I think a major misconception is that ISO is mostly described as increasing sensitivity to light when in actual fact it is amplifying whatever light is captured by the sensor and is essentially adding gain, and therefore noise.
@@zip5644es and there was still a trade-off with higher sensitivity film - the grain was larger (to have a chemical reaction with less light) and you lost contrast.
Does this mean, you essentially want a very well lit environment (for any kind of shooting, even dark scenes), and in post production you should downplay that ISO from the data for optimal clarity in each frame?
i've been a cinematographer for over a decade including working on 35mm film, and i don't think i have ever heard this explained so clearly before. i would just refer to charts and tables but never wrapped my head around the 'why' until your headphones example. super clear after all these years. nice work.
@@MiaogisTeas you have not worked it for a long time it seems. i cannot tell you how many people i come across everyday who have been doing their jobs by referring charts and sheets without ever knowing how (technicality of it) stuff actually works! and for your info to blow you minds. I am talking about medial field here.
@@sunny666kIndeed. Many people just know what to do in certain situations, not necessarily the why you'd want to do that and the theoretical aspects behind it. If you know that stuff, you're probably the nerd and diy guy/gal. 😅 @MiaogisTeas Think about video, foto and music and how current trends shape the way things look and sound. We usually have a ton of similar looking or sounding stuff coming out, similar aestethics, similar settings, similar vibe, right down to the actual composition, arrangements, riffs etc. so you can deliver by learning how other's do certain things. It's still a ton of work and sometimes it might even be better i.e. more productive to just do it simply like that. Of course some people are very knowledgeable and very creative and their techniques and way of doing things shape overall trends, but for the majority of productions, you just want to get it down, quick and preferrably cheap.
INDEED....the more I watch BTS videos, all I see is that DPs simulating lights. There is only 1 desk lamp in the scene, when you watch the video, you think that is the light source but when you see the BTS shots, there is a huge 5' by 5' diffused light behind it. Your formula is spot on and correct. ADD MORE LIGHT while keeping the integrity of the scene
Yes, the lights we see in the movies are what is called “practical lights” that is part of the set design and belongs in the world of the film. They can be used as the single source to light your subject but more often it’s used to motivate the light that comes from your bigger film lights that are off screen. Usually the practicals are too small to light the scene or to give a soft flattering light so people on bigger sets use big diffusion fabrics with a big light to make it look nicer. Practical lights are also great to use for creating depth and some dimension in a scene by adding them in the background to create pools of light :) Hope that makes sense.
Using audio to explain was actually brilliant! They call it gain staging in audio mixing but it makes sense and I love the fact that now I see ISO like the noise floor in audio but in video and I believe it to be an accurate representation! Very well put! Thank you for sharing this! I have been enlightened or should I say exposed correctly with the right information LOL!
Here's another musician/mix producer who liked a lot Jimmy's comparison 🙋🏻♂️ Also, I like to compare the frequency dynamic range of a microphone to the dynamic range of a sensor when I speak about camera capabilities to my musician friends ;)
Very interesting. Greig Fraser explained something similar on the team deakins podcast. Suggesting lower ISO's for darker scenes, and higher in brighter scenes, then compressing in post. It's a similar technique that Ansel Adams would use. I was very confused when he explained it. This makes sense. thanks1
@@fotografkennethlund compression may be the wrong word. But essentially squeezing the full range of the highlights and shadows closer to the mid range. I'm not doing it justice but he talks about it near the end of the team deakins podcast interview for the batman. I believe around an hour 52
I had about 15 years experience as an audio engineer before getting into videography. I always knew my audio experience would be a HUGE benefit for better understanding cameras and filmmaking. Exposure settings are very similar to audio gain structure...as you have brilliantly described. Color grading is like EQ'ing, etc...there are tremendous parallels between audio engineering and videography. That said, I don't quite think it's as easy the other way around, for a videographer to so quickly grasp audio engineering. In my experience, filmmakers tend to struggle with audio where audio engineers tend to have less of a learning curve getting into filmmaking. The best film in the world will be unwatchable with bad audio, whereas fantastic audio paired with subpar filmmaking can still be enjoyable. So, my biggest tip for any filmmaker is to pay attention to audio. In fact, to learn audio first, if possible. I made a video a while back about the phenomenon. "The best Camera is Your Microphone" ua-cam.com/video/76c8pH2XsnY/v-deo.html
@@kidcoma1340 yeah sure, an up and coming videographer will have the clientel and budget to hire a professional- As a VFX artist, its embarrasing just how little videographers know about Audio and or ANYTHING VFX/CGI related, but the other way around it always works, somehow - I guess its the "jUsT hIrE sOmEbOdY" attitude, instead of understanding the craft at least to some degree, which is involved to create something good. That said, if you're an established Studio with multiple employees that has a good background, sure- hire somebody.
@@Atimo133 It’s embarrassing how many people call themselves „filmmaker“ and think they have mastered the craft, while making mediocre youtube content that looks like trash. (I‘m not addressing or attacking OP specifically, it’s just my general experience). I mean yeah, if you’re satisfied with trash images, sure, then video is easier to get into lol
@@kidcoma1340 Lol, yeah, but the same sort of thing is true in a lot of other fields too, from audio recording to writing computer code/programming. I think what someone once told me about 'artists' has a lot of bearing on all of these kinds of things, painting, sculpting or drawing does not make you an artist, you are an artist only when someone who doesn't know you, refers to you as such, based on what you've produced. Point being it isn't a determination you can make yourself, only someone on the outside can. It is kinda the same as being an auto mechanic or math teacher, where it can be determined purely by "do people pay you to do it?" in a sense. I have no issue calling myself a software developer, I'm paid based on a contract clearly stating that as my role and task for many years now, thousands upon thousands of people use things I have made, and have done so for years, many of them to earn a living. 'Filmmaker'? No, I've made short films, my stuff has been shown to a wider audience, but I don't make money on it. It's a hobby.
@@noth606 Yeah that's a healthy attitude for real growth. I earn a good living as a full time freelance videographer mainly for online content, I have DP'd dozens of music videos and two short films with decent lighting budget... (not the usual run&gun crap) and even I am hesistant to call myself a filmmaker.
Good subject and explanations - A lot of people have this concept all mixed up. I usually explain that exposure is controlled by everything in front of the sensor. - i.e. aputure, shutter, lens speed, and lighting etc. The only part left out of your really good video was ND filters or diffusion - When in bright sunshine sometimes to protect highlights - raising the ISO requires to reduce the overall exposure to make it possible - so you can raise the ISO from 400 to 800 and then add a one stop ND filter to return to the visual exposure and return the detail in highlights because the cameras middle grey is putting more stops above middle grey without clipping the highlights.
