F3: Noise in Slog?

Osslund said:
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.
Click to expand...

Above, Harry is very close to a nailed exposure. Would the Alexa have noise on that wood too?
 
I dont think harry is 'nailed' that might be what the book says, but id open up a bit.

Have you actually tried a bracket test.

Also a scene like this if you must shoot it natural (and I dont see why you should not) there are a myriad of touches in post that will buy you another stop of acceptability

Mainly easy in Resolve :)

Desaturate values 0-20 and 90-100 for starters

(qualifier, select 20-90 soft, invert, sat slider)
 
Ha, screw Resolve.

Well if around 35 is "nailed" in Slog, that is what Harry was set to. Also this was not graded fully. I just put the LUT on it and pulled highlights down. The issue is that wood and the noise on it. That would not change had I opened a stop or not, which I did do as well, plus the sun on the white would start going. I guess the camera in slog is simply like shooting 5218 Kodak 500 stock. There is grain no matter what.

To check myself, I downloaded the full res "Urban" slog file that Alister Chapman posted some time ago of the late day garages and city scape. I saw the same noise popping up in the bricks and other darker areas. Does the F55 also do this? If the Epic weren't such a pain in SO many ways, I'd switch but I think I can learn to like this F3 since no one wants to pay to fire up the Arri 35mm.
 
Shoots56 said:
Does the F55 also do this? If the Epic weren't such a pain in SO many ways, I'd switch but I think I can learn to like this F3 since no one wants to pay to fire up the Arri 35mm.
Click to expand...

I always saw dithering of pixels or dancing on my F3 in the shadows, but then again I mostly shot in 8-bit knowing by the time it hit grading and would go to the web it wouldn't be as obvious. 10-bit obviously helps and can make it better.

On my F55 of course there is the same type of noise in the shadows, but since I shoot in 4k and down-rez the final footage the fine pattern of noise seems to lessen and not be as obvious as it was on the F3. (but again I'm comparing apples to oranges.)

Here's a 4k frame straight from some original footage I shot in 4k XAVC 10-bit 422:
http://www.starcentral.ca/forums/UE/4k_UE_starcentral_1.1.1.dpx
 
Last edited:
The book says 35 is nailed. Ali says 35 is nailed.

I say believe nothing and do your own bracket test.

Shoot a scene at a bunch of different f stops and do your own work on every file and see where you can get .

i found that for me a bunch higher grey is working and cleaner with minimal cost in the highlights.

im also someone who puts red straight into 320 wherever possible - an ettr nut.

Resolve. I have used photoshop since 98 or so. When I switched to video in 2008 I was struggling with colour editors - I tried them all looking for something that did the right thing. Including paying full whack for fcp and colour - I still edit in fcp6 - anyway I've just found Resolve to be super powerful and similar if not better than Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
Seems like the lack of luts on the 55 made him accidentally do it right

he should have just run some simple tests on the camera before shooting then he would not have been surprised!
 
No LUTS are NUTS! But according to Sony, today I was informed they are coming very soon. The F5/F55 is almost complete, and turning out to be a great camera with lots of great features and flexibility.
 
starcentral said:
I always saw dithering of pixels or dancing on my F3 in the shadows, but then again I mostly shot in 8-bit knowing by the time it hit grading and would go to the web it wouldn't be as obvious. 10-bit obviously helps and can make it better.

On my F55 of course there is the same type of noise in the shadows, but since I shoot in 4k and down-rez the final footage the fine pattern of noise seems to lessen and not be as obvious as it was on the F3. (but again I'm comparing apples to oranges.)

Here's a 4k frame straight from some original footage I shot in 4k XAVC 10-bit 422:
http://www.starcentral.ca/forums/UE/4k_UE_starcentral_1.1.1.dpx
Click to expand...

Shot a test last night with an 18% gray card and minimal lighting to see how gain and DR were effected in S-Log.
Shot the test with an AJA Ki Pro mini, (10 bit ProResHQ)

ISO 800 0db is at the noise tolerance level for me.
-3db, which is only a half stop adjustment, provided some enlightening results.
In my non-scientific test I found no appreciable difference to DR (I had a candle in the frame as well as a hot spot on the wall), while having a noticeable difference to noise.
Shooting at -3db is the equivalent to ISO 570.

YMMV, i encourage everyone to test for themselves.
 
I finally ran across someone else's test showing exactly what I was talking about and proving that it isnt my camera. Timur made this one. Please download the original .mov file and check out :45 on a decent monitor. The dancing noise is all over that shirt and the window of the car, also the area around the window on the house on the far left. https://vimeo.com/28603167

It is ok here and no one will notice, but imagine that shirt color expanded to cover half the frame like a dark room might be with your important content lit on the far opposite side. What do pepole do with all of that? This is what's killing me. You can't just crush that shirt down to black without it looking like crap.
 
