3:27 I HIGHLY recommend not ever doing the noise reduction in post if your acquisition format is anything that is using DCT compression with low bitrates. Only leave noise reduction in post for RAW workflows. The noise will reduce the efficiency of the encoder inside the camera since a lot of the bandwidth will be taken up by the noise, not leaving enough for the rest of the details. When using internally processed acquisition formats like H.264 or H.265, leave the noise reduction on in camera. The camera will apply the noise reduction to the raw linear signal before it encodes the video to log and compresses It so it's much better at this job than you, unless it gives you control over that raw linear signal.
I see your argument, but it does not change the fact that 12800 differs from 800. That is not a big surprise, but I still thought it was worth comparing them.
2:31 -> Being a noob, I was wondering if there was an other way to have a bigger focus area, other than to increase the aperture? Coming from an iPhone where the focus area is pretty big at low aperture (I think the 15 pro has f/1.78 fixed on the main lens if I'm not mistaken), when trying to reproduce the iPhone shot with everything in focus on a regular camera I have to bump the aperture almost up to 22 I guess (I usually try 16+)? But then no light, and yeah I need to go to 12800 ISO even in broad daylight sometimes. There surely must be another way to do this that I am not yet aware of. Byt the way, which aperture would you recommend when you want to get a shot with both foreground and background in focus (provided the foreground is not too close) ? By the way, thanks for the video 👍 When going for those 12800 16+ aperture shots I also noticed a drop in quality but I wasn't so sure because I also believed that being a dual base ISO camera, 640 and 12800 were supposed to give a similar result (ZV-E1), but your video confirms that it isn't
Thanks for watching! I honestly haven't looked that much at the specs of the iPhone, but the iPhone having 1.78 doesn't mean it uses that aperture for the pictures you're taking. In terms of focus area, aperture is the only thing playing a role in this from a technical perspective. That being said, the wider the lens and the further away you are from your subject, the bigger focus area you'll get. Does that make sense? Keep in mind that "everything in focus" usually means less debt, and that's what sets a professional camera a part from a phone (at least it used to, until the phones got better on this too). And regarding the question about what aperture I'd go for, I think it depends a lot on the lens. I hope this answered some of your questions.
The FX3 and FX6 have a base ISO of 800, but the ZV-E1 and the 7sIII have a base of 640. Reviewers like CineD have tested it, and it has the lowest noise. I don't know why the FX3 isn't 640, but it's probably due to Cine EI and to match the FX6. I don't have the time or equipment to go deep into this. It's fine to shoot the ZV-E1 at 800, but the general consensus online for the non-Cine EI models is that it's 640. I'm not a cine professional at all.
You're right. Even though there's no official base iso on the ZV-E1 from Sony's side like it is with the FX3, I totally forgot that they haven't changed this with the ZV-E1 yet. Curious to see if they will. When the FX3 first came out it actually had 640 too (at least that's what we all thought. It's still a little unclear). But thanks for pointing that out! I believe the comparison still holds up, but this should have been mentioned in the video, so I hope people will read your comment. As to why they have it at 800 I assume it has something to do with the FX6 and FX3 being close to identical. Couldn't tell you for sure.
You're right. Even though there's no official base iso on the ZV-E1 from Sony's side like it is with the FX3, I totally forgot that they haven't changed this with the ZV-E1 yet. Curious to see if they will. When the FX3 first came out it actually had 640 too (at least that's what we all thought. It's still a little unclear). But thanks for pointing that out! I believe the comparison still holds up, but this should have been mentioned in the video, so I hope people will read your comment.
Simple answer is that it does. 12800 is impressive, but it has significantly worse quality than the lower base ISO. That doesn’t mean it’s unusable. Just not the same. So if you can, stick to the lower base iso.
Thanks for watching! Don’t use 10.000. Always use 800 or 12.800 if you’re shooting on the FX6 or FX3! They are the cleanest as they are base iso’s. But prioritize 800 if you can. See one of my previous videos about the FX3 if you need more info!
