BASIC ISO RATING RED MX

[Von Thomas]

I understand the inclination not to display a RAW image on set. In most cases only a couple people will have any idea what you are looking at much less undestand what it means, and it always creates questions, doubts and sometimes panic. Then you spend the next hour putting out fires, explaining your technique and justifying your choices. It is far less stressful for everyone (and quicker) if you only show your look. If I want to know what the sensor is getting (I always want to know what the sensor is getting.) I look at the histogram. I almost live by the histogram. I still will flip over to a RAW view to have a look at the extent and appearance of noise when I am working on the fringe but it is quick and very private.

Scott I notice a big sense of fear on set at showing something less pleasing (RAW view). I've been a photographer for a long time, and my clients trusted me. I had control over my shoots, and as things come together, the client would see the development, the evolution. If I were to view a less than pleasing RAW view, my client knows what ever I do it's for the benefit of the shot, besides, the DP is in charge of the image, why be paranoid (unless you don't know what you're doing)? I think a lot of DP's have a sort of fear that keeps them from doing the right thing, like checking to see if their exposures are correct. That happened on my last shoot, and it resulted in the DP blowing highlights. Let's keep this real. We work a job, we are paid to use the tools to give us the best view to get the best results. Not using these tools, is...

 

[Scott Crawley]

Scott I notice a big sense of fear on set at showing something less pleasing (RAW view). I've been a photographer for a long time, and my clients trusted me. I had control over my shoots, and as things come together, the client would see the development, the evolution. If I were to view a less than pleasing RAW view, my client knows what ever I do it's for the benefit of the shot, besides, the DP is in charge of the image, why be paranoid (unless you don't know what you're doing)? I think a lot of DP's have a sort of fear that keeps them from doing the right thing, like checking to see if their exposures are correct. That happened on my last shoot, and it resulted in the DP blowing highlights. Let's keep this real. We work a job, we are paid to use the tools to give us the best view to get the best results. Not using these tools, is...

Yes. My post has been evolving... Sorry to be editing it the way I do.

I use all of the tools. I just try to keep my pants up in the process. I'm not working at the highest levels, so insecurity is rampant and confidence as always is hard won. That is why I am so protective of it as I grow as a Cinematographer. Hell I even have to explain when I flip the edge enhancement off that yes, the image is still in focus. It can be depressing. ;-)

In my own still photography work I didn't have clients looking over my shoulder so this is new to me. I mostly booked on edited images and delivered edited images. I was not working for an art director as often as a consumer. No doubt this effects my choices but I try to keep it within reason.

I take some solice in your suggestion that even folks working at much higher levels than myself are also as insecure about the image on set.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Yes. My post has been evolving... Sorry to be editing it the way I do.

I use all of the tools. I just try to keep my pants up in the process. I'm not working at the highest levels, so insecurity is rampant and confidence as always is hard won. That is why I am so protective of it as I grow as a Cinematographer. Hell I even have to explain when I flip the edge enhancement off that yes, the image is still in focus. It can be depressing. ;-)

In my own still photography work I didn't have clients looking over my shoulder so this is new to me. I mostly booked on edited images and delivered edited images. I was not working for an art director as often as a consumer. No doubt this effects my choices but I try to keep it within reason.

I take some solice in your suggestion that even folks working at much higher levels than myself are also as insecure about the image on set.

Sometimes it just comes down to who's paying the bills. On commercials in particular, if the client monitor looks washed out, desaturated colors, etc. panic will ensue. With the Alexa it's fairly easy to provide a DP image and a client image. With Red you can do the same you just need some additional steps. As long as client is looking at a reasonably good representation of what the image will look like, they tend to be okay.

 

[Zeb B]

Shooting at 320 "Exposes to the Right" which makes for a fatter negative. Shooting at 800 protects the highlights at the expense of file quality and depth (crushed shadows and noise). The goal with anything digital is to expose as far to the right as possible without blowing highlights or over exposing skin tones - this feeds your sensor what it needs to produce a quality image. If you are in a studio situation then shoot at 320. If you are in dynamic lighting such as outdoors then shoot at 800 to prevent clipping on transient highlights.

