Requesting Help with bmpcc6kpro / bad images always

Hi to all the community members.

I apologize for taking anyones time but I cant get a good image out of my Bmpcc6k pro and I dont know what else to do. Do you know the feeling of a clear HQ image? It is never there and other material is sharp and clear on my 4k monitor. I almost always ETTR so noise is not a problem at all. I tried all the CST possible, curves, sharpening, film convert, dehancer, Video monitoring settings+timeline, did focus peaking tests, shoot in Q0, usually shoot Q3 or 5:1. On top of that I sent my sigma 18 35 ( which I know is a boring and flat lens ) to repair because the focus was bad ( they said it was one of the worst they have ever seen ) and can confirm that it is working perfectly now so It was just a coincidence because the feeling I get is still there.

Here are some random frames https://1drv.ms/f/c/f95d1a6f7dc5c5cd/Em ... g?e=ez6Aul

Was hoping someone would tell me what you are seeing and feeling? I sent daytime images so they would be the most neutral possible. A case like this using a Rec709 lut would make things look good. ISO 400, 5:1

Thank you very much in advance and wish you a great day.

David

Feel free to post a short sample on a cloud service and post the link. Please only original BRAW. Do you know that you can export a single BRAW frame from the RAW tab?
If that’s too public for you, PM me.

Be glad to look and see what could be wrong. Like Uli said, share a single BRAW frame or a very short clip but make sure it is from the source, unmodified. BTW, the Sigma 18-35 lens is pretty much what many BM owners started with. It is a good sharp lens. So if you had issues with the lens, it could just be the lens. Have you tried a different lens?

I will also assume that you’re not new to cinema cameras and know that RAW and LOG formats are rather flat and dull looking. It needs to be processed in Resolve or similar NLE.

I also own the Sigma 18-35mm, and it’s a great lens.
‘Flat’ or ‘boring’ is from those who take the flaws of vintage lenses as ‘character’.
They can be nice, I own quite a few, but as one says: “horses for courses”.
When in good shape, that Sigma is fast, sharp and neutral. Some call that ‘clinical’.

‘Flat’ or ‘boring’ is from those who take the flaws of vintage lenses as ‘character’.

That too. I have a vintage Canon FD mount lens that’s flat but is characteristic of its look. After some grading they look beautiful.

Then there are soft lenses that I like to use for pictures taken for like a drama narrative shoot. The Rokinon and Samyang does have that ‘character’. Unless I need a lot of details, a clinical look is not interesting to me but the Sigma 18-35 sharpness can produce that. A little bit of promist filter can help soften it.

I have sent a private message to both. I appreciate you all for taking the time. I have not tried with another lens because i dont have access to one right now. Maybe it is the lens that is kind of blending the image all together and make it muddy? I do use resolve but even with just a rec 709 conversion, it should look good right? I dont know how to explain what I am seeing, that is why i need someone with experience to see it. It is my first cinema camera to be honest. Not a good shooter but was hoping to feel something after working on images and there is always something wrong.

I have sent a private message to both. I appreciate you all for taking the time. I have not tried with another lens because i dont have access to one right now. Maybe it is the lens that is kind of blending the image all together and make it muddy? I do use resolve but even with just a rec 709 conversion, it should look good right? I dont know how to explain what I am seeing, that is why i need someone with experience to see it. It is my first cinema camera to be honest. Not a good shooter but was hoping to feel something after working on images and there is always something wrong.

Just responded. BTW, please share details of the camera settings and if there are artificial lighting used, briefly share how did you use them.

I dont know how to explain what I am seeing,

It sound as if you experience this...

muddy

muddy.jpeg (356.88 KiB) Viewed 5670 times

If so, all you need to do is adjust your spline.

Less_muddy.jpeg (414.26 KiB) Viewed 5670 times

You can take it further...

no_mud.jpeg (425.94 KiB) Viewed 5670 times

All you need to be aware of is that parts of the spline that are outside the underlaying histogram have no effect on the image. See next post.

outside histogram

ouside histogram.jpg (666.69 KiB) Viewed 5664 times

Hope it helps.

