One of the important factors in a horror film is it’s low-light conditions and shadows. While a very large part of this is lighting and composition, the camera must also be capable of functioning in the conditions, or there will be noise and other factors that demerit the entire production. Many cameras start to struggle in low light (even with a low ISO), and that had already been one of the deciding factors when I purchased my Fujifilm x-t3 (thank you tax return and 21st birthday.)
I also had a 18-55mm lens for the Fujifilm, which I thought was a f/1.4, but it turned out to be a f/2.8. I’m currently trying to track down a f/1.4 as it would benefit production, though the f/2.8 is still low enough that the product looks decent (and, at times that we want to see what is in the background and not solely Sid, will be useful anyway).
First, I wanted to see examples of the Fujifilm in low light conditions, and found this video by YouTuber Carlos Quintero. He tests out the Fuji using autofocus (alone in his house) with no lighting sans for three candles. I thought it provided very interesting results – not only the obvious, but the subtle things as well. (Watch it in 4K).
This is also with no editing (unless specified).
So Carlos starts off demonstrating the camera at a relatively high ISO of 800 – he does not go below this! I don’t know what aperture he’s using – I’m assuming it’s fairly low, given it’s Fuji it could be 1.4 or 2.8. At ISO 800, there is very little noise, no colour shift, and frankly, the texture is pretty good. The camera is able to focus, though it’s not flawless.
He then moves up to ISO 1000 – and yes, there is noise in the image. Mainly in that front area with the tiles. The background is now also slightly visible, which might be useful for our production. The colour is warm (but that can be graded). All things considered, it’s still performing well as the ISO of 1000, but it is almost unable to focus. So if we want to see a bit of bg, we may have to use manual focus (though this might be a good idea anyway.
At ISO 1250, there’s more detail in the background, the noise becomes more obvious, though it can still be remedied through editing. There’s more detail in the background, which again, might be useful in our production.
At 1600 ISO, the auto focus almost completely loses it, but again, if there’s only subtle movement, or manual focus is used, this can be countered. There’s quite a bit of noise. The wide shot has issues, but the close up? There’s almost no issues at the point of focus. Though the area around the candles is an issue.
At ISO 2000, the autofocus is totally lost and the wideshot has fallen apart. It’s very unlikely that this would be used in any real sense of the world (that said, so would be lighting something with three candles). Colour can be fixed somewhat in post, but it’s introducing a lot of factors to mess around with.
Furthermore, the light was very highlighted – Carlos described this as a ‘night vision’ effect – and I think that could be an interesting facet to explore. Might give us a creepy effect in the right moments.
Overall, though, I was pretty impressed with the end product that Carlos achieved. As I said, I don’t know what aperture he used. I’m guessing by the amount of light he managed to get from the three candles, it was low.
The other note that I thought was that the light source was in the scene, not out of it. This will effect the camera’s apature (if it’s on auto) and shutter speed, and may impact further on the focus. We are more likely to be using external lighting, which will not impact our shot as much in this way.
Finally, the lowest ISO Carlos used was 800, which is not by any means low. The x-t3 goes down to 160. I wanted to do some of my own experimenting, and initially started with high ISOs in a dark bathroom, focusing on liquid soap and changing the apature. Light was an iPhone light covered in tissues.
Not too long after starting this experiment, I decided that it would be more productive to play with the lower ISOs, so I stopped editing the origional ones (they no longer have titles setting everything apart) and went and re-filmed in the same room but this time using a full light from the phone. The subject is unmoving (as you’d hope. It’s soap (mental note for a feature film titles ‘Rise of the Killer Soaps’)), so focus is going to have an easy time latching on. Other settings were all just default, even though the camera offers a lot of image enhancement.
I’m still going to list the original videos, because I filmed them so why not. As they were all at a high ISO, there is a lot of noise, especially at the soap and in front of it. I find changing the apature interesting as we can use that to get different effects re: what the audience can see in the background.
The following were filmed in 4K, I’m pretty sure media factory compresses the bejesus out of uploaded media…
This was my test at ISO 2000. There was absolutely no noise in the subject, and it was totally clear. There is noise at the front left, but this would be manageable in post (not that we want to use it with the intent of fixing it in post). Though, after f/4.0, it becomes more and more unusable.
It also had to be compressed because I couldn’t upload the full file…
This was at 1600, not too different from the 2000. Again, after f/4.0 the footage starts to become more unusable, but it’s not awful.
This was at ISO 1250… again, it was clear that there was noise all the way though. It was at this point I decided to go and refilm with lower ISOs, and move up instead.
The images area also getting noticeably darker for the same apature and a higher ISO.
Then I went back and reshot, using no tripod so the camera needed to put a little more effort into focusing. I tested from lower ISOs this time.
160… Even on the low aperture of 2.8, it was a bit noisy…
It honestly looked better at ISO 200…
And better again at ISO 320… this is probably the lowest I’d use in these conditions, also allows for some use of zoom.
Then at ISO 400… This was really when it started becoming the most effective, which was surprising as I didn’t think that it would last to an ISO this high, let alone start looking better.
ISO 600… crisper image, not much noise in the foreground…
ISO 720… starting to see noise on the soap.
ISO 800… which handles very well, and a low aperture is not needed.
Given that these lighting conditions were just ludicrous, I was impressed at the camera’s ability to handle. Of course, I still think that there will be experimenting on set on the day, but I trust this cameras ability.