@@kriswarwick thank you! So theres a point where going higher ISO from 640 (from the ZV-E1) is worse than sticking to 12.800 and then maybe dialing down the aperture? Would be interesting to know where that point lies 😀
Hej, I think most of your videos are cool and I can learn something from them, but this video is honestly boring..just another ISO test. You have experience in the industry, give us more insight and talk about things that no one talks about. Otherwise this is just a simple channel like all the others that are already too common. Please take it as a suggestion for improvement. As I said, you make good videos. RUclips does not need another Peter McKinnon advertising medium.
Sometimes the comments that are hardest to hear, are the most important ones. That's why I really appreciate you writing this. Thanks! For me to improve and make better content, I would love to hear more about what you'd like to see more of, and which videos of mine have been good in your eyes. I am still trying to figure out this YT world, and I def. don't want to be "just another RUclipsr" as I want to stand out. I want to make more of a difference or at least share things you can't find on any filmmaker/photographer's channel. I made this video because I saw someone on a forum asking for it, but I also see what you mean. I felt good about the intro to this one, and was curious about the reception. I am so grateful for your comment and really hope you will share some of your thoughts with me. Please feel free to reach out to me directly!
@@kriswarwick Hey man, thanks for taking my comment so positively. The video certainly has its right to exist, but in this day and age nobody (at least not me) wants to see a 15 minute ISO comparison video. I think it could have been made more compact in 2 to 3 minutes? Maybe just make the “boring” topics shorter. Of course I understand that you want to earn money from the advertising revenue through longer videos, but please not at the expense of the viewers :) I found your business videos very interesting and the most authentic. How you made it this far, how you charge, how you invest in equipment and what your view on it is, how you create and grow your business etc Here are my suggestions: Put yourself in the shoes of ambitious beginners who have a passion for videography. - What do you wish you had known back then to make it “easier” for you in business? - What is the best way for a beginner to get their first job? - How should I plan my budget as a beginner? How much should I charge in $ per job? - How much does the photography part influence your business? Should everyone do it? How do you charge for this service and how many images do you provide? - How far can we go in creativity for business videos (color, cut) - Legal aspects of video production: copyright, music licenses and other legal considerations - Would you invest in expensive equipment right from the start, or would you keep pushing it until you could justify investing in new equipment? - How do you optimize the balance between business, creative work and free time? - Strengthening brand identity through videography: How to develop a consistent visual brand identity and communicate it through videos. - Video marketing strategies for businesses: How to use video effectively to increase brand awareness and attract customers - Effective pre-production strategies: planning and preparation for a smooth production process. - Optimizing videos for different platforms: Adapting content for RUclips, Instagram, TikTok and other platforms - Outdoor lighting techniques when time is short. - How much time to plan per project? - How to deal with clients? Satisfaction, criticism, customer loyalty, etc. - Successful collaboration with brands: Building relationships with big brands like RedBull or Nike (how to communicate) - Current trends in video production: what do companies want to see? - Effective use of voice-overs: choosing the right voice and integrating it into the video - Use of drones for recordings as a one man business - Measuring video success: key figures and analysis tools to evaluate the performance of videos - Crisis management in video production: dealing with unexpected challenges during production. - What to do if you need people in the video? How to get “actors” etc.? These are all topics that I would be happy to listen to for longer than 20 minutes.
@@tobis2265 this is so much more than I could ever ask for. Thank you so much! I appreciate you giving me all this feedback and all the ideas! I will include all of this in my videos in the future, and you opened my eyes in a very good way. Thanks again!
Your video is perfect. Do you use enhancers? I had the fx6, sold it, I had the Fx3, sold it, now I'm going to try the Sony a1. I couldn't get used to the soft and blurry image, and now the digital noise on my Atomos. For noise, Neat Video, Topaz?, and for you which other editing program is the best?. I'm Ronald, from Chile, the only amateur Sony user.
Thanks, Ronald! I am usually trying to use 800, and doing so I don’t get noise. But I tried the Davinci software and the Neat Video. Both worked, but Davinci did something weird to my footage. I like Davinci the best. You can watch the video I made on the switch from Final Cut. Thanks for watching!
