PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   low light movie works better than low light still photos why? (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=106691)

Brian[_9_] June 9th 09 03:32 PM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.

Regards Brian

David J Taylor[_11_] June 9th 09 03:49 PM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
Brian wrote:
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.

Regards Brian


Two effects:

1 - Still image: 8.3MP, video image: 0.3MP, so each "pixel" can capture
some 27 times as much light.

2 - viewing a "movie" your eye will integrate out the noise (grain). Try
looking at a still from a movie taken in low-light conditions.

David


Don Stauffer June 9th 09 03:54 PM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
Brian wrote:
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.

Regards Brian


In viewing a movie, the eye averages noise, due to limitations on
persistance of vision.

Another way to get the same effect requires a tripod- take ten or twenty
exposures and then stick them together (takes either a special "filter"
or lots of playing with brightness and contrast to do this manually).
The background noise is always different from frame to frame, so the
averaging process eliminates it. Some amateur astronomy software will
do this.

Brian[_9_] June 10th 09 03:19 AM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
Thankd Fon for the useful information.

Regards Brian


Don Stauffer wrote:

Brian wrote:
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.

Regards Brian


In viewing a movie, the eye averages noise, due to limitations on
persistance of vision.

Another way to get the same effect requires a tripod- take ten or twenty
exposures and then stick them together (takes either a special "filter"
or lots of playing with brightness and contrast to do this manually).
The background noise is always different from frame to frame, so the
averaging process eliminates it. Some amateur astronomy software will
do this.


Brian[_9_] June 11th 09 02:30 AM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
John Navas wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote in :

Brian wrote:
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that?


It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.

Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.


I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
fast lenses.


Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg


I chhose the Fujiphoto S8000 camera as it had a 18x optical zoom and a
good price tag. Still you can't have eveything in a camera.

Regards Brian

daveFaktor June 11th 09 02:56 AM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote in :

Brian wrote:
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that?

It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.

Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.

I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
fast lenses.


Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg


Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!

daveFaktor June 11th 09 04:36 AM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:


Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg

Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!


Nonsense.


It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
current (and future it world seem) technology.

daveFaktor June 11th 09 09:58 AM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
Bob Larter wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote in :

Brian wrote:
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that?
It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.

Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.
I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR &
some fast lenses.


Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg


That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.


I do that myself but push my Nikon D300 files a lot more than is
possible with a DSLR Canon. The main reason for changing to Nikon.

http://www.brisbaneweddingphotograph...20,000-ISO.htm

I understand that the D3x is capable of a heck of a lot more but I don't
have one of those. I have on order a D3 so perhaps I can soon explore
the claimed ISO 125,000 of these cameras. For now, I have never seen a
P&S that can operate above ISO 1600 without producing terrible noise.

Chris Malcolm[_2_] June 11th 09 02:10 PM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
Bob Larter wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote in :

Brian wrote:
I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that?
It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.

Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.
I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
fast lenses.


Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg


That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.


You find that better than using a higher ISO and not pushing? My
impression, without having carried out critical comparisons, is that
pushing an ISO 1600 image up a stop gives me the same noise and image
quality as unpushed ISO 3200.

--
Chris Malcolm

daveFaktor June 11th 09 09:35 PM

low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
 
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg
Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!
Nonsense.

It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
current (and future it world seem) technology.


Likewise nonsense.

Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you
would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable
achievement.


If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some
credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to
recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee
a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low
noise images too.

There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to
achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them.
The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the
extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50
Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples
he
http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/

That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where
large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six
feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S.

http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm

The whole issue is not about fanatical devotion to a particular brand
because you happen to own one but choosing the right tool for the job. I
make movies in natural light, with a D90 set at ISO 3200. Maybe a RED
camera might equal it's ability but I won't be shelling out $60,000 for
one when a D90 does just as well - *FOR MY USE*.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com