CNOMADIC: Journey in the art of filmmaking. Dive deep into the intricate world of cinematic storytelling with workshops tailored for the modern wanderer. Our sessions fuse foundational filmmaking techniques with the spirit of exploration, empowering you to craft visual tales from every corner of the globe. Unleash your nomadic creativity with us.
Sir I watched your rolling shutter video sir l read that some sensors captures two rows at same moment of time then two rows in series is this correct sir ?
Thanks man! I'm still looking for a field recorder but I haven't decided between the F6, The H8N Pro or one of the equivalent sound devices ones. Any advice on that?
I didn’t try the other ones. I was looking at one of the Sound Devices but the size of the F6 was appealing and. Fit perfectly with the rest of my gear. So pretty happy with it . Haven’t had any issues
Helpful video. Thank you. I do outdoor sports videography. Is there a way on the FX6 to have the auto ND "float" automatically at an exposure level that I specify, or only a default one established by the camera? For example, if I'm shooting in slog3, which I think clips at 94%, is it possible to use auto ND in a way that keeps my exposure right at or just below that clipping level, even as lighting conditions change? I can't find anything in the manual on that. Thank you!
Thanks! Yes you can change the auto exposure level, and the camera will use that as its exposure reference . so you can set it to be + or - a certain stop level. So in the example I used in this video I had the exposure set to + 2 stops . Hope this helps. When you turn on auto ND the camera basically operates in auto exposure but adjusting only the ND level
@@cnomadic Got it. So it's basically like, on a still camera, when you get lock aperture and shutter, and let auto ISO control the exposure. Except, here, you're locking aperture, shutter, and ISO, and letting auto ND be the auto exposure control? If so, I need this! Everything I've read is that it works very well. Thanks again for the video and helpful response.
@@cnomadic sir but when we make our video in phones by selfie cameras then I do not find skewed in my face I see my exact reaction in my phone camera .
Download the free camera settings cheat sheet: www.cnomadic.com/cheat-sheet Watch the Pat Tillman Video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0KkaC0j3vfo.htmlsi=F76h9wW-VbFLDKqs
➡ Download the free camera settings cheat sheet: www.cnomadic.com/cheat-sheet ➡Watch the Pat Tillman Video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0KkaC0j3vfo.htmlsi=F76h9wW-VbFLDKqs
Thanks this explains why i have so limited headroom in portrait photography when i expose faces at 18% grey using ISO 100 as i was thought in college. The answer is underexposing my subject at ISO 100 or moving up in ISO. I can't find the same type of graph which shows the dynamic range distribution above and under 18% grey vs ISO for my Canon EOS RP camera, but it looks like this graph is more or less generic for all sensors giving an even distribution at ISO 3200. A graph like this should actually be included in the camera manual.
Some cameras like the black magic pocket use a range of Native ISO but for most cameras you are correct the camera will have 1 native ISO in the low range and 1 native ISO in the high range.
I think you may be misunderstanding the details By lowering the ISO you are having to brighten the shutter and/or aperture to compensate for the darker ISO which results in more light hitting the sensor giving a cleaner image I find when working with cinema cameras is better to think in ISO and not gain My first introduction into this whole middle grey changing based on ISO was when canon released the C100 with CLog Having a higher ISO in bright situations can result in better detail retention in bright scenes and a lower ISO can have better shadow retention im dark scenes Its not about changing ISO for exposure its more about shifting middle grey for changing the dynamic range of the shadows vs the highlights
You should begin by saying you are talking about video. This discussion is just confusing for still cameras. The second you refer to IRE level, you have left still photography behind, as still photo levels are not measured on an IRE scale. Also, while you properly talk about the upper end of dynamic range as clipping level, you fail to mention that the lower end of dynamic range is taken at a certain signal to noise ratio, which is an arbitrary (or testing method standard) level, not an actual clipping, because digital sensors are linear down to zero light. In film, the underexposure latitude was determined by an industry standard contrast gradient in the toe of the characteristic curve. In analog video cameras, it was determined by the camera gamma correction curve, which was linear below a specified level, and therefore determined the level below which the CRT gamma would produce a toe.
Same applies the other way - when shooting clouds - raising the ISO will give more detail in the highlights. It seems like it's the wrong thing to do because it's usually really bright in the sky - this is where proper ND filters come into play.
In general, people worry too much about raising the ISO. I shot in dark conditions on an old 16mp m43 camera, and by "over" exposing, results were perfectly acceptable at 1600 ISO and 3200 with tweaks in post for 18" prints. If subjects are evenly illuminated it's easier than large areas of blown highlights, like skies.
This is why I never became a pro photographer.... Whoosh.. so far over my head I never even felt it go past... seriously didn't understand a word of this .. lol ... back to being a dummy.
