GH4 Is it faulty? Low light noise at low iso

[Disease8]

View attachment 99598View attachment 99599View attachment 99600

Yeah Here are some caps lifted directly from a fairly underexposed vid I shot a while back.
Bear in mind it was hand held, so the caps are not as sharp as they would have been if the cam was on a tripod.
But I just looked at the vid and it looks really clean and in some shots the histogram was pretty hard left and the meter was well into the minuses.
So I dont know whats going on, although the GH4 is not a low light champion, its pretty darn good...at least in my experience (plenty of it)
So maybe its down to the curves, Profile (I used Natural on these) or maybe one camera in many has a faulty sensor (I have heard of that)
Other than that...its got to be something to do with the settings somehow...cause I dont have any visible, multi colored, moving noise.

Hey dude those images look fine, this is the sort of image I would expect from my experience with m4/3 sensors, I do see them as being bad at low light they are just a little noisy with high iso. I have always got great low light if you keep iso low and have a fast lens. What ISO were those shot at? I made another video in standard profile and it looks a lot less noisy. I only used cine like d with the suggested settings because that is what everyone recommends for low noise and a gradeable image.
I kept all the curves and everything on default or off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5OHi4qowf8

Everyone has their own method. If your's works for you, have at it hoss.

But to make sure, I did a quick test myself. I just shot this at ISO 3200 on a GH4 with proper exposure. It was with the Sigma 18-35 and I had to stop down to '4' on my Speed Booster. Picture profile was CineD. I tried a few quick grades, and NO noise reduction. It's not pretty, but I would classify it as usable.

Ver 1
Ver 2
Ver 3

If you want the original footage straight from the camera, you can download it here.

Hey Daniel thanks for the reply. Those images dont look too bad at iso 3200. I am uploading a comparison test now with various ISO's.
I only have the Camdiox speed booster so I don't have stops on it. But it should at one stop of light to the already fast lens making it f1.2.

 

[Disease8]

Here is a comparison test at different ISO's in standard profile everything on default.
https://youtu.be/IGXqIa6S6DI

Look ok?
Why is noise such an issue in cine like d, because I have contrast turned down? I only use these settings as everyone recommends them for least noise.

 

[astromann]

Hey dude those images look fine, this is the sort of image I would expect from my experience with m4/3 sensors, I do see them as being bad at low light they are just a little noisy with high iso. I have always got great low light if you keep iso low and have a fast lens. What ISO were those shot at? I made another video in standard profile and it looks a lot less noisy. I only used cine like d with the suggested settings because that is what everyone recommends for low noise and a gradeable image.

I cant remember exactly, but I can say that I am not worried about pushing to 1600 ISO at all, some of those caps would have been about 800 ISO or more, its really nice and clean on the 4k vid.
I have shots I have taken in a pretty dark street at 1600 ISO with the 12-35 lens at 2.8 (unfortuntely I havent been able to locate them)many parts were shot at 1600 ISO and although the detail was down a little in sharpness it was still a nice image.
Obviously something like the Sony A7s would be better in very low light, but mostly (for me) the GH4 does a great job.
I have not had a great love for the Cine-D -5 -5 -5 etc...settings, I prefer Natural, Standard or Portrait TBH...I find -5 everything (for me) does not work, BUT some guys get really awesome results in Cine-D with these settings...so each to their own.
However if this rumored firmware update happens at NAB...that may all change very soon, there is word that the GH4 wont need any hack (directly from Nick Driftwood)

First thing I would do if I were you I would try to get hold of another GH4 and do some A/B tests on the same settings to see if anything is going on with the sensor, if for no other reason than to put your mind at ease.
If there is no noise problem then just play around with it untill it gets close to what you like, settings can have a big effect on this camera.
I do push the shadows to +2 or +3 and wind the highlights to -2, just to even things up a bit, I never push the Master Pedestal tho...its worriesome.
iDynamic actually works a treat in bright light where the shadows (under trees etc..) are dark, it balances things really well...but its poison in low light, it definitely adds noise.
So yeah play around.
Cheers

 

[astromann]

Here is a comparison test at different ISO's in standard profile everything on default.
https://youtu.be/IGXqIa6S6DI

Look ok?
Why is noise such an issue in cine like d, because I have contrast turned down? I only use these settings as everyone recommends them for least noise.

That footage looks fine to me...nice Celestions too (I am a recording buff LOL!!)
Yep I dunno about Cine-D in Low light with minus settings (some say its the noisiest profile)
I would just stick with Standard, or Natural maybe, that footage looked good to me, it can only get better as you fine tune things here and there.
Cheers

 

[Disease8]

That footage looks fine to me...nice Celestions too (I am a recording buff LOL!!)
Yep I dunno about Cine-D in Low light with minus settings (some say its the noisiest profile)
I would just stick with Standard, or Natural maybe, that footage looked good to me, it can only get better as you fine tune things here and there.
Cheers

Hey dude thanks yeah those speakers a sooo creamy. Love them to bits, paid £20 fro them and they are better than most studio monitor speakers

So in the Cine like D profile it is all noise in the shadows but in standard it is ok. Well that is a relief. Still has made me doubt this camera. I will keep testing.

