Anyone use lightmeters these days?

A

andrew00

Well-known member
Hey,

I've grown up in the digital age so I've never had a lightmeter or used one, however I was checking out the new Sekonic 308DC one, which is the new one that claims it's for HDSLR's basically and was wondering if it's worth a purchase.

For example, in this age of convergence, might there be a use for one in, say, fine metering and light wrangling. Plus, say I'm shooting a fashion spot where I'm shooting a still then a video/motion portrait etc from the same mode - in the still I might want a shutter of 1/125 or so and in the video mode 1/50.

If memory serves, once I've taken my first reading if I change any settings the metre will adjust my other settings to show me how to keep the exposure so perhaps I can know ok I want to change my 1/50 shutter for video to 1/125 for stills but want to keep the lighting the same and my aperture the same, this will tell me how I need to change my iso etc etc etc

Basically I'm wondering if there's actually a use for these things now vs just using the cameras's histogram which is what I was typically using.
 
Honestly, I inherited one with a used DVX years back, and I never fully got the hang of it. Seemed cool, but never see them used much.
 
Digital cameras have changed a lot of things. A lot of people nowadays will expose based upon what the camera is seeing, which is reflected light. However exposing just based upon what your camera is seeing will leave you under exposed. I use a light meter to judge the incident light (light that is actually hitting your subject).

The main use for light meters now is for gaffers to check the ratios before the shoot starts and relay the information to the DP. Lots of people will wear them and pull them out to look cool. Knowing how to use the meter isn't really a necessity anymore, but I enjoy doing things the old fashioned way (as far as narrative work goes, if I'm run n gunning I'll just eye ball it).
 
Light meters are good for keeping a consistant exposure through out a series of shots or even scenes. The numbers don't lie, and it pretty much eliminates the guess work you would be doing by eye with aN OLD camcorder. Film doesn't have room for guess work, it's way to expensive, to buy, store, load, process, digitize, and return it back to film. But with todays cameras, zebras, histograms, It's pretty straight foreward getting the same exposure, or close enough to match it in post. When film is being shot it's a different story, A light meter is moreless an insurance policy. It's a way to guarantee your gonna get what you want. Assuming you know how to read it.
 
Yeah, I learned on film and used a meter to set exposure. I still have an old analog meter, a Sekonic L-398A Studio Deluxe, that I keep handy. For me, I will take a meter reading as my point of reference, and, even though I may set my final aperture using camera TTL metering (On a DSLR), having taken meter readings with the Sekonic "Through the block" really gives me full picture of what I am doing lighting wise. When setting lights, i.e, the lighting ratio, using a meter is faster, IMHO, and again, gives me a familiar point of reference.
 
Has anyone else watched the 2009 camera assessment series? There was a section on light meters. All these DP's were setting the exposure of their digital camera (RED, viper, f35, etc) based on their light meter readings, and finding them to be a full stop, sometimes even two, completely off. The conclusion they eventually came to was that the light meters out there were designed to emulate the near-logarithmic response of silver halide film, and are more or less useless for setting exposure of a digital sensor. (adjusting lighting ratios on the other hand, that's a different story. Always useful!) They recommended to ALWAYS set exposure for a digital imaging system based on waveform, and histogram if you have access to such.

edit: here it is! - http://vimeo.com/17972069

light meter discussion is mentioned first around 2:30, then 4:30. and picks back up in the arri section around 6:00. I'd recommend watching the whole thing, and all 8 parts. It was a great test.
 
Last edited:
Fohdeesha said:
The conclusion they eventually came to was that the light meters out there were designed to emulate the near-logarithmic response of silver halide film, and are more or less useless for setting exposure of a digital sensor.
Click to expand...
I've been saying that for years. A lightmeter is nigh unto useless for setting accurate exposure with a video camera.

They recommended to ALWAYS set exposure for a digital imaging system based on waveform, and histogram if you have access to such.
Click to expand...
Yep -- been saying that for years. The waveform reflects what all the camera processing has done to the signal, and is the only truly accurate way to set exposure. It takes everything into account. If lacking a waveform, use zebras. A lightmeter can only be used as the vaguest tool for getting somewhere in the ballpark, but not for accurate setting of exposure.

Lightmeters are for film, or for scouting sets, or for setting a distinct ratio of lights, but exposure (on a video or digital cine camera) should be done using the appropriate mathematical digital tools, the waveform monitor and the zebras.
 
This is typical. What is said here will be held as "common knowledge" three to five years later. You cannot simply rate a digital or video camera as you would against a film stock. Meters are still an essential tool for pre-lighting and matching previous set-ups.
 
I wore two of 'em out in the film days, especially shooting stills. For mixed flash with constant light, what else was there?

