I've spent a few days playing around with settings and found that in 'auto' if I dial in 1 or 2 or 3 stops lower/higher, the ISO does its best to stay around 800 when I have it set to the range of 100-800. In order to maintain correct exposure, the camera adjusts the shutter in preference to ISO. Even in bright daylight, the ISO doesn't want to drop.

I know that DJI say that the native ISO is quite high so is it not worth us going down to ISO 100 or 200 in manual mode? No benefits in noise levels?

I'm assuming that the camera is looking for high shutter speeds for stabilisation but it goes extremely high in bright light, in favour of 800 ISO if it can, but is 800 or so the lowest noise level for this camera?

Do you have a problem with the noise in the footage at the ISO the camera selects?

There was already a topic about the (native) ISO and DJI said that the (first?) native ISO of the sensor is at 570 (and the second at 6400). The auto-exposure also favors higher shutter speed to avoid motion blur when stabilizing the footage. You can obviously restrict the ISO from the settings. You will be getting lower noise, lower dynamic range, and will risk stabe artifacts if you shake the camera enough to introduce motion blur. You will be fine if you know what you are doing. The auto-exposure algorithm is probably also fine to favor faster shutter, because the average user doesn't notice noise as much as (motion blur / stabe) artifacts.

The ISO is not a noise standard, so I wouldn't assume that 800 or another value is high for one sensor, if another sensor/camera had noise issues at the same sensitivity.

fish sticks Posted at 3-10 01:44
Do you have a problem with the noise in the footage at the ISO the camera selects?

There was already a topic about the (native) ISO and DJI said that the (first?) native ISO of the sensor is at 570 (and the second at 6400). The auto-exposure also favors higher shutter speed to avoid motion blur when stabilizing the footage. You can obviously restrict the ISO from the settings. You will be getting lower noise, lower dynamic range, and will risk stabe artifacts if you shake the camera enough to introduce motion blur. You will be fine if you know what you are doing. The auto-exposure algorithm is probably also fine to favor faster shutter, because the average user doesn't notice noise as much as (motion blur / stabe) artifacts.

No, I don’t have a noise issue, but I would like to know if there is any benefit to going down to 100 to get footage as smooth looking as it can possibly be. To see noise, I would need to get right in there.

I don’t use the camera generally for action specifically so stabilisation isn’t an issue for me. I use slower shutter speeds.

It’s just me and my friend, OCD that noticed auto mode seems to stick around 700 - 800 ISO with what I see are extremely fast shutter speeds. 1/800 or more. I often shoot manually as a result, to get the shutter down.

It goes up just as high when set on 'Daily' or 'Sports'. I was hoping that 'Daily' would bring the shutter down a bit in auto, but it doesn't seem to.

Aha…. I’ve found an answer. In manual mode, set the shutter to whatever you want, and set the ISO range 100-800. When you do that, the ISO shifts down to 100 when you point into a bright area!

Hi Ian, this is fine until you are in an area where the stabilisation struggles then the footage looks terrible. I also tried for a bit but ended up just leaving at defaults iso wise. Fixing shutter when I know light won’t change and lowering the ev.

Quadcopterer Posted at 3-10 04:31
Hi Ian, this is fine until you are in an area where the stabilisation struggles then the footage looks terrible. I also tried for a bit but ended up just leaving at defaults iso wise. Fixing shutter when I know light won’t change and lowering the ev.

Yes, scrub that. I did a more challenging shot and the levels flicked up and down again! Blast!!!

A lot of what Im videoing is on support or gimbal, so I turn stabilisation off in order to get a slower shutter. When I’m walking, I generally let it do its thing if I’m not using the gimbal.

It just helps to lose a bit of that sharp edged look. Very noticeable on a projector or large TV.

I can’t lose that exposure jigging without leaving it on manual. The exposure moves too rapidly so it flicks all over the place if you move around in front of the lens.

I've been messing with it to see if I can do anything about that exposure jigging. Looks like at the moment, only manual will hold it still! However, fixing the shutter and allowing just the ISO to wander does get the ISO down. Doesn't seem to matter whether you fix the shutter at 1/400 for stabilisation or 1/50 for motion blur. The ISO drops. It doesn't drop in auto.