Something people also forget is that things like NDs will compress highlights because of the nature of the glass, which gets you better highlight detail, in a backwards sense, better dynamic range.
The explanation with the lightbulbs was the single most useful explanation I think I have ever seen concerning noise and ISO relationships. The figurative lightbulb just turned on in my head when you showed that! Subbed!
Yeah, I agree. Film and digital are different but also related in a way and I think that understanding the similarities and differences gives a strong foundation to build upon
What a beautiful explanation! I figured this out very recently and I wished I had seen your video sooner. You give a very informative explanation of how and why ISO functions the way it does as well as how to adjust your set and camera for both low and high light exposures. Good stuff
With all those information you've given, you definitely deserve to be on UA-cam's recommended list for all other amateurs out there still confusing or misunderstanding about this, brother.
this was a good video, I remember when filmmaker IQ made a video about BMPCC's duel native iso he blew my mind explaining the science of how if you want to retain highlight detail use a higher ISO, and if you want to preserve shadow detail, do a lower iso bc it shifts the dynamic range window to what is middle and what it can perceive in the highs and lows. total opposite of what we would normally think to do
Literally the best explanation I've ever head of the subject. And I have to say I watched a lot of videos regarding this, while trying to understand how to expose with a RED Komodo for the first time. Congrats! Wil be sharing your video a lot!
Wow very well put, something clicked for me with this! I've been struggling with noise in some of my POV/overhead shots (using a GoPro) and I couldn't work out why. I'm going to give some of these tips a go for sure. It looks like this video is taking off for you, I wish you a lot of success.
This is eyeopening, and after it's explained it seems so obvious. Thanks for using the audio analogy, as I have an audio background and it made it click easily.
I've been saying this for so long. I try to shoot at 200/400 ISO as much as I can, but I always temporarily bump the ISO up to the native 800 to check that I'm not clipping or loosing any highlights, and then turn it back down until the image has the desired look. Keeps the image as clean as possible.
I can't believe it!!! 14 years working in this field, & I never came across this! It's the "Exposure Triangle" you hear about all the time! But now this makes it the "Exposure Line + an amplifying value!) Man!! Thanks a lot for the great explanation with the best example that made it so simple to understand!
Wow. Ngl, when you started saying "ISO doesn't change exposure, only our perception of exposure" my eyes started rolling🙄, but then it turned into the best explanation of what ISO is ever! I've never known what it actually is until now🤯
OMG!!! I have been a professional photographer since 2009 (14 years as a pro photographer/ cinematographer) & It's the first time ever I learn this. I mean I never came across this information during all those years! & BTW, those 14 years weren't just shooting, NO! They were full of learning from books (at the beginning), then from UA-cam videos, and attending courses given by famous well know international photographers (In person/ & online). With all that learning, I never knew this! So Thanks Jimmy for sharing such amazing video & explaining the concept by giving us an example (It really made it way simple to understand)! All the best!🙏
Great video, and a very apt analogy. You're right, I always looked at ISO as a way to add more light to the scene, so this video was for me! Thank you!
coming from audio, when I had a photographer explain to me the function of ISO, I immediately related it back to gain, noise floor, headroom and digital clipping, ot makes perfect sense if you know how digital audio works. Great video.
Really good overall explanation of not just how ISO works but determining what ISO to choose depending on the scene. I also tend to use higher ISOs on bright exteriors if most of my image lives in the highlights and midtones. The details in those areas have more "bandwidth" and not squashed. Subbed!
That comment really (!) deserves an in-depth (!) video ! Not that I'm skeptical, on the contrary. However comes up to my mind that 'enough' intensity of light should allow for a 'correct' exposure, meaning : exploiting at its best the dynamic range of the sensor...So under-expose would render the black dog in the shade indintishable from the shadow and the hole-entry of the dog's hutt. Now you say that then the newspaper's texture (not its text ;-) will be more nuanced, the file yeald more potential to "print" such as to make that highly reflective newspaper in the strong sunlight look "good", -better than (because exposed further left, protecting it from over-exposure) - better than trusting nowadays cameras able to encompass 10 or 15 stops ? Or perhaps because of indeed 10 to 15 available stops gives us latitude to not sacrifise nigther (nor shadow nor highlight details) wile still having to choose between to-the-left.- vs to-the-right -.exposure? I guess(!) that every camera will not even mesure anymore the way we mathematically would go about it, but extrapolate from 'experience" the camera got from fed in image-scenarios. Add to that "artificial intelligence" exposure.. Otherwise we should perhaps ask for a jet still further customisable auto-iso... ( ..=brainstorm! )
@@AR-vf7vg Hello! I forgot to mention that my comment is coming from a blackmagic design background. The 1000 ISO setting has around 7 stops of highlight information compared to the lowest ISO (ISO 100) with only 3.9 stops of highlight information.
Oh. I am in the stillpictures domain, in Raw. Didn't know that it was (already) commonplace to attribute f-stop latitudes to specific different segments of a full scale. (How many parts ? 3? 5?) Well now Your practis makes obvious sens, especially for preparing camera to unexpected oportunities. But I guess this does not apply for when filming in S-log (I'm never filming) - or perhaps applied intuitively. You just dial-in say -1.5 (at auto-iso) or set fixed asa always somewhat higher ? Anyway, thanks.
Your analogy using music was very helpful. Made a lot of sense to me when you explained it that way. So instead of an exposure triangle, it's more like 2 parts exposure/ 1 part amplifier.
While this is a generally helpful video, it really applies mostly to RAW recording and linear gamma. If you are using an in camera codec, or using any in camera sharpening or noise reduction, or you are using a hyper gamma like SLOG or VLOG, then this no longer applies quite so clearly. The top 5 or so stops of most hyper gammas are more compressed than the bottom stops, so exposing too far to the right can thin out your images when you pull them back down. When I am not shooting RAW, I tend to use a more traditional film workflow (I’m also a film cinematographer as well as a videographer) 1/3rd to 1 stop overexposure, corrected in the camera monitoring LUT for client who are watching, etc. I try to not expose TOO far to the right and risk having details lost in the hyper gamma top range.
I have an 8-bit dslr that records mov video files. (I know, very limited) Do you advise to always expose "correctly" in camera, instead of "left or right"?
