For a Low Light shoot with FX6 / FX9 - best ISO and Color profile settings?

[ahalpert]

So you're saying you would have ettr'd it? For what it's worth, their approach had made them happy for dozens of interviews prior and almost always required no grading beyond the standard LUT. Anyway I wasn't about to walk off the set . I was looking at false color and waveform but I had to make them happy by what they saw. Every client is different and I try to make them each happy in their own way

 

[Doug Jensen]

So you're saying you would have ettr'd it? For what it's worth, their approach had made them happy for dozens of interviews prior and almost always required no grading beyond the standard LUT. Anyway I wasn't about to walk off the set . I was looking at false color and waveform but I had to make them happy by what they saw. Every client is different and I try to make them each happy in their own way

No, I am certainly not saying anything about ETTRing the exposure of an interview headshot, So please don't try to put words in my mouth. ETTR an interview? Why the hell would I do that?
As for clients having an influence on what my exposure should be? You must be working for a different type of client than the clients I have worked with during the last 40+ years. Exposure on an interview is either right or it is wrong. Period, And I cannot remember a single instance of a client ever having anything to say about my exposure. Style, lighting, compostiion? Absolutely. But exposure? Never. It is an unfortunate situation you were in if you either had to knowingly expose incorrectly or walk off the set. Tough choices. I have never found myself in that predicament.

 

[ahalpert]

So what would your approach be to lighting an interview where the seamless will be noisy if you exposed it where it needs to have the desired brightness with the standard LUT?

I wanted to talk about exponometry, not client handling, but in this case the producer came over to me and said the shot looked too bright and I should make it darker. The context is that she works full-time for an auction house that shoots dozens of these per year. The company owns the cameras and lighting. They have a stable of freelance DPs they hire to shoot these and this is the first one I've shot for them. They're totally happy with what they've done before and my performance will be judged not just by my footage but also by how easy it is to work with me on set. So, I could start a discussion about monitoring tools and noise reduction strategies and different grading approaches, in which case I'm the only DP who can't seem to do things the way she likes them without a hassle. Frankly, I thought I nailed the approach. I gave her just what she wanted on-set (no change from routine) including a preview of the shot looking just the way she wanted. And I gave myself (as the editor) fodder to get it looking just the way I wanted.

this is on the fs7, which a lot of people consider to be a noisy camera even at base iso. And that was the basic issue - suppressing noise in the shadows when we wanted the background to be very dark

 

[Doug Jensen]

So what would your approach be to lighting an interview where the seamless will be noisy if you exposed it where it needs to have the desired brightness with the standard LUT?

You're right that a discussion of how to handle a client is a discussion for another thread, but with that said, I think it is a poor practice to let a producer, client, or anyone else make judgement calls about exposure based on what they see on a monitor. As I said, I'd never base my exposure on "how" something looks and that is why we have so many tools available (zebra, waveform, meters, etc.) to make setting exposure fast, simple, and error-free. If they questioned my exposure, I'd politely show them why they were wrong.

To answer your question, I would never set the exposure based on the background for an interview in a controlled lighting situation. What is the important part an inteview? The face, right? I would set my exposure and overall lighting scheme based on where the person would be positioned on the set. I know exactly what the exposure should be for S-LOG to ensure a properly exposed human face. It is always the same exposure target. Then, once the exposure is set correctly for the subject's key light, then I would adjust the lighting of the rest of the composition to get the look that I want. That might be a high-key look, dark, neutral, green screen, or whatever -- but the exposure itself is totally determined by the human subject. The face rules and everthing else must be adjusted to go along with it or sacrificed if you can't control it.

How would you set S-LOG3 exposure on your FS7 for a typical head shot inteview? Nothing tricky or complicated, just a straightforward 60 Minutes style inteview. How do you set exposure?

