Yes, another noise thread

Indoors I'm using faster lenses as necessary (faster than my Lumix lenses) and adding lights as appropriate.
The only time I get noticable noise is when I'm too lazy to light things properly, so I raise the gain and suffer the consequences.
Doesn't sound like what's going on here though . . .
 
I'm going further to tweak my AF101 and tonight I tried a very decent combination that turned out to be very noisefree even displayed on my worst display. Some choose to crush the black in order to avoid noise but I believe it might be better to have raised black or a flatter looking image. Just to go to the dark side I tweaked the camera in the other direction and got a very clean image.

First I took the flattest gamma Cinelike D, then added the most noise free matrix Norm2. I added DRS1 to boost blacks even more and last I raised Master pedal to +7. This creates a very washed out image but with no obtrusive noise, on a calibrated display no noise, to speak of. Then to get something nice looking I used the Cineon converter in AE to bring levels to something pleasing. Both before and after I had a virtually noisefree image from the camera. Only a fine grain could be faintly felt. Raising master pedal to +7 seamed to get rid of noise in mid-low blacks. It's like it blends with how the electronics work inside the camera like OP-amps for the video or maybe the digital signal processor gets something to work with and stops making it noisy.

It's late so I'll do some more testing in daylight and see what happens outdoors. One upside is I have much more room for grading.
 
editman said:
I'm going further to tweak my AF101 and tonight I tried a very decent combination that turned out to be very noisefree even displayed on my worst display. Some choose to crush the black in order to avoid noise but I believe it might be better to have raised black or a flatter looking image. Just to go to the dark side I tweaked the camera in the other direction and got a very clean image.

First I took the flattest gamma Cinelike D, then added the most noise free matrix Norm2. I added DRS1 to boost blacks even more and last I raised Master pedal to +7. This creates a very washed out image but with no obtrusive noise, on a calibrated display no noise, to speak of. Then to get something nice looking I used the Cineon converter in AE to bring levels to something pleasing. Both before and after I had a virtually noisefree image from the camera. Only a fine grain could be faintly felt. Raising master pedal to +7 seamed to get rid of noise in mid-low blacks. It's like it blends with how the electronics work inside the camera like OP-amps for the video or maybe the digital signal processor gets something to work with and stops making it noisy.

It's late so I'll do some more testing in daylight and see what happens outdoors. One upside is I have much more room for grading.
Click to expand...

Would love to see some before and after stills/video showing this +7mped and how the grade looks. I mostly strive for flat noise free post-gradable footage.
 
editman said:
I'm going further to tweak my AF101 and tonight I tried a very decent combination that turned out to be very noisefree even displayed on my worst display. Some choose to crush the black in order to avoid noise but I believe it might be better to have raised black or a flatter looking image. Just to go to the dark side I tweaked the camera in the other direction and got a very clean image.

First I took the flattest gamma Cinelike D, then added the most noise free matrix Norm2. I added DRS1 to boost blacks even more and last I raised Master pedal to +7. This creates a very washed out image but with no obtrusive noise, on a calibrated display no noise, to speak of. Then to get something nice looking I used the Cineon converter in AE to bring levels to something pleasing. Both before and after I had a virtually noisefree image from the camera. Only a fine grain could be faintly felt. Raising master pedal to +7 seamed to get rid of noise in mid-low blacks. It's like it blends with how the electronics work inside the camera like OP-amps for the video or maybe the digital signal processor gets something to work with and stops making it noisy.

It's late so I'll do some more testing in daylight and see what happens outdoors. One upside is I have much more room for grading.
Click to expand...

You are essentially creating an sLog like image. It should perform well.
 
I'm a little confused.

I didn't know the AF was native ISO400 as opposed to 200. Is that true? If so is it comparable to the 5D at ISO100 as opposed to 160? Also, what editman said goes completely against the comments in Barry's book. Not that Barrys book is like the Bible or something for this camera, but everything in that book pegs Cine-D as the noisiest gamma, with Master Ped in the plus range adding more and more noise. It had to have been the perfect subject for what you're trying, because I guess I just have a hard time believing it.

Can we see pictures or video? Either way thanks for testing that. The ISO400 comment had me interested if it's true.
 
I fear that by doing that, you will see the worst of posterizing when you try to bring back contrast and shades start to break up.
 
KyleProhaska said:
I'm a little confused.

I didn't know the AF was native ISO400 as opposed to 200. Is that true? If so is it comparable to the 5D at ISO100 as opposed to 160? Also, what editman said goes completely against the comments in Barry's book. Not that Barrys book is like the Bible or something for this camera, but everything in that book pegs Cine-D as the noisiest gamma, with Master Ped in the plus range adding more and more noise. It had to have been the perfect subject for what you're trying, because I guess I just have a hard time believing it.

Can we see pictures or video? Either way thanks for testing that. The ISO400 comment had me interested if it's true.
Click to expand...

As far as I know the 200 setting is like a -3db, and the native is 400. Not sure if I got the info from the manuals or Barry's book, but if I'm wrong, please someone correct me! :)
 
PaPa said:
I fear that by doing that, you will see the worst of posterizing when you try to bring back contrast and shades start to break up.
Click to expand...