That's true. When I expose to the right I get that “thin" image problem. I have a really hard time on post prod trying to get something decent. I use a C70
@@Makta972I am using C70 recently what has been your go to iso setting for low light and bright day light ? As I have been using iso 800 for day light no matter how bright the sun is And maybe 400 iso in low , Or do you think we should stay at 800.
@@nep5876 Honestly I only use Raw ST now. I find that the 10bit is much harder for me to get a great image. In Raw St the base iso is 8000 this is what I use in good light. The “secret" is fon't overexpose your footage. Use your waveform and make sure your Mid tones are not too high. Raw ST noise pattern is much better and less blotchy than the xfavc 10bit imo. It's easier to deal with in post. The image is beautiful in Raw ST especially in 24fps
@@djentloverthe best way to find out is to do your own tests. For instance the Sony f55 shoots slog, but there's more dynamic range in the highlights than the shadows with the gamut curve, therefore shooting 1 or 2 stops over exposed gets a greater image. As well as 110 Luma highlight retention so highlights are usually recoverable It's different fir every camera so you have to test yourself with yours to get what you want out of your sensor
Man you just drop a bomb on my head!! Well done I just shared this with my French community (I hope you don’t mind) how come no one ever explain this before with so simple a basic approach!? Well done and thank you 🙏🏻 😊
Hello, tu as compris pourquoi il faut augmenter les iso en plein jour ? Je comprend pas pourquoi ça revient pas au même pour les lumières hautes de shooter à 400 ou 800 en extérieur si après on corrige l'exposition, si les iso corrigent juste l'image et pas son exposition.
Wow really great video. I’m just past my first year studying film in college and was a bit unsure about ISO and how to use it effectively but this video was great for understanding it! Thank you🤝
I think this is easier to understand if you've worked with film. Having more light information is always better since you can always change how much you expose the photographic paper.
What a great explanation ! I've been a full time photographer for 15 years and recently started digging into video and the noise-problem has been "new" to me as I find it MUCH easier to expose super low-noise photos than videos (with the same equipment, which in my case is Sony A1 and Sony A7 IV). As I've also been a sound engineer for equally as long, your sound-recording analogy was quite the "aha"-moment for me, as I got the point right away. It's a brilliant way of explaining it. As I only use the Sony GM lenses, I can bring it a lot of light (like using the 50mm f1.2 lens) so I've been quite puzzled as to why I was still getting so much noise. After watching your video (actually 3 times to fully get it) I realized, that my "problem" is that I've been running 50p, ie. shutter 1/100th and auto ISO and haven't been aware of this maybe getting me better highlights information but also more noise (which is where your low-volume-headphones + high-gain-input audio was just the explanation I needed) because as a photographer, I've always seen higher shutter speeds as the best (mainly doing natural light portraits and events) and often in well lit environments. The main surprise to me, is around 8:50 in your video because using a lower ISO at darker scenes and HIGHER ISO at brighter scenes just .... it's turned things so much on the head to me, that I had to watch your explanation several times before realising the point. I've always done the exact opposite (which, I guess, is the whole point of your video). Thank you SO much - it's an instant like and subscribe in my case 🤘 Unfortunately, you just cost me a lot of money, as I realize I need the FX3 and Cine EI hahah
Hi, I greatly appreciate your comment, I worked with audio as a teenager and I'm glad the analogy helped you understand the concept :) No need to buy an FX3 tho hahaha. You have 2 ways to go about it. You can use your Sony A1 (which is a great camera) and just use a lower ISO setting: for example 400 instead of 800. If you do this you'll lose a small amount of dynamic range. (on sony a7s3 ISO 800=14.6 stops of dynamic range, ISO 400=14.0 stops, ISO 200: 13.2) CineEI allows you to avoid this loss of dynamic range by recording always at ISO 800 (so you have the full dynamic range) but it shows you a preview of the image on the monitor as if you were recording at a lower ISO (or higher if you go above 800). You will have to lower the brightness of image in post because the camera actually recorded at iso 800. You can achieve the same effect of CineEI by creating a LUT to load on the camera or on an external monitor that lowers the exposure of how many stops you want (1 stop for iso 400 and 2 stops for iso 200). So you are always recording at iso 800 but you're seeing the image on the monitor as if it was ISO 400 or 200. Then you'll bring the image down in post and it's the exact same as using CineEI. So no need to buy an FX3 hahah.😜 Hope this helps. Have a great day and thanks for your kind comment :)
@@jimmyonfilmthanks a lot for the video! My brain is a bit shocked :) Do you recommend to shoot in Cine AI mode at daytime and night or it’s better to use custom ISO?
@@alexandrpak4051thanks man!!! Yeah! I always use cineEI, I normally use 500 EI for moody scenes and 800 or bit more outdoor/bright sunny day. But since CineEI is just a preview the file will actually be recorded at iso800 so in post you have to adjust accordingly
While ISO doesn't affect sensor exposure, it does affect the effective codec resolution, especially in the shadows. The 10-bit pixel depth of modern sensors is fully effective only in the highlight region. In the shadows, there will typically be only about 4-bit pixel depth, which severely limits dark color discrimination. Boosting the ISO will lift the shadows into a midrange region where the encoder has more bit-depth to work with, improving color resolution (assuming the highlights don't get clipped in the process). This applies to H.264 and H.265 encoders, not to RAW encoders, for which ISO does not apply since they record digital sensor output data directly.
I was wondering about I think the same thing in respect to what picture profile he might be using because I'm using an 8-bit a6600 and I'm afraid if I bump up the iso so I can bring it down and post it's going to ruin the image because it's my understanding the cameras codec is burning the image in camera, am I kind of understanding this right at least?
@@VeganLinked use PP7 and bump your ISO up until clipping, then bring your exposure down in post. Internal noise reduction in 6600 and better color resolution will help you. Also you should try to blur your color chanels a bit to clean compression artifacts
Man! This is the clearest explanation I've ever seen about this topic. It is crazy how simple it is, but how confusional and distorted it is presented 99% of the time.
It’s really quite simple. Choose your wanted look. IE: your depth of field with your Fstop, you focal length, set to base ISO and then build your lighting plots around those settings. It’s all in the light intensity. You don’t want to stray from base ISO as you’ll loose dynamic range and color interpretation. Just raise your brightness to get proper exposure.
You could actually push this further. Let’s say you’re exposing a really dark shot. You could set your iso lower than base if this gives you more stops in low levels. Giving you the cleanest levels. But you’ll need to light way more.
@@zaptutos288 when shooting in a low light environment without the possibility to light you will need to up your ISO. I think the A7r4 has a dual native iso right? I would go with the 2nd iso base setting!