In my front room, I can manually get the camera to drop to ISO 200 and have a nice exposure.
In auto, it goes straight to ISO 800 and sets up a really fast shutter.

I've found another anomaly though. In auto, HDR shows. In manual, at the same exposure level, no HDR. Sky went white while the land was the same shade.

I have another little trick i use, when a gimbal is hassle i use a little handheld recorder shock mount to place the osmo on. It actually works really well for vibrations when walking.

That’s really nifty. And no bouncing?

To do really smooth and slow pans, I mount mine on a neck mount and very slowly twist my body. It works really well too. Walking is a difficult one though. Even on a gimbal, you’re hard pushed to avoid up and down motion.

It looks as though manual is getting rid of the HDR look. That's surprising. As long as I set ISO low, the contrast is very different to auto. If I copy the auto settings, they look very similar so now, Im wondering what the ISO setting does.

Maybe its my imagination but i think my little shock mount makes a difference.

Weather has been a factor of further testing, but generally i always use Dlog M, Always lock WB, negative ev and sometimes either fixed shutter or us an ND, I generally do not get exposure fluctuations but the sky generally looks a bit to a lot naff. Especially where the tree line meets the sky, I am usually in a small glen or countryside so it’s a bit darker in general.

Iancraig10 Posted at 3-10 08:59
That’s really nifty. And no bouncing?

To do really smooth and slow pans, I mount mine on a neck mount and very slowly twist my body. It works really well too. Walking is a difficult one though. Even on a gimbal, you’re hard pushed to avoid up and down motion.

Reducing the "HDR look" at low ISO could be due to squashing the dynamic range so the sensor or the tone mapping can't recover the details in the highlights. You might get more of this in 8bit compared to 10bit.

fish sticks Posted at 3-10 11:29
Reducing the "HDR look" at low ISO could be due to squashing the dynamic range so the sensor or the tone mapping can't recover the details in the highlights. You might get more of this in 8bit compared to 10bit.

That’s interesting. It does clip a lot easier.I might have a go with this in 8 bit tomorrow. I’ve never seen ISO affecting a picture so much before tbh.

If you imitate the auto setting, it looks the same. Change ISO and the dynamic range changes.

Iancraig10 Posted at 3-10 11:35
That’s interesting. It does clip a lot easier.I might have a go with this in 8 bit tomorrow. I’ve never seen ISO affecting a picture so much before tbh.

If you imitate the auto setting, it looks the same. Change ISO and the dynamic range changes.

That's true, read this article and watch the video carefully - ISO has nothing to do with exposure in video shooting. Also, maybe dual iso fusion technology gives HDR effect to OA5 Pro shots
https://fstoppers.com/education/ ... -best-option-343087

308NZ Posted at 3-12 05:20
That's true, read this article and watch the video carefully - ISO has nothing to do with exposure in video shooting. Also, maybe dual iso fusion technology gives HDR effect to OA5 Pro shots
https://fstoppers.com/education/ ... -best-option-343087

Many thanks for this. It's made what is going on way more clear to me now. Probably a bit 'nerdy' for most people, but I feel that I've learned a huge lesson in digital videography.

It’s a very complex video so I’m going to keep coming back to hammer in what he says. Anyone interested, it’s quite long and technical, but here it is …..




One thing is puzzling though. I just set the manual setting to the same as the auto (shown settings) and the contrast levels are different. The manual setting is giving a 'harder' look than the auto. Something is being bypassed in manual mode. Take the same shot of something with a highlight on it in auto and manual at the same setting. I took one of a leather chair reflecting window light. The highlight on the manual version was way brighter and the overall picture had more contrast than the auto version which definitely looked more hdr like. Something is being circuit is bypassed in manual mode I think.

Contrast levels are different between auto and manual modes. Less dynamic range in manual even at the same settings (ISO and shutter). It's not just linked to ISO.

Iancraig10 Posted at 3-12 06:01
Many thanks for this. It's made what is going on way more clear to me now. Probably a bit 'nerdy' for most people, but I feel that I've learned a huge lesson in digital videography.

It’s a very complex video so I’m going to keep coming back to hammer in what he says. Anyone interested, it’s quite long and technical, but here it is …..

