Comments on high ISO and how it will affect lighting power requirements.

[beeman458]

This image of a high ISO club shot was found/listed on dpreview.com.

Link below.<p>

 

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?

forum=1032&message=8735368">ISO 1600 club shot</a><p>

 

Earlier this Spring, I had asked a question about lighting and would

I have enough power for a hypothetical group shot. Towards the end

of the thread I commented about Canon's recently announced 1DMkII

which was shortly slated for delivery. In my comments I referenced

comments by others, of photographic stature, which had been made

about how clean and printable the higher ISO's were. The above link

is a link to a high ISO club shot that was capture at ISO 1600.<p>

 

The importance, to me, of this shot is that it shows how clean high

end, high ISO, FF, 35mm digital shots are becoming. This lack of

noise will directly apply to the need or lack of need for high watt

second power packs in group shots, product shots, architectural

shots, or otherwise. This is an important aspect of the future of

studio lighting and how much power is going to be needed to get the

more desirable shots of f/11-f/16 for 35mm, f/16-f/22 for MF and f/22-

f/32 for 4"X5" view cameras. These clean high ISO digital images

will directly impact the future of lighing in photography as we know

it today.<p>

 

The noise of high end digital sensors today are pretty much eye clean

at ISO 400, which give photographers a two stop, or more, advantage

over an expected traditional film/sensor speed of ASA/ISO 100. The

mathamatical difference between ISO 100 and ISO 400 is four times

less light needed to get the same shot. This is the difference of

being able to use three 800ws power packs to get the same equivalence

of three 3200ws power packs. And considering folks like Speedotron

make either a 2400ws pack or a 4800ws pack, this is a hugh monetary

savings. This is a good thing.<p>

 

This technology isn't quite translating over to MF/LF backs yet, cost

wise but as technology matures and prices come down, what's happening

with FF 35mm sensors will translate over to MF/LF digital backs as

more will be able to afford to take advantage of this wonderfully

clean sensor technology. Affordable 44 megapixel and 88 megapixel

MF/LF sensors are but a few years off as computing technology

improves in this arena. <p>

 

Just sharing a bit of what's happening out in the digital world,

FWIW, as these changes in digital technology, over the next few years

are going to directly affect our lighting needs.<p>

[mike dixon]

Very clean looking web-sized, but the full-sized image is quite

"noisy." Here's a link to the full-size image (it's big!):<P>

 

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=

1032&message=8740363">full size version of 1600 speed

image</a><P>

 

The full-sized version reminds me very much of high-resolution

film scans of EPJ 320T that's been pushed a stop or two, though

without the "grain." The quality is excellent for what it is, but it's a

long, LONG way from what you get with quality digital sensors at

100-200 ISO.<P>

 

I don't doubt that performance will improve in future generations

of sensors, but it seems unlikely that high-ISO performance is

going to match low-ISO performance.

[beeman458]

Mike wrote<p>

 

<i>The quality is excellent for what it is, but it's a long, LONG way

from what you get with quality digital sensors at 100-200 ISO.</i><p>

 

Absolutely, I agree. I saw the full size print. But when compared to what film of equal speed is like, it's great. :) My quote below.<p>

 

"The importance, to me, of this shot is that it shows how clean high end, high ISO, FF, 35mm digital shots are becoming."<p>

 

The operative two words were, "...are becoming." as opposed to "...have become." From what I've read, not having seen valid low ISO samples, the ISO 400 digital images are reportably "very" printable and noise free as opposed to how limited film is when a 35mm, ASA 400/ISO 400, 11"x17" or 16"x24", side by side (film to digital) comparison is made.<p>

 

The importance, to me, is how this new technology is going to affect the need for high capacity power packs in the very near future over the next year or two and the extended lattitude these extra two or three stops are going to give wedding or sports photographers. To me, this is exciting stuff in regard to how this technology will also affect the very near future of studio and event industry as well. Kinda like waiting for an earthquake which you know is going to happen:)<p>

 

Can you imagine what will happen when Canon is successfull in creating a noise free 14 megapixel, eye clean ISO 400 or 800, FF, 35mm sensor and what this will this will do to MF backs like Leaf has? Oh the pain of the falling prices of a 22 megapixel MF back is going to be absolutely devestating to the end user:)<p>

 

I can't wait to see what Canon is going to announce with their new, yet to be announced, 1Ds MKII, considering Kodak announced just recently their DCS 14/c.<p>

 

Oh the strife, the excitement.:)

[mike dixon]

At this point, it looks like the 1DMk2 at 1600 is competitive with

(perhaps better than) ISO 800 35mm film. On the other hand,

medium format digital backs are currently competive with (or

better than) ISO 100 medium format film.

 

Just as excellent 35mm films like NPH or NPZ didn't eliminate

the need for medium format, it's seems unlikely that improved

high-ISO performance will pull the rug from under the market for

medium format digital backs.

[beeman458]

Mike wrote<p>

 

<i>Just as excellent 35mm films like NPH or NPZ didn't eliminate

the need for medium format, it's seems unlikely that improved

high-ISO performance will pull the rug from under the market for

medium format digital backs.</i><p>

 

I think, unintentionally you're creating an argument that's not there. I'm on your side with this issue. I'm only pointing out how the new Canon, FF, 35mm digital sensor and next generation sensors, because they're so eye clean at medium ISO's of 400, will affect the need for high powered power packs or high watt second monolights and how this new technology is going to affect the industry in a positive way where the user of the technology is concerned, the pocketbook:)<p>

 

As to MF sensor backs, again, there's no disagreement just an excitement to think about changes in lighting requirments and how affordable, perspective wise, Canon has made the likes of a Hasselblad, Contax 645 or Mimiya 645AF and the thought of a Leaf Valeo 22 falling to four or five k (US) (My wishful numbers) because of Canon's efforts, well, it just leaves me all warm and fuzzy inside:)<p>

[beeman458]

This is a link to a couple of images posted over on dpreview.com that are ISO 3200.<p>

 

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=8750397">ISO 3200 shots</a><p>

 

Looking forward to the next generation Canon pro level sensor bodies:)

[johnmarkpainter]

These images look to me like improved sharpening more than less noise (if that makes

sense).

 

The areas of the image that have detail look EXTREMELY clean while the out of focus areas

or areas that don't have lines (like on the red shirt of the soccer player @ 3200) have tons

of noise.

 

Regardless...it certainly beats not getting any shot at all. I would be interested to see

prints of those.

 

jmp

[garry edwards]

Well, this is all very interesting and it makes sense too - once digital quality at higher ISO settings matches the hype it will make life easier and cheaper for studio photographers.

 

However, the benefits are already here, but at the other end of the scale, because in my experience the greatest problem with studio lighting is in dialling down the power enough to avoid the use of ND filters, and the ability to reduce the 'speed settings' on digital to around 6 ISO is a genuine advance