Shoot56

I see what you mean, and the later shots under the bridge really show it, too. Even the exterior day shots of the pier at the water you can see the noise dancing in the shadowed areas under the piers, etc. That F3 noise feels quite digital. My F35 has about the same amount of noise in the low light areas, but the signature feels a bit different, more organic (I chalk it up to CCD vs. CMOS sensors, but that's just a layman's guess). For me I toss a bit of NeatVideo or MagicBullet DeNoiser on it and it cleans up reasonably well. But then I shoot for myself and not clients, so I don't worry about handing over rushes with noise.
 
Timurs 'de-logged' footage looks terrible. It is still way too flat.

If you want a sparkly image you are going to have to create profile that crushes and light expose accordingly.

12stops or whatever claims from all digicams are basically BS

S
 
I dont know if it's terrible, but it is a little flat. But who cares, the noise is there and crushing it out of the shadows, if needed for a particularly darker shot, basically turns the F3 into a 7D so what's the purpose of having s-log in anything but a fully lit daylight shot? I bought the F3 because of the log abilities but am starting to fear I should have just gone with a Scarlet and deal with all of its BS. At least then I'd get closer to that look I'm going for until I can escape all these indie cams for an Arri.

The F35 is SO nice but just won't work for me for various reasons. You guys are lucky who have a 35 working for you.
 
The Scarlet is noise central at anything but 320, so you lose a stop straight out of the gate. But overall probably can make a nicer image (because you can ETTR) at cost of mass, data, lack of onboard ND, data load etc.

I just think you need to revisit your exposure methodology and expectation management. Id be looking to expose at 400 ISO.

And IMO the 7d is very good - I only dumped mine to get XLR and decent monitoring, but really it is super soft/moired blurrovision.

S
 
I made my own De-log curve by trying to match the nikon D3 stills cam on the resolve scopes..
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/backlot/d3ing-the-f3

That profile seriously crushes (too much in fact) but it gives you a ballpark as to IMO how much darker/cleaner delogged Slog should look.

Here is that profile applied to a shot I did the other day (3200ISO at F2), we can see I am left with a choice of losing the noise and the data or not, but the light this is a light level the scarlet would not have registered anything on the sensor..

For a clean image I just needed more lights.

D3_delog.jpg
 
Typing this is like a broken record at this point, but ok, once again how do you expose that example shot with the black shirt differently and get any advantage of slog? If I open up every time someone isn't perfectly at 40 or whatever, or can't get a black shadow or shirt above 20, whats the use of the whole system? All I'm doing is having to overexpose much of the time, which will blow highlights, just so noise doesn't creep into my dark areas? Or I have to crush it all down so I have like 8 stops instead of 13?

And what I'm talking about here is not perfectly controlled lighting scenarios. I rarely get to do that but even if I do, it appears I have to worry if someone has a black shirt on and it isn't beamed with a 300w flood from 5 feet away? wtf Sony?

And sorry man but the 7D isn't "good" at all. i had one too and it was useless. Ever point it at water on the beach? Wow.
 
Responding to your before/after pic. Whats the use of shooting log there exactly?

And who needs all this super low light stuff? I rarely ever need more than 1000asa. I dont creep around cities at night filming things.
 
Shoots56 said:
Whats the use of shooting log there exactly?
Click to expand...

Mate. I am far from convinced from the value of Slog, I am very new to the camera, but my previous camera, the FS100, I steered a mile from log style profiles which I thought were murky mudbaths and ramped the thing to have the most linear profile I could create. This created a clean image that had minimal DR and needed light management to shoot with.

There is value in Slog in that you can dig blacks if you need to where a grainy shot is better than no shot. But that should not be a daily approach to shooting.

S
 
Last edited:
To me there is some form of debate - I like linear and ETTR shooting (coming from raw stills) - which is the polar opposite of log - so I naturally steer clear of Log profiles.

Now other gammas will be more linear and handle ETTR better (ETTR = no noise) , but they also seem to apply some sort of Sony Puke-O-Vision colour

I think that when I have time to create a look with a non Slog curve, but dial out the Puke-O-Vision, the camera will perform better for me.

==

Overall Im happy with the F3 but I have managed expectations, I got it for a steal and it is a worthy upgrade to my FS100, it is not an Epic or a C500 or an F55. It also wont drown me in data.


S
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top