That's great. That's what is pulling me in more.
But the one thing I really don't like about the Red, is the noise.

I've shot things on the Red One and the Scarlet, but not on the epic... and have experienced a lot of horrible noise.
I like my videos clean and sharp. No nice looking grain. I want clean video. I can always add grain. But removing it is hard.

Lots of times you cant light the scene, dont have the budget for more powerful lighting, etc. and will be slightly underexposed.
Or sometimes purposely shooting like that. Ex: A person is in a dark room, nearly black and lit with only a lighter or his flashlight.

Obviously it will be dark. But whenever I shot things, even way more exposed, the noise was horrible.
So if I were to shoot even darker, it seems it will be way worse.

How do you guys or those shooting the 'Hollywood' big budget films overcome the noise in really dark scenes/shots?
Is noise reduction applied in post for every shot?


-----------
Also,
I believe I know this, but I just want clarification.
I've heard you should shoot for 800 ISO but expose for 320 ISO. I dont think I understand this.

And you need the blue filter (whatever its called) when you are shooting under tungsten situations.

I shoot a ton with Epic and Scarlet, but only when we can light appropriately. If we need more latitude in the dark its generally Alexa all the way.
If you can't light and you spend most of your shooting time as a one man band, consider the Canon (C300-500) or Sony (F5-55) as they can pretty much see in the damn dark.

Dragon will hopefully solve much of this, when it's available for the masses.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Once you test the camera to discover the noise levels at different ISO ratings and color temp combinations, you should be able to shoot with consistent noise levels.

What you can't do, if you want consistency, is to just shoot when you don't have enough exposure for the ISO rating you've selected. You can't decide you are OK with the noise at 800 ISO / 3200K, for example, and then just shoot a shot that is really underexposed because you didn't have enough light for 800 ISO -- I mean, you could shoot, but your results will be inconsistent and noisier compared to the properly exposed shots.

Also keep in mind that a dark, low-key scene doesn't necessarily have to be shot in low levels of light. There were dark and moody scenes back in the early days of cinema when film stocks were well-below 100 ISO.

 

[Jonas Kvist Jensen]

@Matt: Holy Sh't that spaceship looks nice! What project is that?

 

[Matt Ryan]

@Matt: Holy Sh't that spaceship looks nice! What project is that?

It was for a Muse music video/concert visual.

 

[Michael Frymus]

I light every single time. But sometimes your working solo or with a small crew and with minimal lights and cannot use as much as required.

But for example; you are in a basement with no windows and you are using a flashlight. That is the only light source. Seems like a shot like that would have a lot of noise!
The blue filter would be needed since it's a flashlight, but the spot is still way underexposed.

The F5 is another camera on my list. It was #1 by now I'm debating over the epic and the f5.

 

[Milano Questa]

Have you looked into the Noctilux f0.95? It's almost a stop faster than t1.3 lenses.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

But for example; you are in a basement with no windows and you are using a flashlight. That is the only light source. Seems like a shot like that would have a lot of noise!
The blue filter would be needed since it's a flashlight, but the spot is still way underexposed.

Sure, sometimes you make a choice to shoot in some really dark space without enough light for the ISO you picked for the noise level... and thus get more noise to get the shot, but it's a choice.

There are daylight-balanced LED flashlights, by the way, and there are really bright flashlights. Plenty of movies have been shot with flashlights on 500 ISO film stocks after all, but it means picking the brightest flashlights on the market, or building your own.

It's not the flashlight per se that causes the noise, it's trying to lift the image in camera or in post to make it brighter. You could have a flashlight in a scene with the camera set to 320 ISO and have a fairly noiseless image, it's just that the flashlight isn't going to read very bright. So the trick is to get the brightest flashlights on the market, preferably daylight-balanced for the Red camera but not required, get the fastest lens on the market, set the camera to an ISO level that gives you an acceptable noise level, and if necessary, cheat some additional light into the scene.

Yes, there are now some more sensitive cameras on the market, and the Dragon sensor can be rated faster than the MX sensor with less noise increase, but people have been managing to shoot flashlight scenes in movies for a hundred years now without needing 3200 ISO cameras!

 

[Brian Merlen]

fast glass can compensate, but with the loss in depth of field its less then ideal... even if you can get it exposed well what does it matter if your DOF is 1cm thick lol? I shoot a lot of skating and outdoor stuff by myself, no crew, no lights. I do what I can, open up, play with the shutter. but its not ideal. The MX sensor is about to be upgraded tho, perhaps Dragon Scarlet would be a better choice for your needs. Low light, plus you might not need the frame rates of Epic or the 6k of Epic Dragon

 

[kevin holmgren]

Also trying to shoot a day for night scene. What is the "blue filter" everyone seems to be liking for the scarlet/epic?

love to see more of what settings people are using. And looks like more are color correcting after than shooting at lower light levels.