Simple test: Shoot 2 identical frames on any digital camera. One underexposed and one exposed to the right and see the difference in the file size in megabytes. The underexposed frame will be smaller since it contains less information. That is the basic difference between shooting at 800 vs 320

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

ETTS - Expose to the scene

ETTS - Expose to the scene

Oh Josh, I think you are the king of making sense and being misleading at the same time. Believe it or not, that's meant as a compliment.

IAC:

1) The actual scene makes a difference. Sometimes exposing to the right is not your friend in terms of what you can do with the image in post. Beyond that, as noted above, intentionally populating the file (digital neg) with a code value bias that "sets up well" for what you intend to do to the image in post (virtual darkroom) is of greater utility. In other words, making a digital neg "fatter" is a good philosophy but sometimes making it thicker in the right places - even when it's thinner overall - is a better pathway to the intended results.

2) To me ETTR is like preferring being warm to being cold - makes sense until its 120° and a cool breeze is all you want. I prefer to look carefully at the histogram and see how it changes when I adjust the iris. In most cases, if I have a mountain to the right, I'd rather shut down a bit and spread it across the middle in search of more discrete code values. I also think about what is most important to me in the frame and bias exposure to that at least a bit. I have always believed in the "place and fall" theory of exposure - land key elements, say skin tone for example, where they belong and let the rest of the image "fall" wherever it does. Moreover, while in the pre build 30 days keeping out of the noise floor was something you ignored at your peril, these days I only run right for purely technical reasons if the content in the shadows would suffer in a meaningful way if it had a small amount of noise.

3) IMO, the real deal in terms of exposure reference is not a nominal ASA/ISO rating, but the signal to noise ratio of the sensor as characterized by the manufacturer. In other words, if you're clear of the noise floor anyway, what is ETTR accomplishing? I understand the math of linear code values is operant in terms of precision but other characteristics like optics design, properties of reflected light and a natural balance cannot be completely ignored. Just sayin'

4) Digital imaging has come a long way, but in most cases, "clipping" the top end is still a bad choice which is why I use ISO 800 in production - it also keeps the client monitor reasonably bright which generally keeps them calm (I even have a juiced up LUT I use when the monitor is in high ambient light to compensate for the compromised viewing condition). BTW, if you want the finished look to include "blown" highlights, I prefer to expose more on the button and then shove up the curve in processing to avoid non-linear hue shifts and fringing artifacts common in digital overexposures - sort of a faux film shoulder rolloff accomplished by mimicking a log curve.

Cheers - #19

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Despite all the tools, DP's tend to have exposure styles even if they think they are being fairly technical about it. I know just from working with 2nd Unit DP's that even when agreeing to use the same ISO ratings, I tend to give the image more exposure than many other DP's. it's probably a habit from shooting film negative for so many years and preferring the image printed at higher numbers.

I'm just pointing out the old maxim "know thyself" -- if you tend to underexpose too much now and then, then be conservative with your ISO rating. If your mistakes tend to be towards clipping problems, use a higher ISO rating.

I remember when I was a beginner reading about some DP who was using the new 500 ISO stock "as rated" and saying that his numbers were in the high 30's, which just didn't make sense until I realized he tended to overexpose (despite where he set his meter) and was printing down to normal.

 

[Alex Mandarino]

Oh Josh, I think you are the king of making sense and being misleading at the same time. Believe it or not, that's meant as a compliment.

IAC:

1) The actual scene makes a difference. Sometimes exposing to the right is not your friend in terms of what you can do with the image in post. Beyond that, as noted above, intentionally populating the file (digital neg) with a code value bias that "sets up well" for what you intend to do to the image in post (virtual darkroom) is of greater utility. In other words, making a digital neg "fatter" is a good philosophy but sometimes making it thicker in the right places - even when it's thinner overall - is a better pathway to the intended results.