Excellent explanation of ISO and why ETTR is so popular. I might do a response video to build on what you have here, including highlight clipping/protection, lenses, and other considerations.
Great explanation. In my experience, adding more light is not always an option though, especially in doc/news shooting. Even filming indoors during the daytime in decent but low-ish light, I've resigned myself to filming on my FX3's high base ISO of 12,800 and using a variable ND to dial it back down (if needed) to being slightly over-exposed. Using the 800 ISO base is not enough with my f4 lens and a shutter speed locked at 1/48, and unless I can open windows, turn on lights, etc. I'll be left with underexposed footage that gets noisy when I brighten it in post. The 12,800 is noisy too, but less so, and usually since it's hopefully over-exposed, it gets less noisy when I reduce the exposure in post. Anyway, nice explainer, thanks for posting it!
Great topic and very well put. I've spent years with ISO locked to 100 as much as possible based on the rule higher ISO = more noise. Actually makes more sense to have it on a more medium setting by default.
Look up your camera sensors "native iso" as that's the optimal iso it's designed to capture the most dynamic range at. Then keep it stuck there, and expose to it. This is usually where ND filters come in etc.
You have given the absolute BEST ISO explantion as it pertains to digital cameras I have ever seen or read. The signal amp analogy is spot on. ISO with film speed and grain made sense years ago. I understood it completely. How digital cameras use ISO was always confusing to me and baffling in terms of setting for film and photos. ISO Grain is NOT the same as film grain either. ISO 400 Digital on full frame mirrorless is not ISO 400 film. Very good explanation! Hope your YT subs blow up
If camera manufacturers would incorporate gain instead of ISO in their digital cameras as they do in camcorders, a lot of this would be easier to understand for many people.
davinci resolve has a "highlight recovery" option, after watching this video i think it is also tied to the low iso highlight clipping, but it probably only works with braw or other raw type files, the first time i tried it it was like magic, but now i understand it more thanks to this video.
On the flipside: I notice that shooting wide open at a high ISO in bright daylight, with ND's keeping the exposure under control... makes the highlights roll off so gently and produces noise that reads (to my 20th century eye) as film grain. It's a painterly, analog look that I don't dare touch in post.
Yes. There’s a reason ARRI produces a sliding scale dynamic range chart for the Alexa as reference. Shooting 1280 is the sweet spot for highlight dynamic range.
Working as an engineer and now a Videoographer… the headphone to gain structure really flicked the light on for me about ISO that I never took into consideration! Thank you for this!
Especially considering in-camera encoding and compression, as well as optical and sensor effects from varying light levels, the more I learn about ISO the more complex it appears to be.
Well explained. always the way to go. I think the only think you didn't expand on is that each camera has its own native ISO which produces the least amount of noise possible. hence the term "native" the degradation goes both ways, increasing and decreasing the ISO.
All very very clear, bravo! One thing though, there's a third element (in some cases) that's light that can be increased or decreased. So the parameters are 3 actually. ISO is just a 'speedometer' and increases the sensitivity to light by the sensor.
![What is ISO - Camera ISO and the Exposure Triangle Explained [Ep 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cy9wPDKd-dU/mqdefault.jpg)
![What is ISO — Camera ISO and the Exposure Triangle Explained [Ep 2]](/img/tr.png)
I think a major misconception is that ISO is mostly described as increasing sensitivity to light when in actual fact it is amplifying whatever light is captured by the sensor and is essentially adding gain, and therefore noise.
yeah the increasing sensitivity is only applicable shooting film.
@@zip5644es and there was still a trade-off with higher sensitivity film - the grain was larger (to have a chemical reaction with less light) and you lost contrast.
I call it fake light.
Does this mean, you essentially want a very well lit environment (for any kind of shooting, even dark scenes), and in post production you should downplay that ISO from the data for optimal clarity in each frame?
@@BloodSoldierRBYes
i've been a cinematographer for over a decade including working on 35mm film, and i don't think i have ever heard this explained so clearly before. i would just refer to charts and tables but never wrapped my head around the 'why' until your headphones example. super clear after all these years. nice work.
This is terrible. I'm embarrassed for you. I hope you don't admit this in public.. 😅
@@MiaogisTeas you have not worked it for a long time it seems. i cannot tell you how many people i come across everyday who have been doing their jobs by referring charts and sheets without ever knowing how (technicality of it) stuff actually works! and for your info to blow you minds. I am talking about medial field here.
@@sunny666kIndeed. Many people just know what to do in certain situations, not necessarily the why you'd want to do that and the theoretical aspects behind it. If you know that stuff, you're probably the nerd and diy guy/gal. 😅
@MiaogisTeas Think about video, foto and music and how current trends shape the way things look and sound. We usually have a ton of similar looking or sounding stuff coming out, similar aestethics, similar settings, similar vibe, right down to the actual composition, arrangements, riffs etc. so you can deliver by learning how other's do certain things. It's still a ton of work and sometimes it might even be better i.e. more productive to just do it simply like that.
Of course some people are very knowledgeable and very creative and their techniques and way of doing things shape overall trends, but for the majority of productions, you just want to get it down, quick and preferrably cheap.
I'd love to see a channel by you on what you've learned in your time. Keep it up!
@@MiaogisTeasI hate to break this to you but, even professionals learn new things 😮
INDEED....the more I watch BTS videos, all I see is that DPs simulating lights. There is only 1 desk lamp in the scene, when you watch the video, you think that is the light source but when you see the BTS shots, there is a huge 5' by 5' diffused light behind it. Your formula is spot on and correct. ADD MORE LIGHT while keeping the integrity of the scene
And stopping down to keep things from being overly bright.
Or add an ND filter to be able to keep a wider aperture.
@@kevinbillington9773 That's a great idea!
Jesus, you're all a bunch of amateurs acting like you discovered fire 🤣
Yes, the lights we see in the movies are what is called “practical lights” that is part of the set design and belongs in the world of the film. They can be used as the single source to light your subject but more often it’s used to motivate the light that comes from your bigger film lights that are off screen. Usually the practicals are too small to light the scene or to give a soft flattering light so people on bigger sets use big diffusion fabrics with a big light to make it look nicer. Practical lights are also great to use for creating depth and some dimension in a scene by adding them in the background to create pools of light :)
Hope that makes sense.
Using audio to explain was actually brilliant! They call it gain staging in audio mixing but it makes sense and I love the fact that now I see ISO like the noise floor in audio but in video and I believe it to be an accurate representation! Very well put! Thank you for sharing this! I have been enlightened or should I say exposed correctly with the right information LOL!
