Beautiful done and well explained! As cinematographers we need to realize that the look is, overall, on us! If we want a grainy feel then shoot high ISO with low light but if you want to eliminate noise in general... Light for the look you want!!!
This is the ONLY video any Blackmagic Ursa Mini Pro owner should watch as soon as they buy one. If I had found this a month ago, I could've saved some energy I used to freak out for nothing! Thank you so much TOM, keep making amazing videos like this!
I found this video very useful so thank you and also found some of the comments very interesting. Lighting has been and always will be in my opinion the most important factor to consider when wanting to achieve professional looking results, so it perplexes me why some people moan about not being able to just bump their iso up way past native and get clean results without considering increasing the light levels accordingly. Black magic cameras like Red and Alexa's perform best around their native ISO's and therefore cinematographers light their scenes to maintain those native iso values whilst still achieving correct exposure. If you don't intend to invest in lighting then you shouldn't be using this camera imo. If you want to shoot in lowlight then buy a Sony or other high ISO performing camera be it a DSLR, mirrorless or even something like the C200. I'm looking at buying the Mini Pro soon, however I've not taken the plunge yet until I've finished investing in LED lighting gear that will allow me to achieve correct exposures across a myriad of situations. I will have spent more money on lighting than the cost of an ursa body, however I know that when I do start shooting I will be able to use the camera the way it was intended.
How did you expose the same shot differently? Did you open up the Iris? I'm a bit confused. If I have a shot I can expose properly with ISO1600, f1.4 and a shutter of 180 (1/48 for example), how should I change my settings to expose the same shot with ISO400?
Increased the light levels so that I can expose for a lower ISO. Some shots will be fine at 1600 - but not ones which are supposed to look low key or have lots of dark shadows. If your shot looks correctly exposed at 1600 - but you want it to look cleaner, double the light and shoot at 800. You can do this by using brighter lights, increasing it if its on a dimmer - moving the lights closer/changing their focus or you could use faster lenses of course.
I'm editing something where the FPN is so extreme is certain cases that there are "streaks" or "bands" of flickering noise across the screen. Anyone else encounter this issue?
The scene was shot and lit so that the exposure is correct at iso 400. There is no need to push or pull or make further corrections in post and I am not trying to film a scene with insufficient light while boosting the image in camera. I typically use false colour to ensure the correct exposure of a shot.
Well for the purposes of this demonstration - to ensure an exact shift in exposure, the initial underexposed shot is done using a 2 stop ND filter. This simulates there being 2 stops less light than is required. So to film this - initially it has been exposed properly for 400, then the camera has been set to 1600 with a 2 stop ND filter in place.
Ok so admitedly this is the correct technique for the the best way to expose a darker scene but i think the example is slightly unfair. Exposing correctly at 400 and then adding ND to be able to expose at 1600 doesn't reflect real-world scenarios. Most people will be needing to get rid of FPN when they don't have enough light power to expose correctly at 400/800 iso. When you need more light to get the correct exsposure ratios you also have more problems with the spill, bounce, light softness, etc and would need to think about controlling the light in different ways. Its not just as simple as turning your key up and stopping down on the iso.
It's a completely fair way to demonstrate this. It's clearly not "real world" but a demo and is fully equivalent to having less light. Some lights are dimmable or can be scrimmed. Or it might be you need a 2k instead of a 1k etc. If you have insufficient light and thus are having FPN issues - its a lighting problem, not a camera problem. Inverse Square is the same relatively at any ratio or intensity - it just depends on your base sensitivity which you choose to expose at so things like bounce, spill, softness are not issues at all. The proof is in that those who light properly have no fpn issues and yet can create any kind of lighting style they want. This method was done to demonstrate how it would be with less light - it was the easiest way to reduce the light in a measured way.
Some of the Blackmagic cameras have terrible FPN some don’t, I’ve been through two and the second was much better. Also the way they calibrate in factory is a big determiner for how your footage will look. I’ve had mine calibrated numerous times and each time it seems better or worse. Sort of a chance thing. When wanting more dynamic range which is an important thing for me pushing up the shadows will always introduce FPN in darker gradient areas. If you want to go for the “Film” look though most old film scans will actually have FPN due to the older CCDS used for scanning the film so this problem has been around for decades, nothing to worry about in my opinion. The only thing you should worry about is if someone has a camera with virtually no FPN like I do now and some sucka has something like what I had previously and has to work around that. Not fair? Well you get what you pay for.
