Exposure and "Prosumer" Video: Shoot for the Production monitor or Average LCD?

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
Exposure and "Prosumer" Video: Shoot for the Production monitor or Average LCD?

This is becoming something I'm interested in getting feedback on from more technical cinematographers/DPs. I'm wondering, as far as exposure goes, mostly concerning highlights and image clipping/blow-outs, which is the safer way to go with today's "Prosumer" video line:

Shoot for the average LCD displays that are being setup in homes. The ones that can't really produce images as great as a production monitor because they don't cost as much, even at larger sizes. They're prone to being incapable of reaching into the "blown out" areas of an image as well as production monitors. An image that looks clipped say above 85% on one of my LCD's looks PERFECT on a Production Monitor.

Or...

Do you shoot for what you know is fine on a production monitor, allowing clipping that looks unpleasant on the average display but the better display shows something completely different?

It's a weird thing to think about, with the distribution of high definition LCD's being so abundant maybe it's a relevant concern when using an HPX/HVX, DVX, And even EX1 and EX3's. Perhaps anything sub RED ONE, which I can happily overexpose and never really have to worry about it.

Thoughts?
 
Do the DPs on all your DVD Hollywood movies expose for consumer TVs? ... No. They do it correctly, knowing that watching a show on TV is a downstream compromise compared to seeing it on the silverscreen.

Averaging for consumer TV: This could be a DVD post authoring consideration. You might call around to some Post Houses and see what they do.

Personally, I would go for proper exposure using the tools: waveform monitor, zebra, spot & incident lightmeters. Household screens will change over time and become better as they currently are doing so.
 
They also rarely shoot with an HVX. A clipped highlight on an HVX looks completely different than that on film. It's two-fold, camera and television set,like I posted
 
The idea is to not clip any shot with any medium we use: film or digital. Video is harder to expose than film because it has less latitude so we need to control highlights much more than film. Film is forgiving. We simply need to work within the capability of the tool we're using. An HVX can look great if the operator shoots within it's capability. Our job is to learn the limits of the camera and stay inside its boundaries, that's what all the gaffer tools (scrims, silks, diff) help us do.
 
shoot for the Production monitor, this was youre using all the chip has to offer, then reduce the constrast on your final product slightly.

I ran as a test into my Panasonic BTLH900a a stream from a few DVD's and looked at the waveform. None of them hit black (0 IRE), and none of them hit above 90 IRE.

Shoot to get as much info as possible, then squish it to match the "lower dynamic range" consumer monitors.
 
Kholi said:
...

It's a weird thing to think about, with the distribution of high definition LCD's being so abundant maybe it's a relevant concern when using an HPX/HVX, DVX, And even EX1 and EX3's. Perhaps anything sub RED ONE, which I can happily overexpose and never really have to worry about it.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The way you've written you're last sentence it looks as though you're saying you don't have to worry about blowing out the exposure on a Red. If so, then you're incorrect.
 
craigbowman said:
The way you've written you're last sentence it looks as though you're saying you don't have to worry about blowing out the exposure on a Red. If so, then you're incorrect.
Click to expand...

Not so much completely blow out a shot but comfortably overexpose some highlights or those that can't be controlled. Naturally, you wouldn't want anything upped in an image but a lot or lcd display overexposure or bright highlights inapropriately.

I think Timur gets what I'm saying though and that sounds reasonable. Get as much as you can on either end of the scale with a professional monitor then drag it back or have a professional grade and adjust.

I totally forgot about the importance of an experienced colorist.

Thanks Timur!
 
Kholi, maybe this will help them see what comfortable overexposure looks like :)

munich12333.jpg
 
I've been trying to bring up this discussion from time to time here on DVXUser. Knowing most of my work isn't going to film, I feel that the expensive CRT production monitor is NOT a good reference anymore.

In audio work, we have many different sets of monitors, and listen to our mixes on all of them. This has been standard practice for decades - because the range of playback systems is tremendous; and trying to sound good on a $50,000 playback system doesn't necessarily help what your sound will be for the bulk of the market - who listen on cheap car stereos and earbuds. We're used to compromising between a spectrum of playback systems rather than tailoring to any one.

I think video production needs to be treated the same way these days. When I hear people here talk about how, e.g., some footage looks noisy "because of the LCD screen", and "you can't judge properly except on a properly calibrated CRT", what they're saying is not relevant to productions destined for video delivery. If it looks noisy on an LCD, and your audience will be watching it on an LCD, then you have to clean it up somehow. There are no more consumer CRTs; people are watching on a hodgepodge of old CRTs, Plasmas, LCD TVs, and LCD computer screens, DLP projection TVs and Projectors, as well as LCD, LCOS, etc. It behooves you as a video producer to check your products on a variety of playback devices, and find a compromise that works well on as many of them as possible. In general, I dare say, look mostly at the worst case... 'cause that's what most people will notice.
 
Ullanta, good points but like with audio, origination needs to be top quality 1st, then downstream conversion and compromises comes afterwards. Recording studios all use to have a set of Auratones (now its NS10s) sitting on the console so we could hear it how "the people" would hear on their radios. This is after going through Neumans, SSL to a Studer. The point is, the source needs to be top notch and stay that way with minor compromises for lessor playback systems. Clipping shots and playing back of consumer TVs is like distorting a vocal track and then wondering why it doesn't come across clean & pristine on my boom box.
 
trudd said:
Kholi, maybe this will help them see what comfortable overexposure looks like :)

munich12333.jpg
Click to expand...


Velly nice. Too bad an HPX would tear apart on that back window. And the shadows would probably be dancing with noise. Muahaha.
 
ullanta said:
I've been trying to bring up this discussion from time to time here on DVXUser. Knowing most of my work isn't going to film, I feel that the expensive CRT production monitor is NOT a good reference anymore.