So to clearify, your spline needs to be within the histogram or you will not use all data available to you ...one of the effeccts can be muddy pictures.

seagull

seagull.jpg (440.33 KiB) Viewed 5644 times

@David: Did you try RCM already?

The footage is ETTR so the exposure needs to be handled at some point in the chain. A 709 LUT that doesn't have any tone mapping baked in is going to be way blown out. Even with a transform that takes into account tone mapping like BM Video or Extended Video the exposure still needs to be handled. For quick and dirty my preference is to use a CST and the Raw Panel controls. This gives a bunch of handles and will be the least destructive. I may have cheated a power window in on the last one because the eyes were a little too dark, oops.

Everything with the cam and lens are fine, take a minute to learn the tools and you'll be cruizin'.

Good Luck

6k.jpg (222.32 KiB) Viewed 5604 times

You can use RCM, it supports BRAW very well (of course) and adjust exposures in the RAW tab.
From there, it's grading. Nothing wrong with your camera.
If you are still new to this, please go here: www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davin ... e/training

I almost always ETTR

I would advise to stop doing that.
It made sense back in the days of DSLRs and Sony S-Log cameras, but not with these cameras.

When shooting Braw, set the camera to ISO 400 and expose so that it looks like you want it to look.

I almost always ETTR

I would advise to stop doing that.
It made sense back in the days of DSLRs and Sony S-Log cameras, but not with these cameras.

When shooting Braw, set the camera to ISO 400 and expose so that it looks like you want it to look.

+1. Unless you’re shooting LOG, it’s not advisable to ETTR. For the dual ISO BMD cameras and mostly in BRAW, sometimes to protect highlights I would set the ISO to 1250 in daylight.

+1. Unless you’re shooting LOG, it’s not advisable to ETTR. For the dual ISO BMD cameras and mostly in BRAW, sometimes to protect highlights I would set the ISO to 1250 in daylight.

The OP is shooting log. Why would they want to shoot 1250? That’s going to cost a stop and change of DR regardless of how the image is exposed. Maybe you meant 1000?

Good Luck

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with ETTR for video too, but not on a clip-by-clip basis.
It should be done per scene or location. Just get the angle or framing with the strongest white (apart from a light source or reflection) and adjust for that. Then keep exposure constant, or it'll drive you mad in post.
OTOH, with the DR from the cameras by BM in BRAW, you can also expose for middle gray for everything but the most challenging scenarios.

ETTR is not suitable for all shots, it pays off most in moderate and low contrast shooting scenarios. I never use it, since log is distributing the bit coding more evenly from the start. This shot came in very over-exposed and clipped here at the indicated shooting 800 ISO.

Howard's method is the easiest - CST and Raw clip controls - reset to 100 ISO brings it nearer the mark. But that is quite tedious to have to do for every shot, when I would suggest, it is much easier to expose properly in the first place.

Timeline 21_01_00_00_00-min.jpg (204.91 KiB) Viewed 5201 times

Just don't ETTR with these cameras shooting raw.

Unlike with some other cameras / workflows there's no worthwhile benefit, it can actually make the image worse (which is what you seem to be experiencing).

(which is what you seem to be experiencing).

Can you point out which of the clips David provided became worse because of his workflow? I normalized/graded all of them can’t recall that I experienced an image that suffered from any form of decline.

We still have to hear back from David but if it is related to the muddiness I suggested, it is caused by an uneven normalization and has nothing to do with the way he prefers to expose his shots.

Almost all of them. The fact that you can still rescue them does not mean that they wouldn't be better with proper exposure.

Shoot ISO 400.

Almost all of them.

Thanks!

I’m not a huge proponent of ETTR either. Then again I don’t shoot a bunch of “street” video. Given the shot I corrected above I’d probably ETTR that one. Dude’s face is way too far in the shadows, expose for the subject (proper exposure) and the sky is gone. Dogmattically embracing ETTR is as poor a philosophy as categorically rejecting it. Time and place for all things gents.

Good Luck

I want to emphasize that there is a difference between ETTR and giving the sensor more light to get a 'thick' exposure.

