Low Light Streaks - Is my camera faulty?

I think everyone has or had banding on time or another. try putting your iso to 400. work with that see if you get the same thing. maybe a slower shutter speed like 1/30 in 1080. different creative film modes. over time, from what i've read, the banding just goes away. the banding is building with each passing day. you never get used to it. you just have to live with it.

5 bux if you guess what song it is.
 
>>>I would never use a camera at its ISO limits and expect good results (1600 clearly a no and 800 may also be critical)<<<

i will never use my gh1 with that again either. and i did not expect good results in terms of artistic style.

i shoot at times with a nokton f 1.1. but had problems here too beginning at 800. noise i can accept, banding is really worrisome because it makes the pictures unusable.

but then, i may have to live with it.
 
Last edited:
it wouldn't have a native iso because you can actually change the iso's like you can when taking pictures. however the iso's seem to be rated lower than they actually are. so 800 iso on the gh1 seems to be double? i can't be quoted accurate...trying to remember what illya said.
 
i wait for mine to come back from service - best with the issue resolved.
Click to expand...
I wonder whether anyone else has yet had a GH1 serviced to fix a banding problem, or replaced, and found the problem fixed? That would obviously mean that at least in some units it's a defect, rather than a general and inevitable feature of the GH1.

And for anyone wanting deer in low(ish) light, with pans and trees in the background (but I didn't spot mud), see http://photofocus.smugmug.com/Photography/Photofocuscom-Videos/8254015_JkQbc#646836532_p4vXt-A-LB
 
Ozpeter, what lens and what was the max ISO used?

For me the last scene seemed high ISO because the cameras shows lower saturation. I think the GH1 loses saturation as part of its noise removal technique.
 
Ozpeter, what lens and what was the max ISO used?
Click to expand...
I don't know the details of the shooting, I just came across it on the photofocus site - maybe you could ask there for the information.
 
this is what i want to find out but probably won't. if it's fixable, too many people may think about getting their's fixed too. still it's nuisance.

and because my deer go out much, much later than your's - at about the time the fire salamanders appear in front of our mountain hide-out - i stand no chance.... :-)

excellent pictures, btw. congrats.
 
Car3o said:
it wouldn't have a native iso because you can actually change the iso's like you can when taking pictures. however the iso's seem to be rated lower than they actually are. so 800 iso on the gh1 seems to be double? i can't be quoted accurate...trying to remember what illya said.
Click to expand...


okay - now here you have some explaining to do: according to my book, a sensor should have a "native" iso which is defined by different factors as optimal saturation etc. etc.. these are "changeable" values or calibration but according to my book insofar only by changing the interpretation of the information flow.

so manufacturers should at least know what their "native" iso would be in the sense, that it is the value that is next to the optimal setting for the broadest possible data-flow/data-registration. am i right/wrong? i don't know if they are keen though to give that value away, btw.

in professional cinematography this is can be rather different. for instance we shot a project with an arri d20 last year and arri would define the "native" iso of the fraunhofer chip as being 200. you can speed that up - but in the end you only squeeze or flatten your material (better - the information flow) more, give it a higher gamma, more or less saturation, detail etc. etc.

now, my book does not need to be the right one - coming from classical cinematography i still am learning. any help?
 
tipota said:
okay - now here you have some explaining to do: according to my book, a sensor should have a "native" iso which is defined by different factors as optimal saturation etc. etc.. these are "changeable" values or calibration but according to my book insofar only by changing the interpretation of the information flow.

so manufacturers should at least know what their "native" iso would be in the sense, that it is the value that is next to the optimal setting for the broadest possible data-flow/data-registration. am i right/wrong? i don't know if they are keen though to give that value away, btw.

in professional cinematography this is can be rather different. for instance we shot a project with an arri d20 last year and arri would define the "native" iso of the fraunhofer chip as being 200. you can speed that up - but in the end you only squeeze or flatten your material (better - the information flow) more, give it a higher gamma, more or less saturation, detail etc. etc.

now, my book does not need to be the right one - coming from classical cinematography i still am learning. any help?
Click to expand...

what book are you reading? if your book was before the DSLR madness it's probably talking about standard 1/3, 2/3" sensors which do have a rated native iso's. like the dvx and hvx have native iso's that are rated at 200/300 something. instead of adjusting iso's you were stuck with adjusting gain to make it brighter. i read about the arri d20 on wiki and it only talked about it's range from 100 iso to 800, nothing about a native. that's the best explaining i got, unless someone else cares to chime in.
 
Exactly. Video cameras usually have fixed ISO that is the sensor's native ISO. Sort of like how any given kind of film stock has a fixed ISO.
 
For those of us that didn't have other still lenses or order an adapter right away (by the way, if anyone knows a source that can have a Micro 4/3 to FD adapter shipped to Miami by Thursday, or Panama by the weekend, please advise), and were expecting to see huge results over our consumer camcorders (HV30s, and HFs100s) this banding was kind of a jolt to the senses when we turned on the camera indoors at night and saw it everywhere with our dim house 'practicals' on.

But what I'm getting out of 44 pages of this (thank you Ben B and Barry Green) is with a faster lens, it's a whole new ballgame. I won't be underexposed with lights on in a bar or my house with a really fast lens. So I won't get weird vertical lines. Bingo. F4 just isn't a low-light stop. That little aperture size chart really ahem, illuminated things. Got to remember elective photography...

Now, how the hell do I get my hands on an adapter that doesn't come from China and take two weeks? Lenses, I think I can dig up down here, old Canons or Nikons, anyhow...
 
Kellar42 said:
Now, how the hell do I get my hands on an adapter that doesn't come from China and take two weeks? Lenses, I think I can dig up down here, old Canons or Nikons, anyhow...
Click to expand...
You can find sellers from the U.S...

Where do you live? I happen to have an extra Nikon adapter.
 
Ben_B said:
Exactly. Video cameras usually have fixed ISO that is the sensor's native ISO. Sort of like how any given kind of film stock has a fixed ISO.
Click to expand...


yep. seems to be even funnier - iso 100 must not be the "native". could be 200 or even 400. any way to find out about the gh1?
 
So if I read and understand Ilya correctly, you should be underexposing about 2 & 2/3 stops according to what you're seeing on the GH1 meter. That's to compensate for the higher actual ISO of the camera. So is that an across the board underexposing (according to the meter) or just at ISO 100? And, if you're using a light meter, set it for 640 at ISO 100, and 2500 for ISO 400.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top