Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Basic rules of exposure

Guys, I have to say that at some point all the tech has to be put on the sidelines and as we learn how this system reacts, we go with our gut. I can honestly say that those of us who have shot film for years, know without running around a set with a light meter how a certain filmstock will react in any given circumstance......
I can't see any reason why at some point we all use the meter, work on a base exposure, whether pre-determined or not, and light around that. I am not a film fanboy or a digi fanboy...I just love working in whatever medium I can get my hands on. Film kicks arse and Digital capture kicks arse.
this is a great post to see the differing POV's....in the end, shoot it all and let your eye sort it out.
Eric
 
David Rasberry said:
Great thread guys, I have learned a lot from this.

Kay, I carry sheets of foamcore for situations like this. Cut it up and us it for a reflector to fill shadows a little bit.
Click to expand...

You should have seen the interior of that car... it´s a small old british MG BGT... I still wonder how I was able to squeeze myself into the back... the whole crew was laughing when they saw me... no place for foamcore... I would have needed a trailer to put the car on and a rig for lighting, but that just wasn´t an option...
 
I have to sy Eric, i am half with you and half not. The very reason i started this thread is because i have a similar philosophy to you, i know the characteristics of certain stocks, and can pretty much predict the outcome based on my eye, instinct and my trusty spot meter. But with the RED i was being kind of off footed, tricked if you like. I just find it so hard compensating so much against my instinct. i.e my recent footage, when looked at on the linear light settings on redalert were all coming in at 2 stops under. It's quite a big leap for me to light a couple of stops over what my mind is telling me should be adequately exposed. The very binary way that the RED takes in light seems to clash with what feels right. So i started this thread, i suppose in a kind of thoughts out loud way of having that internal dialogue that i need to have with myself about how i am perceiving all this. I kind of hate the whole thing of this being so formulaic, graphs, scopes etc, feels like it's taking away some of the magic. Like i say this is just how I feel, i cant speak for anyone else.

Shooting RED seems for me to take away a little bit of the fear or film, the apprehension, and maybe i thrived on that a little bit. In truth the RED is the camera i have always dreamed about, the impossible, i suppose as the old saying goes ' Be careful what you wish for as you might just get it ' .

Another part of my lighting process is based on how i started in the business and I still am working as an actor, i am 25 years in now, and spent the best part of my life since i was 15 yrs old being lit in some form either on stage or on set. So when i am lighting i spend quite a bit of time walking into my light, you see i know when i am lit, as an actor i can feel it. it's a lot of instinct. I am really trying to get my intellect around the RED.



spitfire44 said:
Guys, I have to say that at some point all the tech has to be put on the sidelines and as we learn how this system reacts, we go with our gut. I can honestly say that those of us who have shot film for years, know without running around a set with a light meter how a certain filmstock will react in any given circumstance......
I can't see any reason why at some point we all use the meter, work on a base exposure, whether pre-determined or not, and light around that. I am not a film fanboy or a digi fanboy...I just love working in whatever medium I can get my hands on. Film kicks arse and Digital capture kicks arse.
this is a great post to see the differing POV's....in the end, shoot it all and let your eye sort it out.
Eric
Click to expand...
 
in regards to the car shot - If possible - ND filters on windows exterior. just make sure they dont "wrinkle". same with indoors use filters on windows - IF Possible.

ive seen documentaries where they "nd" wrapped a car.

and yeah - damn good thread. I am getting smarter. but also a little uncertain - exposure to the right is complete opposite of what ive been doing... always avoid clipping highlights I thought. Now I am not sure about that anymore....

but on the simple note. - use false color and RGB stoplight in REDspace or REC709. keep faces around green and "no stop lights" and you are good to go. (interviews and such...). and dont worry about RAW.
that must be the simple answer.

just know that if you want to squeese the sensor for best quality, worry about RAW:)
 
Bob.H said:
I have to sy Eric, i am half with you and half not. The very reason i started this thread is because i have a similar philosophy to you, i know the characteristics of certain stocks, and can pretty much predict the outcome based on my eye, instinct and my trusty spot meter. But with the RED i was being kind of off footed, tricked if you like. I just find it so hard compensating so much against my instinct. i.e my recent footage, when looked at on the linear light settings on redalert were all coming in at 2 stops under. It's quite a big leap for me to light a couple of stops over what my mind is telling me should be adequately exposed. The very binary way that the RED takes in light seems to clash with what feels right. So i started this thread, i suppose in a kind of thoughts out loud way of having that internal dialogue that i need to have with myself about how i am perceiving all this. I kind of hate the whole thing of this being so formulaic, graphs, scopes etc, feels like it's taking away some of the magic. Like i say this is just how I feel, i cant speak for anyone else.

