Yes, another noise thread
- Thread starter KyleProhaska
- Start date
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Got some more shots today, much happier with some of what I got. Now if I can just nail down a good way to expose harder sunlight with this thing...I'll be a happy camper! 
PaPa
Major Contributor
Got some more shots today, much happier with some of what I got. Now if I can just nail down a good way to expose harder sunlight with this thing...I'll be a happy camper!
fill fill fill!!! Get some flex fill and shoot it through diffusion hell, do that twice from different angles and create a contrast ratio
No lights required! Just stands, arms, and patience to keep changing it as the sun moves! lol
Oliver Rush
Well-known member
Thanks, the wide still that is the tumbnail of the video to show the layout of the candles was shot witht the tokina 11-16 at 11mm @ f/2.8 (open). The clip was shot with my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI @ approx a F2-2.8 split (I try to avoid shooting my 1.4 primes wide open if possible, I like to open up no more F/2 to get the best image out of the lens.)
Last edited:
GrandLunar
Active member
What was your ISO at? most of my primes are between the 1.4 mark to 2.5. Also, were you using an external recorder? I'm still in the 8-bit world. I'm sure that has to make a dramatic difference when people are seeing noise.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Hey, I've already made it clear in previous posts here that I attributed my original posts issues to be a result of black balance (lack of), and compression not noise so I'll just leave your request be. When I see footage on my Plasma in the living room off the camera things look nice in most respects.
PaPa, what I've been shooting is more documentary style or run and gun to get some of these shots. In an environment where I can control a lot more, I know I could make the AF or any other camera out there shine...but in this case I'm just trying to figure out a way to get a decent exposure in hard sunlight. I got some great examples today and I think I've found a happy medium with what the waveform should say, what my zebras should be set at, etc. I'm still getting the hang of the waveform, where things in the bottom 50% I'm always afraid are more crushed then I get home and it's actually exposed just fine. 70% of the pixels in the image below are below 55IRE...which for the shot looks great.
When I used a 35mm Adapter on my last film, it ate up a ton of light and optically suppressed a lot of the highlights through the GG which actually made it a lot easier to expose in hard sunlight or shots like this without anything getting blown badly. I think I got a bit spoiled on how the GG affected how my Canon A1 exposed things, and now moving to a really sensitive chip like the AF100 has is forcing me to relearn how I expose.
PaPa, what I've been shooting is more documentary style or run and gun to get some of these shots. In an environment where I can control a lot more, I know I could make the AF or any other camera out there shine...but in this case I'm just trying to figure out a way to get a decent exposure in hard sunlight. I got some great examples today and I think I've found a happy medium with what the waveform should say, what my zebras should be set at, etc. I'm still getting the hang of the waveform, where things in the bottom 50% I'm always afraid are more crushed then I get home and it's actually exposed just fine. 70% of the pixels in the image below are below 55IRE...which for the shot looks great.
When I used a 35mm Adapter on my last film, it ate up a ton of light and optically suppressed a lot of the highlights through the GG which actually made it a lot easier to expose in hard sunlight or shots like this without anything getting blown badly. I think I got a bit spoiled on how the GG affected how my Canon A1 exposed things, and now moving to a really sensitive chip like the AF100 has is forcing me to relearn how I expose.
Oliver Rush
Well-known member
I believe I was still at 640iso from the testing that day, but I am not sure and dont have the notes on hand... (It a clip I shot durring a shoot for TEST FEST with Darren Levine). We used no external recorders, it was recorded in camera with the native codec in 1080 PH mode and uploaded straight to vimeo from the camera (the original camera clip is available to download on the vimeo page (I have a plus account, so it saves the original source file) if anyone wants to download it and see it as it came out of the camera with out vimeo compression) It was shot at 24fps 180 degree shutter, using the following settings:
50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI lens @ f2-2.8
Detail -3
V Detail -3
Detail Coring +2
Chroma -1
Master Ped -2
DRS: OFF
Gamma: CINE-V
Matrix: NORM2
skin tone detail ON.