ETTR is to expose right before clipping, regardless if it makes sense for the scene or not. This can lead to bad images just like underexposure can.

To the OP, set ISO to 400 and expose so it looks good on the monitor, then see if your issues persist.
Also roughly manage your camera monitor's brightness, e.g. you should not have it at 100% indoors or 25% on a sunny day outdoors ect.

Given the shot I corrected above I’d probably ETTR that one. Dude’s face is way too far in the shadows, expose for the subject (proper exposure) and the sky is gone. Dogmattically embracing ETTR is as poor a philosophy as categorically rejecting it. Time and place for all things gents.

I agree with that general principle, Howard; but I wouldn't call that particular sensible advice to that shot using ETTR; just proper exposure for the subject. I think the OP has read or been directed to use ETTR as an approach on every shot and then can't understand why they look so disappointing when ingested.

Where possible I tend to use fill from a small flexfill, in those instances. But as we can see from these examples Braw is pretty flexible and recoverable; and the sky can be brought back; but I just treat it as any other codec. I just feel it's much easier if your rushes come in, pretty much in the ballpark first. But then I don't use histograms or false colours or whatever; just old fashioned zebras, coz I'm that old

There is also a lot of flaring due to the sun, raising the shadows - seems like you didn't use the sunshade on the Sigma 18-35 mm?

I can see that you are using the buttery LUT - don't use that if you aren't fit into grading yet. It's meant as a starting point for grading.

If you want a more finished look out of the box, try my free LUT:
LBK-BMD_Gen5_neutral_High-desat_v10
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=151668

With that LUT installed, set your camera on a sunny day to ISO 200, if shooting against sun AND you want to see into shadows shoot ISO 400 or 800.
For shooting inside with that LUT use ISO 400 or 800. In low light use ISO 1600 or 3200.

Hi Robert,

afaik he's shooting Braw, not (compressed) Prores - so I think those ISO recommendations should be the other way around (higher ISO to protect highlights in bright environment, lower ISO to remain shadow detail in dim environment), no?

Or does that LUT do anything special to the preview on the monitor?

First of all guys, thank you so much for taking the time to help and teach me. I am learning a lot from all of you and I am very thankful for your contribution.

Regarding ETTR, I do it most of the time because I am shooting in bright sunny days at peak hour ( unfortunately ), with scenes with a lot of highlights and shadows. I used to have this big pockets of shadow and was kind of reluctant to push them up in post and bringing back detail. I never clip my images, I never ever touch yellow on my false color. I always exposed to 400 or 800 ( if it was more highlights than shadows), applied a Cst or a Rec709 conversion Lut and brought back the Iso as low as possible in the Raw tab ( just like Howard did ). I will stop using ETTR because either way, I am never exposing skin to middle grey, my skin is usually the same as my highlights ( all the image is light grey ).

I think maybe my problem is mostly with curves? after seeing your edits, they are so much better than mine because I am also always afraid to push my image ( I am also still learning about what makes a good image ( I know my composition is bad ), but the relationship between shadows, highlights, IRE levels, etc, and everything is so subtle that I overthink everything and feel like the more I do to the image, the less ok it will be. As I mentioned, my sigma was so bad ( they had to fix it ) that I thought I had to do all the extra things to make it pop and look ok because it was lacking detail and kind of blending the image together and make it very uniform ( not just like how log feels ). That was my main concern. I don't know how to explain because I was expecting that just a small Rec 709 transformation+ raw tab, would give me a good image, but it was always missing something, not color wise because the habillity to push colors is amazing on this camera, it was just a feeling that the image was never there, just did not felt real you know? It always felt low compression. I cant explain better, this is very amateur language but yeah.

Mr Bunk Timmer , I never saw someone approach curves like this, I don't know about all of you but the curves having a relationship with the histogram it self and how it is showing is something I never realized! I used to do a small S curve or maybe push the blacks up and then do a heel and do the same every time no matter the scenario.. I think the contrast on those edits is really good! Did you also de-noise the image?

