You literally had more lighting demos in this video than I had in college. Keep making, looking good!

I wonder if this observation applies to almost every level of filmmaking. What if every department scales way back to what they absolutely must have?

do you have a video on how to rig up ways to hold things, eg, that diffusion panel? We need c stands and... what else?

This is great. I have a scene in this short that I'm making that I tried to do the a24 euphoria lighting. a24 is really making the best stuff now.

The one negative of noise is digital compression. With photography I actually love the look of noise in digital photos but then I get to print them with that noise untouched or view them as uncompressed image formats. Video sadly rarely gets to do that and how most people end up watching it is with highly compressed formats. I once read that Netflix has a compression process where they remove the noise, stream the video and the decoder adds noise back into the image as a way to get around how digital compression destroys noise and has to work much harder to compress images with noise. Ingenious way to get around that problem.

Nice!

i have this saying that goes like this "everything you need you have, and everything don't you just want" this applies to almost everything if you wanna start videography you already have a phone or if you dont you can ask your siblings maybe you can use it just for a shot till one day you will eventually own a cam and by then you know how to shoot even before you had one. this saying is supposed to put you out of that mindset of putting limits on yourself just because you dont have what you want. work with what you have not what you dont have.

Even in the days when we were shooting 16mm film, using an ASA 100 stock would be better at making the blacks look black. Shooting with ASA 400 Tri-X tended to cause blacks to look gray because it was drawing in more light.

Finally found a video where not just a talking head in front of the camera tells bikes, but intelligently with examples shows how to do things. Thank you bro!

So creamy! Nice shots. Is this with light?

People are confusing the 'A24' look with the death of cinematography because A24 is the flagbearer of the descent.

I’m sorry, but the part about using filters in a bright setting and augmenting ISOs is plain wrong. This will NOT give you more details. The point of ISOs is to "turn on the volume" on signal. So yes, in a dark setting, indeed increasing it won’t improve the ability of your camera to capture details in low light, hence the noise, but in bright light, the signal (as in meaningful color and brightness data) is already crispy clear and the signal-to-noise ratio is therefore optimal (as long of course as the whites aren’t burned). Using a filter and augmenting ISOs will achieve NOTHING for your signal-to-noise ratio, it can only dampen your signal and make you lose precious meaningful data... ISOs aren’t necessarily evil, they can be useful in a reasonably dark setting and the noise can be used in a artsy kind of way but if you’re looking for sharpness and clean signal, it should always be the last thing you turn up. There are literally zero scenario where ISOs augment signal-to-noise ratio, from a purely physics point of view. They just can’t do that.

I think it's pronounced "eye-so." But I'm not sure anyone really cares :)

I leave my A7C on Auto ISO. I've shot over 100 videos for 7 clients this year and have made $80k so far. Guess how many of my clients or the people commenting on the videos have brought up noise. (Hint: 0).

You’re using your mic wrong

I own a set of these and they are incredible.

Can you tell me please where you got that thumbnail image from

Accurate however, t's important to note that this is NOT true for raw photos

So i didn't used it wrong, good

Thanks, Tom Cruise and Nicholas Hoult's son.

*you are explaining ISO wrong.* Raising your ISO does *NOT* change the "sensitivity" of your sensor. When capturing an image, light enters the lens and hits your digital sensor. The sensor is made up of photodiodes that convert the photons (light) to an electrical signal. ISO amplifies the signal, similar to turning up the volume on a radio. You are digitally amplifying the signal, unlike film stocks where are actually more or less sensitive to light. You almost had it when you mentioned Gain. There is ALWAYS noise in digital imagery. It's about how what noise to signal ratio is acceptable. It's important to understand this so we're not spreading the same myths around the creator community. You may say, "Yes, either way, the answer at the end of the day is all about the light." But the reason WHY is very different. Raising your ISO on a theoretical sensor that is "sensitive" to light would actually "get you more light" without having to add light to the scene. But since it's an electrical amplification happening, that's where the noise comes from. If we have little to no light, and multiply it times 10, we still have dark pixels. And, THIS is where we come full circle and now know WHY we need to increase the *light* and not our *ISO.*

Correct me if I’m wrong but 500T and 50D are referencing the color temperature and lighting, I.E 50 Day light with the ASA being around 250 or near 250-300 ISO in equivalent

a lot of The Social Network is lit with controlled top lit or 45 angle from up and white sources.

anyone else clicked on this thinking he was gonna talk about Valorant Iso ?

Actually it's the job of the gaffer.

amazing advice and video. thank u!

Sir, you are SOOOOOO correct. I am getting much better performance from my #sonyFX30 by using this understanding. Much appreciated.

This was really insightful! I have some testing to do. Thx brother!

You are correct on so many points but most non pros do not have time or the ability to add lighting to a scene. Even pros sometimes don’t have time to add light to a scene.

In the end if you have no extra light you only can bump up the ISO and usually better to over expose that higher ISO in order to crush it in post. If you even try to overexpose in post slightly the grain goes crazy.

Isn't it nice how you talked about that dark scene in the end which was the peoples favourite? Now imagine if you included footage or a photo of it in the video so we could see better what you meant with that. (: Definitely something I love on camera related videos 😵‍💫

Agh I dislike noise, any Hollywood movie that comes out using noise creativity, it’s a hard pass for me. Noise is a trend now?😂

What lens did you use to film this video, looks great!

cameras like arri alexa been made to imitate the film look from the very beginning afaik, but it's a quite different story for median mirrorless consumer cameras that more often than not doesn't have any 'organic' noise to it (except maybe for a few models with a huge asterisk)

Awesome video! Glad the algorithm brought me here. Thanks. Since you mentioned the FX3: do you have "favorite" ISO levels or recommendations for that sensor? Obviously this depends on the amount and distribution of light in each scene and the look one wants to achieve, but as you mentioned it for another camera, there might be a value that generally introduces a nice amount of noise in most scenarios. Like 640, 2500, or 10000 or 16000. I am basically always exclusively using the base ISOs when i'm working... I might need to change that. Surely I can just do some experimenting myself. Curious about your opinion though.

