Noise - stills v video

[tattywelshie]

I've got a question!!!! So, a dark venue, two people, one videoing it and one taking still images, both using a canon 5d mk3, would the video footage be significantly less or more grainy than the stills images? Just wondered!

 

[Chappers]

This one really needs to be answered with practical tests. Although the capture hardware is the same, and should give similar results, for both, it's the signal processing within the camera that may have an effect. The 5D is primarily a stills camera and the software and processor would be optimised for that. Plus the 5D can shoot RAW in still mode which gives more scope for post processing than a conventional JPEG image. I addition the type of image processing software will have an effect on the final image. Apps such as Lightroom have a very good noise reduction engine. Less expensive video editing may have little or no noise reduction capabilities. You have to start looking at higher end software to get to the sort of level that Lightroom, and Photoshop can provide, and it's not Premier or FCPX I'm talking about, its something like DaVinci Resolve , you'll need ( and not the free "Light" version ).

 

[Pete Allen]

Edius also has a very effective noise reduction tool.

 

[Pookeyhead]

My experience of the MkIII is that the noise handling on video is much better than on stills.

 

[arad85]

You also have to take into account the human visual system. It is very adept at picking patterns out over time. Something that may not be visible in a single still image may be very visible over time if the noise is not random.

 

[StewartR]

My experience of the MkIII is that the noise handling on video is much better than on stills.

Is that simply because video is lower resolution? Take a 20+ megapixel still photo, scale it down to 2 megapixels, and a lot of the noise disappears.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Is that simply because video is lower resolution? Take a 20+ megapixel still photo, scale it down to 2 megapixels, and a lot of the noise disappears.

No it's not. If that were the case, and it was simply a case of scaling down the still image resolution to 1080 then the D800 would be a much better video camera in low light than the 5D MkIII is - not only because you're scaling down more, but also because the D800 has better low light performance with still images to begin with. However, that is patently not the case, as the 5D MkIII wipes the floor with it, and the D800 is a pile crap once you pass ISO3200 for shooting video. Yet the D800 gives the 5D MkIII a good kicking in the still image department.