2) To me ETTR is like preferring being warm to being cold - makes sense until its 120° and a cool breeze is all you want. I prefer to look carefully at the histogram and see how it changes when I adjust the iris. In most cases, if I have a mountain to the right, I'd rather shut down a bit and spread it across the middle in search of more discrete code values. I also think about what is most important to me in the frame and bias exposure to that at least a bit. I have always believed in the "place and fall" theory of exposure - land key elements, say skin tone for example, where they belong and let the rest of the image "fall" wherever it does. Moreover, while in the pre build 30 days keeping out of the noise floor was something you ignored at your peril, these days I only run right for purely technical reasons if the content in the shadows would suffer in a meaningful way if it had a small amount of noise.

3) IMO, the real deal in terms of exposure reference is not a nominal ASA/ISO rating, but the signal to noise ratio of the sensor as characterized by the manufacturer. In other words, if you're clear of the noise floor anyway, what is ETTR accomplishing? I understand the math of linear code values is operant in terms of precision but other characteristics like optics design, properties of reflected light and a natural balance cannot be completely ignored. Just sayin'

4) Digital imaging has come a long way, but in most cases, "clipping" the top end is still a bad choice which is why I use ISO 800 in production - it also keeps the client monitor reasonably bright which generally keeps them calm (I even have a juiced up LUT I use when the monitor is in high ambient light to compensate for the compromised viewing condition). BTW, if you want the finished look to include "blown" highlights, I prefer to expose more on the button and then shove up the curve in processing to avoid non-linear hue shifts and fringing artifacts common in digital overexposures - sort of a faux film shoulder rolloff accomplished by mimicking a log curve.

Cheers - #19

Nice post Blair!

Same here... I usually try to keep things little far from clipping when I can. Since you hardly can expose more then 11.5~12 stops on MX that makes sense in post. I'm often using neat video to clean up a bit, just a tad... And for externals and even on some interiors with ASA 800... but always trying to compensate in 1 stop at least on the lightmeter...

It's funny how clients are always complaining about how dark the image is... good idea to have a LUT ready...

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

David makes a good point about "experimenter bias" (DP proclivities) being a factor. Since I do a lot of commercials with agency/client reps in video village, I roll at 800 to offset their tendency to push for "brighter" levels that can constrain post processing options.

My comfort zone is knowing that if I see a smidgen of clip at 800, but like the exposure overall, I can ignore it with little risk vs 320 where I have to watch the clip like a hawk.

Cheers - #19

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm no genius, but I know nuggets O' wisdom when I see them.

Despite all the tools, DP's tend to have exposure styles even if they think they are being fairly technical about it. I know just from working with 2nd Unit DP's that even when agreeing to use the same ISO ratings, I tend to give the image more exposure than many other DP's. it's probably a habit from shooting film negative for so many years and preferring the image printed at higher numbers.

I'm just pointing out the old maxim "know thyself" -- if you tend to underexpose too much now and then, then be conservative with your ISO rating. If your mistakes tend to be towards clipping problems, use a higher ISO rating.

I remember when I was a beginner reading about some DP who was using the new 500 ISO stock "as rated" and saying that his numbers were in the high 30's, which just didn't make sense until I realized he tended to overexpose (despite where he set his meter) and was printing down to normal.

David makes a good point about "experimenter bias" (DP proclivities) being a factor. Since I do a lot of commercials with agency/client reps in video village, I roll at 800 to offset their tendency to push for "brighter" levels that can constrain post processing options.

My comfort zone is knowing that if I see a smidgen of clip at 800, but like the exposure overall, I can ignore it with little risk vs 320 where I have to watch the clip like a hawk.

Cheers - #19

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Ignacia, if you meter to iso 320-500 to get richer/cleaner exposure, then why would you shoot at 800? You're only going to bring it back down to 320-500 in Red Cine X, right?

Yes, you can bring it down about one stop in post without problems if you meter to a lower ISO but keep rating the camera at ISO 800, or you can shoot as well with the camera set (just metadata) at 320-500, which will only affect client/director visualization if you read your false color or histograms in RAW mode at your LCD or own monitor.

As David says, each DP has his own preference, style or exposure technique. I have a tendency to underexpose, so for me it's safer to use a lower ISO rating because this way I kind of force myself to use more light (or open the iris a bit more) and always I can bring up to ISO 800 in post without significant noise if I made a mistake and got too dark images. Of course you can get great results metering and shooting at 800 ISO, but for me this is the way that works best.