A fellow music maker.
Also, on most ENG cameras ISO options are not available but Gain is for there for exposure.
Here's another musician/mix producer who liked a lot Jimmy's comparison 🙋🏻♂️ Also, I like to compare the frequency dynamic range of a microphone to the dynamic range of a sensor when I speak about camera capabilities to my musician friends ;)
Very interesting. Greig Fraser explained something similar on the team deakins podcast. Suggesting lower ISO's for darker scenes, and higher in brighter scenes, then compressing in post. It's a similar technique that Ansel Adams would use. I was very confused when he explained it. This makes sense. thanks1
Can I ask what you mean by "compressing it in post" ? :)
@@fotografkennethlund compression may be the wrong word. But essentially squeezing the full range of the highlights and shadows closer to the mid range. I'm not doing it justice but he talks about it near the end of the team deakins podcast interview for the batman. I believe around an hour 52
@@ScottJeschke Thanks ! :)
They use film emulations to simulate the analog process with some « analog range limiter » option.
I had about 15 years experience as an audio engineer before getting into videography. I always knew my audio experience would be a HUGE benefit for better understanding cameras and filmmaking. Exposure settings are very similar to audio gain structure...as you have brilliantly described. Color grading is like EQ'ing, etc...there are tremendous parallels between audio engineering and videography.
That said, I don't quite think it's as easy the other way around, for a videographer to so quickly grasp audio engineering. In my experience, filmmakers tend to struggle with audio where audio engineers tend to have less of a learning curve getting into filmmaking.
The best film in the world will be unwatchable with bad audio, whereas fantastic audio paired with subpar filmmaking can still be enjoyable.
So, my biggest tip for any filmmaker is to pay attention to audio. In fact, to learn audio first, if possible.
I made a video a while back about the phenomenon. "The best Camera is Your Microphone" ua-cam.com/video/76c8pH2XsnY/v-deo.html
Just hire a soundguy, no need to do everything yourself, especially if you want to call yourself a „filmmaker“ (aka youtuber lol)
@@kidcoma1340 yeah sure, an up and coming videographer will have the clientel and budget to hire a professional-
As a VFX artist, its embarrasing just how little videographers know about Audio and or ANYTHING VFX/CGI related, but the other way around it always works, somehow -
I guess its the "jUsT hIrE sOmEbOdY" attitude, instead of understanding the craft at least to some degree, which is involved to create something good.
That said, if you're an established Studio with multiple employees that has a good background, sure- hire somebody.
@@Atimo133 It’s embarrassing how many people call themselves „filmmaker“ and think they have mastered the craft, while making mediocre youtube content that looks like trash. (I‘m not addressing or attacking OP specifically, it’s just my general experience). I mean yeah, if you’re satisfied with trash images, sure, then video is easier to get into lol
@@kidcoma1340 Lol, yeah, but the same sort of thing is true in a lot of other fields too, from audio recording to writing computer code/programming. I think what someone once told me about 'artists' has a lot of bearing on all of these kinds of things, painting, sculpting or drawing does not make you an artist, you are an artist only when someone who doesn't know you, refers to you as such, based on what you've produced. Point being it isn't a determination you can make yourself, only someone on the outside can. It is kinda the same as being an auto mechanic or math teacher, where it can be determined purely by "do people pay you to do it?" in a sense. I have no issue calling myself a software developer, I'm paid based on a contract clearly stating that as my role and task for many years now, thousands upon thousands of people use things I have made, and have done so for years, many of them to earn a living. 'Filmmaker'? No, I've made short films, my stuff has been shown to a wider audience, but I don't make money on it. It's a hobby.
@@noth606 Yeah that's a healthy attitude for real growth. I earn a good living as a full time freelance videographer mainly for online content, I have DP'd dozens of music videos and two short films with decent lighting budget... (not the usual run&gun crap) and even I am hesistant to call myself a filmmaker.
Good subject and explanations - A lot of people have this concept all mixed up. I usually explain that exposure is controlled by everything in front of the sensor. - i.e. aputure, shutter, lens speed, and lighting etc. The only part left out of your really good video was ND filters or diffusion - When in bright sunshine sometimes to protect highlights - raising the ISO requires to reduce the overall exposure to make it possible - so you can raise the ISO from 400 to 800 and then add a one stop ND filter to return to the visual exposure and return the detail in highlights because the cameras middle grey is putting more stops above middle grey without clipping the highlights.
Sheesh. That was a lesson within itself. Thanks!
@@AnthonyHadleyJryoure welcome baby
Thanks for this addition, I am forever learning. :)
😮
Something people also forget is that things like NDs will compress highlights because of the nature of the glass, which gets you better highlight detail, in a backwards sense, better dynamic range.
The explanation with the lightbulbs was the single most useful explanation I think I have ever seen concerning noise and ISO relationships. The figurative lightbulb just turned on in my head when you showed that! Subbed!
There's so many different ways to put it and i love that it can be shared across mediums.
Yeah, I agree. Film and digital are different but also related in a way and I think that understanding the similarities and differences gives a strong foundation to build upon
@@jimmyonfilmHow can I contact you?
As a 20 year audio engineer but brand new to this, your analogy was PERFECT for me! Thanks!
I've seen many videos explaining this concepts and you surely did one of the best jobs at it that I remember.
Thanks, I appreciate it!!
Explaining ISO as an amplifier is such a clear way to break it down! Great stuff!!
What a beautiful explanation! I figured this out very recently and I wished I had seen your video sooner. You give a very informative explanation of how and why ISO functions the way it does as well as how to adjust your set and camera for both low and high light exposures. Good stuff
Your tutorials are spot on. Technically masterful and so well presented. I thoroughly enjoy watching your channel! With love from Atlanta.
This was a really good watch. The music analogy helped me understand ISO in such an easy way! Great video man, keep them coming!
With all those information you've given, you definitely deserve to be on UA-cam's recommended list for all other amateurs out there still confusing or misunderstanding about this, brother.
this was a good video, I remember when filmmaker IQ made a video about BMPCC's duel native iso he blew my mind explaining the science of how if you want to retain highlight detail use a higher ISO, and if you want to preserve shadow detail, do a lower iso bc it shifts the dynamic range window to what is middle and what it can perceive in the highs and lows. total opposite of what we would normally think to do
Its amazing how you managed to explain the Iso through a mic and heaphone example, that was incredible!!