I think I will just start to expose normally, somehow I always felt more confident in pushing the image to the right before clipping and doing that for everything, rather than maybe ( using a day time scenario ), exposing for skin because then when I shoot an establishing shot or a detail, I did not know what exactly to expose for and ended up with images very different from each other. Are buildings / most of the image supposed to be green? I want to expose for the result to be honest, or at least a normal exposure, that always seemed right for me, but I never felt like I could trust the monitor that much since it gives me more detailed and more HQ image vs: the same Lut on my monitor at home ( which displays HQ images and it looks well vs my mac screen and comparing with everybody's work), and sometimes the false color said I was clipping the blacks when in fact I was not clipping, so I just thought, I am just going to give it as much light as possible and that is it.

Now I feel more confident with your help. Also those that messaged me and edited my clips, that told me my camera is fine and from now on I should be more efficient with my work instead of second guessing everything and that my gear is working fine ( even though the lens was giving problems ).

I am as amateur as someone can be, but still invested in this camera and workflow because I believe I can be better, but some people just have it, and I don't ( at least for now ) so I just want you to know that this forum is a very important place for people like me, and what for some is basic stuff, for others is still a big learning curve and learning how to grow their eye and be one with their work.

Hi Robert,

afaik he's shooting Braw, not (compressed) Prores - so I think those ISO recommendations should be the other way around (higher ISO to protect highlights in bright environment, lower ISO to remain shadow detail in dim environment), no?

Or does that LUT do anything special to the preview on the monitor?

Michael, I know he is shooting BRAW, I downloaded his files.

Remember that all Pocket cameras with dual ISO are ISO invariant. That means ISO is just metadata embedded into your BRAW file. We have two ISO stages with ISO stage 1 going from 100 to 1000 and ISO stage 2 going from 1250 to 6400 (+ extended into 25600).
First stage has the highest dynamic range and will clip at the same brightness regardless of the ISO setting inbetween stage 1.
Second stage has one stop less dynamic range.

So the most important thing is to set your zebra to 100 to see where things are clipping and also to have a look at the histogram clipping indicator.

Your ISO setting will just change the re-distribution of your dynamic range through applying different gamma curves. So you can already get it nice in camera.

My LUT does pull down the highlights a bit for a better contrast. I have used it for many years now, and my recommendations for the ISO settings are the result out of my own experience. It is meant to quickly give you a nice, final looking image with good contrast. It isn't an artistic LUT or a very soft LUT like the buttery LUT which needs further massaging.

You could apply my LUT to a full shooting day without any further adjustments and export nice looking previews for your client, for example.

Good thoughts, David.

I agree you're probably overthinking things. Keep it simple at the beginning, you'll automatically get a sense of what works best over time.
I'd say the same for post production. Using curves like Bunk imo is only advised if you really know what you're doing. There are simpler tools that get the job done (e.g. log wheels) for beginners. But you sound like you are not falling for the trap most beginners are, who over-use every tool they can find in Resolve just because it's there.

Imo the biggest issue for beginners is remaining consistency across images. Keeping things simple through the whole chain helps with that.

For example this shot:

Set in camera ISO 800 + embedded Buttery LUT

ISO 800 + Buttery LUT_1.8.1-50%.jpg (397.49 KiB) Viewed 4640 times

Set in camera ISO 800 + my LBK LUT

ISO 800 + LBK LUT_1.8.2-50%.jpg (433.52 KiB) Viewed 4640 times

Changed ISO in post down to 400 + RAW contrast set to 1.1 + + my LBK LUT

ISO 400 + Contrast 1_1.8.3-50%.jpg (434.44 KiB) Viewed 4640 times

Your ISO setting will just change the re-distribution of your dynamic range through applying different gamma curves. So you can already get it nice in camera.

Which is why you'd want to lower ISO in low light (more stops of DR below middle grey for more detail in the shadows) and raise ISO for very bright environment (more stops of DR above middle grey to protect highlights) when shooting Braw, no?

(not talking about the second gain stage, which should be avoided anyways if possible)



Your LUT looks good.
BTW I agree Buttery LUT is a typical YouTube Hype product.

