iijohnkeatingii
Member
Hi, I'm about to begin filming with a canon 5d. Can someone explain to me what the right ISO is for the mk iii? I appreciate it.
Can someone advise me on the right ISO for my 5d Mk iii
- Thread starter iijohnkeatingii
- Start date
Carcaridon
Well-known member
Stay with the native ISO's. 160, 320, 640, 1250... They are the cleanest.
There is no "right" ISO. What do you want to shoot and what is your goal?
egproductions
Veteran
Native ISOs are actually multiples of 100 (100, 200, 400, 800, etc.) Multiples of 160 are pulled ISOs and will give you the cleanest image.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
I could be wrong as I'm not an engineer, but I think you've got that reversed. Native ISOs to the sensor are the ones that are multiples of 160 where the noise is less. The even numbers that were common on boxes of film back in the day are the ones that are being pulled from the sensors native ISO. Back when we shot on film the native ISO would be the one that the film was listed and rated for on the box, i.e. 400ASA and pushing or pulling to another ISO like 800 would have similar results to bumping up the ISO like we do now, more grain and less DR in exchange for the greater sensitivity.
The 100, 200, 400, round numbers are just a throwback to shooting on film and what those film stocks were rated at. kinda arbitrary, but the numbers are easy for us old film photographers to relate to.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Are you shooting raw? I've shot all the way up to 6400 in extreme low light (with raw) and can eliminate noise nicely with Neat Video. That being said you retain the most dynamic range with lower ISOs. So ideally you want to shoot ISO 100 but still can get great footage at high ISO depending on what you are shooting.
egproductions
Veteran
If you pull film (ie shoot 400 asa rated film but expose and develop for 200 asa) you wind up with a less grainy than 400 asa negative at the expense of dynamic range. This was the case with the 5D ii as it related to video. At first people noticed 160 multiples were cleaner than the former 100 multiples iso. Only when they realized that it was at the slight expense of dynamic range did people start recognizing 100 multiples to be the natives and cleaner 160s to be the pulls. So iso 640 is cleaner than iso 400 but iso 400 had more dynamic range since 640 was actually pulling from 800. I cant recall but it would stand to reason that the multiples of 125 (pushes) would have more dynamic range than the previous multiple of 100.
All this being said, I've never tested it out on the 5d iii so i cant personally vouch that this is the case even though i have heard it is.
I shoot multiples of 100 up until iso 800 and then i switch to iso 1250.
All this being said, I've never tested it out on the 5d iii so i cant personally vouch that this is the case even though i have heard it is.
I shoot multiples of 100 up until iso 800 and then i switch to iso 1250.
Nope. 100, 200, 400 are natives. If you shoot RAW- video, it will always use one of those values. The reason 160 is cleaner than 100 (in h264 mode) is because it's actually ISO 200 which is digitally pulled down. That's why shadow noise disappears. H264 has so little latitude that you can pull those down and up quite freely. Same reason why ISO 250 is noisy. It's pulled up from 200.
Though in h264 mode that DR isn't utilised anyway so it's smarter to use 160, 320 etc.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
Aha. Good to know on both counts. 100, 200, 400 for raw and 160,320,640 for h264 is the consensus then?
Carcaridon
Well-known member
Got the native ISO from Shane. http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/12/testing-your-cameras-emulsion/
bill totolo
Veteran
Both images shot at ISO 1250.
Neutral Flat picture profile.
My findings with the MKIII are such that as long as you're filling the photo-sites you don't have to worry about native ISO's, to a point.
I've shot 1600 with just as clean results. Conversely I've shot very noisy video at 1600 in dim lighting that did not fill the photo-sites.
Neutral Flat picture profile.
My findings with the MKIII are such that as long as you're filling the photo-sites you don't have to worry about native ISO's, to a point.
I've shot 1600 with just as clean results. Conversely I've shot very noisy video at 1600 in dim lighting that did not fill the photo-sites.
The word "native" is misused. The native ISOs are 100, 200, 400. Evidence for this is A) Magic Lantern RAW- uses only those ISOs because it is absolutely RAW- material, nothing gets pulled digitally. If you use 160, it will be recorded as 200 etc. B) RAW Photographs have a "native" ISO of 100, 200, 400. Using 160, 320 etc will reduce dynamic range as they are pulled.
Shane just throws that "native" word about because using h264 they are cleaner in the shadows.
Celluloid Dream
Active member
Shane Hurlbut is a creative guy but his technical knowledge is limited.
Some things he is wrong about:
1. ISO 160 is not native as he says it is, it is a digital pull in camera from ISO 200.
2. He advises to shoot video in Adobe RBG color space, which is impossible. Adobe RGB is for jpeg stills only and has no effect on video. You can tell he never actually read the manual because it is clear on this. Do you want to take technical advice from someone who can't be bothered to RTFM?
3. He advises to Disable Peripheral Illumination correction, which is just dumb. The camera can clean this up with no penalty before encoding to h.264, why would you ever disable that?
4. He advises to Never shoot with Highlight Tone priority, which again, is bad advice. In certain situations, and used carefully, HTP can gain an extra stop of highlight detail at the expense of some extra noise in the shadows. A blanket statement on this is, ill advised. Afterall, I believe that Canon Log on the 1DC is using a form of highlight tone priority, so it can't always be a bad thing...
Last edited: