Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Low Light Iso 200 or 400 makes ursa shine at night

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Low Light Iso 200 or 400 makes ursa shine at night

    Hey everyone,

    First off I love the ursa mini 4.6k so much and i love it even better for low light shooting and being able to see into the night. I shot all the night stuff with iso 200 and the most 400 in order to give me as much lattitude into the blacks and it worked out beautifully. Everyone says this isn't a low light camera i say it certainty is. Its crucial to shoot this camera at night at 200 or 400. Anyhow please check out my latest short piece and tell me what you think about it. I love feedback and i love this group and forum so much. Lets all grow together.

    https://vimeo.com/316930483

  • #2
    I personally like a less milky image, but this absolutely proves your point that you can get a lot of clean latitude in the shadows with this camera when shooting at ISO200 and 400.
    I just watched another UMP piece that was shot at ISO1600 and the FPN was so aggressive it was distracting from the rest of the image.
    Cameras: Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Blackmagic Pocket Camera (x2), Panasonic GH2 (x2), Sony RX100 ii, Canon 6D, Canon T2i,
    Mics: Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Sanken, Audio-Technica, Audix
    Lights: Every Chinese clone you can imagine

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DPStewart View Post
      I personally like a less milky image, but this absolutely proves your point that you can get a lot of clean latitude in the shadows with this camera when shooting at ISO200 and 400.
      I just watched another UMP piece that was shot at ISO1600 and the FPN was so aggressive it was distracting from the rest of the image.
      Absolutely man!!!
      Like today there was a lot of snow on the ground in New York and I set the camera 2 1600 iso and omg the snow just looked amazing. 1600 really shined with all that white lol. I mean the texture of the snow was so beautiful at that iso.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, I'm planning the shot list for a moody, dark horror short and my top priority is seeing if we can blast some light so I can use sub-800 ISO. Also using the P4K, which is a bit easier since I can shoot at the "lower" high ISO of 1250, but really want to see what I can get out of the UMP.

        Comment


        • #5
          Honestly is comes down to your camera. I have a pretty clean UMP and I can shoot low light at 800iso....some other people can't. It really seems its hit and miss. I've never had to go all the way to 200iso to get clean blacks with my UMP
          Darren Scott
          Freelance Director/Director of Photography


          https://vimeo.com/jambredzvisions/videos

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jambredz View Post
            Honestly is comes down to your camera. I have a pretty clean UMP and I can shoot low light at 800iso....some other people can't. It really seems its hit and miss. I've never had to go all the way to 200iso to get clean blacks with my UMP
            I know exactly what you mean, i didn't choose the ISO based on how clean or dirty i needed the image in fact i added grain to it because i wanted noise for aesthetic purposes. I chose 200 simply because i wanted more stops of dynamic range in the shadows. Im also not using the UMP simply the 4.6k non pro version and if i was to shoot this scene at 800 i would have had some clean shots as well and would have hated what it did to my shadows. I really don't care about clean blacks at all or FPN, for me its either i want more detail in the highlights or the shadows, it just so happens as a natural benefit that low of an iso at 200 gives me both more information in shadows and an extra clean image lol but i swear i didn't shoot that low for the sake of cleanliness. You know what im going to do next.... Create a piece with heavy FPN and make it work for the story.

            BTW Darren been a huge fan of your work for years bro.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Directordevin View Post
              I shot all the night stuff with iso 200 and the most 400 in order to give me as much lattitude into the blacks and it worked out beautifully.
              Yes not many realised that at lower ISO's you get more shadow DR.

              One of the best looking night films in my view was Zero Dark Thirty.

              All the night work was shot beautifully at 200 on Alexa by Greig Fraser.

              https://film-grab.com/2014/10/17/zero-dark-thirty/

              JB

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
                Yes not many realised that at lower ISO's you get more shadow DR.

                One of the best looking night films in my view was Zero Dark Thirty.

                All the night work was shot beautifully at 200 on Alexa by Greig Fraser.

                https://film-grab.com/2014/10/17/zero-dark-thirty/

                JB
                John man you are spot on Zero dark thirty night scenes was executed perfectly.

                There certainly is magic within these iso’s I literally used nothing but exsisting light and things actually blew out much quicker at 200 and I was like perfect!!!! I shot all of that night work at a T4. 200 is so sensitive and since it blows out quickly I find you don’t need much light at all. It’s so mind boggling to most but I know you get it. Someone says “the ursa sucks in low light because I can’t see into the shadows” I say I dare you to switch it to 200 or 400. “This guys an idiot why would I do that”

                It’s like get on l

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Directordevin View Post
                  I know exactly what you mean, i didn't choose the ISO based on how clean or dirty i needed the image in fact i added grain to it because i wanted noise for aesthetic purposes. I chose 200 simply because i wanted more stops of dynamic range in the shadows. Im also not using the UMP simply the 4.6k non pro version and if i was to shoot this scene at 800 i would have had some clean shots as well and would have hated what it did to my shadows. I really don't care about clean blacks at all or FPN, for me its either i want more detail in the highlights or the shadows, it just so happens as a natural benefit that low of an iso at 200 gives me both more information in shadows and an extra clean image lol but i swear i didn't shoot that low for the sake of cleanliness. You know what im going to do next.... Create a piece with heavy FPN and make it work for the story.