Literally the best explanation I've ever head of the subject. And I have to say I watched a lot of videos regarding this, while trying to understand how to expose with a RED Komodo for the first time. Congrats! Wil be sharing your video a lot!
Wow very well put, something clicked for me with this! I've been struggling with noise in some of my POV/overhead shots (using a GoPro) and I couldn't work out why. I'm going to give some of these tips a go for sure. It looks like this video is taking off for you, I wish you a lot of success.
This is eyeopening, and after it's explained it seems so obvious. Thanks for using the audio analogy, as I have an audio background and it made it click easily.
bro this is so good man. you break it down very well, I appreciate your videos!
I've been saying this for so long. I try to shoot at 200/400 ISO as much as I can, but I always temporarily bump the ISO up to the native 800 to check that I'm not clipping or loosing any highlights, and then turn it back down until the image has the desired look. Keeps the image as clean as possible.
This channel is like free film school. Thanks a million, bro! I’m learning SO MUCH!
I can't believe it!!! 14 years working in this field, & I never came across this! It's the "Exposure Triangle" you hear about all the time! But now this makes it the "Exposure Line + an amplifying value!) Man!! Thanks a lot for the great explanation with the best example that made it so simple to understand!
I appreciate this video. Lots of good insights. Your example at 5:15 reminds of how people use CINE EI to get cleaner shadows in post
Wow. Ngl, when you started saying "ISO doesn't change exposure, only our perception of exposure" my eyes started rolling🙄, but then it turned into the best explanation of what ISO is ever! I've never known what it actually is until now🤯
OMG, this is why you can change the ISO afterwards when you shoot in RAW🤯🤯🤯
OMG!!! I have been a professional photographer since 2009 (14 years as a pro photographer/ cinematographer) & It's the first time ever I learn this. I mean I never came across this information during all those years! & BTW, those 14 years weren't just shooting, NO! They were full of learning from books (at the beginning), then from UA-cam videos, and attending courses given by famous well know international photographers (In person/ & online). With all that learning, I never knew this! So Thanks Jimmy for sharing such amazing video & explaining the concept by giving us an example (It really made it way simple to understand)! All the best!🙏
Great video, and a very apt analogy. You're right, I always looked at ISO as a way to add more light to the scene, so this video was for me! Thank you!
coming from audio, when I had a photographer explain to me the function of ISO, I immediately related it back to gain, noise floor, headroom and digital clipping, ot makes perfect sense if you know how digital audio works. Great video.
Really good overall explanation of not just how ISO works but determining what ISO to choose depending on the scene. I also tend to use higher ISOs on bright exteriors if most of my image lives in the highlights and midtones. The details in those areas have more "bandwidth" and not squashed. Subbed!
That comment really (!) deserves an in-depth (!) video !
Not that I'm skeptical, on the contrary. However comes up to my mind that 'enough' intensity of light should allow for a 'correct' exposure, meaning : exploiting at its best the dynamic range of the sensor...So under-expose would render the black dog in the shade indintishable from the shadow and the hole-entry of the dog's hutt. Now you say that then the newspaper's texture (not its text ;-) will be more nuanced, the file yeald more potential to "print" such as to make that highly reflective newspaper in the strong sunlight look "good", -better than (because exposed further left, protecting it from over-exposure) - better than trusting nowadays cameras able to encompass 10 or 15 stops ?
Or perhaps because of indeed 10 to 15 available stops gives us latitude to not sacrifise nigther (nor shadow nor highlight details) wile still having to choose between to-the-left.- vs to-the-right -.exposure?
I guess(!) that every camera will not even mesure anymore the way we mathematically would go about it, but extrapolate from 'experience" the camera got from fed in image-scenarios. Add to that "artificial intelligence" exposure..
Otherwise we should perhaps ask for a jet still further customisable auto-iso...
( ..=brainstorm! )
@@AR-vf7vg Hello! I forgot to mention that my comment is coming from a blackmagic design background. The 1000 ISO setting has around 7 stops of highlight information compared to the lowest ISO (ISO 100) with only 3.9 stops of highlight information.
Oh. I am in the stillpictures domain, in Raw.
Didn't know that it was (already) commonplace to attribute f-stop latitudes to specific different segments of a full scale. (How many parts ? 3? 5?)
Well now Your practis makes obvious sens, especially for preparing camera to unexpected oportunities. But I guess this does not apply for when filming in S-log (I'm never filming) - or perhaps applied intuitively.
You just dial-in say -1.5 (at auto-iso) or set fixed asa always somewhat higher ?
Anyway, thanks.
Your analogy using music was very helpful. Made a lot of sense to me when you explained it that way. So instead of an exposure triangle, it's more like 2 parts exposure/ 1 part amplifier.
Thanks a lot for clearing that up ! Just realized I've been misusing ISO for years !
Beautiful explanation especially that audio example. Learned the functioning of ISO in non-typical way.
While this is a generally helpful video, it really applies mostly to RAW recording and linear gamma. If you are using an in camera codec, or using any in camera sharpening or noise reduction, or you are using a hyper gamma like SLOG or VLOG, then this no longer applies quite so clearly. The top 5 or so stops of most hyper gammas are more compressed than the bottom stops, so exposing too far to the right can thin out your images when you pull them back down.
When I am not shooting RAW, I tend to use a more traditional film workflow (I’m also a film cinematographer as well as a videographer) 1/3rd to 1 stop overexposure, corrected in the camera monitoring LUT for client who are watching, etc.
I try to not expose TOO far to the right and risk having details lost in the hyper gamma top range.
I have an 8-bit dslr that records mov video files. (I know, very limited) Do you advise to always expose "correctly" in camera, instead of "left or right"?
That's true. When I expose to the right I get that “thin" image problem. I have a really hard time on post prod trying to get something decent. I use a C70
@@Makta972I am using C70 recently what has been your go to iso setting for low light and bright day light ?
As I have been using iso 800 for day light no matter how bright the sun is
And maybe 400 iso in low , Or do you think we should stay at 800.