[quote="Michel Rabe"]

Imo the biggest issue for beginners is remaining consistency across images. Keeping things simple through the whole chain helps with that.

Thank you Michel. I am realizing that and been trying to work more on the timeline level than the clip level also. I want to keep things simple before I advance to other tools, I really dont want to go further without being confident in the basics and not fall for the error of doing too much just to hide my lack of basic knowledge.

Mr. Robert, I will try your lut as soon as I can, thank you for sharing it I am not the right person to make judgements on the Buttery, but I find that the creators who did it are amazing at what they do and to each their own workflow I guess?

I always thought higher ISO for highlight predominant images, but I also saw someone say you can even use 3200 for highlights but never really tried it. During the day I use 400, if there are more highlights I use 800 or 1000. In lowlight I use 100 if it serves the purpose but mostly use 400 or 1250 if i really need the clean baseline. But more than 1250 ,specially 3200 is just bad all the time ( even with good lighting ). Any thoughts on this?

Which is why you'd want to lower ISO in low light (more stops of DR below middle grey for more detail in the shadows) and raise ISO for very bright environment (more stops of DR above middle grey to protect highlights) when shooting Braw, no?

You can only protect your highlights by closing the aperture, or reducing the shutter speed, or by adding ND. The ISO setting of a stage doesn't help here - which is a bit counter-intuitive if you are used to ISO variant cameras where analog gain is applied according to the ISO setting.

As long as your zebra 100/histogram clipping indicator is not showing, you are not clipping.
Just try it in camera by going through ISOs and watch your zebra - it won't change.

Your LUT looks good.

Thanks.

You could apply my LUT to a full shooting day without any further adjustments and export nice looking previews for your client, for example.

It's an admirable approach, Robert and I can see your lut works well but I don't think it's necessarily useful for us here to take David's shots and make them look 'nice'. A good part of my job is grading for broadcast; and that's a relatively simple matter, even with such shots, and that's a second and separate stage as you suggest for a beginner to learn; but here we have a situation, because of the glut of current 'theoretical' information out there, beginners are getting unexpected results, due to bad practice. And the simple solution would be to expose correctly, regardless of 'internet theory', as he understood it. Or at the very least make some tests to understand where unexpected results might come from.

I have the same approach as you (particularly with zebras) but I use absolutely no special luts at all; just aim for the correct exposure as I always have done, and that means a preview should be instantly acceptable to a client too as well; if done so. In the old film days the positive rushes came back from the lab as a 'one light' print; and that's another semi-analogous approach that can be adopted.

The problem with 'special' or 'creative' luts, such as those 'buttery' luts, is that many new shooters believe they are the grade whereas because of perhaps my post perspective, I only see a lut as a wsyiwyg display correction for shooting and a starting point for grading; but I accept that would be my personal workflow and maybe at odds with current trends.

[I want to keep things simple before I advance to other tools,

Set the camera to 400 for bright conditions and don't touch it again. As Robert pointed out above, ISO is not an exposure tool on this camera. Use the lens and what's in front of the lens -- f-stop, ND -- for exposure.

If you're not willing to let anything clip in daytime high contrast shots, your choices are already limited, whether you call it ETTR or not. If you're willing to let areas clip (and why not? the history of movies is the history of clipping), then it becomes more complicated, finding a balance between shadow detail and clipping. Exposing for middle grey under these uncontrolled conditions may not give the best result. But, as pointed out above, over-exposing important elements of the shot, like skin tone, is not a good idea. Quality diminishes.

In Resolve, you don't need CSTs or LUTs (for now, at least). Turn on Resolve Color Management instead. Then go to the primary wheels and make your first adjustment with Offset. And go from there. There's no magic in the raw controls. There's nothing there you can't do with the primaries and elsewhere. Similarly, you don't need to work with curves from the outset. Use the contrast control instead.

It's all a matter of preference, and your requirements may expand later, but for getting started.....

Thank you Michel. I am realizing that and been trying to work more on the timeline level than the clip level also. I want to keep things simple before I advance to other tools, I really dont want to go further without being confident in the basics and not fall for the error of doing too much just to hide my lack of basic knowledge.