                  BTW Darren been a huge fan of your work for years bro.
                  lol @ heavy FPN comment.

                  Yeh I def understand what you mean about having more stops in the shadows. And in that situation highlight detail is not important...well not as important as shadows as you can make the lights burn out and in the bokeh it will still look good. I'm with Dane in that I like truer blacks but apart from that pretty solid images here. What diffusion did you use?

                  Much appreciated re my work
                  Darren Scott
                  Freelance Director/Director of Photography


                  https://vimeo.com/jambredzvisions/videos

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    All right on. It shocking how many shooters I meet who don't know those facts about ISO.
                    Art Adams explained it all quite well way back in 2010: https://www.provideocoalition.com/al...ow_you_use_it/
                    Although he was writing about the Alexa, his explanation of how dynamic range shifts around middle gray applies equally well to the BMD 4.6K & UMP.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jambredz View Post
                      lol @ heavy FPN comment.

                      Yeh I def understand what you mean about having more stops in the shadows. And in that situation highlight detail is not important...well not as important as shadows as you can make the lights burn out and in the bokeh it will still look good. I'm with Dane in that I like truer blacks but apart from that pretty solid images here. What diffusion did you use?

                      Much appreciated re my work
                      Guilty as charged, I used a tiffen black promist 1/4 I also used some vintage glass zeiss ZF for a bit more blooming and to take a bit of the edge off the footage (however I love the clean edge look for certain pieces) . One last thing that blew my mind. At 200 or 400 the image appears super dark when you bring it in but magic happens when you lift it up a bit. The shadows I was able to see right into it but the final grade was exactly the vision for the piece but, you can flip that image anyway you’d like and the shadow detail will be there. In order for me to get something unsusable in the image at 200 I had to make the image super bright and that says a lot because if I just wanted to make that scene a lot lighter I could have done that with ease and made it as black and contrasty as my heart sees fit. Honestly blackmagic is full of surprises and their technology is no joke.
                      Last edited by Directordevin; 02-15-2019, 02:37 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jamie LeJeune View Post
                        All right on. It shocking how many shooters I meet who don't know those facts about ISO.
                        Art Adams explained it all quite well way back in 2010: https://www.provideocoalition.com/al...ow_you_use_it/
                        Although he was writing about the Alexa, his explanation of how dynamic range shifts around middle gray applies equally well to the BMD 4.6K & UMP.

                        Awesome article indeed. It’s a boring topic that’s why so many people don’t understand but when you get to the point where this camera system is all you can afford, and if it’s the last thing on earth for you to do is tell your story, you’ll begin to go against the spells that’s placed so many filmmakers which says “you can’t shoot this, this isn’t a low light camera, only reds or Alexa’s or film can be used to tell stories and engage an audience” then you’ll say how can I make my low light scene work? Then you’ll find the information. Just being technical will never bring you the ISO information for its own sake, but being technical for the sake of passion will somehow deliver the iso information right to your front door lol. So articles like art Adams go unread because it’s like a secret waiting only for those who truly need it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
                          Yes not many realised that at lower ISO's you get more shadow DR.

                          One of the best looking night films in my view was Zero Dark Thirty.

                          All the night work was shot beautifully at 200 on Alexa by Greig Fraser.

                          https://film-grab.com/2014/10/17/zero-dark-thirty/

                          JB
                          But Zero Dark Thirty was Arri raw.... ISO curves, allocating data above and below middle-grey wouldn't be applied (or baked in). Or would they? Is it anything more than a exposure choice -- that he had reasonably fast lenses, so blacks would be deep and clean?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jrd View Post
                            But Zero Dark Thirty was Arri raw.... ISO curves, allocating data above and below middle-grey wouldn't be applied (or baked in). Or would they? Is it anything more than a exposure choice -- that he had reasonably fast lenses, so blacks would be deep and clean?
                            Could be that it was exposed for ISO 200.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TravisA View Post
                              Could be that it was exposed for ISO 200.
                              Of course. But that choice doesn't reflect the claims that actual ISO settings in the camera (in log) can be exploited to advantage, depending on where you want to allocate the most data.

                              What interests me more than the raw issue is whether the claims about iso and log are actually true. You may be able to measure the difference or see it on a waveform, but can anyone see it on a monitor, after a grade?
                              Last edited by jrd; 02-15-2019, 01:21 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X