what would you NOT do in post but rather in-camera?

FiddlerMD

FiddlerMD

Well-known member
there are a lot of threads telling people to leave settings flat and adjust in post. this is also my mentality since there's so much flexibility in post. what i'm wondering is, what settings would you tweak in-camera because it's either more difficult or impossible to do in post?
i'm guessing something like the knee setting perhaps but wanted ot hear your opinions.
thanks
 
You can do more with Chroma or color temp and try and get interesting results from desaturating or saturating it in post. Desat all the way down on the DVX is pretty cool.

I read an article in DV mag about how one group cranked up warm settings to get as much detail on the DVX so when you desaturate it in post, you get nice, lively colors.
You wouldn't necessarily get the same results when adding warmth and desaturating it all in post.

I have a question about ND filters and the way they affect the color temperature and aperature.

On a sunny day your subject is standing in front of a house that has a bright colored surface that will overexpose whenever you try to correctly expose your subjects face. Your 1/8 ND filter barely fixes it. now, this is assuming you have limited resources and dont have the option to set up a huge sunbounce on set.

A. you expose for his face and compromise the blown out house wall


B. you lower the Iris to about F11 or 16 on 1/8 accomplishing an evenly lit image - but your subject is still darker than the background.


C. You use ND 1/64 and open up the iris to get as much DOF and try to get an even lit despite your subject, as long as there are no ugly highlights.


what problematic outcomes do you see in each scenario either for the shot itself or for post work?

is it all ok as long as each you can get a clean, well exposed image from any
of one the scenarios?

which is more important?
1. that you can accomplish a no blown-out even lit and will fix in post image or
2. it's always better to expose for the subject and/or background of importance.
3. it's a preference thing - despite technically ugly pictures.

Is an F4.0 image without ND filter less grainier, cleaner compared to an 1/8 or 1/64 ND with added light to accomplish just as much of the same exposure?
 
Last edited:
dvpixl said:
I have a question about ND filters and the way they affect the color temperature and aperature.

On a sunny day your subject is standing in front of a house that has a bright colored surface that will overexpose whenever you try to correctly expose your subjects face. Your 1/8 ND filter barely fixes it. now, this is assuming you have limited resources and dont have the option to set up a huge sunbounce on set.

A. you expose for his face and compromise the blown out house wall


B. you lower the Iris to about F11 or 16 on 1/8 accomplishing an evenly lit image - but your subject is still darker than the background.


C. You use ND 1/64 and open up the iris to get as much DOF and try to get an even lit despite your subject, as long as there are no ugly highlights.


what problematic outcomes do you see in each scenario either for the shot itself or for post work?

is it all ok as long as each you can get a clean, well exposed image from any
of one the scenarios?

which is more important?
1. that you can accomplish a no blown-out even lit and will fix in post image or
2. it's always better to expose for the subject and/or background of importance.
3. it's a preference thing - despite technically ugly pictures.

Is an F4.0 image without ND filter less grainier, cleaner compared to an 1/8 or 1/64 ND with added light to accomplish just as much of the same exposure?
Click to expand...

The ND filters should have no effect on color. The image should look basically the same at F2.8 with ND1/8 as F8 with no ND. The DOF will be different, but the color and quality will be the same.

First, I have to ask, how distracting will the blown out area be? I just shot a film this last weekend, at the band of a building and there was a patch of white painted bricks on one wall. It blew out, but was not distracting at all. I doubt anyone will ever notice. If your subject looks good, then the background is largely irrelevant.

Also, it depends on how blown out the area is. If you can get detail by closing down a half to a full stop, then it might be worth closing the iris a bit and then putting in a curve in post that keeps the highlights while getting the exposure right on your subject. However, some of these sunlight blowouts are extreme. You would have to close down two, three stops or more. In that case, trying to expose for the highlight and bring your subject back up in post would seriously damage the quality of your video. A different gamma curve like CINE_D might help as well.
 
thanks Joshua.