I think my LUT can help you in getting more confident with your camera. It will bring you into the 80% range of a finished image. Shoot a lot of different scenarios, play with the settings and load the footage into Resolve for further inspection. After a while you get more confident with your camera and then the fun begins because you can concentrate more on framing and content.

Mr. Robert, I will try your lut as soon as I can, thank you for sharing it I am not the right person to make judgements on the Buttery, but I find that the creators who did it are amazing at what they do and to each their own workflow I guess?

I am not judging the Buttery LUT - but I also do not think one should make out a business of selling LUTs to beginners all over the internet. My philosophy is more about the creative challenge and then giving back and sharing with others - so I might not be the best businessman in the world

I always thought higher ISO for highlight predominant images, but I also saw someone say you can even use 3200 for highlights but never really tried it. During the day I use 400, if there are more highlights I use 800 or 1000. In lowlight I use 100 if it serves the purpose but mostly use 400 or 1250 if i really need the clean baseline. But more than 1250 ,specially 3200 is just bad all the time ( even with good lighting ). Any thoughts on this?

I would not use ISO 3200 when there is enough light as it will clip 1 stop earlier.

During the day I use ISO 800 and 1000 only if I have to shoot against a bright light source and want to see into the darker parts. But as I said - there is no protection done by your ISO setting. Only your exposure (aperture/shutter/ND) will influence your highlights and when they clip.

You can only protect your highlights by closing the aperture, or reducing the shutter speed, or by adding ND. The ISO setting of a stage doesn't help here - which is a bit counter-intuitive if you are used to ISO variant cameras where analog gain is applied according to the ISO setting.

Hm, but that's exactly my point.

You want to lower ISO in low light when shooting raw, not raise it.
Conversely raise ISO in very bright situations, not lower it.
The opposite of what people are used to when shooting to codecs.

Examples:

Lowering ISO from ISO 400 to 200 will do nothing except make the preview on your camera screen 1 stop darker. To compensate, you open up aperture by 1 stop or increase the film lights on set.


-> you'll record more shadow detail as more light hits the sensor compared to ISO 400.

Raising ISO from 400 to 800 will do nothing except make your preview screen 1 stop brighter. To compensate, you close down aperture 1 stop, use a 1 stop ND or decrease the film lights on set.
-> highlights are less likely to clip compared to ISO 400 as less light hits the sensor.


Just wondering as your ISO recommendations for using the LUT have been the other way around.

During the day I use 400, if there are more highlights I use 800 or 1000. In lowlight I use 100 if it serves the purpose but mostly use 400 or 1250 if i really need the clean baseline. But more than 1250 ,specially 3200 is just bad all the time ( even with good lighting ). Any thoughts on this?

Sounds good.

Personally I use 400 and 200 for low light.
In bright envirnonment I just check zebra and histogram if something clips because clipping doesn't have to be prevented always (e.g. shooting into a light, against the sun or if some very reflective object clips).

You want to lower ISO in low light when shooting raw, not raise it.
Conversely raise ISO in very bright situations, not lower it.
The opposite of what people are used to when shooting to codecs.

Examples:

Lowering ISO from ISO 400 to 200 will do nothing except make the preview on your camera screen 1 stop darker. To compensate, you open up aperture by 1 stop or increase the film lights on set.


-> you'll record more shadow detail as more light hits the sensor compared to ISO 400.

Yeah, but the point is, darkening and brightening the screen constantly in this way doesn't actually do anything. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by leaving ISO alone and doing what you're going to have to do anyway: change the F-stop, etc., based on exposure indicators and assessing it by eye.

Do we really want to advise arbitrarily brightening and darkening the screen with arbitrary ISO adjustments, on the principle that the shooter will then be encouraged to arbitrarily change the f-stop?

I always thought higher ISO for highlight predominant images, but I also saw someone say you can even use 3200 for highlights but never really tried it. During the day I use 400, if there are more highlights I use 800 or 1000. In lowlight I use 100 if it serves the purpose but mostly use 400 or 1250 if i really need the clean baseline. But more than 1250 ,specially 3200 is just bad all the time ( even with good lighting ). Any thoughts on this?

