morgan_moore
Major Contributor
With Highlights at 80 or 90 I am sold.
Yep there is some noise but this image is fairly stupid
Yep there is some noise but this image is fairly stupid
F3: Noise in Slog?
- Thread starter Shoots56
- Start date
I was thinking that the ultimate is to use an Odyssey 7Q which has a LUT built in for the F3. I could record uncompressed or 422 or 444 with it. That solves everything.
I wasn't expecting too much via the monitor but was thinking more about the supposed extended DR. I think I need to adjust my thinking and consider that DR is about the same as a Cine gamma but highlights are just handled better in Slog. If I go uncompressed, maybe I can do whatever I want to. :costumed-smiley-047
I wasn't expecting too much via the monitor but was thinking more about the supposed extended DR. I think I need to adjust my thinking and consider that DR is about the same as a Cine gamma but highlights are just handled better in Slog. If I go uncompressed, maybe I can do whatever I want to. :costumed-smiley-047
Grug
Veteran
Except for storage requirements. Have you looked up the data rate calculations for uncompressed 10-bit RGB? It's 207MB/s, that's just shy of 1TB per 60 minutes of footage.
By comparison, 12-bit ProRes4444 will only set you back a measly 39MB/s (or 182GB/60 minutes). And ProRes4444 is a substantial codec!
Yes but if noise goes away in uncompressed, what choice do you have for critical shots that need noise free shadows? The F3 isnt a 12bit camera nor really 444 so it seems like if there is something where noise and perfect low light capabilities are needed you can go uncompressed just for that but switch back to 10bit 422 for the rest while the internal 8bit works great for those corporate or doc gigs.
With Highlights at 80 or 90 I am sold.
Yep there is some noise but this image is fairly stupid
View attachment 78189
Honestly, with a very light touch of Neat Video that noise is cleared immediately.
I for one think the image coming off the F3 SLOG remains one of the most enticing after the Alexa.
This image is just another example. Great.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Shooter.
Overall Im feeling very happy with the camera in 'normal' use. I will make a trade of of crushing the blacks (such a profile can be lifted with lighting/reflectors to get critical detail out of that zone - IMO 'normal practice' ) or when shooting more off the hoof I will on occasion need to dig into the blacks such project will probably of the 'gritty' doco nature where ones threshold for noise lowers (ie raises!).
In stills I moved from big lighting rigs to HDR photography a long time ago. Specifically with hotel clients who wanted to show 'the foyer INT and hold the seaview'. Before I did HDR I shot with a lot of lights when needed. Idont know how powerful an elly 500 strobe is compared to HMI, but 4 or more studio strobes is a lot of light in any book (compared to video lighting)
WIth HDR would shoot bracketed frames and merge them in post charging an extra fee to the client for the extra post work, the images were far better and faster to shoot than the 'big lights' I was doing in the early 2000s.
Since the transition to video I have always wondered about the foyer/seaview shot, I shot some Portugese hotels this summer and the video was very lacking in this aspect.
It seems that handling a true big DR scene will be expensive and complex, switching to uncompressed is IMO the least of your worries for such a shot.
Renting a raw shooter might help, but somehow I doubt it.
I own a 5dmk2 and will experiment with ML for such shots but ultimately Im thinking that the solution may lie in a second camera (stopped way down to catch the HL info) possibly using a 3d style mirror rig and an expensive image merge in post, or of course a Red in HDRx mode.
Of course these solutions are looking at handling huge DR but not specifically at wide DR in extreme low light. That is even more complex and not a shot I have given much thought to creating.
Some will chime in that I should gel the windows/use more light. BS. Im talking about foyers that are huge and would need trucks of light or days to gel - earlier this year I shot a building with a seven story glass artirum.
S
Overall Im feeling very happy with the camera in 'normal' use. I will make a trade of of crushing the blacks (such a profile can be lifted with lighting/reflectors to get critical detail out of that zone - IMO 'normal practice' ) or when shooting more off the hoof I will on occasion need to dig into the blacks such project will probably of the 'gritty' doco nature where ones threshold for noise lowers (ie raises!).
In stills I moved from big lighting rigs to HDR photography a long time ago. Specifically with hotel clients who wanted to show 'the foyer INT and hold the seaview'. Before I did HDR I shot with a lot of lights when needed. Idont know how powerful an elly 500 strobe is compared to HMI, but 4 or more studio strobes is a lot of light in any book (compared to video lighting)
WIth HDR would shoot bracketed frames and merge them in post charging an extra fee to the client for the extra post work, the images were far better and faster to shoot than the 'big lights' I was doing in the early 2000s.
Since the transition to video I have always wondered about the foyer/seaview shot, I shot some Portugese hotels this summer and the video was very lacking in this aspect.
It seems that handling a true big DR scene will be expensive and complex, switching to uncompressed is IMO the least of your worries for such a shot.
Renting a raw shooter might help, but somehow I doubt it.