 

[astromann]

Hey dude thanks yeah those speakers a sooo creamy. Love them to bits, paid £20 fro them and they are better than most studio monitor speakers

So in the Cine like D profile it is all noise in the shadows but in standard it is ok. Well that is a relief. Still has made me doubt this camera. I will keep testing.

Yep...I did countless tests a while back...post some of your results here, it will be interesting to see them.

 

[c3hammer]

Jumping into this one late, but I don't think your samples aren't that bad for being so underexposed in the original clips.

Secondly, I have never had luck with cineD regardless of the settings in lower light. I always shoot cineV with all zero's and 16-235 for lower light. I can push it around in post quite easily. CineV crushes the blacks a bit more than Standard and I can shoot all the way up to iso 2250 without much noise at all.

Your last vid on standard looks great for iso 3200.

Just my $0.02

Cheers,
Pete

 

[Bern Caughey]

If you're learning how to properly expose, or if you're shooting a black object like your speaker, you can fake a light meter. Turn on your zebras...

As noted the footage was grossly underexposed. Unfortunately cameras in this class don't have extensive built-in tools. Whenever possible I prefer to use False Color &/or Waveform, but can get by with Zebras & a Histrogram. Whatever I do I never trust the camera's EVF or LCD for determining exposure.

An old photography trick involved taking a reflected meter reading off the palm of your hand & then closing the camera down a stop so exposure was set to middle grey. Though our skin tones come in a multitude of colors/shades/tones the palms of our hands are all similar so this technique works irrespective of ancestry.

Zebras make this technique even more accurate. Set the first Zebra to 65% or 70% & use the palm of a hand to determine exposure (no need to close down here). Set the second Zebra to 95% or 100% to monitor clipping.

 

[Batutta]

As noted the footage was grossly underexposed. Unfortunately cameras in this class don't have extensive built-in tools. Whenever possible I prefer to use False Color &/or Waveform, but can get by with Zebras & a Histrogram. Whatever I do I never trust the camera's EVF or LCD for determining exposure.

An old photography trick involved taking a reflected meter reading off the palm of your hand & then closing the camera down a stop so exposure was set to middle grey. Though our skin tones come in a multitude of colors/shades/tones the palms of our hands are all similar so this technique works irrespective of ancestry.

Zebras make this technique even more accurate. Set the first Zebra to 65% or 70% & use the palm of a hand to determine exposure (no need to close down here). Set the second Zebra to 95% or 100% to monitor clipping.

When shooting people in normal lighting, I find setting the GH4 meter to spot, so it reads a very small spot where the + in the centre of the screen lies, and pointing that at the lit side of a person's face, then adjusting exposure until the meter reads 0 gets me about a perfect exposure every time.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

So in the Cine like D profile it is all noise in the shadows but in standard it is ok. Well that is a relief. Still has made me doubt this camera. I will keep testing.

Don't doubt the camera automatically. Evaluate your monitor settings, most monitors come out of the box with sharpness, contrast, and even brightness set too high. The least amount of oversharpening will take minor color artifacting you might never notice and "create" varying degrees of objectionable noise. I see little to no noise in your tests.

Second: The GH4 is a great camera but does work best for those who understand basic photography and basic exposure. There are NO MAGIC SETTINGS! You MUST know what you are doing. Testing on those dark speakers and grossly underexposing without a good grounding in basic exposure will get you nowhere. Underexposure gets very problematic with most digital camera gear. Look on the web for articles and tutorials on exposure.

Some have said: "I don't care about photography, I do video". News flash! Motion picture (and video) IS photography.

 

[edmundronald]

Why not just say that the GH4 should be avoided above ISO 1600, and that anyone who needs high ISO should get an A7S?
The GH5 or whatever may be able to do a bit more ISO.
BTW my impression is that the GH4 can do more than 180 degree shutter - eg 1/25s @ 25fps so that gives you an extra stop
Edmund

Don't doubt the camera automatically. Evaluate your monitor settings, most monitors come out of the box with sharpness, contrast, and even brightness set too high. The least amount of oversharpening will take minor color artifacting you might never notice and "create" varying degrees of objectionable noise. I see little to no noise in your tests.

Second: The GH4 is a great camera but does work best for those who understand basic photography and basic exposure. There are NO MAGIC SETTINGS! You MUST know what you are doing. Testing on those dark speakers and grossly underexposing without a good grounding in basic exposure will get you nowhere. Underexposure gets very problematic with most digital camera gear. Look on the web for articles and tutorials on exposure.

Some have said: "I don't care about photography, I do video". News flash! Motion picture (and video) IS photography.