This is a mistaken understanding of the way ISO works when shooting braw on BMD cameras. See the discussion above.

Do we really want to advise arbitrarily brightening and darkening the screen with arbitrary ISO adjustments, on the principle that the shooter will then be encouraged to arbitrarily change the f-stop?

First, this is literally how exposing for a raw camera works - rating the camera's sensitivity according to the scene (or how you want to distribute the available overall dynamic range). Most of the time, base ISO, as rated by the manufacturer, is fine.

https://www.red.com/red-101/exposure-with-red-cameras

Second, I didn't even advise changing ISO, I replied to an advised workflow for a specific LUT - and how changing ISO when shooting raw is counter intuitive to what most people are used from shooting to codecs.

If you read above, personally I stick to base ISO almost always.

First, this is literally how exposing for a raw camera works - rating the camera's sensitivity according to the scene (or how you want to distribute the available overall dynamic range).

Changing the ISO value does not change the [actual] sensitivity of the sensor.... All you have at your disposal is increasing or decreasing the amount of light hitting it, via the lens. And you can do that any ISO value, for exactly the same result.

And anyway, these ISO adjustments are pointless for the conditions described by the OP, since he's not exposing for middle-grey. And even if he was.....

Hm, but that's exactly my point.

You want to lower ISO in low light when shooting raw, not raise it.
Conversely raise ISO in very bright situations, not lower it.

Well, if you raise ISO in very bright situations, you start to close down aperture to compensate - because your screen is showing you the image being too bright. But as long as you are not clipping highlights there is no use in closing down aperture.

In low light you can lower your ISO to get cleaner shadows - but only if you are able to provide more light to the sensor. That is do-able in a controlled scenario like on a film set - but there you normally do not have true low light, more like of a controlled and optimized exposure scenario. This is when you can aim for clean shadows.

In real low light with little control you will have to raise ISO otherwise you won't see much on your screen.

As David is still a beginner, he most likely will fall into the uncontrolled category. When his experience grows over time he will learn to approach different situations accordingly.

So my advice will give him quick improvements at his current level. As a basis.

In real low light with little control you will have to raise ISO otherwise you won't see much on your screen.

Ok I guess you are talking about a situation where you have absolutely no way of letting more light on your sensor (lens already at max aperture, no faster lens at hand).

In any other case, raising ISO in dim environment, just so you see the screen better, will especially cause beginners to think the footage is properly exposed when in reality it is underexposed (when shooting raw).

I think we are on the same side: stay at base ISO and maybe lower for low light.
I just started this debate because your ISO recommendations seemed the other way around than advised when shooting raw:

With that LUT installed, set your camera on a sunny day to ISO 200, if shooting against sun AND you want to see into shadows shoot ISO 400 or 800.
For shooting inside with that LUT use ISO 400 or 800. In low light use ISO 1600 or 3200.

Changing the ISO value does not change the [actual] sensitivity of the sensor.

I wanted to write that I never said that but I actually have - my bad, this was very misleading.
It doesn't change sensor sensitivity, it changes your behavior when exposing. It's like a film negative that's rated at a fixed sensitivity that you can push or pull.

What I'm trying to say is, the way to correct exposure on BMD cameras does not entail using ISO as an exposure tool -- apart from choice of the two circuits.

I think the sooner folks abandon the analogy to film, the better off they'll be. Look at the confusion that the OP is in because he read somewhere that upping the ISO value "creates" more highlight headroom.

It's a visual help to get the right exposure. You don't need to use it but it makes things easier.

I think the sooner folks abandon the analogy to film, the better off they'll be. Look at the confusion that the OP is in because he read somewhere that upping the ISO value "creates" more highlight headroom.

Why? Personally the analogy made it much easier for me to understand the concept of exposing for raw when I got my first RED camera. I remember how many people on REDuser had to rethink exposing and how RED tried to educate everyone.

It's a different concept than what people are used to when coming from shooting to codecs or even coming from DSLRs ect, like the OP.

oldman_BA.JPG (51 KiB) Viewed 3850 times