Alle disse kameraene har dual base iso, og det er 800/12800 i s log 3 cine. Se min forrige video om det er uklart ☺️ Det var en lang diskusjon rundt dette da kameraene kom ut, fordi 640 ble nevnt som laveste iso. Men du bør forholde deg til 800, og det er egentlig hele poenget med Cine EI.
Hey dude, I'm listening to you at 1.5 speed and it sounds completely normal, when I put it down to normal speed it feels like slow motion. I'd say that you should bump up the speed of your talking head to at least 1.25x before exporting. Otherwise, great stuff. ;)
Does anyone find it amusing that what everyone using digital cinema cameras says they are going for are "filmic" and cinematic images, yet few people today have experience shooting motion picture film stock. Film is grainy, even low ASA film has grain. Even fine grained 35mm stock has noticeable grain, it's what makes film look like film. I wish everyone shooting today had a chance to actually shoot and telecine some film, it would completely change your outlook on what you do, what you worry about, what you obsess about. Today's digital shooters are absolutely fixated on shooting the cleanest, most sterile looking footage humanly possible, which is the opposite of "filmic" and cinematic, at least if you are comparing your images to classic or even recent films shot on film. We would all be well served to lose the mania for squeaky clean, sterile looking images, a little noise, grain has very little bearing on what your audience perceives, especially when viewed on the average viewers 4" phone screen. ISO 12,800 on a Sony FX3 or 6 is LEAGUES cleaner than ASA 50 S16 stock ever was. I've always been a fan of digital cameras that have grainy looking noise that looks like film grain over cameras where ths noise looks like video pattern noise superimposed over a video raster. Canon, Blackmagic and Fuji, in particular, seem to excel at this more filmic noise while Sony's noise doesn't look as filmic to my eye. It wasn't that many years ago when the average digital cinema camera had what today's shooters would absolutely have a melt down over. The Canon 5D MKII. The Panasonic HVX200 and the DVX100, even the early RED cameras were noisy as hell, yet somehow people used these tools to shoot some amazing storytelling. My tip is, if you want to shoot footage that is filmic and cinematic, shoot it to look like film, don't sweat the grain unless it's distractedly prevalent in the image. Nobody but other video nerds care if your image is noisy/grainy, all they care about is does your lighting kick ass, is the sound good and is the director able to tell a great story. All of the rest is basically video and film people's OCD and supporting OCD is a dangerous thing. How many of your clients have EVER complained about video noise or grain in footage you've shot for them?
I love this comment and this is something I’ve tried to bring up with other filmmakers from time to time. It’s ironic that we pay thousands (or ten thousands) of dollars to get cameras with a technology that gives us a grain free look, just to simulate the film look in post. I totally agree with you, and personally I don’t see an issue with the grain you get from a camera that can’t give you that clean look (or the 12800 as shown in this video). RUclips wants to see it, because a lot of modern filmmakers are all about this. I often contemplate trying to go super old school and shoot film, just because of the things you mentioned in your comment. I think our time’s filmmakers (if we can call ourselves filmmakers…) make it harder for others by shooting such crispy images, and therefore clients might actually find it to be too grainy at some point. I wish it wasn’t that way. Thanks for your contribution here. I hope everyone reads this.
ISO 12800 isn't that good in a WELL LIT environment should have been the title. Nobody bumps their iso to 12800 when 800 is usable like you did in this video.