Is there a way to see the actual ISO value used when shooting video with the OA5 pro? There is no problem to see the ISO in the video shot with the OA4 camera via the ExifTool utility. But for the AO5 pro there is no information about ISO. If this is not a bug in the ExifTool utility, then it may indicate that DJI uses dual ISO for video processing, which is why there is no single ISO parameter in Exif. DJI uses Dual ISO Fusion technology in their Mini. Does this remind you of something?

308NZ Posted at 3-12 08:52
Is there a way to see the actual ISO value used when shooting video with the OA5 pro? There is no problem to see the ISO in the video shot with the OA4 camera via the ExifTool utility. But for the AO5 pro there is no information about ISO. If this is not a bug in the ExifTool utility, then it may indicate that DJI uses dual ISO for video processing, which is why there is no single ISO parameter in Exif. DJI uses Dual ISO Fusion technology in their Mini. Does this remind you of something?https://cdn.djivideos.com/video_play/57814231-d485-447d-983e-f29374fb1e90

In auto mode, the ISO chosen is shown in the pro menu in the top right hand corner.

I dial that ISO in manually and then adjust shutter to the same exposure level.

The result is that in manual, the overall tone looks darker and the sky is blown out.
In auto, it’s more even and the sky is fully there.

It’s quite dramatic. In fact, the footage res blew the Action 4 in manual. More contrast and harder looking.

The effect that you're showing on your video is exactly what I'm getting.

DJI said that it's native ISO was 570. They didn't give two values for dual ISO.

DJI said that the native ISOs are at 570 and 6400 in the other topic, but it got lost in the following debate.

Since this topic got revived, I now also think that the turned off HDR effect is probably due to disabling the dual gain of the sensor when fixing the ISO from the settings, not so much from lowering the ISO below the native. Kudos for finding a workaround for the default look in Normal mode.

Also, not very important for the discussion, but the camera does lower the ISO below 800 with enough light. I got it down to 250 by going out when it was sunny.

fish sticks Posted at 3-12 12:28
DJI said that the native ISOs are at 570 and 6400 in the other topic, but it got lost in the following debate.

Since this topic got revived, I now also think that the turned off HDR effect is probably due to disabling the dual gain of the sensor when fixing the ISO from the settings, not so much from lowering the ISO below the native. Kudos for finding a workaround for the default look in Normal mode.

Thanks for the possible reason. I’m not certain how the dual ISO actually works. I presume that when the light is low enough, it switches to higher gain? Not fusing the two via in camera post work?

The effect is quite dramatic. At first, I thought that I was doing something odd, but I’ve found that it’s consistent.

Contrast becomes harder and skies get blown away much easier. It can look rougher because the contrast is quite pronounced, but might be useful.

The flattening of the skin tone is happening in auto, but not in manual. In manual, it can contain blown out segments so the exposure needs to be lowered below auto in order to stop highlights going. That gives a darker looking picture, but it can be tweaked (as I would do normally) in post by raising gamma slightly and lows. The auto mode does this all for us, but I don't like what it does to bright highlights.

I’m just looking for a way to avoid that flattened look when the light is bright. I’m now thinking manual but in d log M in order to get the contrast down.

So far, I’ve been in normal 10 bit. I try to avoid d log M to save luts in more time in post but in harsh conditions, Im wondering about it changing the look on skin.

I got the iso to drop to 100 via manual, but also did get it to attempt to go down in auto at one point!

I heard dual ISO is the core of how they implement their version of HDR and achieve the "13.5" steps of dynamic range  As such it is not true dynamic range based on true sensor image capture capabilities, instead it is a  processing trick. You can do the same with almost any image by stacking shots taken at different light capturing settings and then masking out the areas that create over or under exposure..
This is a common practice among stills photographers where it works effectively. In practice, stacking images with different exposures can offer almmost infinite dynamic range, but if you have that.. then everythnig will be very flat, almost completely without contrast.
https://www.alanranger.com/blog- ... e-bracketing-photos

For video though, it becomes a HUGE computational problem which can't be handled by such a small processing device, which may explain the shortcuts and limits of the images we are getting.  