Man... That is not solution for FPN)) This is just proper exposure for low key shots. When we buying a camera with wide DR, we want all of it DR would be usable. For example if I would use camera for shot in high contrast scene like a man against the sky in golden hour, I need to expose the man on the lower stops of the sensor where FPN is more noticeable. And if I have a camera w/o fpn, even it was noisy I can then denoise it, but if it has FPN it won't go in any way...
If you re-watch the video - you will see that we see a shot with FPN, and its then exposed differently to get the same image but with no noise. The reason for this is that almost everytime someone reports FPN, they are underexposing - and the next claim is that they are doing so because they want a "dark" shot. The example here covers both topics in one. The real solution for FPN? Expose and light properly - end of story. In almost every single case when it's reported - the levels of noise are consistent with every one of my perfectly functioning UM cameras and every one I also have access to. If you shoot in a high contrast scene with a bright back light and you want the front of the subject to be brighter - you grab a reflector or light source. If you don't and want a silhouette - drop the ISO.
It's not a problem for me or most other people in other situations either. Expose properly, use sufficient light, set the correct ISO = No problems. It's the exact same rule for every camera, even film cameras (except you would obviously select a film speed from the stock rather than camera setting). It's camera 101 really.
This is not a solution for fpn. With film stock or Alexa or Red you can expose how ever you want in 800iso and it wont produce fpn, yes if you underexpose you will get a grainier image but it wont be fixed pattern grain! There is clearly a problem with the camera. I have worked with super16, 35mm film stock, Red, Alexa, Sony CineAlta, Phantom, I have never seen fpn on any of those cameras! And now suddenly you are telling me that I'm exposing it wrong? Man that's some total nonsense! You should be able to underexpose, push footage 1-2 stops, overexpose 1 stop, etc. I mean when your shooting documentary, a lot of time footage is underexposed by a stop or two but with a Alexa its allways usable! You can allways lift it a bit in post, but not with the ursa 4.6k because you get FPN, so you have to crush the blacks to make the FPN invisible. This is typical Blackmagic, they have great color science but they allways mess it up somehow, green cast, not enough dynamic range, magenta cast, and now fpn. Dammit Blackmagic just make a sensor that works properly at 800iso please!
Since we are talking fixed pattern noise, it's only going to pertain to digital image capture and not film, so let's not confuse the issue. As for the other cameras, I have also worked with all of those and have indeed seen evidence of fpn when used incorrectly. Furthermore, you miss the fact that what I am really advocating here is best practices for exposing an image, and that I'm not talking about seeing fpn at native iso. If you go and check some other videos in my channel you will see just how far you can push the image (several stops) before issue. This video is written in response to the deluge of new users to not just Blackmagic cameras, but professional cameras and how often they will do "the lens cap test" or shoot in almost darkness because they want a low key shot and then assume that because they see artefacts in the noise floor, there must be a faulty camera.
@@tetragrade4292 but the Ursa mini 4.6k has extremely more visable fpn compaired to Alexa and Red, it also has extreme redcast in blacks unless you use a IRcut filter. It just feels not very robust compared to those cameras. Mistakes happen on set because of time pressure and or on a documentary situation and the footage from those cameras have allways been usable. But if you get fpn on a ursa mini 4.6k it really ruins the image. I mean I have shot stuff really underexposed on CineAlta F35 and Alexa and the footage has allways been usable even after blow up to DCP cinema projection. I have never seen fpn on a Alexa, maybe the camera you where using was faulty? Or the footage was really pushed? I mean we had two different Alexas on a 35 day feature production and none of the cameras ever displayed fpn like we can see on the Ursa mini 4.6k at 800iso. And the footage was mostly overexposed by one stop, except for some night shoots where it was underexposed by 1-2 stops and one time second unit was shooting night without any filmlights, just available light and under exposing almost 4 stops and the footage was grainy but it looked okay in the edit. You could never do that with the current Ursa 4.6k, you would get fpn all over the place. I mean I have never heard so many people complain about fpn since the Ursa mini 4.6k came out, how do you explain that? Clearly this camera is not as robust as the previously mentioned cameras. I dont mean it has to be as good as a Alexa that costs 50 000 dollars but I at least expect it to work properly at native iso without sutch visible fpn. I mean there is a valid reason people have complaints.