I agree and disagree with you. Sometimes you might need to have a different aperture and thus you have to bump your iso like I did in these examples. My point was also to show the difference, as a lot of people think the dual base iso means they are identical at 800 and 12800. My goal was to show that’s not the case, but also to compare the three cameras. I also know that a lot of people will use 12800 more than they should because of the fact that 12800 is decent on these cameras. I hope and think this video is good for a new FX3/FX6/ZV-E1 user 🙌🏻
@@kriswarwick "Sometimes you might need to have a different aperture", then that makes the 12800 GOOD and the 800 unusable in that situation. Nobody thinks 12800 is identical to 800 lol. The people you know who will use 12800 more than they should are probably using it in low light and will use 800 in better light
I don’t think I was clear enough. My point is that a lot of people (I used to be one of them) think that there isn’t ANY difference between the two, and that’s what this video shows. But it’s also a video to show the difference between the 12800 with the three cameras. And no. I’m talking about those who choose to use 12800 just because they can, instead of aiming at getting a better shot with 800. I am totally on your side here, but it sounds like you probably weren’t the target group for this video. Unless you wanted to compare the three cameras that ia
@@kriswarwick I agree with you because I shoot both Sony and Canon. Since slog 3 has such a wide base ISO, I tend to use my R5C in a lot of scenarios because the of the base 800/3200 iso is flexible in CLOG3 or CLOG2
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
3:27
I HIGHLY recommend not ever doing the noise reduction in post if your acquisition format is anything that is using DCT compression with low bitrates. Only leave noise reduction in post for RAW workflows. The noise will reduce the efficiency of the encoder inside the camera since a lot of the bandwidth will be taken up by the noise, not leaving enough for the rest of the details. When using internally processed acquisition formats like H.264 or H.265, leave the noise reduction on in camera. The camera will apply the noise reduction to the raw linear signal before it encodes the video to log and compresses It so it's much better at this job than you, unless it gives you control over that raw linear signal.
Overexpose 12800 iso by 2 stops. Simple.
I see your argument, but it does not change the fact that 12800 differs from 800. That is not a big surprise, but I still thought it was worth comparing them.
How to overexpos by 2 stops? Using a faster lens? I'm a bit confused.. thank you!
I loved the video. The comments are also very insightful. I think it's a great video and I love the deep dive into the technicalities. Keep it up bro.
Thanks a lot! Appreciate it a lot!
Great video!
Thank you! And thanks for watching ☺️
2:31 -> Being a noob, I was wondering if there was an other way to have a bigger focus area, other than to increase the aperture?
Coming from an iPhone where the focus area is pretty big at low aperture (I think the 15 pro has f/1.78 fixed on the main lens if I'm not mistaken), when trying to reproduce the iPhone shot with everything in focus on a regular camera I have to bump the aperture almost up to 22 I guess (I usually try 16+)? But then no light, and yeah I need to go to 12800 ISO even in broad daylight sometimes.
There surely must be another way to do this that I am not yet aware of.
Byt the way, which aperture would you recommend when you want to get a shot with both foreground and background in focus (provided the foreground is not too close) ?
By the way, thanks for the video 👍
When going for those 12800 16+ aperture shots I also noticed a drop in quality but I wasn't so sure because I also believed that being a dual base ISO camera, 640 and 12800 were supposed to give a similar result (ZV-E1), but your video confirms that it isn't
Thanks for watching! I honestly haven't looked that much at the specs of the iPhone, but the iPhone having 1.78 doesn't mean it uses that aperture for the pictures you're taking.
In terms of focus area, aperture is the only thing playing a role in this from a technical perspective. That being said, the wider the lens and the further away you are from your subject, the bigger focus area you'll get. Does that make sense?
Keep in mind that "everything in focus" usually means less debt, and that's what sets a professional camera a part from a phone (at least it used to, until the phones got better on this too).
And regarding the question about what aperture I'd go for, I think it depends a lot on the lens. I hope this answered some of your questions.
@@kriswarwick Thanks 👍
I put my ear up to the video and yes i hear the noise!
The FX3 and FX6 have a base ISO of 800, but the ZV-E1 and the 7sIII have a base of 640. Reviewers like CineD have tested it, and it has the lowest noise. I don't know why the FX3 isn't 640, but it's probably due to Cine EI and to match the FX6. I don't have the time or equipment to go deep into this. It's fine to shoot the ZV-E1 at 800, but the general consensus online for the non-Cine EI models is that it's 640. I'm not a cine professional at all.
You're right. Even though there's no official base iso on the ZV-E1 from Sony's side like it is with the FX3, I totally forgot that they haven't changed this with the ZV-E1 yet. Curious to see if they will. When the FX3 first came out it actually had 640 too (at least that's what we all thought. It's still a little unclear). But thanks for pointing that out!