Shooting RED seems for me to take away a little bit of the fear or film, the apprehension, and maybe i thrived on that a little bit. In truth the RED is the camera i have always dreamed about, the impossible, i suppose as the old saying goes ' Be careful what you wish for as you might just get it ' .

Another part of my lighting process is based on how i started in the business and I still am working as an actor, i am 25 years in now, and spent the best part of my life since i was 15 yrs old being lit in some form either on stage or on set. So when i am lighting i spend quite a bit of time walking into my light, you see i know when i am lit, as an actor i can feel it. it's a lot of instinct. I am really trying to get my intellect around the RED.
Click to expand...

I too come from a theater background. Stage or screen, we are painters of light. ( Eat your heart out Thomas Kincaide):bleh:

I may be talking through my hat here, as I am anxiously awaiting Scarlet to begin this learning curve too. With normal YUV color space video cameras I have used the meters, charts , and test equipment to find an ISO reference, gamma curve and color settings to match my visual instincts to the camera's capabilities. A similar approach with RED may help to establish that instinctive connection again.

Thanks Jay, your examples are most helpful.
 
Back in July I have started to break down a typical workflow for guys over at Scarletuser, while they are waiting for the redhead to come. In the first part of the series I have broken down the exposure issue with simple graphic examples. I hope You can find something useful over there...:

http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=567

:) Peter
 
kay madsen said:
it gets tricky with extremely bright highlights like reflections in a chrome car bumper for example... you have to check the RAW file, look at it in false color mode to see where exactly in the frame you´re highlights are and decide if they are really worth protecting... sometimes it´s better to let a highlight clip in exchange for some more tonal values in the shadows and midtones in order to get less noise...
Click to expand...

This is what continues to puzzle me- why should I protect a specular highlight? It is just that- a small highlight that really doesn't have any info worth saving in it. And this is why I find the traffic lights useless. They go off at 1% which is where the specular highlight falls.

I would much rather give the sensor as much light as it can get and ETTR and let the specular highlights blow out so that I can get a better exposure on the part of the image I feel is more important- faces, etc.

Is this thinking "wrong"? Am I missing something here? Why is everyone so concerned about protecting the specular highlights? And is you do protect for those highlights then doesn't it end up resulting in ETTL a lot of the time?
 
The skill of exposure is knowing which highlights to protect, and which to let go. If there's no detail in the specular itself, all we need to do is ensure any roll-off is pleasant. Aiming your exposure to what you think is the most important part of the scene is the key to making every camera work. Although we're alway making cameras better to reduce exposure constraints, I don't see that the main skill of cinematography - lighting - and how it works together with exposure, is going to go away soon.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The skill of exposure is knowing which highlights to protect, and which to let go. If there's no detail in the specular itself, all we need to do is ensure any roll-off is pleasant. Aiming your exposure to what you think is the most important part of the scene is the key to making every camera work. Although we're alway making cameras better to reduce exposure constraints, I don't see that the main skill of cinematography - lighting - and how it works together with exposure, is going to go away soon.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Great- thanks- that's what I thought. (I was just getting confused with all the talk on these boards around making sure that nothing clips.)
 
Peter Majtan said:
Back in July I have started to break down a typical workflow for guys over at Scarletuser, while they are waiting for the redhead to come. In the first part of the series I have broken down the exposure issue with simple graphic examples. I hope You can find something useful over there...:

http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=567

:) Peter
Click to expand...

Peter,

I am impressed with your post at Scarletuser. Not because the level of your knowledge, but a professional cinematographer expending time writing that...the scarlet users should be very grateful of that!

I expend all my time in the field trying to capture a few seconds of interesting behavior of wild animals, hardly I have time to check my email (or Redusers ). When I am not in the field I am doing DP/CO in some commercial or feature. I can’t imagine expending my time writing a “course” like you did. Don’t get me wrong I’ll be happy to do it; just I do not have the time.:shifty:

Congratulations!!!