What people are picturing in their mind's eye when they say the "A24 look" is basically just 2001's Amélie.

The Art of Lighting = Chefs kiss

Does this stand for photography as well, or strictly video?

I like the way you covered this without being condescending!

ISO is like the volume control on audio amplifier which boosts whatever voltage the light hitting the photo sensor sites creates. Those sensor sites are like buckets with have finite volume and the dilemma of digital exposure under high contrast lighting is that the ‘buckets’ in the highlights get filled to the brim and overflow (start to clip) before those in the deepest shadows get enough light to create voltage (signal). When you don’t have signal recording it the shadow tones and then amplify the signal in post processing to lift them all that is there to amplify is the noise, because their is no signal. The solution is simple LEARN TO USE FILL LIGHT to match the dynamic range of the scene to the dynamic range range of the sensor. What most still and video photographer do is start with the desired aperture for DOF, then adjust key light for properly exposed highlights on white objects and skin based on the clipping warning in the camera and then add fill as the last step. It is actually better to add the Fill source first so what is being Filled to the point of recording a signal in the darkest content can be easily seen. I’m primarily a still photographer who started shooting portraits in 1970 guided by a Kodak book on Portrait lighting which suggested placing a fill source directly behind and above the camera where it would reached everywhere the camera lens saw and cast it’s shadow down and directly behind the subject out of sight. Following that advice I never took a portrait that didn’t have a full range of tone and detail in the darkest clothing. In 1972 I got a job assisting top wedding photographer Monte Zucker who I discovered use the same centered fill technique for every flash photo he took, keeping a flash on a bracket centered over the lens at all times for Fill for a second flash used off camera to create the highlight pattern. When using film I used both incident and a 1° spot meter for setting lights and exposure but starting in 2000 when I bought my first digital camera I realized it was much simpler to just drape white and black wash cloths over a gray card (for WB reference) and set the lights visually based on detail seen in the playback and the clipping warning: 1) Set aperture for desired DOF, shutter for sync, ISO low (sensor baseline) 2) Turn on centered fill and raise until detail is seen in the black target. 3) Turn on back RIM light(s) and raise until it is 1/3 stop below clipping where it hits the white towel target. 4) Turn on frontal Key light and raised until the highlights it creates on the front of the white towel target are slightly darker than the rim-lit non specular white highlights (i.e., 2/3 below triggering clipping warning). 5) Turn on background lighting and raise until black target placed there has detail to avoid noise there due to fill light inverse-square fall off. If you use centered fill with that workflow you will never have a problem with noise in the shadows. If fill isn’t centered it will created shadows the camera sees which because they are not fill will always have no signal and only noise when amplified to try to lighten them. If the lighting pattern starts with a foundation of even fill there is no need to try to lift shadows which have no signal because signal above noise will be recorded everywhere because scene range matches range of camera sensor perfectly 😊

Came to this video late, so sorry for the delayed comment. ISO is absolutely not 'how sensitive your camera sensor is to light'. Your comment that you can change the sensor's sensitivity to light is mistaken (except, arguably, for sensors with dual conversion gain, but there it only changes at one point in the ISO range). The ISO standard for ISO speed ratings for digital cameras, ISO 12232, does not even mention the sensitivity of the sensor to light - so cannot define what you say it does. Nor does it define the gain, which wouldn't change sensitivity anyway. It's not 'technically true' that the higher you set the ISO the more noise it introduces. In fact, it's generally false. On most cameras, the higher you set the ISO the less noise is introduced. The noise is because a high ISO causes a low exposure (ISO is inversely proportional to exposure), which means the image is composed of fewer photons which means a lower shot noise SNR. I won't go through the rest of the video in detail, but my guess would be that when the fundamentals are wrong, the rest of it will likely be too. Sorry to be so critical, but when putting information out there you need to do your background research first and get it right.

Yo im about halfway through this video and the standing in a doorway shot for this long is making me anxious can we please get a little more variety or maybe just not this one this one is scary and uncomforting and im a little baby wahhh

If you want a grain look in post you can get a better look by adding the noise or grain as an overlaid layer then editing the blur and opacity to those layers. Using that method you can get a grain look that will be distributed throughout the full tonal range from low to high. A much better look.

Bashes on video quality of arri - immediately punches in on his out of focus shot of his own face. Nice.

Great video. Thank you. I love the way your video looks, by the way. Do you use some sort of cinema filter? (I’m a beginner, so I’m sorry if that’s not the question to ask.)

What an amazingly useful video!! Thank you❤

I shoot on Fuji cameras at 640 ISO. The resulting image is clear and has a gritty filmic look to it. No one can usually tell it's a pro-sumer grade camera vs like an Alexa and some people even think I shot things on film. I started out in 35mm, and really didn't like the newer clean clinical look of digital. It has its place like in nature films and other areas for sure.

Bro, holy shit! I've been taking pictures for a year with always 200 ISO. Just tried this on my GX80 and my images are not only more sharp but has a little more life. Thank you so much!

great content

Some might use their ISO wrong, but you are using your lavalier microphone wrong.