I believe the comparison still holds up, but this should have been mentioned in the video, so I hope people will read your comment.
As to why they have it at 800 I assume it has something to do with the FX6 and FX3 being close to identical. Couldn't tell you for sure.
@@kriswarwick Thank you for the quick reply. The only reason I brought it up is because a lot more amateurs have the cheaper ZV-E1.
The sensor is actually ISO 64, only the SLog3 curve makes it 640 or 800, and it's not like that curve is standard.
@@cppguy16 I am very happy you brought it up. Honestly, it's really bad that I didn't get that straight in the video. But thank you!
@@cppguy16 that's true!
I have the ZVE1 and 640 is definitely the base ISO for this camera in S-Log-3 using flexible ISO.
You're right. Even though there's no official base iso on the ZV-E1 from Sony's side like it is with the FX3, I totally forgot that they haven't changed this with the ZV-E1 yet. Curious to see if they will. When the FX3 first came out it actually had 640 too (at least that's what we all thought. It's still a little unclear). But thanks for pointing that out!
I believe the comparison still holds up, but this should have been mentioned in the video, so I hope people will read your comment.
@ No worries! Weird Sony isn’t crystal clear about things like this since it’s very important information for operating the camera.
Whats the alternative?
Why do I feel like my Sony 7s3 at ISO 12,800 loses quality?
Simple answer is that it does. 12800 is impressive, but it has significantly worse quality than the lower base ISO. That doesn’t mean it’s unusable. Just not the same.
So if you can, stick to the lower base iso.
@@kriswarwick I agree. Great tip
So many artifacts in the background... sheesh. Thats the one thing I hate about sony cameras
I don't disagree with you!
Question, why would I use 10.000 ISO when 12.800 is brighter and has less noise?
Thanks for watching! Don’t use 10.000. Always use 800 or 12.800 if you’re shooting on the FX6 or FX3! They are the cleanest as they are base iso’s. But prioritize 800 if you can. See one of my previous videos about the FX3 if you need more info!
@@kriswarwick thank you! So theres a point where going higher ISO from 640 (from the ZV-E1) is worse than sticking to 12.800 and then maybe dialing down the aperture? Would be interesting to know where that point lies 😀
Hej, I think most of your videos are cool and I can learn something from them, but this video is honestly boring..just another ISO test.
You have experience in the industry, give us more insight and talk about things that no one talks about. Otherwise this is just a simple channel like all the others that are already too common. Please take it as a suggestion for improvement. As I said, you make good videos. RUclips does not need another Peter McKinnon advertising medium.
Sometimes the comments that are hardest to hear, are the most important ones. That's why I really appreciate you writing this. Thanks!
For me to improve and make better content, I would love to hear more about what you'd like to see more of, and which videos of mine have been good in your eyes.
I am still trying to figure out this YT world, and I def. don't want to be "just another RUclipsr" as I want to stand out. I want to make more of a difference or at least share things you can't find on any filmmaker/photographer's channel.
I made this video because I saw someone on a forum asking for it, but I also see what you mean. I felt good about the intro to this one, and was curious about the reception.
I am so grateful for your comment and really hope you will share some of your thoughts with me. Please feel free to reach out to me directly!
@@kriswarwick Hey man, thanks for taking my comment so positively.
The video certainly has its right to exist, but in this day and age nobody (at least not me) wants to see a 15 minute ISO comparison video. I think it could have been made more compact in 2 to 3 minutes? Maybe just make the “boring” topics shorter. Of course I understand that you want to earn money from the advertising revenue through longer videos, but please not at the expense of the viewers :)
I found your business videos very interesting and the most authentic. How you made it this far, how you charge, how you invest in equipment and what your view on it is, how you create and grow your business etc
Here are my suggestions:
Put yourself in the shoes of ambitious beginners who have a passion for videography.
- What do you wish you had known back then to make it “easier” for you in business?
- What is the best way for a beginner to get their first job?