@@VideoPine sounds like you've had a faulty unit then. I've got 4 of them and none show fpn at 800. How do I explain you having not heard as many people complaining about fpn since the Ursa mini came out? I cannot comment on your own personal experience with any surety, but fpn has been an issue for digital sensors for a long time before the Ursa mini. Just because you perceive something doesn't make it fact. I've worked with a lot of Alexa footage (probably more than any other camera) and therefore experienced many different units, I've seen fpn occasionally on very under exposed shots and other image artefacts which you don't get on the Ursa mini, such as how the Alexa has the black sun issue. I've had serious issues with the colour from red cameras completely failing to render certain hues (often deep purples). Some camera's can be more or less prone to certain issues. But the truth is that whenever you fail to expose properly or light correctly - irrespective of the camera - you reduce the quality of the shot in some way. If you are experiencing fpn at 800 (which is not what this video is addressing) then contact support because it could be faulty.
@@tetragrade4292 thats just it, we had two ursa mini 4.6k at 800iso, with black calibration just before shooting and both had very visible fpn at times. Even if the subject in the foreground was lit and exposed correctly and the background was underexposed there was very visible fpn. I have never seen sutch visible fpn on Alexa. Yes no camera is perfect, but Its weird that two cameras are faulty at the same time. A lot of people are talking about this issue online, on UA-cam and Ursa forums and people are having trouble with fpn, it must be something more than just under exposure, the camera clearly has problems with low light conditions. Maybe a lot of people have gotten faulty cameras, that is also a serious issue I would say.
@@VideoPine there are many logical fallacies in your reasoning and your experiences do not tally with mine or many many others I have seen on the Ursa mini Facebook group I admin with over 7.6 thousand users. I am sorry you have experienced issues but they only indicate either misuse or a fault - not something inherent with the camera.
Beautiful done and well explained! As cinematographers we need to realize that the look is, overall, on us! If we want a grainy feel then shoot high ISO with low light but if you want to eliminate noise in general... Light for the look you want!!!
Amazing Tom! As a Ursa Mini Pro owner I have to say THANK YOU for this one.
I will try this out.
This is the ONLY video any Blackmagic Ursa Mini Pro owner should watch as soon as they buy one. If I had found this a month ago, I could've saved some energy I used to freak out for nothing! Thank you so much TOM, keep making amazing videos like this!
Do you shoot at native then of 800?
Thank you for calming my nerves. :-D
Great video, thanks for sharing...
I found this video very useful so thank you and also found some of the comments very interesting. Lighting has been and always will be in my opinion the most important factor to consider when wanting to achieve professional looking results, so it perplexes me why some people moan about not being able to just bump their iso up way past native and get clean results without considering increasing the light levels accordingly. Black magic cameras like Red and Alexa's perform best around their native ISO's and therefore cinematographers light their scenes to maintain those native iso values whilst still achieving correct exposure. If you don't intend to invest in lighting then you shouldn't be using this camera imo. If you want to shoot in lowlight then buy a Sony or other high ISO performing camera be it a DSLR, mirrorless or even something like the C200. I'm looking at buying the Mini Pro soon, however I've not taken the plunge yet until I've finished investing in LED lighting gear that will allow me to achieve correct exposures across a myriad of situations. I will have spent more money on lighting than the cost of an ursa body, however I know that when I do start shooting I will be able to use the camera the way it was intended.
great video, definitely something that everyone who has just purchased this camera should watch
How did you expose the same shot differently? Did you open up the Iris?
I'm a bit confused. If I have a shot I can expose properly with ISO1600, f1.4 and a shutter of 180 (1/48 for example), how should I change my settings to expose the same shot with ISO400?
Increased the light levels so that I can expose for a lower ISO. Some shots will be fine at 1600 - but not ones which are supposed to look low key or have lots of dark shadows. If your shot looks correctly exposed at 1600 - but you want it to look cleaner, double the light and shoot at 800. You can do this by using brighter lights, increasing it if its on a dimmer - moving the lights closer/changing their focus or you could use faster lenses of course.
I'm editing something where the FPN is so extreme is certain cases that there are "streaks" or "bands" of flickering noise across the screen. Anyone else encounter this issue?
How exactly did you "expose properly" in camera in the darker scene?
The scene was shot and lit so that the exposure is correct at iso 400. There is no need to push or pull or make further corrections in post and I am not trying to film a scene with insufficient light while boosting the image in camera. I typically use false colour to ensure the correct exposure of a shot.
Tetragrade Ltd So other than changing the asa to 400 and increasing the amount of light, there were no other changes "in camera"? Thanks.