 

[ahalpert]

White is 61. Skin tones around 50. But there are two issues here - first is that the client prefers to underexpose the subject a la old master paintings. And the second is that there was never anything wrong with the way their backgrounds looked before, except that they were noisy. Which seemed to bother no one but me. So, after you get their skin tones to whatever they want, you still have to concern yourself with getting the background as dark as they like it without making it noisy, which suggests to me that you should rate the camera at an iso below base. I use the term ettr loosely only to indicate global overexposure with the intent to pull it back in post

and just concerning the client....I've had a lot of issues with numerous handlers at this particular client when it comes to politely explaining things because they always seem to think I'm mansplaining. And I literally do exactly the same review of basic information with everybody because it's unwise to assume that people know things. And my feeling in this case is that it's better to be paid than to be right. A happy client is a repeat client

 

[Joshua Milligan]

I don't want to get into a debate on how to expose an interview, but I honestly see both points of view. On the one hand I totally get why ahalpert did what he did and I've worked with clients like that before where I had to show them what they wanted, but actually do it the right way without them really knowing. In my case it was with guys who were hosts of low budget television shows who thought they knew everything there is to know about video production, but in reality it was clear they didn't. And if were to tell them, even politely, that they were incorrect, their egos would've been hurt and they would've blown up on me. So for the sake of avoiding that, I simply nodded my head and then went ahead and did it the right way anyway. So I get why ahalpert did what he did.

I also agree with him that the FS7 was a little noisier and when I owned and operated one for five years, I almost always shot it one to two stops over and simply rated the monitor LUT on screen to adjust to that. Then in post I would bring it down and was always happy with the results and how clean the shots looked.

On the other hand I also understand where Doug's coming from. There's no doubt he knows way more about proper exposure than I do and I trust his judgment. I also agree with his comments on exposing properly for the interview subject as that's the main priority and then adjusting your background lighting to taste afterward, unless of course you can't control the background, so you simply sacrifice it so that your subject stays exposed properly.

So for me, I see both sides and completely understand what both of you are saying. I will say, however, that my experience with the FX6 is that you should not ETTR in LOW base ISO as it's such a clean sensor and really needs to be exposed properly like Doug said. But, I also agree with ahalpert here in that it has been my experience with the FX6 that in HIGH base ISO when I expose properly like I do in LOW base, the shots are way noisier. I see this every time I shoot in HIGH base and expose in the middle like I would with the LOW base. Note that I'm not talking about an interview situation here with controlled lighting. I'm talking about in situations like what the OP is going to film in tomorrow. Whether I've filmed in dusk or dawn outside, or whether it was in a church during worship, or a project where I'm filming inside a warehouse, HIGH base ISO looks really noisy to me with a proper exposure.

As such I started rating my camera a little lower when shooting in HIGH base so that I will adjust my exposure accordingly. This gets me to overexpose by a stop or so, similar to what I used to do on my FS7, and then bringing the shots back down to proper exposure in post. When doing this, I find that the shots are definitely much cleaner, yet the camera can still pull out all of the highlight information, so I never feel like I'm ruining the shots at all. Just simply cleaning them up.

I know Doug said that in his experience you should expose the same no matter the base ISO, and I'm not wanting to argue with him about that, I'm just wanting to share my experience as this has helped me with the FX6 and with the A7SIII which shares the same sensor and same second base ISO. And just in case anyone asks, I am using exposure tools on the FX6 to expose my shots, not basing it on how bright or dark the shots look on the monitor.

 

[Doug Jensen]

White for me varies between 68 and 75 depending on which of my cameras I'm shooting with and whether I'm shooing S-LOG2 or S-LOG3. On the FX6 my target is 72. I'd never set exposure based on skin tones because that just comes down to guessing, and i don't guess. I want to be accurate and consistent. For example, if Biden is 50, Obama can't also be 50. I always base my exposure on white and it never fails me. Even if I'm not shooting LOG, the exposure is still based on white, but the correct target level will depend on the Scene File that I'm using. If a client said the exposure didn't look right on the field monitor, I'd show them that white is at 72 and leave it there. They can do whatever they want with it in post, but the exposure will be correct when shot.

 

[Doug Jensen]

IIt has been my experience with the FX6 that in HIGH base ISO when I expose properly like I do in LOW base, the shots are way noisier. I see this every time I shoot in HIGH base and expose in the middle like I would with the LOW base. .