- How should I plan my budget as a beginner? How much should I charge in $ per job?
- How much does the photography part influence your business? Should everyone do it? How do you charge for this service and how many images do you provide?
- How far can we go in creativity for business videos (color, cut)
- Legal aspects of video production: copyright, music licenses and other legal considerations
- Would you invest in expensive equipment right from the start, or would you keep pushing it until you could justify investing in new equipment?
- How do you optimize the balance between business, creative work and free time?
- Strengthening brand identity through videography: How to develop a consistent visual brand identity and communicate it through videos.
- Video marketing strategies for businesses: How to use video effectively to increase brand awareness and attract customers
- Effective pre-production strategies: planning and preparation for a smooth production process.
- Optimizing videos for different platforms: Adapting content for RUclips, Instagram, TikTok and other platforms
- Outdoor lighting techniques when time is short.
- How much time to plan per project?
- How to deal with clients? Satisfaction, criticism, customer loyalty, etc.
- Successful collaboration with brands: Building relationships with big brands like RedBull or Nike (how to communicate)
- Current trends in video production: what do companies want to see?
- Effective use of voice-overs: choosing the right voice and integrating it into the video
- Use of drones for recordings as a one man business
- Measuring video success: key figures and analysis tools to evaluate the performance of videos
- Crisis management in video production: dealing with unexpected challenges during production.
- What to do if you need people in the video? How to get “actors” etc.?
These are all topics that I would be happy to listen to for longer than 20 minutes.
@@tobis2265 this is so much more than I could ever ask for. Thank you so much! I appreciate you giving me all this feedback and all the ideas! I will include all of this in my videos in the future, and you opened my eyes in a very good way. Thanks again!
@@kriswarwick I hope to see the videos soon :)
Your video is perfect. Do you use enhancers? I had the fx6, sold it, I had the Fx3, sold it, now I'm going to try the Sony a1. I couldn't get used to the soft and blurry image, and now the digital noise on my Atomos. For noise, Neat Video, Topaz?, and for you which other editing program is the best?.
I'm Ronald, from Chile, the only amateur Sony user.
Share your cinema secrets hehe 😊
Thanks, Ronald! I am usually trying to use 800, and doing so I don’t get noise. But I tried the Davinci software and the Neat Video. Both worked, but Davinci did something weird to my footage.
I like Davinci the best. You can watch the video I made on the switch from Final Cut. Thanks for watching!
YA SHOULD BUY Nikon Z８ Instead of Buying GARBAGE Sony's Flagship Hardly Appropriate for Shooting Video ❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️😂😂😂😂
@@Hafiz-p4n In two days I will get the Sony a1, with a 30% discount.
Should never aim to replace lights.
I agree. This is not about shaping light, but rather in situations where you’re in lack of artificial lights
Btw hvis du snakker om Slog på disse så er laveste iso 640 som på a7siii som du heller ikke nevner :)
Alle disse kameraene har dual base iso, og det er 800/12800 i s log 3 cine. Se min forrige video om det er uklart ☺️
Det var en lang diskusjon rundt dette da kameraene kom ut, fordi 640 ble nevnt som laveste iso. Men du bør forholde deg til 800, og det er egentlig hele poenget med Cine EI.
Hey dude, I'm listening to you at 1.5 speed and it sounds completely normal, when I put it down to normal speed it feels like slow motion. I'd say that you should bump up the speed of your talking head to at least 1.25x before exporting. Otherwise, great stuff. ;)
Interesting! Thanks! I really appreciate this feedback!
Does anyone find it amusing that what everyone using digital cinema cameras says they are going for are "filmic" and cinematic images, yet few people today have experience shooting motion picture film stock. Film is grainy, even low ASA film has grain. Even fine grained 35mm stock has noticeable grain, it's what makes film look like film. I wish everyone shooting today had a chance to actually shoot and telecine some film, it would completely change your outlook on what you do, what you worry about, what you obsess about.