The forscher polaroid back was a real boon to 35mm commercial still shoots (medium & large formats, with their removable backs, were much simpler to get a polaroid from) (Excepting the Pentax 6x7...). But polaroids were pricey and waiting 60-90 seconds for one? Buzz kill. Not to mention the caustic mess you had on your hands (remember tying a trash bag to your tripod?). And the fact that the 35mm backs used a big block of fiber optic material to get the image to the film back, they cost over $600 (in 90's money) and pretty much required a dedicated body. But the peel-apart films were really pretty reliable - though sadly, I can't recall all the memorized adjustments you made after a good 'roid (I think for Fuji 100 it was "open a half stop"...). Most shooters I knew used a meter to get in the ballpark, and dialed it in with polaroids, especially outdoors.

My first digital camera was a little olympus - it shot manual, could get six 5MB TIFFs on a card, and had a synch socket. That sucker instantly replaced my polaroid back for exposure - I'd do one final 'roid with the Nikon for framing and start shooting film. It was a real "holy crap!" moment, the speed you could work at with "just one 'roid".

Going fully digital now, I never even pack a meter - the histogram's far superior, and I've done a lot of tests to judge my LCD. And I carry that workflow into video. I'm not even sure where the thing is.

I still have a Nikon 8008 with a Forscher back on it... those were the days.
 
Lightmeters for video have been fairly useless. But Im also thinking that light metering technology is also changing as more and more productions shoot digital over film. For example - http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/02/07/using-sekonics-308dc-light-meter-with-af100/ and at $279 ...

Obviously this couldnt account for all components such as gamma, master ped settings etc. But it will get you very close. In addition to that, lets say you are lighting with a waveform - you set your key and get it to the IRE level you want - then want to set up a 2:1 key/fill, it would let you do this with more accuracy. Eyeballing on the waveform though in my experience can get you pretty damn close by sight. I think it would be even more useful once you start looking at say for example a long steadicam / dolly run through a factory, you could move through the space and get everything pretty darn close without moving your camera all over the place.
 
I have always used an incident light meter with my video cameras. It is the only reference that directly measures the light illuminating a scene. I have used it as an exposure reference for video cameras, including my current GL2, after testing and calibrating meter ISO references to the camera with gray scale step charts and a scope. You will get a chart of ISO speeds for tungsten, daylight, and different camera gain settings. The meter doesn't often agree with the auto exposure or TTL reference exposure level on the GL2. But I typically underexpose 1 to 1.5 stops from the TTL reading to get better overall dynamic range and highlight protection and this does agree with the incident meter.
 
Man, all this "ratio" and "2:1" stuff... yuck. Make it look pretty. I really don't care if my fill is some specific percentage of my key. I watch for spiked highlights, I try to keep my shadows a tad open. I try to make it look cool, or dramatic, or compelling, or whatever seems to suit the work.

I've never deliberately tried to underexpose anything - who wants underexposed images? Protect your highlights, give yourself some room to crush some shadows if needed. It's a lot different these days than shooting film - mainly that the suspense of waiting for the lab run is gone. I've had some lonnnnnng nights after a pricey production. No more.
 
who wants underexposed images? Protect your highlights
Click to expand...

I agree with most all your saying. But there's times you have to underexpose TO protect your highlights. Then you can bring up your mids to even it out. SOMETIMES. LOL
 
Any thoughts on the Sekonic L-758c? It says it can be calibrated to match the sensitivity of specific digital camera sensors. I was actually on the verge of buying it today but then saw this thread and it gave me pause.

My thought for getting one is that I work as a gaffer many times with camera operators who don't calibrate their monitors correctly (or that I don't trust), and getting time to look at a monitor can be tricky when there's a ton of people crowding around it. Also I feel like having one will make me a more precise DP/Gaffer.
 
A meter may be "useless" to set the actual aperture value of a video camera but , to echo what others have already said here, it's very valuable for keeping a lighting consistency between setups. Two different shots in the same scene can look great individually, but they may not cut together in editing because the exposure and/or ratios are different. I use my meter basically to read the amount of footcandles falling on the scene. And to judge how much ambient fill there is. If we need to tweak the lighting for a new setup, I know how many footcandles need to fall on the subject to make the new setup match the old one. A meter is also handy for walking an area to see if the exposure is consistent. This is a good check for lighting a greenscreen or an area where actors will be walking. So it's still useful, but I'm still falling in love with False Color on my new monitor.
 
Can't disagree more with the comment that a histogram is superior for judging exposure.
Using just the histogram for exposure is akin to judging your speed while driving by only looking out the window.
IMHO a good incident light meter (along with setting a custom WB) is a must have for any consistency while shooting.
 
Yes, but consider this: you're with a client walking through an environment you'll be filming next week. You use your meter to get a rough idea of what you're up against lighting-wise, stop-wise. Yes, when you shoot, obviously you use the info the camera's giving you, but I like having my meter to be able to quickly get a rough idea of where things stand before ever arriving with a crew or camera.
 
Not everyone can light by eye. Learn to read a meter and you can visualize the final exposure. How hot is that hot spot? How dark is that corner? How many of you carry a proper video village with calibarated monitors and scopes. Learn the over/under latitude of the system you are using and it can be very helpful. True you may not be able to set the final exposure on the camera with it (70% zebra is your friend) but you'll know where your lighting is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top