Low Light Performance

[Chad Schwartzenberger]

I know that there is a lot of contrast in this shot but I'm not sure why the quality is so bad. Link is the Raw DNG. I did have a Polar Pro ND8 on at the time. I have other shots with out the Filter on and the shots still look "mushy" when I pop in to check grain.

ISO: 200
Aperture: 2.8 focused on middle of field
Shutter: 1/50

I was filming 4k 24fps so that is why I had the shutter at 1/50. Anything higher and I would of had to up the ISO more. What am I missing? This quality is not good. First time I've had this issue.

DJI_0004.DNG

drive.google.com

 

[LarBear360]

I know that there is a lot of contrast in this shot but I'm not sure why the quality is so bad. Link is the Raw DNG. I did have a Polar Pro ND8 on at the time. I have other shots with out the Filter on and the shots still look "mushy" when I pop in to check grain.

ISO: 200
Aperture: 2.8 focused on middle of field
Shutter: 1/50

I was filming 4k 24fps so that is why I had the shutter at 1/50. Anything higher and I would of had to up the ISO more. What am I missing? This quality is not good. First time I've had this issue.

DJI_0004.DNG

drive.google.com

Raw is "unprocessed" which, by design, rarely looks good straight out of the camera. It's intended to require some work. You should be able to clean that up. I don't think the filter helped any either. The ground looked dark already, hence the lights on the field.

I have a P3P and find the exposure meter in the app is fairly reliable. Curious if you recall how that looked at the time. I can see how the sky could have contributed to an inaccurate reading of the ground.

 

[Chad Schwartzenberger]

I've done similar shots like this before and it hasn't been this bad. I fully expected the blacks to be black. I am not trying to push any shadows at all. With an ISO of 200 and I metered with the mind set of "split the difference" between the sky and the field I am not happy with the overall "mushiness" of the entire shot.

 

[Chad Schwartzenberger]

This is a similar angle with contrast as well and it turned out a lot better quality wise. This is sweetened in post but it is not "mushy" like the other one I posted.

 

[Chad Schwartzenberger]

This is one from the other night looking back. I'm not asking for 0 grain, I'm trying to figure out why it looks so mushy. ISO: 400 Aperture: 2.8 Shutter: 1/50 No Filter

DJI_0016.DNG

 

[Andy9]

The reason is very simple. The sensor is not capable to process such huge light difference on this photo between the bright light from the sky and relatively dark ground.
Software put the exposer somewhere in the middle. In such contrast picture the bright sky is a little darker wish almost can't be seen but on the other hand the ground is much too dark.
The filter has nothing to do with this.
Usually I avoid such scenes. If this is not possible, then I would catch as little sky as possible - maybe only a tiny strap and the exp of the ground will be OK.
So just move the camera a few degrees downward and you'll see the big difference.
The second picture is just underexposed. Put the aperture and the exposition time up.

 

[LarBear360]

This is one from the other night looking back. I'm not asking for 0 grain, I'm trying to figure out why it looks so mushy. ISO: 400 Aperture: 2.8 Shutter: 1/50 No Filter

DJI_0016.DNG

By mushy do you mean soft focus? Could be motion blur. 1/50 is right on the border for any photo without a tripod. I would suggest increasing your shutter speed and ISO.

Have you tried bracketing?

 

[Chad Schwartzenberger]

By mushy do you mean soft focus? Could be motion blur. 1/50 is right on the border for any photo without a tripod. I would suggest increasing your shutter speed and ISO.

Have you tried bracketing?

I have focus on manual set at infinity. I'm wondering if I should do my spot auto focus for photos. I got these today and the smaller team one looks crisper than the higher full field one.

 

[LarBear360]

I have focus on manual set at infinity. I'm wondering if I should do my spot auto focus for photos. I got these today and the smaller team one looks crisper than the higher full field one.

I think they both look pretty good. You might also want to experiment with a higher aperture. 2.8 leaves a very narrow depth of field.

 

[Andy9]

I can't see any problem with this two pic.
The second one is just much more close to the ground so you just got more details.

 

[Meta4]

You might also want to experiment with a higher aperture. 2.8 leaves a very narrow depth of field.

You have to be closer than 10 feet from the subject for depth of field to be an issue.
The lens on the Phantom camera has more depth of field than you will need at any aperture.

 

[LarBear360]

You have to be closer than 10 feet from the subject for depth of field to be an issue.
The lens on the Phantom camera has more depth of field than you will need at any aperture.

good point!