Canon's New Full Frame Sensor. Fireflies in Total Darkness

[Darren Levine]

well, you didn't outline a realistic situation in response, what was your exposure? what power of lights were you using? a 1/48 iso 20000 f2.8 exposure is enough to overexpose dimmed down christmas lights. the hollywood norm you speak of, before digital sensors and iso 13 million, were shooting "fast" stock speeds of iso800, that's why they needed to blast tons of light.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

More! I want more! I want my camera to have X-ray vision!




...but I don't want to pay more than a couple hundred bucks for it.

 

[Lee Saxon]

The point of this announcement is not that Canon can eek out an image in a 0.01 lux environment (something very few people would find significant value in) but that Canon might soon be able to provide a really clean image in, say, a 40 lux environment (something I imagine very many people would find significant value in). And I suspect the people who troll such announcements know it.

 

[maarek]

... a 1/48 iso 20000 f2.8 exposure is enough to overexpose dimmed down christmas lights.

Is that a serious example? Direct lights tend to be overexposed but they should be. The trick is getting people lit without it looking like Game of Thrones season 1.

 

[Darren Levine]

yes, it is maarek, and here's another based on your reference. game of thrones is shot on the arri alexa, max iso 3200 (not that the filmmakers were likely to use it to that high). and yes that large production has the ability to use any lights they want, but for aesthetics, they use as much existing sources as possible, and are constantly getting exposures with firelight.

so again, who needs iso 80,000?

my point is not that NO one has use for it, i can occasionally have a desire for it, but as a need? i call foolery

Even if iso 80,000 looks usable, and you reason that you can use a quarter of the lighting power because of it, low power lights cannot throw across a yard like large light sources can, there's a line, and we've already crossed it. diminishing returns my friend.

another example.... shooting bar/event lighting, i do it a lot, and i hate using camera lights, and up until the C100 i was using the 5D, and 3200 was the limit for half decent quality, and it got me exposures. sure, now with the C100 i push it much higher, but to stop down for more DOF, that's a different story.

lighting isnt a trick, it's a skill, and saying that you need 80,000 to get people lit without looking like it....

 

[dustylense]

yes, it is maarek, and here's another based on your reference. game of thrones is shot on the arri alexa, max iso 3200 (not that the filmmakers were likely to use it to that high). and yes that large production has the ability to use any lights they want, but for aesthetics, they use as much existing sources as possible, and are constantly getting exposures with firelight.

so again, who needs iso 80,000?

my point is not that NO one has use for it, i can occasionally have a desire for it, but as a need? i call foolery

Even if iso 80,000 looks usable, and you reason that you can use a quarter of the lighting power because of it, low power lights cannot throw across a yard like large light sources can, there's a line, and we've already crossed it. diminishing returns my friend.

another example.... shooting bar/event lighting, i do it a lot, and i hate using camera lights, and up until the C100 i was using the 5D, and 3200 was the limit for half decent quality, and it got me exposures. sure, now with the C100 i push it much higher, but to stop down for more DOF, that's a different story.

lighting isnt a trick, it's a skill, and saying that you need 80,000 to get people lit without looking like it....

Who "needs" 80,000iso? Who "needs" a car that can go 130mph? We want it because it's possible. Soon, Canon and others will make sensors that are clean and crisp at ISO values that reach 40,000ISO, maybe higher. Doesn't mean you have to use it. But if it's there at least you have the option.

Low power light cannot throw across a yard? Light travels at 192,000 miles per second.
Sensor technology has made using lower power lights reality. For what I do I used to carry 2400 watt power packs for stills shooting. Today I do the very same shoots with 100 watt sec strobes. My max watt/sec strobe is a 640w/s unit now. I've gone from using a box truck full of lighting and grip to packing 2 small pelicans in a minivan, and getting the very same look, if not better. At least a lot lighter.

Image taken with 6 2400 w/s packs with one head in each pack (14,400 watts of strobe) on a very very very busy street. I had to play reality frogger to adjust some lights on this:


Image taken with 2 650 mono lights and 6 200 watt mono lights" (2500 watts total).

So here is an example of using 1/6th the power to shoot something even more difficult.

It's the same science between stills and motion, strobe and continuous. You just have to have the balance of it all. So yes, a 100 watt LED can throw across a yard as long as other sources of light are in balance with it (sky, practicals, etc.)

So is the 80,000Iso gonna be useable. For certain things. But it was just a couple years ago that 1600 Iso was really pushing it. But soon we should be shooting really super clean images at 20,000 Iso at the very least. That difference might be the ability to use a smaller footprint or a smaller iris for DOF in a near dark bar....

 

[BlackWolf]

yes, it is maarek, and here's another based on your reference. game of thrones is shot on the arri alexa, max iso 3200 (not that the filmmakers were likely to use it to that high). and yes that large production has the ability to use any lights they want, but for aesthetics, they use as much existing sources as possible, and are constantly getting exposures with firelight.

so again, who needs iso 80,000?

my point is not that NO one has use for it, i can occasionally have a desire for it, but as a need? i call foolery

Even if iso 80,000 looks usable, and you reason that you can use a quarter of the lighting power because of it, low power lights cannot throw across a yard like large light sources can, there's a line, and we've already crossed it. diminishing returns my friend.

another example.... shooting bar/event lighting, i do it a lot, and i hate using camera lights, and up until the C100 i was using the 5D, and 3200 was the limit for half decent quality, and it got me exposures. sure, now with the C100 i push it much higher, but to stop down for more DOF, that's a different story.

lighting isnt a trick, it's a skill, and saying that you need 80,000 to get people lit without looking like it....

I don't think this sensor is aimed at low budget filmmakers...

 

[visugeek]

I'm very curious to see what kind of body it ends up being a part of, and what kind of compression. It feels like a concept car at a car show at the moment.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

This is part of the "green" movement in film production. I've been waiting for this development for quite some time. Normal lights use electricity which causes global warming and produce more landfill waste when they are obsolete. Now, we can use the natural light of fire flies which are biodegradable, all natural, and carbon neutral.

On a more serious note, I think it looks very cool. Kudos to Canon for pushing the envelope of light sensitivity in a sensor, even if this is a bit extreme.

Lights are used to shape a scene, and "paint with light" not just get exposure. I see thsi as great for documentary work though.

 

[Samuel H]

Indeed. But it's nice when you can paint with a few prolights instead of needing a bunch of big lights. Which means I want cheap cameras to have clean ISO 12800, not that I want a $60K camera that can shoot in total dark.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Indeed. But it's nice when you can paint with a few prolights instead of needing a bunch of big lights. Which means I want cheap cameras to have clean ISO 12800, not that I want a $60K camera that can shoot in total dark.

As it is now we are fighting streetlighting/light pollution in the city and of course the force of the sun with light intensity - camera sensitivity isn't really the issue, at least it never has for been me on Epic MX.

 

[indiawilds]

Lights are used to shape a scene, and "paint with light" not just get exposure. I see thsi as great for documentary work though.

There are certain situations in wildlife filming, where this would be extremely beneficial. While shooting in the night I am using a C300 with a spot light or my infrared camera with infrared LED lights. Even with infrared LED lights, there is a shadow cast by the subject when the infrared light falls on the subject. That doesn't look great in certain situations and one needs to be really careful in placing the IR LEDs to shape those shadows and get the form of the subject well. Principle is same as normal lighting. In those situations having the ability to bump up the ISO and shoot without any lights would be a great help.

Let the tool be available. If someone doesn't want it, then he/she need not use it. It is a matter of just changing the ISO settings.