|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 3rd, 2011, 05:28 PM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 67
|
Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
I shot this test.
ISO 250 at f4.5. I know that the 5D footage is heavily compressed, but this just looks "noisier" and more pixelated than it should to me, and more so than other footage I've seen online. Especially if you go to full-screen mode and look at the darker background (especially to the right of the "subject"). I imported it into Final Cut as Prores (HQ) using the EOS movie plug-in, and exported it as H.264 (although, it looks this noisy/pixelated in Final Cut pre-exporting) Maybe it's just a function of the in camera compression? I just want to make sure there isn't something wrong with my camera or that I'm not doing something wrong in the import process. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2011, 05:35 PM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Columbia,SC
Posts: 806
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
Todd,
I'll jump in for what it's worth. I see 2 things here that would make your shot noisy. Number one, it is underexposed and underexposed images are going to show more noise. Also 250 is one of the electronic ISOs which generate more noise than it's higher counterparts, so if you were at 320 you would have less noise than 250. Good luck, I think your camera is fine. Bill |
|
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2011, 05:42 PM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 67
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
Thanks.
I have looked at other "low light" clips online, where parts are definitely underexposed, and I just don't see the same level of noise. |
|
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2011, 06:15 PM
|
#4 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
Avoid shooting at anything except 100, 160, 320, 640, and 1250. They have the lowest noise. 100 is actually a bit noisy, but is sometimes needed in bright situations.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2011, 06:19 PM
|
#5 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 67
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
Interesting. I had never heard this regarding specific ISOs being more or less noisy than others,
I had always just assumed the lower the ISO, the less noise. Thanks guys. |
|
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2011, 06:58 PM
|
#6 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Columbia,SC
Posts: 806
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
I would add 2500 to that list. Easy. Clean as a whistle.
|
|
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2011, 07:21 PM
|
#7 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 67
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
I will have to stop asking questions and just do some tests myself, but are you saying that 2500 is cleaner than 250?
Seems hard to believe. |
|
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2011, 07:23 PM
|
#8 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
Check out the chart that can be found on this page:
Optimising your 5D Mark II for filmmaking-kriskoster.com | kriskoster.com 
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
|
|
|
May 4th, 2011, 01:34 PM
|
#9 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Columbia,SC
Posts: 806
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
nope, I'm saying I use 2500 in addition to those other ISOs and it is very clean. Now, I'm coming from a video camera background where 6db of gain is unuseable. 320 is cleaner than 250 though.
Bill |
|
|
|
|
May 11th, 2011, 11:22 PM
|
#10 | |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 12
|
Re: Does this look particularly "noisy" to you?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
