C100: Any suggestions to improve lowlight on doc work? (videos included)

S

SlyCooper

Member
Recently got back into video production after career in marketing with a large company for a few years, and recently started filming a documentary with my C100.

These clips below are just short behind-the-scenes (that I may or may not use in the full doc), but what I noticed is Wide DR gives me some noticeable noise in semi low-light conditions. Particularly the first 40 seconds of the first video - then you'll notice the image is rather dark in the shots of the rapper behind the glass - I didn't want to boost the ISO too much from where it already was.

Since setting up lighting as a one-man crew is either not possible on impromptu location shoots like this (or at the very least, a hassle I don't need), I'm wondering if there's anything I can do to improve my image quality in-camera, maybe there's something I'm missing. Neat Video is something I already have and will use it if sorely needed, but I rather come into editing with a near-final image. All help and comments appreciated, thanks!

https://vimeo.com/112778382
https://vimeo.com/113455137

EDIT:

I shot with,

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens
f/4
3200 ISO (I don't remember exactly, but it wasn't higher than 4000)
 
Last edited:
No info on what lens you used at what f-stop and what ISO you shot at?
For what its worth, your image looks totally fine (minus some hot highlights) and if this was cut into a BTS, no one would complain about noise.
That´s just the reality of low-budget doc work, and compared to miniDV days, this is gold.

Where I really don't get you is, when you speak of lighting as a "hassle I don't need".
There just isn't a magic-cam out there that changes the lighting set up of a scene for you.
A recording studio actually is one of the better places to find yourself in.
No reason not to put an 1x1 or a Dedo in a corner to give some backlight or bounce one of the ceiling/wall/styro to raise ambience levels or give a face some fill.

Happy shooting!
 
Spartacus said:
No info on what lens you used at what f-stop and what ISO you shot at?
For what its worth, your image looks totally fine (minus some hot highlights) and if this was cut into a BTS, no one would complain about noise.
That´s just the reality of low-budget doc work, and compared to miniDV days, this is gold.

Where I really don't get you is, when you speak of lighting as a "hassle I don't need".
There just isn't a magic-cam out there that changes the lighting set up of a scene for you.
A recording studio actually is one of the better places to find yourself in.
No reason not to put an 1x1 or a Dedo in a corner to give some backlight or bounce one of the ceiling/wall/styro to raise ambience levels or give a face some fill.

Happy shooting!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback, here's what I shot with:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens
f/4
3200 ISO (I don't remember exactly, but it wasn't higher than 4000)

I should clarify the hassle with lighting - I'm usually travelling in a Mini Cooper with 2 others, I don't own lights, and these shoots are often impromptu. Renting just isn't feasible in most cases.
 
Augh, noise! The bane of my existence. With this camera in particular I'm noticing I'm always a LOT happier crushing the blacks, even just a lil' bit, in post to lose some noise in low-light environments. Still beautiful images and the c100 gives you the range to take them down a bit, but I do tend to be happier if I have the opportunity to do that.

That said... for shooting at 3200 iso, your image is still pretty clean dude. Now, there's a lot of compression artifacts I saw which I bet is masking a lot of the noise, but it really doesn't seem troublesome for this kind of project. if you were trying to do a narrative feature? Maybe. But if you were doing that, you'd have more control over the lighting. It's part of the vocabulary that the image isn't going to be quite as controlled in a documentary. I think it looks fine.
 
Appreciate the feedback.

Something I probably won't consider for this project, but I've looked into a few Atomos products, like the Ninja Star/Blade. I'd be curious if that outputs a noticeable difference in terms of noise reduction in low-light.
 
FIRST OF ALL: I thought it looked good. Noise did not seem to be a problem at all, especially for your content and style of shooting.

That being said, I know how sometimes the little things make a very big difference in feeling completely happy about what you've made, even if it's not completely apparent to the general audience. To that effect I say try this: C100 + ATOMOS ProRes 422HQ + Neat Video Noise Reduction. It's like magic. It's so clean it's TOO CLEAN. Add grain back in kind of clean. ISO4000? No problem. 6400? Why not. You can really push it a long ways, especially in the blacks.

Seriously, everything is fine. But if you want to try something different, try that.

P.S. One more thing to think about is that the ProRes files from a recorder will actually be NOISIER than the AVCHD as there is no internal NR being applied. So while you won't get the artifacts, you pretty much need to do the de-noising step to make it look cleaner. If you have the time, storage and equipment, go for it.
 
Ah good, the answer I was looking for. I didn't realize the footage from a Ninja would be noisier, interesting. I guess my problem with that is Neat Video is incredibly slow to render out in my experience with it, but I suppose there is no magic answer. Thank you.
 
Also make sure you're doing a Black Balance as often as you can. Canon recommends doing ABB every time after changing ISO, which is understandably too much hassle for a lot of people (especially on a doc style shoot). But it'll help especially when you're shooting at higher ISOs.
 
I get 5 or 6 frames per second rendering time on my 2013 i7 iMac. It's better then it used to be, but still very slow. Still, sometimes, or even better, for certain shots, it can be very worth it. I often edit with the effect turned off, and then apply it for my final render.
 