 

[Disease8]

Don't doubt the camera automatically. Evaluate your monitor settings, most monitors come out of the box with sharpness, contrast, and even brightness set too high. The least amount of oversharpening will take minor color artifacting you might never notice and "create" varying degrees of objectionable noise. I see little to no noise in your tests.

Second: The GH4 is a great camera but does work best for those who understand basic photography and basic exposure. There are NO MAGIC SETTINGS! You MUST know what you are doing. Testing on those dark speakers and grossly underexposing without a good grounding in basic exposure will get you nowhere. Underexposure gets very problematic with most digital camera gear. Look on the web for articles and tutorials on exposure.

Some have said: "I don't care about photography, I do video". News flash! Motion picture (and video) IS photography.

Hi I know it is photography brosif. I understand. Just had the wrong settings. Thanks..

Thanks for all the suggestions I have learnt a few things. I just made a video with a load of random tests out and about in London. I am pretty happy now I think this is a great camera. There are so many settings I am sure I will find the look I am going for. The problem was I had switched it over to Cine like D from Cine like V.
I am used to under exposed images and this sensor but I have never seen noise problems like that before.
I want less contrast so the gradiation between the light and black areas is more gradual. I guess cine like v is the best for this?
I cannot wait for the V Log colour profile! i think that will help me get what I want out of this camera. It is a shame it does not shoot 4.2.2 colour in camera. Anyone know if this is going to happen at all?
Here I shot the low light stuff last night
https://youtu.be/jxPbgJfm18k

 

[Disease8]

Also I shot some stuff at 2200 ISO last night and it looked pretty darn good! So it is not the ISO noise but underexposing in Cine like D..

 

[Batutta]

Keep in mind, Cine D was not intended as an in camera look. It was designed to be colour graded and the blacks crushed in post. One thing I've tried was using Cine D with master pedestal -10 to bring the blacks back down to normal, and I got a pretty good in camera look. They say not to use master pedestal but I don't think anyone's played with the negative settings much, although I still prefer my Cine V settings for an in camera look.

 

[STYLZ]

Keep in mind, Cine D was not intended as an in camera look. It was designed to be colour graded and the blacks crushed in post. One thing I've tried was using Cine D with master pedestal -10 to bring the blacks back down to normal, and I got a pretty good in camera look. They say not to use master pedestal but I don't think anyone's played with the negative settings much, although I still prefer my Cine V settings for an in camera look.

What's your Cine-V settings?

 

[gh4_storyteller]

An old photography trick involved taking a reflected meter reading off the palm of your hand & then closing the camera down a stop so exposure was set to middle grey. Though our skin tones come in a multitude of colors/shades/tones the palms of our hands are all similar so this technique works irrespective of ancestry.

Zebras make this technique even more accurate. Set the first Zebra to 65% or 70% & use the palm of a hand to determine exposure (no need to close down here). Set the second Zebra to 95% or 100% to monitor clipping.

When shooting people in normal lighting, I find setting the GH4 meter to spot, so it reads a very small spot where the + in the centre of the screen lies, and pointing that at the lit side of a person's face, then adjusting exposure until the meter reads 0 gets me about a perfect exposure every time.

I've used the spot metering on people's faces before. It's perfect for when I'm shooting street interviews.

I've never tried Bern's method though. Need to go test that today. Thanks man!

 

[Batutta]

What's your Cine-V settings?

-1,-2,-5,0,0 Shadow+3, i.dynamic low, everything else off. To my eyes, this looks pretty close to normal. Here is a frame grab of something I shot with these settings.

Pretty happy with the skin tones. I arrived at these settings by doing something I probably should have done a long time ago, plugging the camera into my home theater projector (which is professionally calibrated), aiming the camera at myself, putting a soft light on my face and adjusting the settings until I got an image on screen I liked.

 

[astromann]

Very Nice shot Batutta...really excellent!! Those skin tones look spot on to me.
I usually use a variation on the portrait settings but this looks great!! Gonna have to give these a try!!
Interestingly I also like idynamic used low when there is suitable light, it lifts the darker areas nicely.

 

[Batutta]

Very Nice shot Batutta...really excellent!! Those skin tones look spot on to me.
I usually use a variation on the portrait settings but this looks great!! Gonna have to give these a try!!
Interestingly I also like idynamic used low when there is suitable light, it lifts the darker areas nicely.

Thanks. I white balanced using a white balance lens cap. I find it more reliable than a white or grey card, although in mixed light its problematic.

 

[edmundronald]

Batuta - nice shot colorwise - but looking at the curve in PS shows it is underexposed. Was that intended? Everybody wants dar kimages these days ...
Lowering the contrast and sharpness seems a good idea for people shots, but may be wrong for documentary-type images and things.
You embedded your screen profile, probably by mistake.
I like your settings, but like them even more with a PP tone curve to lift the image a bit; what the GH4 really lacks is a PS-style general tone curve instead of that horrible shadows/highlight thing
Maybe someone could figure out how to hack a tone curve?

Edmund