Well for the purposes of this demonstration - to ensure an exact shift in exposure, the initial underexposed shot is done using a 2 stop ND filter. This simulates there being 2 stops less light than is required. So to film this - initially it has been exposed properly for 400, then the camera has been set to 1600 with a 2 stop ND filter in place.
Ok so admitedly this is the correct technique for the the best way to expose a darker scene but i think the example is slightly unfair. Exposing correctly at 400 and then adding ND to be able to expose at 1600 doesn't reflect real-world scenarios. Most people will be needing to get rid of FPN when they don't have enough light power to expose correctly at 400/800 iso. When you need more light to get the correct exsposure ratios you also have more problems with the spill, bounce, light softness, etc and would need to think about controlling the light in different ways. Its not just as simple as turning your key up and stopping down on the iso.
It's a completely fair way to demonstrate this. It's clearly not "real world" but a demo and is fully equivalent to having less light. Some lights are dimmable or can be scrimmed. Or it might be you need a 2k instead of a 1k etc. If you have insufficient light and thus are having FPN issues - its a lighting problem, not a camera problem. Inverse Square is the same relatively at any ratio or intensity - it just depends on your base sensitivity which you choose to expose at so things like bounce, spill, softness are not issues at all. The proof is in that those who light properly have no fpn issues and yet can create any kind of lighting style they want. This method was done to demonstrate how it would be with less light - it was the easiest way to reduce the light in a measured way.
Some of the Blackmagic cameras have terrible FPN some don’t, I’ve been through two and the second was much better. Also the way they calibrate in factory is a big determiner for how your footage will look. I’ve had mine calibrated numerous times and each time it seems better or worse.
Sort of a chance thing. When wanting more dynamic range which is an important thing for me pushing up the shadows will always introduce FPN in darker gradient areas. If you want to go for the “Film” look though most old film scans will actually have FPN due to the older CCDS used for scanning the film so this problem has been around for decades, nothing to worry about in my opinion. The only thing you should worry about is if someone has a camera with virtually no FPN like I do now and some sucka has something like what I had previously and has to work around that. Not fair? Well you get what you pay for.
I had a GH5 that was faulty, I know it was fault because it had FPN in the shadows at 400 iso. They replaced the boards and no more FPN.
Great. Glad you got a fixed unit. As mentioned in the video, there are some instances where the camera is indeed faulty.
I was expecting a solution to clean or calibrate the sensor... not a lesson on exposure (which leaves the FPN problem there for another day)
Man...
That is not solution for FPN)) This is just proper exposure for low key shots.
When we buying a camera with wide DR, we want all of it DR would be usable. For example if I would use camera for shot in high contrast scene like a man against the sky in golden hour, I need to expose the man on the lower stops of the sensor where FPN is more noticeable. And if I have a camera w/o fpn, even it was noisy I can then denoise it, but if it has FPN it won't go in any way...
If you re-watch the video - you will see that we see a shot with FPN, and its then exposed differently to get the same image but with no noise. The reason for this is that almost everytime someone reports FPN, they are underexposing - and the next claim is that they are doing so because they want a "dark" shot. The example here covers both topics in one. The real solution for FPN? Expose and light properly - end of story. In almost every single case when it's reported - the levels of noise are consistent with every one of my perfectly functioning UM cameras and every one I also have access to. If you shoot in a high contrast scene with a bright back light and you want the front of the subject to be brighter - you grab a reflector or light source. If you don't and want a silhouette - drop the ISO.
Of course when you demonstrates this on such a simple interview setup this is absolute no problem))
It's not a problem for me or most other people in other situations either. Expose properly, use sufficient light, set the correct ISO = No problems. It's the exact same rule for every camera, even film cameras (except you would obviously select a film speed from the stock rather than camera setting). It's camera 101 really.
This is not a problem, because people are shooting on alexa where this problem not exixt and reds in which there is black shading feature))
It's a cinema camera, so light your scenes with sufficient light and work within the limits of the camera. Otherwise go use a Sony A7S
This is not a solution for fpn. With film stock or Alexa or Red you can expose how ever you want in 800iso and it wont produce fpn, yes if you underexpose you will get a grainier image but it wont be fixed pattern grain! There is clearly a problem with the camera.