I like to shoot with shutter at 360 degrees in low light as this allows an extra stop instead of pushing the ISO up as much. Give it a try you would be amazed.

If you are using an external recorder don't bother wit ProRes 422 as its the same as the C100's native AVCHD, better use ProRes HQ it much more robust. But as Nate "the ProRes files from a recorder will actually be NOISIER than the AVCHD as there is no internal NR being applied.

If you are using the native codec set NR to 2.

And do try 360 degrees shutter angle. Some don't use it because u get a slight blur but i don't mind the slight blur as its unnoticeable and i doubt anyone would notice it especially in BTS. I'm in PAL land so not sure what it would be in NTSC land.

Shutter Abgle:
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial
 
BeeHop said:
I like to shoot with shutter at 360 degrees in low light as this allows an extra stop instead of pushing the ISO up as much. Give it a try you would be amazed.

If you are using an external recorder don't bother wit ProRes 422 as its the same as the C100's native AVCHD, better use ProRes HQ it much more robust. But as Nate "the ProRes files from a recorder will actually be NOISIER than the AVCHD as there is no internal NR being applied.

If you are using the native codec set NR to 2.

And do try 360 degrees shutter angle. Some don't use it because u get a slight blur but i don't mind the slight blur as its unnoticeable and i doubt anyone would notice it especially in BTS. I'm in PAL land so not sure what it would be in NTSC land.

Shutter Abgle:
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll give that a shot and see how it looks in editing. I've just always kept it at 180, but I agree, I think most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference as long as there wasn't a lot of movement.
 
A few options:

-You could run some tests in order to create some presets for WDR use. e.g. vary the internal levels of NR based on ISO.

-You might want to consider the 17-55 f/2.8 IS EF-S lens if the extra stop of light helps and the shorter max focal length is not a issue.

-You could look into other camera profiles. Log is less noisy than WDR (but you have to grade.) Cine might be less noisy as well (?)

Though I agree with others, as seen in Vimeo, it looked good as is already.
 
The problem with a f2.8 lens in observational doco like your BTS, means your constantly chasing focus - its really hit or miss. I even noticed in parts of yr Vimeo clips at f4 there were parts out of focus. Personally I wouldn't go wider than f4 for ob doc. You can still get a nice cinematic look with f4.

But for interviews and more controlled scenarios f2.8 is great. - Just my personal experience :)
 
BeeHop said:
The problem with a f2.8 lens in observational doco like your BTS, means your constantly chasing focus - its really hit or miss. I even noticed in parts of yr Vimeo clips at f4 there were parts out of focus. Personally I wouldn't go wider than f4 for ob doc. You can still get a nice cinematic look with f4.

But for interviews and more controlled scenarios f2.8 is great. - Just my personal experience :)
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
BeeHop said:
The problem with a f2.8 lens in observational doco like your BTS, means your constantly chasing focus - its really hit or miss. I even noticed in parts of yr Vimeo clips at f4 there were parts out of focus. Personally I wouldn't go wider than f4 for ob doc. You can still get a nice cinematic look with f4.

But for interviews and more controlled scenarios f2.8 is great. - Just my personal experience :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips. In that case, for interviews, how about the inexpensive Canon 50mm f/1.8 II? It's another lens I've been eyeing.
 
BeeHop said:
The problem with a f2.8 lens in observational doco like your BTS, means your constantly chasing focus - its really hit or miss. I even noticed in parts of yr Vimeo clips at f4 there were parts out of focus. Personally I wouldn't go wider than f4 for ob doc. You can still get a nice cinematic look with f4.

But for interviews and more controlled scenarios f2.8 is great. - Just my personal experience :)
Click to expand...


Very true but it may give some flexibility to open up when there's a singer at a mic, behind glass in a studio (as he has in his samples.)

Either way - rent before you buy. Some folks find the 17-15 focus ring too small & fiddlely.
 
SlyCooper said:
Thanks for the tips. In that case, for interviews, how about the inexpensive Canon 50mm f/1.8 II? It's another lens I've been eyeing.
Click to expand...

No IS.
I know it's tempting, but 2.8 with IS will make you much more happy with your type of shooting.
And you can always step down a 2.8to 4.0 for easier focusing if you need to follow some action...

As for the MiniCooper Crew-Van: There will still be room for this http://www.amazon.com/Aputure®-Amaran-Video-Light-light/dp/B00N1RK5U4 and this http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-5001B-74-Inch-Stand-Replaces/dp/B001M4HXB2.
 
Agreed with previous post: I only use my 50mm f1.8 when on a tripod for interviews.

If you do decide to try out the 17 - 50 f2.8 make sure you use a viewfinder loupe like the LCDVF....it makes all the difference, even when shooting at f4.
http://www.pauljoy.com/lcdvf/ I highly recommend this its fantastic and you can really nail focus with it.

A lens I've been having nice success with lately is the Canon 18 - 135 STM f3.5 - 5.6. I leave it at f5 so I get a nice wide at 18mm and can go in really tight at 135mm when needed. Its a great observational shooting lens, great for those on the run situations. I just find the 24 - 105 f4 not wide enough and the difference between f4 and f5 really is not that much - especially when your throwing in nice shallow depth of field shots done with f1.8 - f2.8 of interviews and cutaways etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top