Skip to the end of navigation

Welcome to the Community!

FS7

Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Expert
Posts: 36
Registered: ‎12-04-2013
Message 1 of 13 (3,321 Views)

Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

Hi Everybody,

Just wondering what people think about this question. I've got a shoot coming up in a dark restaurant and will be shooting in custom mode and will choose either HG3 or 7. I understand the concepts here, but honestly not sure I grasp the tradeoffs between these 2 gamma curves. I'm assuming 7 will retain more highlight detail. Am I thinking about this correctly? 

Bob

Bob Pierce
Director of Photography | Editor
robertpiercemedia.com
Expert
Posts: 1,512
Registered: ‎11-20-2012
Message 2 of 13 (3,245 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

[ Edited ]

Out of those two, I would choose HG7 because it has more dynamic range.  800% vs. 325%.

 

HG7 and HG8 are the only two you'll probably ever want to use on the FS7.  The others are basically just legacy hypergammas left over from earlier cameras.

Expert
Posts: 1,735
Registered: ‎06-12-2013
Message 3 of 13 (3,215 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

But if the restaurant is very low light,and there isn't really much of a DR anyway.. would not 3 or 4 be justifiable choice..  when you are never going to need 800% ?

Rookie
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎12-18-2015
Message 4 of 13 (3,196 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

For quick rotate work wherever footage won’t have an opportunity to travel through the post production method of being color hierarchic, F5/F55/FS7 shooters have the choice of baking in an exceedingly user uploadable 3D LUT to the camera – or victimisation one in every of four Sony 3D LUT presets (called LOOKS) designed right into the camera.I have some sensible work expertise with a taxi service in Kochi and my words area unit clearly supported what I felt through such processes within the past.

Expert
Posts: 36
Registered: ‎12-04-2013
Message 5 of 13 (3,163 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

Thanks guys for your responses (also, nice to know a cab service next time I'm in India). 

 

I did a quick test, shooting low light at iso 2000, exposing shadows slightly dark but with some over exposed lamps in the background of the shot (the light source, basically.) HG3 and 7 look very similar, though grading the shots revealed a very slight advantage in retaining detail in the blown out highlights in HG7. Once I raised the shadows however, HG3 shows significantly less noise.

 

HG7 will remain my primary go-to gamma for normal custom mode shooting and HG8 for high contrast situations. I'll do more tests, but I'm thinking HG3 might be a good trade off for noise/DR in the kind of situation I'm talking about.

Bob

Bob Pierce
Director of Photography | Editor
robertpiercemedia.com
Expert
Posts: 1,512
Registered: ‎11-20-2012
Message 6 of 13 (3,122 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

Bob,

 

I hardly ever shoot in low light situations so I have to admit that this is a topic I have never really looked at seriously.  So after you posted your results I decided to take a look myself.  I think you are right.  If you underexpose the video by a stop or two, and then bring the levels up in post (Resolve 12) to compensate HG3 does look slightly less noisy than HG7 and a lot better than HG8. So I almost steered you wrong there, thanks for doing your own testing.

 

Then I went a step further and tried HG3 at 1000, 2000, 4000 to see if it is better to boost the gain in-camera or just compensate in post.  As I suspected, but never actually tested before, it is much better to crank up the gain in-camera if you are having trouble getting a decent exposure.  So if you are still under-exposing at 2000 I recommend going to 4000.  4000 looks way better than 2000 lifted in post.  Of course, if you can get a correct exposure at 2000 then use 2000, but if you can't, then take it to 4000.  The results will look a lot better.

Expert
Posts: 1,512
Registered: ‎11-20-2012
Message 7 of 13 (3,118 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

[ Edited ]

So then I decided to do another test:

 

S-LOG2 (graded in Resolve by hand to match the exposure of HG3)

S-LOG3 (graded in Resolve with the LC709A LUT and lifting the gain to match the exposure of HG3)

HG3 @ 4000 ISO (correctly exposed so no grading was needed)

 

Keeping the lighting and aperture of the lens exactly the same for all three -- S-LOG2 is clearly superior to the other two.  No question at all.  Not only is it less noisy everything about the image looks better.  When the FS7 gets NR in CINE EI I'll bet it will look even better still.

 

My advice in low-light situations is to shoot S-LOG2.  Other people's results may differ.

 

Specialist
Posts: 42
Registered: ‎12-28-2014
Message 8 of 13 (3,071 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

Doug,

 

First I should thank the OP for raising the topic. I was really sold on using HG7 for low light situations but your insite on Slog 2 looks very promising. Basically, underwater video is an expensive hoppy I am still enduring Smiley Happy where we shoot in ambient light at different depths. I was looking for Slog as anternative for shooting expensive unmanageable RAW format (for me at least after trying it) and that's why I bought the FS7 beside the other benefits. 

 

When HG7 was the most voted low light option, I was somewhat disappointed. Your latest post on Slog2 brings my hopes up again. Offcourse, as you always advise, one must do his/her own test.

Thank you for being such a great asset to the community. 

 

Regards,

Thani

Expert
Posts: 466
Registered: ‎12-01-2014
Message 9 of 13 (3,044 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

I'm curious why you limited your chouices to HG7 and HG3?

I find 7 is best if  expect a lot of highlight material and yet need to keep my faces higher , but otherwise I use either HG8 or quite often HG4 . I preferred 4 for faces because there was less tendancy to get compression  on the face. 

Expert
Posts: 1,512
Registered: ‎11-20-2012
Message 10 of 13 (3,031 Views)

Re: Best for low light: hypergamma 3 or 7?

[ Edited ]

Lenny,  I didn't mention it before but I also tested HG1, HG2, HG4, and HG8 yesterday at the same time.  Why not?  They all looked really awful when underexposed as described above in my earlier post.  I'm not going to waste any time trying to rank them in order of how bad they look, but it is really obvious that HG7 and HG3 are the "best" of the bunch.  But  with that said, I was surprised by how bad that all of the hypergammas looked when they were underexposed.  Even HG3 and HG7 don't look good and I'm really glad that I almost never haave to shoot in low light.  If someone has to shoot in low light my advice is to add some lights (if possible) and use the fastest lens you can find.  If you must use Custom, then use HG3 and add as much gain is necessary to get a decent exposure in camera becuause the less you have to bring up the levels in post the better.  And if you can use CINE EI instead of

Custom, use S-LOG2 instead of S-LOG3.

 

If you test the HGs yourself and come to a different conclusion please report back.

 

And just for the record, I am still a big fan of HG when proper exposure can be achieved.  These tests were looking at what happens when you are unavoiadably forced to shoot a couple of stops under correct exposure.

Get Social

Share your ideas Watch YouTube Support Videos follow us on Twitter Visit us on Facebook