waveform vs. histogram

[Jed Ivie]

I dont use any of them... ever ? to scary.

I like to look at the shot and say.. mmmm.. that looks a bit dark... or mmm that looks a bit hot. Then my brain and eyes talk to my fingers and say adjust the aperture fingers until this picture looks good. )

Served me well since the day I hung up my light meter and started shooting digitally.

But hey... we are all different. )))

I tend to agree with Mark. Ultimately, what matters most is what you see on the screen. If you have a decent field monitor and you know the image in your EVF...you're set. I've used histogram and waveform both at time...mostly histogram...but I find lately, I rarely look at them while setting exposure.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I tend to agree with Mark. Ultimately, what matters most is what you see on the screen. If you have a decent field monitor and you know the image in your EVF...you're set. I've used histogram and waveform both at time...mostly histogram...but I find lately, I rarely look at them while setting exposure.

You guys are much braver than me. You'd do well in Vegas....:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Paul Nordin]

Jacek, I'm in the same boat as you. Sure, I can look at a monitor and see the areas that are likely clippped, crushed, etc. But, I like to have a more fine grained view of whats in the frame. From that I feel I am able to push the recording medium to the edge of where I want it.

 

[Marc Wielage]

A histogram is a different tool than a (luminesence) waveform monitor. If you know how to read both, they show you different information. Picking one over the other doesn't make anyone 'right'. Or 'better'.

I think that's the best answer. As a colorist, I tend to use the RGB parade waveform display and the vectorscope more than anything else. But you need the histogram every so often just to see when you're in trouble.

If it was on set, I think having the ability to check both (one at a time) is probably a good idea. At least you'll know if you have a relatively balanced RAW exposure and nothing's crushed or clipped.

I like to look at the shot and say.. mmmm.. that looks a bit dark... or mmm that looks a bit hot. Then my brain and eyes talk to my fingers and say adjust the aperture fingers until this picture looks good.

That's assuming you can trust the monitor, and you can see it under optimum conditions. God help you if that monitor is off. I often said in the old days, "the monitor can lie, but the scopes always tell the truth."

 

[Maxi Claudio]

I use Histograms, but where can I learn how to use the Waveform? I'm mainly interested in protecting highlights.

 

[Russ Fill]

I tend to think it is a old school new/digital school thing. I almost always rely on the Histogram to let me know how much info is in the picture. If you look at a histogram on its own with out ever looking at the monitor or a picture you can pretty well tell if the info or highs and lows are there to make a decent picture. If you look at a wave form with no image to support it Id dare say you might not have the same result with your question on if the image is properly exposed. Im not so worried about highlights or lowlights I just want to know how much info is filling the histogram and what I might be able to get back if it is missing or off the ends.
Best over all is to use a couple of tools for exposure and compare the info you are getting, to help you. not just rely on only one source of info all the time.

 

[Paul Nordin]

I tend to think it is a old school new/digital school thing.

I don't agree at all with this Russ. Both show luminance in the frame in different ways. I can easily look at a waveform and see the luminance distribution hi to low and set exposure based on that. I can also use waveform to quickly id where in the frame is skin tone falling, what the relative contrast ratio is, where in frame are items falling above and below legal values and by how much. No disrespect meant, but if you can't do that without also looking at monitor you need more practice reading waveforms. It has nothing to do with new school /old school.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Paul's thoughts above are more in my line of thinking. I'd look on the Waveform parade display as the speedometer, and the Histogram as the RPM gauge. A good driver needs both, but it's not a question of one or the other. And most of the time, you're looking through the windshield.

I often tell DPs: "the monitor represents about 80% of what we do. The scopes just warn us when we're getting close to drive off the road" (to continue the driving analogy), or if the overall exposure is lopsided or unbalanced in some way. Feel and instinct are a large part of getting the picture right. On the set, the time element is so crucial, I think just getting a good basic exposure is the key -- not killing yourself to getting an exact look. Get it reasonable when the image is captured, and know that you can fine-tune it in post later on.

 

[Russ Fill]

No disrespect felt here.
All points well taken, Thanks, my references were more from a in the field sort of view.
I only meant old school vs new school in the fact that it seems to me that the wide spread use of CMOS and Digital cameras in recent years, that the use of the Histogram has sort of become the portable field info for exposure and image info.
I posted at the end of my post, you should use a combination of instruments to determine your exposure. I just tend to lean on the histogram more than a waveform as its on the monitor of my cameras and not a box I have to drag around with me.... I know there are smaller versions built in to monitors but it is not so common to see a waveform on a camera viewfinder.
I think any one would agree that to only rely on one source of info all the time for exposure might be a little full hearty.
A well setup monitor seems to be a given.