@@nep5876 Honestly I only use Raw ST now. I find that the 10bit is much harder for me to get a great image. In Raw St the base iso is 8000 this is what I use in good light. The “secret" is fon't overexpose your footage. Use your waveform and make sure your Mid tones are not too high. Raw ST noise pattern is much better and less blotchy than the xfavc 10bit imo. It's easier to deal with in post. The image is beautiful in Raw ST especially in 24fps
@@djentloverthe best way to find out is to do your own tests. For instance the Sony f55 shoots slog, but there's more dynamic range in the highlights than the shadows with the gamut curve, therefore shooting 1 or 2 stops over exposed gets a greater image. As well as 110 Luma highlight retention so highlights are usually recoverable
It's different fir every camera so you have to test yourself with yours to get what you want out of your sensor
Man you just drop a bomb on my head!! Well done I just shared this with my French community (I hope you don’t mind) how come no one ever explain this before with so simple a basic approach!? Well done and thank you 🙏🏻 😊
Hello, tu as compris pourquoi il faut augmenter les iso en plein jour ? Je comprend pas pourquoi ça revient pas au même pour les lumières hautes de shooter à 400 ou 800 en extérieur si après on corrige l'exposition, si les iso corrigent juste l'image et pas son exposition.
incredible video. I really appreciate your explanation of ISO. It clearly goes far beyond just generally brightening your image.
Wow really great video. I’m just past my first year studying film in college and was a bit unsure about ISO and how to use it effectively but this video was great for understanding it! Thank you🤝
I think this is easier to understand if you've worked with film. Having more light information is always better since you can always change how much you expose the photographic paper.
This was THE best video I’ve ever watched in the subject. Finally makes freaking sense! Thanks you! Subscribed!!
This was an extremely clear and very well informed video! Thanks a lot, it helped me and I am sure it will help many filmmakers expose more properly!
The audio analogy is pure gold!
9:19 Lol the MC light dying in the background 😂 Great informational video, helped me so much!
This actually helped me understand this so much more than I already did. Thank you!
As an audio person, I think your analogy to mic and headphone levels was... brilliant!
The best example I've ever seen, congrats!!🎉
I really appreciated the info on this video. Thank you for sharing and helping.
What a great explanation ! I've been a full time photographer for 15 years and recently started digging into video and the noise-problem has been "new" to me as I find it MUCH easier to expose super low-noise photos than videos (with the same equipment, which in my case is Sony A1 and Sony A7 IV). As I've also been a sound engineer for equally as long, your sound-recording analogy was quite the "aha"-moment for me, as I got the point right away. It's a brilliant way of explaining it. As I only use the Sony GM lenses, I can bring it a lot of light (like using the 50mm f1.2 lens) so I've been quite puzzled as to why I was still getting so much noise. After watching your video (actually 3 times to fully get it) I realized, that my "problem" is that I've been running 50p, ie. shutter 1/100th and auto ISO and haven't been aware of this maybe getting me better highlights information but also more noise (which is where your low-volume-headphones + high-gain-input audio was just the explanation I needed) because as a photographer, I've always seen higher shutter speeds as the best (mainly doing natural light portraits and events) and often in well lit environments. The main surprise to me, is around 8:50 in your video because using a lower ISO at darker scenes and HIGHER ISO at brighter scenes just .... it's turned things so much on the head to me, that I had to watch your explanation several times before realising the point. I've always done the exact opposite (which, I guess, is the whole point of your video). Thank you SO much - it's an instant like and subscribe in my case 🤘 Unfortunately, you just cost me a lot of money, as I realize I need the FX3 and Cine EI hahah
I still don't get it 😅
Hi, I greatly appreciate your comment, I worked with audio as a teenager and I'm glad the analogy helped you understand the concept :) No need to buy an FX3 tho hahaha. You have 2 ways to go about it. You can use your Sony A1 (which is a great camera) and just use a lower ISO setting: for example 400 instead of 800. If you do this you'll lose a small amount of dynamic range. (on sony a7s3 ISO 800=14.6 stops of dynamic range, ISO 400=14.0 stops, ISO 200: 13.2) CineEI allows you to avoid this loss of dynamic range by recording always at ISO 800 (so you have the full dynamic range) but it shows you a preview of the image on the monitor as if you were recording at a lower ISO (or higher if you go above 800). You will have to lower the brightness of image in post because the camera actually recorded at iso 800. You can achieve the same effect of CineEI by creating a LUT to load on the camera or on an external monitor that lowers the exposure of how many stops you want (1 stop for iso 400 and 2 stops for iso 200). So you are always recording at iso 800 but you're seeing the image on the monitor as if it was ISO 400 or 200. Then you'll bring the image down in post and it's the exact same as using CineEI. So no need to buy an FX3 hahah.😜 Hope this helps. Have a great day and thanks for your kind comment :)
@@jimmyonfilm Thanks ! So two ways........... use my A1 ........ and the second way? :)
@@jimmyonfilmthanks a lot for the video! My brain is a bit shocked :)
Do you recommend to shoot in Cine AI mode at daytime and night or it’s better to use custom ISO?
@@alexandrpak4051thanks man!!! Yeah! I always use cineEI, I normally use 500 EI for moody scenes and 800 or bit more outdoor/bright sunny day. But since CineEI is just a preview the file will actually be recorded at iso800 so in post you have to adjust accordingly
As an audio engineer, that comparison made it really easy to understand. Thanks!
Great explanation and the examples really helped - nice work!
While ISO doesn't affect sensor exposure, it does affect the effective codec resolution, especially in the shadows. The 10-bit pixel depth of modern sensors is fully effective only in the highlight region. In the shadows, there will typically be only about 4-bit pixel depth, which severely limits dark color discrimination. Boosting the ISO will lift the shadows into a midrange region where the encoder has more bit-depth to work with, improving color resolution (assuming the highlights don't get clipped in the process). This applies to H.264 and H.265 encoders, not to RAW encoders, for which ISO does not apply since they record digital sensor output data directly.
What a great point, I never considered that!
I was wondering about I think the same thing in respect to what picture profile he might be using because I'm using an 8-bit a6600 and I'm afraid if I bump up the iso so I can bring it down and post it's going to ruin the image because it's my understanding the cameras codec is burning the image in camera, am I kind of understanding this right at least?
@@VeganLinked use PP7 and bump your ISO up until clipping, then bring your exposure down in post. Internal noise reduction in 6600 and better color resolution will help you. Also you should try to blur your color chanels a bit to clean compression artifacts
Man! This is the clearest explanation I've ever seen about this topic. It is crazy how simple it is, but how confusional and distorted it is presented 99% of the time.
Thanks I truly appreciate it! Random question: are you from Milan? If so…bella! Pure io! Sono amico di Riccardo D’Amico, penso lo conosciate :)
@@jimmyonfilm no vabbè
Ahahahahahahaha
I appreciate your technical view of ISO here with examples. Really illustrates the problems and solutions.
Thanks man! Happy it was useful :)
Great audio analogy! I've always thought of ISO as the gain knob on a mic preamp. But, volume on the headphone output makes way more sense!