The 13.5 dynamic range is a marketing gimmic, as it claims to be almost as good as 35mm cinema cameras such as the Canon C400 https://www.cined.com/canon-eos- ... -exposure-latitude/

Bruka Posted at 3-12 23:38
I heard dual ISO is the core of how they implement their version of HDR and achieve the "13.5" steps of dynamic range  As such it is not true dynamic range based on true sensor image capture capabilities, instead it is a  processing trick. You can do the same with almost any image by stacking shots taken at different light capturing settings and then masking out the areas that create over or under exposure..
This is a common practice among stills photographers where it works effectively. In practice, stacking images with different exposures can offer almmost infinite dynamic range, but if you have that.. then everythnig will be very flat, almost completely without contrast.
https://www.alanranger.com/blog-on-photography/exposure-bracketing-photos

The 13.5 stop thing was just a huge marketing ploy probably. I used to do two takes with my old SLR cameras in still photography, but the biggest difference was that you had more control of the amount of dynamic range you wanted to show.

All the Action 5 seems to do is flatten everything down and imo, it’s just a bit too ferocious. Especially highlights and I think colour then gets altered in the process.

This manual trick I’m doing might be bypassing something to do with contrast, but it does get very gritty looking if you’re not careful. At least the squashed highlights go away.

I might play around with d log M and manual today. I haven't tried that yet. The lower contrast of d log will probably help the grittiness. I might not even need a LUT!

I’m not suggesting btw that we should all be running around in manual. It’s just an escape route from the automatic enforced processing that the camera does.

I did a quick comparison with the Ace Pro 2 contrast.

By comparison, the Action 5 doesn’t find a middle ground between what I’m seeing in manual and auto. The contrast levels on the high brightness sections are either pretty squashed or gone in manual mode. The Ace Pro HDR switch is subtle. I don’t think that it actually turns the effect off but calms it a little so there’s more of a ‘middle’ ground. It seems to cope better in contrasty situations.

In many respects, what is going on here is quite similar to how these relatively 'cheap' devices handle audio. They try to provide 'features', but they can only do so within a very, very tight budget, which directly reflects upon the components used, the processing power limitations, etc. So - if you look at some higher end cameras that use dual-native ISO like the Lumix S1 or S5iiX, they have a lot more leeway in design potential as they have the space, the power (literally the battery power too), and the budget to implement this really well. Here, though, we are talking about a camera at roughly 1/4 the price with a relatively tiny sensor. You can only do so much. Laws of physics and finance kick in. It's exactly the same with the heavily promoted 32-bit float recording and the DJI Mic 2. Yes, it is 32-bit float but it is not going to deliver the same audio quality as you get with, say, a Sound Devices MixPre or Zoom F3 or F6. The preamps are not even close. The noise floor is much higher, the distortion levels do not begin to compare. But many expect the performance of these cheap devices to be similar. Reality is, they are not and can't be. They are remarkably good for what they cost, however!  You can do a lot with software, but it cannot totally overcome hardware limits.

Natural Sounds and Sights Posted at 3-13 01:01
In many respects, what is going on here is quite similar to how these relatively 'cheap' devices handle audio. They try to provide 'features', but they can only do so within a very, very tight budget, which directly reflects upon the components used, the processing power limitations, etc. So - if you look at some higher end cameras that use dual-native ISO like the Lumix S1 or S5iiX, they have a lot more leeway in design potential as they have the space, the power (literally the battery power too), and the budget to implement this really well. Here, though, we are talking about a camera at roughly 1/4 the price with a relatively tiny sensor. You can only do so much. Laws of physics and finance kick in. It's exactly the same with the heavily promoted 32-bit float recording and the DJI Mic 2. Yes, it is 32-bit float but it is not going to deliver the same audio quality as you get with, say, a Sound Devices MixPre or Zoom F3 or F6. The preamps are not even close. The noise floor is much higher, the distortion levels do not begin to compare. But many expect the performance of these cheap devices to be similar. Reality is, they are not and can't be. They are remarkably good for what they cost, however!  You can do a lot with software, but it cannot totally overcome hardware limits.

I think you’re right. There are just limitations probably due to component quality.