I own a 5dmk2 and will experiment with ML for such shots but ultimately Im thinking that the solution may lie in a second camera (stopped way down to catch the HL info) possibly using a 3d style mirror rig and an expensive image merge in post, or of course a Red in HDRx mode.
Of course these solutions are looking at handling huge DR but not specifically at wide DR in extreme low light. That is even more complex and not a shot I have given much thought to creating.
Some will chime in that I should gel the windows/use more light. BS. Im talking about foyers that are huge and would need trucks of light or days to gel - earlier this year I shot a building with a seven story glass artirum.
S
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Nothing will compete in this price bracket, certainly nothing outputting 8bit at best. Maybe the 700/O7q but doubtful
KINOKS
Well-known member
I really don't see that much noise. Where is all this noise that you're talking about? And as was previously mentioned a touch of noise reduction won't hurt
So I think 13 stops is a realistic number with the F3 but not with the FS700. I'm also doing lots of research at the moment about the F3 as I'll probably buy it in the next few weeks...
Duke M.
Veteran
Don't forget in s-log middle grey should be 35-38%. People tend to over expose s-log when using a monitor. When you have middle grey at 50% there's not as much room in the dark end. It should look under exposed on your monitor then bring it up in post. (And hopefully your not trying to do s-log in 8 bit on-board cards. It can be done but you have a higher chance of not getting the exposure in a range you can work with in 8 bit.)
It's also possible to screw around with the matrix settings and create noise.
Generally speaking the F3 has a lot less noise than other cameras.
Grug
Veteran
No, you've still got a 13.5 stop dynamic range, just as you have a 12 stop DR in C-Log with the Canon C300/100/500, and 14.5 stops with the Alexa in Log-C or a scan of Kodak Vision3 negative. You can display that full range if you want, but you'll have very muddy, flat looking images. Adding contrast to any image is always going to compress both the darker and brighter shades of that image - the important thing is starting with enough that you still hold detail in the image once you put that contrast back in.
Thank you but I understand this already, I'm talking about the noise that I am getting in almost every shot that has something in it that is dark colored and falls under that 20 or 10 range. I feel like its going to make shooting slog very worrisome because I will be wondering if that dark spot in the frame will need to be crushed down like crazy. And you can't use neat video on everything given time and post delivery unknowns. And I am not talking about simply shadows, but things that are under exposed that have colors which really show the noise, like a wood door or paneling in a room that is under 20. You can't light every little thing all the time and get it all perfect and you shouldnt have to. I have never had to do that with other cameras, except maybe the AF100 which can be a nightmare.
Ok, check this test shot out. It was pretty extreme since I had to go under for the yellow flower and try to keep at least some of the sky from going super white. The point of doing this shot is to show what is going on with the green in the background. The colors worked out great, even better than I was expecting, but that entire area of green in the background is crawling with dancing noise particles. It looks like 35mm grain in many ways so its not that big of a distraction but I find it hard to believe that Sony would put all this work into these cameras and not deal with this. I still cant come up with a way to feel ok about it. I feel like Im going to get hit with a big "gotcha" one day in some shot, or series of shots.
Here's another example. The brown thing on the right has noise all over the shadow side of it. The shadow area on the white wall above the orange wire is the same. You can't crush that all down without it looking like reversal film. I think the rocks were around a 40 in this shot.
Edit: The forum is adding more compression to this jpg. I did not have that blocking and massive artifacts in the shot!
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
When you shot that what IRE was the wall hitting?
(it is aroudn 235 in the image - I would have come very close to clipping it in camera)
My shot with a similar shadow on the wall was (monitoring slog) just turning my 100% zebra on.
Im far from convinced by the greys at 38 business
As for the flower - I reckon open up a couple more and let the sky bleed, I do a lot of that.
Also you are aware that CineEI if you are using it is hocus ie doing nothing to the file (depending on the pipe you use..)
S
(it is aroudn 235 in the image - I would have come very close to clipping it in camera)
My shot with a similar shadow on the wall was (monitoring slog) just turning my 100% zebra on.
Im far from convinced by the greys at 38 business
As for the flower - I reckon open up a couple more and let the sky bleed, I do a lot of that.
Also you are aware that CineEI if you are using it is hocus ie doing nothing to the file (depending on the pipe you use..)
S
starcentral
Veteran
Sam you can put your whites at 100% if you want, but you will be adding some additional compression to the highlights which will only reveal its ugly self in certain scenes, with certain elements, more particularly the smoothness of highlight gradations.
Regarding whether to put grey at 38 or 50 its a trade-off you have to decide upon depending on the scene. Do you care about hightlight smoothness or less noisy shadows?
Regarding whether to put grey at 38 or 50 its a trade-off you have to decide upon depending on the scene. Do you care about hightlight smoothness or less noisy shadows?
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
If I'm looking at the Alexa and F3 at ISO800 they both have about the same amount of noise. As long as you nail exposure noise shouldn't be something to worry about. There's noise like any other camera but it looks smooth, just like the Alexa.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Reference this thread the latter.