Unfortunately these diagrams come from the Sony Cine website but that only covers their Cine line Venice, fx9, fx6…. The A7 IV is outside of that line of product so I’m not sure Sony produced similar charts for that camera. Let me know if you find something similar I’d love to see it
It’s nothing new that shooting with a low ISO will produce the best picture quality with low noise in the shadows. Let me take you back a few years to film, we really only had choice from around 50 ASA (ISO)) to 400 ASA (ISO) and if you wanted to increase the ISO you had to push process the film in development. This resulted in a grainy (noise) negative nothing could be done about this and we just accepted it. The picture quality from even entry level cameras is remarkable. Too many “Photographers” get way too obsessed with a little bit of noise in a photo. Enjoy being creative and go out and produce some great photos, noises or not.
recently did some similar tests with FX3 and FX30 and I'll be likely shooting 1 stop overexposed (1 stop negative ISO in your terms) more often. Glad you're putting this info out there. These cameras have gotten good enough that we often don't need absolute maximum dynamic range and gaining some cleaner, more defined shadow range can be well worth the loss of a stop or even more at the top end
ISO is definitively not 'gain', that's according to the ISO standard. It simply sets the relationship between exposure (as in amount of light at the film/sensor) and lightness (how light or dark the final image is). In analog video, with no digital computation, this was called 'gain' because it actually was the voltage gain of an amplification stage. For people with a background in video it seems natural to conflate the two, and the manufacturers have adopted this because they think it makes the transition easier. However, thinking of it as gain brings out a number of misconceptions. I think this video is caught up in some of these. One misconception is that so called 'ISO noise' comes from 'amplification'. It doesn't - it's photon shot noise caused by low exposure. So, setting what you call 'negative ISO' (a technical impossibility) only creates lower noise by increasing the exposure. The general rule for minimising noise is to maximise exposure, which means a low 'EI' (a tautology, since ISO is an EI by definition). That's all this video is about. Use a big exposure, which is OK if your conditions and requirements allow it. The fact that this simple message gets obscured in a load of often incorrect technicalities is down to the confused mess that the camera manufacturers have made of setting exposure on digital cameras. And you should make it clear that you are talking about video - stills photographers are going to get hopelessly confused trying to follow this.
Even worse, by saying negative ISO this could be seen as suggesting setting the camera to extended ISO values lower than the base ISO settings For example, the alpha cameras that allow you to extend the ISO range down to say ISO 50 These are digitally pulled ISO values that have reduced dynamic range compared to the default values
@@Supercon57 Agreed, though in general the below base settings don't have reduced DR - they have the same. The exceptions (mostly Sony)are where the design engineers have made some very odd gain decisions and actually increase gain for those settings. In usual practice those settings will give a higher DR in the shot because the set the metered exposure bigger, so the ratio of maximum actual signal (exposure) to noise floor is bigger than had you not used the lo ISO setting. The risk you're taking is blowing the highlights.
Apparently some cameras such as the Hasselblad H3D's native ISO is 50 and gain is applied by internal processing and post processing in Phocus. This was reported by independent testing. Perhaps this is a behavior which is unique to CCD sensors, I do not know.
@@crawford323 You're missing the argument. The point is that ISO is not 'gain'. Saying that it is, but gain might be applied in non gainy ways doesn't make much sense.
I'm not sure if I'm mistaken, but I really don't mind whether middle gray is at 41-IRE or 32-IRE. To me, middle gray is just that-middle gray. My light meter and camera, along with the lenses, should match in tone based on the settings I use. Of course, we always need to keep dynamic range in mind. In very bright situations, instead of lowering the ISO, we actually need to raise it.
I agree with you. For my exposing for my subject is more important. I think the point is that different formats have different requirements of exposure and as cinematographers or photographers we need to understand what they are in order for us to get the most performance out of our equipment and format we select to work with.
With my Sony taking still images in raw, the best dynamic range is definitely at base iso 100. I pay no attention to mid grey and always expose to just retain highlights. There is a little headroom when the histogram just clips, so the highlights are safe as can be seen in processing. Unfortunately no camera so far meters from raw, so we don’t know just how much margin there is for each exposure. My understanding of dropping the iso below native is that you actually just over-expose and hope that the highlights don’t clip! Each stop below base iso actually loses a stop of dynamic range if your highlights are just bordering on clipping. If you actually have a couple of stops of headroom because your highlights are well below clipping, then dropping the iso brings them into play and you are actually exposing to the right, as we should in digital raw. This gives the lowest noise in the shadows. Dropping two stops in flat light may work, but in a high contrast situation there is likely to be clipping. Dropped iso can be useful to get a longer exposure, eg to smooth out water movement. An ND filter is better. For JPEGs the image needs to look right in the viewfinder, but for raw it may look washed out or dark depending upon the scene. All is revealed in processing and in base iso and with highlights just below clipping there is the maximum image quality to work with.