My point exactly...these cameras just aren't made to be played with a ton in post. Unless you have a subject that is almost perfect for it, the codec holds up only so-so. Not AWFUL, but it's not amazing.

No matter what I try it seems the closer I get to what I want in-camera the more satisfied I am. I only started this thread because I was getting noise (which I think at the end of the day everyone agreed was likely more artifacts than noise...and if not the result of my lack of black balance) in what I knew likely shouldn't have it.
 
KyleProhaska said:
My point exactly...these cameras just aren't made to be played with a ton in post. Unless you have a subject that is almost perfect for it, the codec holds up only so-so. Not AWFUL, but it's not amazing.

No matter what I try it seems the closer I get to what I want in-camera the more satisfied I am. I only started this thread because I was getting noise (which I think at the end of the day everyone agreed was likely more artifacts than noise...and if not the result of my lack of black balance) in what I knew likely shouldn't have it.
Click to expand...

I mean, even trying to dial in more contrast from already flat image of CineD brings up the posterization. CAn't imagine what doing that with a very high pedestal might bring up. Definitely interested to see the results however, but I would have a very hard time finding my image on something so flat, wondering about the contrast, how it might look later on, etc..

I wish I could use one of the gamma's with a knee but I'm really addicted to CineD
 
I wish I could use one of the gamma's with a knee but I'm really addicted to CineD
Click to expand...


Me too. I dont understand why it is not possible!

Running AUTO KNEE worries me a lot and I would like to set it so that I know where its going to roll off.
 
About knee protection it would be a great feature do have with any type of gamma but you can fix many things in post by adding something like a shoulder in MB or other types of highlight tools.
 
To be honest... after reading and checking out multiple peoples footage from this camera, its always the same conclusion to me... Its a $4,500 camera. You can't expect it to be this amazingly clean image. You get what you pay for. Its going to have its issues. You can't expect to pay a small amount of money and get a huge amount in quality. If you want lower noise in a camera, try the new sony FS100, same sensor as the F3 which has MUCH less noise and is only $2k more in price. The noise is what it is with this camera, you can't change it. Its the lowest end camera in its range, lets not call something its not.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
To be honest... after reading and checking out multiple peoples footage from this camera, its always the same conclusion to me... Its a $4,500 camera. You can't expect it to be this amazingly clean image. You get what you pay for. Its going to have its issues. You can't expect to pay a small amount of money and get a huge amount in quality. If you want lower noise in a camera, try the new sony FS100, same sensor as the F3 which has MUCH less noise and is only $2k more in price. The noise is what it is with this camera, you can't change it. Its the lowest end camera in its range, lets not call something its not.
Click to expand...

the fs100 is actually listed at 4,999 a meer 200 more than the af100.
 
Did this test shot with natural lighting again yesterday to really try and find a place where I'm happy exposing the skin tones without making it too dark yet leaving a good amount of space for hilights, etc.. This was shot with CineD with, for the first time -1 pedestal to see if that would help the amount of curvature I would have to place on the image in post to avoid this nasty 8 bit compression.

Doesn't help that it's a jpg, but even here the wall behind me is taking a beating, which is to be expected with something flat, with gradations in shading. And the magenta chair is also taking a hit after the compression. Still no magic trick yet, everything seems to be a bit of a tradeoff and balancing act. One thing that i find nice about film in general, is the ability to have skin thats generally quite dark in exposure but still appearing soft and yet bright at the same time, kind of a bit milky. This is seen in the Slog test that was done with Timur a while ago with the blond woman walking into some building. The S log version looked almost darker and less contrasty but clearer at the same time. It had this look that I really liked

jon03.jpg


I'm doing a little experiment to see if i can recreate a certain look from a certain film and trying to match it as closely as i can. Taking my Marshall monitor and turning on false color, then plugging my bluray player into it and snapping a picture of a medium closeup, then taking that and trying to match it in post to see where they are exposing things ( understanding that this is after grading and mastering, however it's a good place to start ) Heck, im sure people on these boards would have a fun time at doing this too.
 
Last edited:
editman said:
About knee protection it would be a great feature do have with any type of gamma but you can fix many things in post by adding something like a shoulder in MB or other types of highlight tools.
Click to expand...

I am not so keen on using a "fix many things in post " process, as a way to create the original image.

I do not want to be "fixing" what the camera should be able to do as part of what cameras should be able to do!

In post, I want to be enhancing ...not fixing (unless necessary).

Largely... I believe this camera works fine in default. (Obviously choosing the appropriate default for the subject) The Auto Knee to me is just an irritation.

Coming back to topic. Lighting and exposure is most of the "fix" to the "issues".
 
KyleProhaska said:
I'm a little confused.

I didn't know the AF was native ISO400 as opposed to 200. Is that true? If so is it comparable to the 5D at ISO100 as opposed to 160? Also, what editman said goes completely against the comments in Barry's book. Not that Barrys book is like the Bible or something for this camera, but everything in that book pegs Cine-D as the noisiest gamma, with Master Ped in the plus range adding more and more noise. It had to have been the perfect subject for what you're trying, because I guess I just have a hard time believing it.

Can we see pictures or video? Either way thanks for testing that. The ISO400 comment had me interested if it's true.
Click to expand...
is the native iso really 400 on the af100? so should i shoot on 400 iso instead of 200 for a 0db equivalent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top