P.S. I have read several of your post all of them very useful e interesting!
 
Ryan E. Walters said:
This is what continues to puzzle me- why should I protect a specular highlight? It is just that- a small highlight that really doesn't have any info worth saving in it. And this is why I find the traffic lights useless. They go off at 1% which is where the specular highlight falls.

I would much rather give the sensor as much light as it can get and ETTR and let the specular highlights blow out so that I can get a better exposure on the part of the image I feel is more important- faces, etc.

Is this thinking "wrong"? Am I missing something here? Why is everyone so concerned about protecting the specular highlights? And is you do protect for those highlights then doesn't it end up resulting in ETTL a lot of the time?
Click to expand...

I don't think the main thrust if the conversation is about specular highlights and weather or not to protect them, that's mainly an artistic choice - broadcasters aren't that mad about them so if we're going to TV its a consideration - it's how does the way we read meters in the camera affect the image, and what are the choices that people make with regards that.

A burned out highlight is dead space if its dead space your happy with then that's fine.
 
Bob.H said:
I don't think the main thrust if the conversation is about specular highlights and weather or not to protect them, that's mainly an artistic choice - broadcasters aren't that mad about them so if we're going to TV its a consideration - it's how does the way we read meters in the camera affect the image, and what are the choices that people make with regards that.

A burned out highlight is dead space if its dead space your happy with then that's fine.
Click to expand...

Yep agreed- it is not the main thrust of the conversation. However after hearing the recommendation over and over on various threads about not letting anything clip it was making me re-question my own methodology...
 
Ryan E. Walters said:
Yep agreed- it is not the main thrust of the conversation. However after hearing the recommendation over and over on various threads about not letting anything clip it was making me re-question my own methodology...
Click to expand...

Absolutely, there is so much said on the forums, i know just how you feel. Re-questioning myself also.
 
Thanks Peter.

All of this suggests that metering of some kind, both external and internal is as essential to exposing RAW as exposing film. Its a matter of becoming as familiar with the sensor characteristics as one would with film stock characteristics for best results.
 
I think it´s really important to fully understand the differences between exposing a sensor and exposing negative film stock, where they have their limitations and how to get the best performance out of them. My goal is not having to think about it anymore once I´ve got it down, to reach a point where I´m able to trust my instincts.

It always takes me time, practice and a few moments of confusion to integrate new knowledge and move it "from the brain to the gut". This thread helped me to get a step closer. Thank´s everybody for your input.

I wish all of you a nice linear slide into the new year and great exposures in the next 12 bits.

Cheers,

Kay
 
Bob.H said:
can i highlight the philosophy of KEEP IT SIMPLE
Click to expand...

Bob,let's keep it simple and say you need only to make sure you store maximal amount of data and focus on colors and tones only afterwards. For this, set the raw view on and set the exposure just below clipping, which is to say just below the point the first traffic light turns on. This is the main idea of raw workflow. Some people say you may let one channel to clip a bit and the image is still ok. Although one channel clips, this way you get more data stored on the others. So, it's a compromise and matter of taste.

Sometimes one or two channels may dominate. If there's enough light you may want to use filters to get a better balance. This is to say, get a proper amount of (digitized) data stored for all channels.

While you shoot you probably want to check colors or how dark are the dark parts of the image. For this set either the redspace or rec709 on. Still I find it better to exploit the raw view to set exposure. For, then I have more accurate meters to control exposure just below clipping.

Summing up, the whole point is to store as much data as possible. Eye's response is not directly proportional (that is linear) to the amount of light. Films are manufactured to respond somewhat the same way as an eye, whereas CMOS sensors do respond linearly to light. That's why one has to exploit a gamma curve at some point to transform the image obtained from a CMOS sensor to match with those captured by the eye. The raw workflow means you need not to fix the gamma curve while you shoot but instead you may leave that to the post edit. And you are in best position in edit if you have maximal amount of data available when you start to post process the data. This is why the rule of thumb is to shoot on the right.
 
Clipping just means that you've reached white with no detail or texture in it. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- a nice-looking image with good contrast often has a white and a black reference in the frame.

The only problem with clipping is when it is distracting because it covers too large an area or it covers an area where your eye expects to see some detail in.

But there are plenty of examples where some minor clipping is allowed and even necessary in order to not expose important detail in the bottom noise floor at the other end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top