I have worked with super16, 35mm film stock, Red, Alexa, Sony CineAlta, Phantom, I have never seen fpn on any of those cameras! And now suddenly you are telling me that I'm exposing it wrong? Man that's some total nonsense! You should be able to underexpose, push footage 1-2 stops, overexpose 1 stop, etc. I mean when your shooting documentary, a lot of time footage is underexposed by a stop or two but with a Alexa its allways usable! You can allways lift it a bit in post, but not with the ursa 4.6k because you get FPN, so you have to crush the blacks to make the FPN invisible. This is typical Blackmagic, they have great color science but they allways mess it up somehow, green cast, not enough dynamic range, magenta cast, and now fpn. Dammit Blackmagic just make a sensor that works properly at 800iso please!
Since we are talking fixed pattern noise, it's only going to pertain to digital image capture and not film, so let's not confuse the issue. As for the other cameras, I have also worked with all of those and have indeed seen evidence of fpn when used incorrectly. Furthermore, you miss the fact that what I am really advocating here is best practices for exposing an image, and that I'm not talking about seeing fpn at native iso. If you go and check some other videos in my channel you will see just how far you can push the image (several stops) before issue.
This video is written in response to the deluge of new users to not just Blackmagic cameras, but professional cameras and how often they will do "the lens cap test" or shoot in almost darkness because they want a low key shot and then assume that because they see artefacts in the noise floor, there must be a faulty camera.
@@tetragrade4292 but the Ursa mini 4.6k has extremely more visable fpn compaired to Alexa and Red, it also has extreme redcast in blacks unless you use a IRcut filter. It just feels not very robust compared to those cameras. Mistakes happen on set because of time pressure and or on a documentary situation and the footage from those cameras have allways been usable. But if you get fpn on a ursa mini 4.6k it really ruins the image.
I mean I have shot stuff really underexposed on CineAlta F35 and Alexa and the footage has allways been usable even after blow up to DCP cinema projection. I have never seen fpn on a Alexa, maybe the camera you where using was faulty? Or the footage was really pushed?
I mean we had two different Alexas on a 35 day feature production and none of the cameras ever displayed fpn like we can see on the Ursa mini 4.6k at 800iso. And the footage was mostly overexposed by one stop, except for some night shoots where it was underexposed by 1-2 stops and one time second unit was shooting night without any filmlights, just available light and under exposing almost 4 stops and the footage was grainy but it looked okay in the edit. You could never do that with the current Ursa 4.6k, you would get fpn all over the place.
I mean I have never heard so many people complain about fpn since the Ursa mini 4.6k came out, how do you explain that? Clearly this camera is not as robust as the previously mentioned cameras. I dont mean it has to be as good as a Alexa that costs 50 000 dollars but I at least expect it to work properly at native iso without sutch visible fpn. I mean there is a valid reason people have complaints.
@@VideoPine sounds like you've had a faulty unit then. I've got 4 of them and none show fpn at 800.
How do I explain you having not heard as many people complaining about fpn since the Ursa mini came out? I cannot comment on your own personal experience with any surety, but fpn has been an issue for digital sensors for a long time before the Ursa mini. Just because you perceive something doesn't make it fact.
I've worked with a lot of Alexa footage (probably more than any other camera) and therefore experienced many different units, I've seen fpn occasionally on very under exposed shots and other image artefacts which you don't get on the Ursa mini, such as how the Alexa has the black sun issue. I've had serious issues with the colour from red cameras completely failing to render certain hues (often deep purples). Some camera's can be more or less prone to certain issues. But the truth is that whenever you fail to expose properly or light correctly - irrespective of the camera - you reduce the quality of the shot in some way.
If you are experiencing fpn at 800 (which is not what this video is addressing) then contact support because it could be faulty.
@@tetragrade4292 thats just it, we had two ursa mini 4.6k at 800iso, with black calibration just before shooting and both had very visible fpn at times. Even if the subject in the foreground was lit and exposed correctly and the background was underexposed there was very visible fpn. I have never seen sutch visible fpn on Alexa.
Yes no camera is perfect, but Its weird that two cameras are faulty at the same time. A lot of people are talking about this issue online, on UA-cam and Ursa forums and people are having trouble with fpn, it must be something more than just under exposure, the camera clearly has problems with low light conditions. Maybe a lot of people have gotten faulty cameras, that is also a serious issue I would say.
@@VideoPine there are many logical fallacies in your reasoning and your experiences do not tally with mine or many many others I have seen on the Ursa mini Facebook group I admin with over 7.6 thousand users. I am sorry you have experienced issues but they only indicate either misuse or a fault - not something inherent with the camera.