I'm a DP on a shortfilm- working with this indie director. But I've ran into some blown out snow problem- and my settings were on Cine-Like and boosted the color temp to around +5. At that point, at CINE-LIKE, the highlights get clipped very badly. Sometimes patches of highlights show up. I found a while ago that D and V does a very good KNEE job, but I wanted to maximize the CINE-LIKE lattitude.

... also, I wanted to focus on getting as much DOF out of the DVX possible. so I have reasons to be quick on the ND filter switch and keep my iris wide.
 
dvpixl said:
I'm a DP on a shortfilm- working with this indie director. But I've ran into some blown out snow problem- and my settings were on Cine-Like and boosted the color temp to around +5. At that point, at CINE-LIKE, the highlights get clipped very badly. Sometimes patches of highlights show up. I found a while ago that D and V does a very good KNEE job, but I wanted to maximize the CINE-LIKE lattitude.
Click to expand...

I have run into the same problem. The normal CINELIKE gamma is very flat from shadows to highlights, emulating the long flat response in the middle of film exposure response. However, it does tend to clip highlight and crush shadows, sometimes both. It isn't the widest latitutude you can get.

If you want to maximize your latitude, you need to use CINELINE_D (D for dynamic range). It will capture a wider dynamic range, and you can adjust it in post if comes out looking a little flat.

Use your zebras to make sure there is no overexposure, and stop down or add ND if necessary. Preventing overexposure is always in your control.

... also, I wanted to focus on getting as much DOF out of the DVX possible. so I have reasons to be quick on the ND filter switch and keep my iris wide.
Click to expand...

I do as well. In addition to the on-board ND, I have a 1-stop and 2-stop ND always handy for in-between steps. I shoot nearly everything, indoors and out, at F2.8 so I can get as shallow depth of field as possible while still having full zoom range. I check first what the exposure should be. For instance, if proper exposure is F4, then I toss on the 1-stop ND and open up to F2.8.

Also, I operate as much as possible zoomed pretty far in. Usually, there is no need to take any shot wider than Z50. For close-ups, high 80's through 90's, as far as I can push it. Usually, I am backing the camera up as far as possible to pull it off.
 
thanks for the advice. I'll try the add'tl ND filters as well.

and it would be nice if you can always try the full zoom DOF in all kinds of locations but you can't... so comes in the 35 adapters.... but I'm gonna give up the adapter dream for now and wait until RED or maybe a sweeter, versatile and affordable adapters come out.
 
There is a lot more to having an image with "depth" than just the depth of field. You can compose your shots for depth (don't put your subjects against walls, have objects in the foreground and background), you can light for depth (various pools of light, good keying and filling, and nice back/rim lights). Plus, whenever you use a camera move (pan, tilt, but especially a dolly/jib move), depth of field isn't very important, since the depth in the scene is felt through the changing perspective of the camera move.

Check out the image here: http://www.matterofchance.com/wildlifeless.html If we had just shot a CU of Ali lighting a lamp, it might have no depth at all. However, we shot along a diagonal, with objects both in the foreground and background, as well the lighting, and the fact that the character pops, and it's got a lot of depth. It was probably shot at F2.8 with the zoom around F50-60.

Really shallow depth of field is only really even noticible on medium and close-ups when the camera is on a tripod or relatively still. For most other setups, not only is it not as noticible, but it may be undesirable. For wider shots, you might, in fact, want deeper depth of field.

If you can work with ND's to keep the iris around F2.8, and use the long end of the lens as much as possible, compose and light well, and use high quality production value and camera moves, you can get a great look without an adaptor. Particularly on exteriors, where many film DP's will simply stop down to F11 and beyond, if you can use ND to stay around F2.8, you will have a similar depth of field to many films, in any case.
 
beware of cinelike_D! I used to shoot everything with that but no more. Sure, you get a little more dynamic range, but you loose knee protection so when it blows out, it blows OUT! and if you're shooting with the 100a like me (the noisiest of the 100's) cinelike_D adds even more noise.

Only you know what you need, but be aware of these things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top