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
In this video there is little to no noise despite having many shadows and blacks. This was shot using my clean profile and works fine in this type of light. When having a more evenly lit location with less contrast I prefer to use my cine setting.
PaPa
Major Contributor
Hey, I've already made it clear in previous posts here that I attributed my original posts issues to be a result of black balance (lack of), and compression not noise so I'll just leave your request be. When I see footage on my Plasma in the living room off the camera things look nice in most respects.
PaPa, what I've been shooting is more documentary style or run and gun to get some of these shots. In an environment where I can control a lot more, I know I could make the AF or any other camera out there shine...but in this case I'm just trying to figure out a way to get a decent exposure in hard sunlight. I got some great examples today and I think I've found a happy medium with what the waveform should say, what my zebras should be set at, etc. I'm still getting the hang of the waveform, where things in the bottom 50% I'm always afraid are more crushed then I get home and it's actually exposed just fine. 70% of the pixels in the image below are below 55IRE...which for the shot looks great.
When I used a 35mm Adapter on my last film, it ate up a ton of light and optically suppressed a lot of the highlights through the GG which actually made it a lot easier to expose in hard sunlight or shots like this without anything getting blown badly. I think I got a bit spoiled on how the GG affected how my Canon A1 exposed things, and now moving to a really sensitive chip like the AF100 has is forcing me to relearn how I expose.
That still is exactly where i would set exposure. Well done on that shot. I find the only way i'm really happy with the images i get from this camera is if i really nail the exposure. I fact, im finding it easier to get images on the slightly slightly slightly darker side and then raising the mids slightly in post. This avoids me having to do too aggressive of an S curve which really brings out the posterizing.
Also, was that shot direct hard sunlight? Seems like there might have been a slight haze or something? Or perhaps it was early or later in the afternoon?
Last edited:
KyleProhaska
Veteran
ISO200 is cleaner on all accounts based on my research...slightly cleaner. But from what I've read it's the equivalent of a -DB setting like -3db on my Canon XHA1 as opposed to 0db (ISO400 on the AF100). So it's definitely cleaner, I just wonder if you lose a small bit of dynamic range. Even so the camera is really clean at 200 and 400.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
I use ISO 400 as my base.
henryfilms
Member
The 100 is actually slightly less than 400 ISO native (closer to 320). 200 is quieter, but it seems there's a bit of hair splitting going on here. On over a dozen spots with the 100 at up to 800 ISO, I've had zero noise complaints from clients. Everyone is right on that Norm2 is quieter and drastically cuts noise, but let's not forget gamma. Everyone loves Cine settings because of Varicam, HVX, DVX and so do I. They look fantastic and deliver incredible images for each format. The cine settings on the 100 do the task of giving a more finished film look to footage but the cost with the 100 is a little more noise. The quietest you're going to get is going to be HD or B-PRESS. I love Cine D for exterior work where I have a little less time / control and need a gradable image but for interiors or anywhere I have control I find myself reaching for one of the non-cine settings more often than not.
As for the noise posting that began this thread, Kyle appears to be right on that the problem is compression (maybe more than BB). His exposure seemed okay, but as many have no doubt discovered, the AVCCAM really needs to go through ProRes or a similar codec before re-compression. Try green screening with AVC footage straight into after effects and it's really dicey, but run it through prores and it keys very nicely, sometimes as well as the 422 externally recorded footage.
As for the noise posting that began this thread, Kyle appears to be right on that the problem is compression (maybe more than BB). His exposure seemed okay, but as many have no doubt discovered, the AVCCAM really needs to go through ProRes or a similar codec before re-compression. Try green screening with AVC footage straight into after effects and it's really dicey, but run it through prores and it keys very nicely, sometimes as well as the 422 externally recorded footage.