morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Of course
C500: C500ii: Fixing overexposed/blown out face
- Thread starter seanadl
- Start date
Grug
Veteran
The 18% grey areas could only have been the deep shadows around his eyes, and the one-stop-over-18% could only have been the shadowed sections of his forehead.
For a "normal" exposure on a caucasian face, you want the majority of the skintones presenting as pink with false colour. The highlights can go higher, but you want the bulk of the flesh reading pink.
In a situation like this, where you maybe want to let the skin sit a little hotter (because it's naturally bright, and you still want to see a little of his eyes) you can set the "normal" exposure by getting the skin pink, and then just overexpose by 0.5-1 stop, by opening your iris the appropriate amount.
--------------
Honestly, though I still can't understand WHY all of the camera companies use such stupid and limited false colour implementations. a 12-step false colour scale (like Sound Devices used in their video recorders) is the way to go. One colour for black clipping, one colour for white clipping, and then you have 10 clearly defined colour gradients (in a sort of Predator-Heat-Vision style) that tells you precisely how each and every single section of your frame is exposed.
It's the Zone System made visually manifest, and the simplest and most foolproof kind of exposure monitoring that exists... and NO ONE F**KING DOES IT.
It drives me mental.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
No reference scale on the Histogram means it's useless for video. If I am the manufacturer or a LUT designer and tell you "Expose your skin tones at 60 IRE for my LUT or camera to be exposed correctly",
you are 100% in the dark with just a histogram. At least you could get a clue with zebras and with a waveform, it's a piece of cake to gauge that 60IRE on the face, you can see the face in the waveform.
False colors work but for me and how I shoot, they have too much information that must be interpreted, not just seen.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Sure but Sam was saying that to prevent overexposure, you keep your levels from topping out on the WFM. You can do the same with the histogram.
And in the WFM sometimes it can be difficult to see what's the face and what's adjacent to it (if there's something above of similar brightness). I find that false color is the only way to always be sure. But I'd personally rather wing it based on vibe/feeling while looking at a preview LUT and having some sense from experience of how the monitor image compares to the final result
Run&Gun
Veteran
Histograms are junk for video. And I understand what they are designed for, but you can find a million examples of great looking images with histograms that say they shouldn't be and crap images with "good" histograms. I've seen it talked about on photo forums and in photo books, where the histogram is explained and then the counter examples are given immediately afterwards, as if to say, "well, it is kind of a crap tool", because you can't use it by-itself. With a waveform or false color, you can. And the histogram is also where the term "expose to the right" or ETTR came from.
Zebras for quick down 'n dirty and waveform and false color when you need the precision.
Spartacus
Veteran
In case you read this before reshooting: Maybe just choose a more pleasant scene contrast with less harsh lighting. If you can't choose the time of shooting/position of the sun, maybe take this to a shadowed area with a shadowed background. Much harder to blow anything out then...
I also second just putting a Rec709 LUT on your camera monitor and setting the zebra to 95%. If you see the zebra, close the iris (or increase ND) just so much till it's gone or only visible on small specular highlights (outside of a human body).
This is very shortened, so take time soon to read up on controlling scene contrast and setting exposure.
Thank you for the advice.Definitely very helpful! I'm delaying the filming another couple of days. I'm editing the buld of the project at the moment, and this particular segment is something that can be filmed and thrown into the timeline towards the end.
Are you saying its better to film without the baked-in Rec709 that i'm currently using and instead shoot log with a Rec709 LUT on the monitor?
This is the bit I'm confused by. On the false color reading, the forehead came up as one stop over 18% gray (i.e pink) - the rest of the face didn't show any false color - which I presumed mean it was under the 18%. That assumption must have been wrong I assume. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if false color doesn't show on a part of the image, what does that usually indicate?
Spartacus
Veteran
Sorry, I assumed you are shooting RAW, even though running and gunning. RAW will give you the greatest latitude for post, but of course you need to know your way around grading.
Shooting straight to Reg709 you should be fine with watching your highlights via the zebra function, or as others have stated use the waveform and keep the top line under 100.
Still, the faster you need to work the more you need to learn to "read your scene", what is what documentary shooters, ENG cameramen or press photogs had to do, before our tools
became more and more sophisticated.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
If you have time to grade your footage, even just with the standard rec709 LUT and then pulling down the highlights on any clips that have overexposure, I highly recommend shooting log and monitoring with the rec709 LUT.
I think that most scenes have contrast that goes beyond the standard rec709 dynamic range. And the standard rec709 also packs in more saturation than necessary, sometimes with ill effect. Shooting LOG can prevent all that. And monitoring in rec709 shows you what the scene will look like with contrast added back in
Liam Hall
Veteran
It indicates it's a crap implementation of false colour. Canon should have done this better.
Will try shooting in Log in that case and monitoring with the rec709 LUT.
I may also invest in an additional monitor and/or perhaps an EVF for when shooting in outdoor/sunny conditions so I can better assess things. It sounds like I need to become much more familiar with with the WFM too.
I may also invest in an additional monitor and/or perhaps an EVF for when shooting in outdoor/sunny conditions so I can better assess things. It sounds like I need to become much more familiar with with the WFM too.
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
Wide DR is also another great option. I find that the dynamic range is quite enough for most scenes.
The built in meter is always a great reference. It generally does a very nice job for averaging a scene.
The built in meter is always a great reference. It generally does a very nice job for averaging a scene.
I'll second (third) the wideDR gamma. Canon has built a very nice roll off into that gamma, and by default, the brighter areas can be recovered where the Rec.709 clips hard. Log gammas are your most forgiving, but can be difficult for a newbie to judge exposure by if you're not used to it. Although It's still your best tool on exposure, Canon's WFM on this camera is so tiny that I find it very hard to read. I really wish they had a toggle for a full screen WFM overlay on the LCD...it would bring me such joy.
Better yet, shoot in Log2, but with the WideDR gamma LUT applied...this is a great way to judge EXP. Lean a little to the right, and you still have all the overhead that CLog2 offers. BTW. I think you can recover some from that face...the shirt, though, is T-O-A-S-T.
Better yet, shoot in Log2, but with the WideDR gamma LUT applied...this is a great way to judge EXP. Lean a little to the right, and you still have all the overhead that CLog2 offers. BTW. I think you can recover some from that face...the shirt, though, is T-O-A-S-T.
Imamacuser
Veteran
I think, by default, the baked-in Rec709 option in the camera uses wide DR rather than regular Rec709. That's the one i've been using.
About to re-film now. Will use log instead.