Great explanation! I love the audio comparisons...
It’s really quite simple. Choose your wanted look. IE: your depth of field with your Fstop, you focal length, set to base ISO and then build your lighting plots around those settings. It’s all in the light intensity. You don’t want to stray from base ISO as you’ll loose dynamic range and color interpretation. Just raise your brightness to get proper exposure.
This
You could actually push this further. Let’s say you’re exposing a really dark shot. You could set your iso lower than base if this gives you more stops in low levels. Giving you the cleanest levels. But you’ll need to light way more.
@@maxgitaarmanwhat if you’re shooting in a low light environment like a night club for example( i use a 7r4)
@@zaptutos288 when shooting in a low light environment without the possibility to light you will need to up your ISO. I think the A7r4 has a dual native iso right? I would go with the 2nd iso base setting!
Absolutely
Excellent explanation of ISO and why ETTR is so popular. I might do a response video to build on what you have here, including highlight clipping/protection, lenses, and other considerations.
Great explanation, explained the CINE EI theory better than everyone else in YT IMO!
thanx for this info Jimmy it makes complete sense. appreciated
Great explanation. In my experience, adding more light is not always an option though, especially in doc/news shooting. Even filming indoors during the daytime in decent but low-ish light, I've resigned myself to filming on my FX3's high base ISO of 12,800 and using a variable ND to dial it back down (if needed) to being slightly over-exposed. Using the 800 ISO base is not enough with my f4 lens and a shutter speed locked at 1/48, and unless I can open windows, turn on lights, etc. I'll be left with underexposed footage that gets noisy when I brighten it in post. The 12,800 is noisy too, but less so, and usually since it's hopefully over-exposed, it gets less noisy when I reduce the exposure in post. Anyway, nice explainer, thanks for posting it!
I love the idea of signal amplifier, good work! thanks for the video
Great topic and very well put. I've spent years with ISO locked to 100 as much as possible based on the rule higher ISO = more noise. Actually makes more sense to have it on a more medium setting by default.
No, it doesn't. It makes sense to use the best ISO for the job AFTER all other factors have been controlled for.
@@MiaogisTeas shush
Look up your camera sensors "native iso" as that's the optimal iso it's designed to capture the most dynamic range at. Then keep it stuck there, and expose to it. This is usually where ND filters come in etc.
@@MiaogisTeas shush
This was absolutely WAY above my level, but I’m still walking away with helpful information. Great video and discussion!
As a musician I immediately drew the parallel between amplification and distortion with the concept of ISO. It made everything click immediately.
OMG! This is so clearly explained! WOW, I never understood it until this video. Well explained, my friend!!!
I guess I knew this already, but still felt like I learned something new. Maybe it was the perspective. Nice video
New to these camera stuffs, thanks it really was helpful. I was getting soo much noise but now i know i am just bumping ISO.
You have given the absolute BEST ISO explantion as it pertains to digital cameras I have ever seen or read. The signal amp analogy is spot on. ISO with film speed and grain made sense years ago. I understood it completely. How digital cameras use ISO was always confusing to me and baffling in terms of setting for film and photos. ISO Grain is NOT the same as film grain either. ISO 400 Digital on full frame mirrorless is not ISO 400 film. Very good explanation! Hope your YT subs blow up
If camera manufacturers would incorporate gain instead of ISO in their digital cameras as they do in camcorders, a lot of this would be easier to understand for many people.
Dude, this was great! Been shooting for a while and never looked at it this way 😅 appreciate the insight
This was probably one of the if not the most informative camera technique video I've ever seen
I just have to say thank you for your channel. You are like my online mentor i appreciate all your tips 😊
Thank you!!!! Been looking for a video like this forever :')
Excellent video. I have never heard it explained this way but very good to know.
Wow, mind blown, this is going to change my photography so much!
Thanks. I learned something. I'll have to experiment with that now.
Great job! Excellent explanation. This is one of the main reasons I switched to a camera with built-in ND filters
davinci resolve has a "highlight recovery" option, after watching this video i think it is also tied to the low iso highlight clipping, but it probably only works with braw or other raw type files, the first time i tried it it was like magic, but now i understand it more thanks to this video.
Wow, thanks for this! Really insightful. Rock on mate!
Solid explanation! Really like how you broke everything down 👍
Thank you for your cool videos! Everything is very clear and interesting! I emphasized a lot of new things from them.🔥🔥👏
Very good video! The perfect explanation I found so far! Thank you for this!
Amazing vidéo, the sound analogy is gold
On the flipside: I notice that shooting wide open at a high ISO in bright daylight, with ND's keeping the exposure under control... makes the highlights roll off so gently and produces noise that reads (to my 20th century eye) as film grain. It's a painterly, analog look that I don't dare touch in post.
Yes. There’s a reason ARRI produces a sliding scale dynamic range chart for the Alexa as reference. Shooting 1280 is the sweet spot for highlight dynamic range.
Working as an engineer and now a Videoographer… the headphone to gain structure really flicked the light on for me about ISO that I never took into consideration! Thank you for this!
I had the same journey as well, happy it clicked for you too :)
Damn dude, learned something new. Thanks for the great video!
An amazing explaining and a lesson, thanks.
Great video! Rob Ellis made a video explaining this content awhile back also.
thanks, as a musician, that comparison with the recording was on point and easy to transfer to ISO idea
Especially considering in-camera encoding and compression, as well as optical and sensor effects from varying light levels, the more I learn about ISO the more complex it appears to be.
Great video! I did not understand ISO before watching this, but the audio engineering metaphor was super helpful because I record music. :)
Well explained. always the way to go. I think the only think you didn't expand on is that each camera has its own native ISO which produces the least amount of noise possible. hence the term "native" the degradation goes both ways, increasing and decreasing the ISO.
Truly. This was very helpful. Thank you!
Great video, very clear explanation. Thank you very much! :)
You have just explained why Cine EI from Sony is so great. It works like film where you can under or over expose but always stays at 800 or 12800
Really enjoyable and well articulated. Thanks
All very very clear, bravo! One thing though, there's a third element (in some cases) that's light that can be increased or decreased. So the parameters are 3 actually. ISO is just a 'speedometer' and increases the sensitivity to light by the sensor.
Thank you for the explanation. Truly enjoyed this.
That is such a good analogy 2:20 I love it!
Your videos is itself film school... Thank you. Keep it up bro 😎.... Love from INDIA ✨❤
Great job on this vid man. Thank you.