low light movie works better than low light still photos why?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brian, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. Brian

    Brian Guest

    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
     
    Brian, Jun 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 9, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Brian

    me Guest

    Give one of the free versions or trials of aftermarket noise filtering
    software, such as Neat Image, Noise Ninja or Noiseware a try.
     
    me, Jun 9, 2009
    #3
  4. Brian

    Brian Guest

    Thankd Fon for the useful information.

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Jun 10, 2009
    #4
  5. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    fast lenses.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 10, 2009
    #5
  6. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    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>
     
    John Navas, Jun 10, 2009
    #6
  7. Brian

    Brian Guest

    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
     
    Brian, Jun 11, 2009
    #7
  8. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    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, Jun 11, 2009
    #8
  9. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    Nonsense.
     
    John Navas, Jun 11, 2009
    #9
  10. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    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, Jun 11, 2009
    #10
  11. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    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.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 11, 2009
    #11
  12. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    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.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/high-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.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 11, 2009
    #12
  13. 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, Jun 11, 2009
    #13
  14. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John <http:/navasgroup.com>

    "When the superior scholar hears of Tao, he diligently practises it.
    When the average scholar hears of Tao, he sometimes retains it,
    sometimes loses it. When the inferior scholar hears of Tao, he loudly
    laughs at it. Were it not thus ridiculed, it would not be worthy of the
    name of Tao." [Lao-Tzu]
     
    John Navas, Jun 11, 2009
    #14
  15. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR
    lens, which makes up for the difference.
     
    John Navas, Jun 11, 2009
    #15
  16. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    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
    here:
    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*.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 11, 2009
    #16
  17. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    Likewise nonsense.
     
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #17
  18. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    I find that shooting ISO 3200 gives me a lot more chroma noise than
    pushing ISO 1600. Bear in mind that I (obviously) shoot RAW, & I also
    carefully tweak the top & bottom of the tone curve.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 12, 2009
    #18
  19. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8
    primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^)
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 12, 2009
    #19
  20. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    Had you checked the EXIF data of my image, you would have found that
    I was much too far away to use a 50 mm lens. ;)
     
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.