GH5 Clarification on Native ISO? Best ISO for GH5 Video?

[analogs]

I have read that in the GH5, that it has a native ISO of 400. Does that differ depending on what Picture Profile you have set? So what would it be for CineD, CineV, Natural, Rec709?

From my understanding, the native ISO is the point to which the sensor starts being amplified which will start adding noise. So anything below ISO 400, the sensor is reducing the sensitivity of the sensor.

Does reducing ISO away from the native ISO affect the image quality? If so, in what way?

Does that mean ISO 400 should be the target ISO to achieve for best image quality for video?

ISO 100 to 400 and 400 to 800 is 2 stops. Is it always better to go 2 stops under or over a native ISO, or will it produce, similar quality?

Why does V-log have a different Native ISO on the same GH5 camera?

Thank you.

 

[TheDingo]

I have read that in the GH5, that it has a native ISO of 400.

I've only heard ISO 400 mentioned when it comes to achieving the best results from the V-Log L profile.

I generally shoot with either Natural, Cine-D, or V-log L profiles, and I try to keep my ISO between 200 - 800, with ISO 400 being the setting I use the most.

 

[jdv]

Yeah, I use the natural profile pretty much exclusively now, and like Dingo, only rarely go above 800 (although 1600 isn't impossibly bad).

 

[analogs]

Thank you for the replies.

@TheDingo - any reason why you do not go 100 but yet go up to 800?

Why Natural, is it because less work to grade, better quality than CineD or CineV? Are you able to achieve the same results if you worked on CineD or CineV?

 

[TheDingo]

@TheDingo - any reason why you do not go 100 but yet go up to 800?

ISO 100 does not improve the captured image over ISO 200, so I don't find it useful for anything. ISO 800 allows for a smaller lighting package and working with less ambient light. I will use ISO 1600 in emergencies, but I'm leaning towards getting a FF camera to do a better job with low-light. S1H is interesting, but I want to see what else is coming out over the next few months.

Why Natural, is it because less work to grade

Easier to grade and it has a medium contrast range. Cine-D is a lot lower contrast than Natural, and Cine-V is much higher contrast than Natural. The only time I will use Cine-V is when I'm shooting outside with 100 percent overcast skies, so the added contrast helps in post.

Are you able to achieve the same results if you worked on CineD or CineV?

Most of the time it would mean adjusting image contrast, where I don't have to if I shoot with the Natural profile.

 

[jdv]

Thank you for the replies.
Why Natural, is it because less work to grade, better quality than CineD or CineV? Are you able to achieve the same results if you worked on CineD or CineV?

Yeah, Dingo nailed it - it's the color profile that looks best out of camera. I hate grading and for what I do - long form narrative horror movies/series which will ultimately just end up on youtube, doing heavy grading ain't for me.

Check out the white in revry video on youtube for setting up the natural profile. I then put a tiny grade on using a LUT designed by Shot By Miles. It's very mild and is free.

https://youtu.be/IzDaOaz1XDM

https://youtu.be/hEQlFxxevWM


Cine-D has the most range/least amount of contrast, but looks gross. I kinda dig how Cine-V looks, but way too much contrast for low-light stuff, which being a horror movie maker is where I'm shooting most of the time.

Also agree w/ Dingo about going full frame & waiting to see what pops up. The Canon R lineup is beginning to look very tempting....