Today's digital shooters are absolutely fixated on shooting the cleanest, most sterile looking footage humanly possible, which is the opposite of "filmic" and cinematic, at least if you are comparing your images to classic or even recent films shot on film. We would all be well served to lose the mania for squeaky clean, sterile looking images, a little noise, grain has very little bearing on what your audience perceives, especially when viewed on the average viewers 4" phone screen. ISO 12,800 on a Sony FX3 or 6 is LEAGUES cleaner than ASA 50 S16 stock ever was.
I've always been a fan of digital cameras that have grainy looking noise that looks like film grain over cameras where ths noise looks like video pattern noise superimposed over a video raster. Canon, Blackmagic and Fuji, in particular, seem to excel at this more filmic noise while Sony's noise doesn't look as filmic to my eye. It wasn't that many years ago when the average digital cinema camera had what today's shooters would absolutely have a melt down over. The Canon 5D MKII. The Panasonic HVX200 and the DVX100, even the early RED cameras were noisy as hell, yet somehow people used these tools to shoot some amazing storytelling.
My tip is, if you want to shoot footage that is filmic and cinematic, shoot it to look like film, don't sweat the grain unless it's distractedly prevalent in the image. Nobody but other video nerds care if your image is noisy/grainy, all they care about is does your lighting kick ass, is the sound good and is the director able to tell a great story. All of the rest is basically video and film people's OCD and supporting OCD is a dangerous thing. How many of your clients have EVER complained about video noise or grain in footage you've shot for them?
I love this comment and this is something I’ve tried to bring up with other filmmakers from time to time. It’s ironic that we pay thousands (or ten thousands) of dollars to get cameras with a technology that gives us a grain free look, just to simulate the film look in post.
I totally agree with you, and personally I don’t see an issue with the grain you get from a camera that can’t give you that clean look (or the 12800 as shown in this video).
RUclips wants to see it, because a lot of modern filmmakers are all about this. I often contemplate trying to go super old school and shoot film, just because of the things you mentioned in your comment.
I think our time’s filmmakers (if we can call ourselves filmmakers…) make it harder for others by shooting such crispy images, and therefore clients might actually find it to be too grainy at some point. I wish it wasn’t that way.
Thanks for your contribution here. I hope everyone reads this.
@@kriswarwick Thanks Kris!
@@danbrockettDOP I agree with 90% of what you say. I've had clients that did say they needed footage denoised before.
@@aaronjonellhall1937 Interesting. What kind of client was it? Agency? Production Company? Network? Or just a normal corporate client?
@ for a music video. They wanted the footage to be clean. Client was normal. Was very interesting. First time that happened for me too
ISO 12800 isn't that good in a WELL LIT environment should have been the title. Nobody bumps their iso to 12800 when 800 is usable like you did in this video.
I agree and disagree with you.
Sometimes you might need to have a different aperture and thus you have to bump your iso like I did in these examples. My point was also to show the difference, as a lot of people think the dual base iso means they are identical at 800 and 12800. My goal was to show that’s not the case, but also to compare the three cameras.
I also know that a lot of people will use 12800 more than they should because of the fact that 12800 is decent on these cameras. I hope and think this video is good for a new FX3/FX6/ZV-E1 user 🙌🏻
@@kriswarwick "Sometimes you might need to have a different aperture", then that makes the 12800 GOOD and the 800 unusable in that situation. Nobody thinks 12800 is identical to 800 lol. The people you know who will use 12800 more than they should are probably using it in low light and will use 800 in better light
I don’t think I was clear enough. My point is that a lot of people (I used to be one of them) think that there isn’t ANY difference between the two, and that’s what this video shows. But it’s also a video to show the difference between the 12800 with the three cameras.
And no. I’m talking about those who choose to use 12800 just because they can, instead of aiming at getting a better shot with 800.
I am totally on your side here, but it sounds like you probably weren’t the target group for this video. Unless you wanted to compare the three cameras that ia
@@kriswarwick I agree with you because I shoot both Sony and Canon. Since slog 3 has such a wide base ISO, I tend to use my R5C in a lot of scenarios because the of the base 800/3200 iso is flexible in CLOG3 or CLOG2