In audio work, we have many different sets of monitors, and listen to our mixes on all of them. This has been standard practice for decades - because the range of playback systems is tremendous; and trying to sound good on a $50,000 playback system doesn't necessarily help what your sound will be for the bulk of the market - who listen on cheap car stereos and earbuds. We're used to compromising between a spectrum of playback systems rather than tailoring to any one.

I think video production needs to be treated the same way these days. When I hear people here talk about how, e.g., some footage looks noisy "because of the LCD screen", and "you can't judge properly except on a properly calibrated CRT", what they're saying is not relevant to productions destined for video delivery. If it looks noisy on an LCD, and your audience will be watching it on an LCD, then you have to clean it up somehow. There are no more consumer CRTs; people are watching on a hodgepodge of old CRTs, Plasmas, LCD TVs, and LCD computer screens, DLP projection TVs and Projectors, as well as LCD, LCOS, etc. It behooves you as a video producer to check your products on a variety of playback devices, and find a compromise that works well on as many of them as possible. In general, I dare say, look mostly at the worst case... 'cause that's what most people will notice.
Click to expand...

Finally, someone that understands what I'm talkin' about. You said it better than I did, though. There are so many different types of television sets and MOST LCD's do not have the ability to reproduce an image like older HD CRTs, which were incredible but also incredibly heavy. So what do you do?

Do you grab a sub par 32" LCD from Best Buy and run HDMI to it, grading to that for DVD distribution? Or, even use that as an onset production monitor as your final output knowing that most people will probably see it just like this?

Bear in mind that theatrical isn't the aim and it's mostly television.

Same thing for Web Distribution. Should you ditch the extremely nice production monitor in favor of a Maxent LCD and make it look incredible there, which means it'll pretty much look incredible elsewhere?

I think Timur is probably right, at the same time perhaps shooting for the low end monitor could prove to be worthwhile in the end?
 
I was leading a group on a small hike yesterday and when I looked at my map and compass, the girl behind me said "just follow your heart!" Maybe you should just feel the exposure like one feels the force :) (if we had gone the way her 'heart' suggested, I'd still be in the forest)

I agree, Kholi - any prosumer cam would kill that beautiful overexposure.

I don't see why one would need to cater to inferior technology. If someone buys a cheap LCD, everything they watch will only look as good as the LCD allows.

Presupposition time: those who buy cheap LCDs are not concerned with superior image quality. Those who buy expensive home theater systems are concerned, and will not (should not?) skimp when it comes to their monitor/projector. If all LCD/DLP/Plasmas were created equal, then perhaps we should cater to that - but they are not. I've seen beautifully shot movies go to crap on my girlfriend's discount LCD that blows anything above 75 IRE, while the movie looks fantastic on my (heavy) consumer HD CRT.

From a purely philosophical point of view, don't let a consumer's discount purchase change the expectation of your production. Or am I being idealistic? :D
 
not at all and I think you've made a great point in a different way. Now that I think about it it's kind of silly to limit yourself to tfat side of the technology.
 
ullanta said:
I've been trying to bring up this discussion from time to time here on DVXUser. Knowing most of my work isn't going to film, I feel that the expensive CRT production monitor is NOT a good reference anymore.

In audio work, we have many different sets of monitors, and listen to our mixes on all of them. This has been standard practice for decades - because the range of playback systems is tremendous; and trying to sound good on a $50,000 playback system doesn't necessarily help what your sound will be for the bulk of the market - who listen on cheap car stereos and earbuds. We're used to compromising between a spectrum of playback systems rather than tailoring to any one.

I think video production needs to be treated the same way these days. When I hear people here talk about how, e.g., some footage looks noisy "because of the LCD screen", and "you can't judge properly except on a properly calibrated CRT", what they're saying is not relevant to productions destined for video delivery. If it looks noisy on an LCD, and your audience will be watching it on an LCD, then you have to clean it up somehow. There are no more consumer CRTs; people are watching on a hodgepodge of old CRTs, Plasmas, LCD TVs, and LCD computer screens, DLP projection TVs and Projectors, as well as LCD, LCOS, etc. It behooves you as a video producer to check your products on a variety of playback devices, and find a compromise that works well on as many of them as possible. In general, I dare say, look mostly at the worst case... 'cause that's what most people will notice.
Click to expand...

I absolutly 120% refuse to "Shoot for the LCD TV". Thats ridiculous. You shoot for the finest possible image, then let the mastering and duplication end of post producton deal with the braodcasting standards. Garbage in Garbage out.
 
Hey, I came along late to this discussion, and maybe missed some of the gist of it... I was addressing mostly post-production issues (that is, how to MASTER, not so much how to shoot).

That said, it also depends on the time I want to put into a project. For example, if I want (and am only paid for) minimal post-production for a video-only project, I'll drop the master pedestal when shooting to avoid having to clean up the blacks in post. This is specifically something I do for the possibility of LCD TV watchers, because the noise in the blacks is an issue for them more than most. In some situations (especially with spotlighting), I'll similarly adjust while shooting to a slightly safer level for "all TVs" if I won't be spending time in post. So, pragmatically, yes, even during shooting, I do sometimes keep the crappy TV in mind. The lower master ped on a good TV looks like an aesthetic choice - it doesn't look "crappy"... but the noisy blacks on the crappy TV make the footage look crappy.

All you folks shooting narrative - it's a different story. You're crafting your masterpiece, your vision, you want to have the most control, most flexibility, most quality at every stage.

When shooting by contract, a small or one-person crew shooting other types of projects, on a tight schedule, sometimes its more pragmatic and efficient to shoot in a manner that's "safer" for a wide variety of playback devices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top