 

[Glen Powell]

It soooo hard being a cinematographer - so hard! So far you've got a lot of great advice, from some really accomplished D.P.'s; sometimes you're going to get noise, sometimes you can crush it in post and sometimes lack of budget / crew / equipment is just something you have to live with and get over by being creative with your resources (practical lights & grey matter).

Often something that bothers me in one of my shots, is something that no-one else will ever notice...

 

[Tom Van]

I believe I know this, but I just want clarification.
I've heard you should shoot for 800 ISO but expose for 320 ISO. I dont think I understand this.

I shoot primarily at 800, but this is the first I've heard the "expose for 320" part... anyone?

 

[Glen Powell]

I shoot primarily at 800, but this is the first I've heard the "expose for 320" part... anyone?

I always shoot at 800 as well - some claim that when switching between RAW view and 320, the picture brightness doesn't change… leading them to proclaim that the sensor is 'native' 320. Somewhere on here you'll see posts from Graeme and other RED employees disputing this. In the end it's all metadata and as long as you watch your goalposts and find a noise(less) level / post workflow that pleases you; expose where you are comfortable.

 

[Jake Bastian]

It soooo hard being a cinematographer - so hard! So far you've got a lot of great advice, from some really accomplished D.P.'s; sometimes you're going to get noise, sometimes you can crush it in post and sometimes lack of budget / crew / equipment is just something you have to live with and get over by being creative with your resources (practical lights & grey matter).

Often something that bothers me in one of my shots, is something that no-one else will ever notice...

My favorite conversation with my audio guy:

"Nobody cares about audio on set, but when you're talking about The Dark Knight, that scene where Joker is on top of Batman in his tower, ask the other person if they recall what Joker said. The answer will never be 'No, but his hair light was AMAZING!!!'"

Cinematography, Audio, Special Effects - if you're doing your job right, no one will ever notice. (Normal people anyway).

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Once you test the camera to discover the noise levels at different ISO ratings and color temp combinations, you should be able to shoot with consistent noise levels.

What you can't do, if you want consistency, is to just shoot when you don't have enough exposure for the ISO rating you've selected. You can't decide you are OK with the noise at 800 ISO / 3200K, for example, and then just shoot a shot that is really underexposed because you didn't have enough light for 800 ISO -- I mean, you could shoot, but your results will be inconsistent and noisier compared to the properly exposed shots.

Also keep in mind that a dark, low-key scene doesn't necessarily have to be shot in low levels of light. There were dark and moody scenes back in the early days of cinema when film stocks were well-below 100 ISO.

David - you have made a couple of recent posts with reference to the noise levels at a certain ISO and I have to admit to being confused by this. In the world of RED, it is my understanding that ISO is only metadata and that there is absolutely no gain applied in the camera with this setting. To me, this implies no change in noise whatsoever, no matter what ISO you shoot at, as long as you are correctly using the other exposure tools (goal posts, histogram, stop lights) to get proper exposure. I know that changing ISO will shift your mid-grey point but I really didn't think it changed the raw signal in any way. What am I missing?

Thanks!

 

[Mike P.]

Also,
I believe I know this, but I just want clarification.
I've heard you should shoot for 800 ISO but expose for 320 ISO. I dont think I understand this.

And you need the blue filter (whatever its called) when you are shooting under tungsten situations.

I think you have it backwards; light for 320ISO, but shoot/expose for ISO800... That's probably a little overzealous (exaggerated for effect), but the idea is that you'll be protecting your highlights whilst having more light than necessary for the shadows/fill, which will be maximizing MX's latitude. As others have said, ISO is metadata and your raw metering is arguably more important -- particularly if you ensure an ample amount of light (which is what lighting to 320 would do for you, if you eventually shoot for 800ISO.) Look at Matt Ryan's spaceship example -- 16k of light was probably enough for 320ISO, but then he exposed for ISO500 (if memory serves) to save that extra bit of highlights... Conversely, those shots are super clean AND were shot at 3k.

The 80C/80D filter takes away 1/2 (or maybe 2/3rds) stop and 1/3stop of brightness, but give the blue channel a much needed boost. The blue channel in all CMOS sensors is the weakest (something about physics and blue having shorter waves lengths which are harder to capture). Basically what it does is reduces your red and green channels and forces you bring up light levels to compensate. On the flipside, it gives you a more even and thicker histogram since all colour channels have the same strength... Kind of. Long story short, they're a good tool to have if you're shooting in tungsten.