The light will clip a little but this can be rolled off (soft clipped) using curves. In a low light shot like this I would expose for the actors with a wide aperture and high ISO (up to 1600 on the 5D Mark III). The light in the lower left of the frame will significantly saturate the sensor so that an ETTR exposure (using the raw meters) will force the important mids further down towards the noise floor. When shooting ML Raw you should always use raw metering, not the Canon default RGB meters (the settings are in the ML menu).ĮTTR is a good method for 'most' shots but I would not recommend it for the image in your original post nor most night, low light or HDR shots in general. Ok, a few comments regarding exposure, noise, Cinelog etcįirst and perhaps most importantly, you don't expose for Cinelog as it is a post-applied transform of the linear raw signal (whatever the linear signal is).

It's just that the footage seems unusually noisy for iso 1000. If you scroll across to the right on the image you can see the vertical lines.ĮDIT: Does the way you export from RAW2CDNG make any difference? I exported 16bit maximized. Plus the contrast will be a lot different after adding an LUT. In OpenColourIO I used Cinelog-C, and in AE the output render was at DNxHD444. (I'm still not entirely sure if I used the correct render output in OpencolourIO and AE. Some pretty savage vertical kind of banding noise. Here's a pic that illustrates what I'm talking about. Wondering if a mixture of both might be good, ie a gentle ACR noise red followed by more specific treatment with neat Video. I don't have a lot of experience with Neat Video, but I'm told it's also very handy.ĭoes anyone have any advice, or a workflow that suits them? I gather that this is due to the incamera noise reduction not being used.Īs a photographer, my experience is that the ACR noise reduction is excellent.

Ok so the first thing I notice upon viewing my first 5D RAW footage is that it's noisy as hell.

Neat video vs davinci resolve