It’s very close to being brilliant actually. The contrast levels in such a tiny camera are pretty amazing. When I point the camera towards my window, it’s capturing both the relatively dull inside as well as sky detail outside. Almost like a painting!

I think the Ace switch is not fully off but it tempers the effect. It may not be possible to ‘switch it off’ but the Action would be excellent if there was a choice of level imo.

Manual seems to switch something off.
Auto whacks it full on.

We need a ManAuto…….  ;  )

These are great times for videography/photography and innovations in these little cameras has absolutely shot out. When you look back at some of the little monstrosities I was using when action cams appeared, these new ones are a totally new thing. And it's great that we can all chat about it all over the world and compare what happens. We used to have just a monthly magazine and that was it!!

For those that refuse to accept the laws of physics (and economics), there is a simple solution. All cameras and audio devices have compromises. If you want the best audio quality, get yourself a Sound Devices 633. Beautiful machine. Sounds gorgeous. Built like a tank. Wireless mic set? Lectrosonics. No worries about line of sight... camera? Sony FX6 is fabulous. Brilliant image quality, dynamic range, low-light performance and the rest. Good enough for big budget pro productions. All you need is $20-25K + and no, you can't attach it all to your bike and I don't advise going in your swimming pool with it either I did mention compromises..

Natural Sounds and Sights Posted at 3-13 01:35
For those that refuse to accept the laws of physics (and economics), there is a simple solution. All cameras and audio devices have compromises. If you want the best audio quality, get yourself a Sound Devices 633. Beautiful machine. Sounds gorgeous. Built like a tank. Wireless mic set? Lectrosonics. No worries about line of sight... camera? Sony FX6 is fabulous. Brilliant image quality, dynamic range, low-light performance and the rest. Good enough for big budget pro productions. All you need is $20-25K + and no, you can't attach it all to your bike and I don't advise going in your swimming pool with it either  I did mention compromises..

Hahah. Attach an FX6 to your bike!

Well there is another issue brought in by Action cams imo. As a kid in the 60’s, I was taught to be very careful with movement in movie cameras. Especially pans.

Action cams almost invite people to throw them around and still expect a stable picture, with no regard for lighting or shutter speed, or even exposure. It’s all auto so if the camera doesn’t make the right decision for them, it’s the camera’s fault!

It reminds me of the Box Brownie. People sent their rolls of film away and when they came back with duff pictures, people totally accepted it … ‘Oh it didn’t come out’. Basically because they didn’t know what they were doing. I feel as though action cams became the modern box brownie!

I love 'em though. Got loads!!!

Very much so.

You now have a lot of very sophisticated tech that has filtered down to people who, in many cases, have no real clue as to what they are doing, no real experience, and expect it to perform miracles. They also often have totally unrealistic expectations.  It is akin to giving everyone a keyboard and expecting them to morph into an author with no effort required.

Just thinking back, but my first 'small' video camera was the Sony VX-1000 way back in 1996. Prior to that, huge Super VHS and Betacam SP shoulder-mount back-breakers. It was amazing for the time. 3CCD chip, OIS, digital to mini-DV. Shot loads on that thing, all over the world. It was better than the massive cameras I'd used previously. It cost 3,000 quid in '96!  Now we have the Pocket 3 and Action series  that blow it out of the water for video quality at a fraction of the price. Progress... and I certainly appreciate that.  

I started in late 60’s with old war time still cameras and then my first movie camera … super 8mm 3 minute reels. No stabilisation. No preview. Had to physically edit the rolls and show on a projector. No sound, so I composed and recorded soundtracks onto a reel to reel with a sync tone and ran them both together.

Now I just bung a drive into theTV!

Ha! Yes. I saved up and got an old Bolex! Clockwork! Then I could barely afford to get the films developed to find out where I'd messed up! Those were the days (not). Possibly more fun, mind!

Natural Sounds and Sights Posted at 3-13 02:25
Ha! Yes. I saved up and got an old Bolex! Clockwork! Then I could barely afford to get the films developed to find out where I'd messed up! Those were the days (not). Possibly more fun, mind!

I think so. More of a sense that YOU made the film because of the effort I guess.

Bolex was quite posh!