Blackmagic Forum

So I watched this YT interview with Papamichael about how he filmed “The Complete Unknown”, who was interviewed by YouTuber Potatoes Jet. Papamichael shot several low light scenes at very high ISO using the Sony Venice with amazing results. On a BM camera, this image, without the additional lighting, would fall apart. PJ did a quick demo of himself using the Sony FX3 at high ISO in a very low light environment. It amazes me that those Sony sensors are known for how well they hold in very low light environment. But shooting at such high iso and not planning on any artificial lights in a large budget production seems like over the top. Could you do it with a BM URSA or Red Komodo? Great to know if anyone have done this before using non-Sony cam.

Ellory Yu wrote:But shooting at such high iso and not planning on any artificial lights in a large budget production seems like over the top.

But that's not what he actually did. Look at the shots: however low light, the contrast ratios are not haphazard or accidental. Even the steadicam night shot of "Dylan" walking NYC streets was "lit". Small hand-held fixtures for sure, but lit nonetheless, by two operators and the lights controlled remotely by a dimmer. The [dark] apartment interiors were lit through the windows. The fixtures could not have been tiny.

As for whether any other camera can shoot at 12800 with these results..... The answer is probably "no", but I'm not sure how consequential that really is.

Also of interest is the film transfer they used for the intermediate..... Nothing new there, but that the process remains of interest is significant.

Didn't watch the video but FX3 at high ISO has quite extreme noise reduction applied to it in camera. You can probably achieve something similar by doing the noise reduction in post.

John Paines wrote:But that's not what he actually did. Look at the shots: however low light, the contrast ratios are not haphazard or accidental. Even the steadicam night shot of "Dylan" walking NYC streets was "lit". Small hand-held fixtures for sure, but lit nonetheless, by two operators and the lights controlled remotely by a dimmer. The [dark] apartment interiors were lit through the windows. The fixtures could not have been tiny.

That’s right, there are some front and back lights and I think they were augmented so that the aperture can be closed down for a better DOF. Yet, at high ISO, you would assume that, even with good noise reduction technology in camera, it will be challenging, not impossible, to have such clean images. If this is such a good low light sensor that Sony makes, why are other cameras using them (assuming Sony sells those sensors too).

I do a lot of concert photography in low-light venues with Sony cameras and am often well over ISO 12,800 (actually I just cap the ISO at 12,800 since Sony's noise reduction becomes overbearing above that point; I underexpose and pull up a bit in post). As an experiment last summer I shot some video with my OG BMPCC, which is notoriously bad in low light, at the dimmest of these venues. I shot raw, exposed for ISO 1,600, and used a 270-degree shutter angle, and while the resulting footage was of course very noisy I was able to denoise adequately for my purposes in Resolve -- this video was destined only for Instagram where most people would be viewing on their phones anyway.

I have the Sony A7s (first generation) and the A7iii; the A7iii performs just as well or better in low light than the A7s except at the very highest ISOs, which I never get close to myself; those would be mainly used by astrophotographers. I think the reason the higher ISO footage or photos look relatively clean is due to Sony's in-camera denoising; as you know BMD cameras do not apply noise reduction, giving you the freedom to denoise to your own taste in post.

It's true that Sony's internal noise reduction is loosing a lot of detail. It's worst with the "S" series, since those have fewer photocells in favour of sensel size. Nevertheless, these are impressive. I can remember an Austrian TV piece where folks were skiing in moonlight. They had helmet lamps to see their path, while the Sony still saw something in the shadows of the forest.
Fast forward from those days, I'm now using the A7IV and it's just about as good in low-light as the first A7S, while giving me more detail in photography (where you can turn off the NR filtering).
I really appreciate how Papamichael carefully explains in that interview that he's not doing it to shoot with available light only, but to gain deeper DoF for storytelling purpose. I suppose he could save on diffusion filters, though
Who wouldn't have kicked him from a film set 20 years ago when he would have announced he's gonna shoot in 12.800 ISO at f11? Amazing possibilities we have today!

No way you could shoot at 12 800 on a URSA CINE or Red, or Arri (maybe 35 ? IDK never shot on that one in particular).

Noise levels would be insane

Camera with great DR, low noise floor, amaizing low light... Yeah you can get away with smaller light as complement.

A 3200 - 6400 usable second-base iso in all their model is the next step for Blackmagic.

You’d be surprised.

I’ve shot 3200 on the Ursa Cine with minimal post work.

12800 is only two more stops.

Ursa Cine’s secret weapon is its resolution. Which means you can apply very aggressive NR and have the image hang in there for far longer than other codecs where the image gets destroyed.

If I get a chance I might test it in a few weeks when I’m prepping my next show.

JB

John Brawley wrote:You’d be surprised.

I’ve shot 3200 on the Ursa Cine with minimal post work.

12800 is only two more stops.

Ursa Cine’s secret weapon is its resolution. Which means you can apply very aggressive NR and have the image hang in there for far longer than other codecs where the image gets destroyed.

If I get a chance I might test it in a few weeks when I’m prepping my next show.

JB

I'm looking forward to have some proper test John.
For now I only saw the URSA CINE at shows, I simply put the lens cap on and pumped up the iso, and played a bit with it.
Noise floor was not something I would call "low" for a 3200iso compared to a Sony Venice / Burano.

Of course this is not a test, just a mere inspection of the camera.
Let just hope that some rental company will buy this camera so I can rent one in the future.

Nathan_H wrote:

John Brawley wrote:You’d be surprised.

I’ve shot 3200 on the Ursa Cine with minimal post work.

12800 is only two more stops.

Ursa Cine’s secret weapon is its resolution. Which means you can apply very aggressive NR and have the image hang in there for far longer than other codecs where the image gets destroyed.

If I get a chance I might test it in a few weeks when I’m prepping my next show.

JB

I'm looking forward to have some proper test John.
For now I only saw the URSA CINE at shows, I simply put the lens cap on and pumped up the iso, and played a bit with it.
Noise floor was not something I would call "low" for a 3200iso compared to a Sony Venice / Burano.

Of course this is not a test, just a mere inspection of the camera.
Let just hope that some rental company will buy this camera so I can rent one in the future.

Would you say the noise is more color or monochromatic?