วีดีโอ

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?

➡️ Download the free camera settings cheat sheet: www.cnomadic.com/cheat-sheet

Sir please reply

Cine primes are worth it if you are getting paid for your investment. TH-cam creators probably are wasting their money on anamorphic or cine lenses.

Good for those who do saleable work for clients willing to pay. Movie of your kids playing with dog, stay with photo lens

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!

Download the free camera settings cheat sheet: www.cnomadic.com/cheat-sheet

Sir do cameras we use today also has rolling shutter pls reply

STEALING this

Yo

thanks for reading from the Manual. good job.

Download the free camera settings cheat sheet: www.cnomadic.com/cheat-sheet Watch the Pat Tillman Video: th-cam.com/video/0KkaC0j3vfo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=F76h9wW-VbFLDKqs

➡ Download the free camera settings cheat sheet: www.cnomadic.com/cheat-sheet ➡Watch the Pat Tillman Video: th-cam.com/video/0KkaC0j3vfo/w-d-xo.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.

▶ Download the free camera settings cheat sheet: www.cnomadic.com/cheat-sheet◀

Can someone tell me plzz when we have dual iso value like 800-3200 so it mean we can use one of them ? Not between ?

This was very cool. Thanks for sharing! (and thanks for the cheat sheet)

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.

Ок

It would be helpful to add Video in your title, since us photo enthusiasts were all thinking Negative iso, what?

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.

Whatever the hell "middle grey" even is, objectively. 0:57

Very informative, thank you 👍

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.

Thank you. Very useful insight.

Hi, thank you for that informative video, can you tell me where can I find those diagrams for a7iv ?

This video makes no sense for a photographer.

Is this about video or photography? TH-camrs should be making this clear when they do these videos.

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.

definitely sent me into introspection ....

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.

Interesting. Thanks. Reminds me of Anselm Adam's Zone System.

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.

Why don’t you, as a pro photographer, have a printed gray-scale chart. It’s a basic tool lol!

Interesting vid. Thx.

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.

IE doesn’t change iso. It just change brightness of picture on your screen. Due to this you add light or open aperture for correct exposure . That’s why you got more clean picture.

3 minutes in and this is where I disagree. There is no such thing as negative ISO except in dual gain output cameras. Slog3 at ISO 800 is infact just ISO 100. To map out the entire dynamic range properly, slog3 exposes the image 3 stops brighter. But the sensor is infact still at ISO 100 or 0db gain. Even the dual native iso of 12800 in the fx6 is just iso 1600. Don't believe me? Take raw photos at iso 100 and slog3 clips at iso 800. Now grade both to match each other without changing the exposure except the shadows. Tadaa! They match perfectly. All EI does, is simply let you digitally in the preview expose the image up or down by several stops. You cannot drive the sensor below 0db gain. All you're doing at ISOs below 100 or beloe 800 in Slog3 is pull the entire image down below the 0 IRE. It's like taking the entire waveform and pulling it down equally. I dont fault you though, this stuff took me a long while to understand

Word salad.

Impressive stuff! Thanks for sharing.

Hold on. You introduce the term IRE without defining what it is. Not good.

Fuji X-T100 with the XC 15-45 mm gives me pictures with clipped highlights easily. But when I put on the 50-230 mm not so much. Why? Because the 50-230 lets in less light? When I use the Nikon D5000 the highlights dont blow out. Why? I dont think it has to do with DR. There is something else going on

I tend to simplify things by treating the native ISO as "box speed" on old film emulsions. Because in RAW. You are essentially only working with that native ISO. All the other settings are pushing and pulling that native ISO, to use the old vernacular. So. In shots that live in the shadows. I can pull the native ISO. For my BMPCC6K. that can be the higher native ISO setting of 3200 being used in the camera. But I say to it to treat it as ISO1250 when showing it to me. That way, the middle grey is a stop and a bit higher up on the file. Which means I am technically overexposing it by that much. So I get shadow detail that's so much further from the noise floor and clip as much from the highlight details. When viewed with the compensating setting, I get clean shadows at the expense of highlights Conversely if my scene has little shadow detail worth saving and most is in the highlights. I can do the opposite. By pushing the film/file. I tell the system to consider middle grey to be lower on the recorded image. Resulting in a file or negative that's underexposed. This means, when viewing is compensated. I get worse shadow detail. Because the viewer had to draw from details closer to the noise floor. But highlight details are preserved as those are just as much further from clipping. With my cameras dual native ISO. I can exploit that quirk by using ISO1000. This records the native ISO400 image underexposed by a stop and a bit. Saving a lot of highlight details while sacrificing as much shadow details to the gods of photography. On a traditional single native ISO800 camera for example, you can do the same. Set it to something like 1600 or 3200 to underexpose the file, saving highlights. Or set it to 400 or 200 or thereabouts to overexpose the file to save shadow detail from the noise floor, sacrificing highlight details that'll be more clipped.

very interesting, i'd be interested to know what @simon_dentremont thinks of this! i'm not knowledgeable enough in either the science or the technology to compare and contrast the advice you both give on the use of ISO settings in digital cameras in low light settings. it might even be an interesting 'in conversation' type video

Let me know if i'm wrong, but a lot of cameras have native ISO's that are around 100 or 200. Most won't let you go below 100... so, how do you go to negative ISO?

How do you determine the native ISO of your camera? I don't see anything on Canon's site or the manual. Only the ISO expressed as a range

You know there are different ‘skin tones’ right?