Good post Joshua, and I agree with just about everything you've said and your methods. You are absolutely right that HIGH is far noisier than LOW and I think that is why Sony does not call the FX6 a "dual native ISO" camera. It is not. It has a HIGH sensitivity mode, not dual ISO. There is definitely a price to be paid in noise and overal courseness of the picture when you have to switch to HIGH. I avoid it as much as I can, but it can't be eliminated entirely, especially when I'm shooting 120 fps outdoors with Sony's relatively slow telephoto lenses, such as the 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3. Add the 2x teleconverter, and it would be almost impossible to shoot 120 fps anytime but high noon without the HIGH base mode!! The point I do disagree with is that over-exposing HIGH will yield better results in post. That has not been my experience, but maybe we have different workflows in post. If you think it is, and you've done your own testing, rather than just assuming, then do whatever you think is best.

 

[ahalpert]

72 or so in 709. 61 in slog3. but you still haven't answered my question about how you would light, expose, and grade the dark background to get it to the proper brightness level and noise-free. I sort of guess you would rate the camera lower than base, but you haven't confirmed

to each his own, but there's no way in heck I'd show the client the waveform to prove it was properly exposed and then leave it there. I would definitely try to get a preview of the picture that they'd be happy with, which would involve changing the monitoring setup rather than my exposure

and if you're running and gunning, you often don't have the luxury of throwing up a white card but you can turn on false colors and see where the skin tones of your subjects are falling. also, it's not uncommon for people to want their skin represented at a different brightness level than it is in reality. there may be an accurate way to represent reality, but that doesn't mean it's what the client wants

 

[Doug Jensen]

and if you're running and gunning, you often don't have the luxury of throwing up a white card but you can turn on false colors and see where the skin tones of your subjects are falling. also, it's not uncommon for people to want their skin represented at a different brightness level than it is in reality. there may be an accurate way to represent reality, but that doesn't mean it's what the client wants

I strongly disagree with this whole statement, but I'm not going to argue about it or try to get you to see how I'd do it. It would take too much time and I think you'd resist what I have to say.

but you still haven't answered my question about how you would light, expose, and grade the dark background to get it to the proper brightness level and noise-free. I sort of guess you would rate the camera lower than base, but you haven't confirmed

I thought I did answer it, but I'll elaborate. I'd have the talent hold a white card in front of their face and set white to 72 IRE using Zebra2. This could be done by changing the aperture of the lens or my lighting to hit that target. Usually I have chosen my aperture based on a creative decision -- rather than illumination -- so dimming the key light is the primary way I set the exposure on the card. Then I'd adjust the fill, backlight, kicker, and background lighting to get the overall look that I want for the shot. I don't agree with your that dark backgrounds are too noisy, so that is not a concern of mine. If I want a dark background I will create a dark background with no regard to noise levels. In post, it all looks good. Perhaps your workflow in post is where we differ. Are you doing proper grading in Resolve or just dumping a LUT on it in your NLE?

 

[Doug Jensen]

to each his own, but there's no way in heck I'd show the client the waveform to prove it was properly exposed and then leave it there. I would definitely try to get a preview of the picture that they'd be happy with, which would involve changing the monitoring setup rather than my exposure

If I hired an experuienced professional plumber, carpenter, mechanic, for their skills -- and they disagreed with something I wanted them to do -- I'd sure the hell expect them to correct me before it was too late. That's why people hire professionals. Good clients don't want a yes man. Changing the monitoring solves nothing at all and just kicks the can down the road. Either the exposure is right or it is wrong.

 

[ahalpert]

I strongly disagree with this whole statement, but I'm not going to argue about it or try to get you to see how I'd do it. It would take too much time and I think you'd resist what I have to say.

if you'd like and you have something online, feel free to link me to an article or video addressing the topic and I'll consider your approach. My feeling is that if you're in rapidly changing lighting circumstances, either because you're moving through an interior with different lighting in every room or because the sun is coming and going, then you need to make exposure changes on the fly

One thing that I personally strongly disagree with is the idea that there's right and wrong exposure and that it's so clear-cut. There are many types of shooting where that's true. And there may be universally accurate or inaccurate exposure. (But again - are you exposing to a white card in the sun? in the shade? what would you do in a mixed lighting scenario?) But for me, the point is not always accuracy. More often, it's beauty, or it's effect.

I don't agree with your that dark backgrounds are too noisy, so that is not a concern of mine. If I want a dark background I will create a dark background with no regard to noise levels. In post, it all looks good. Perhaps your workflow in post is where we differ. Are you doing proper grading in Resolve or just dumping a LUT on it in your NLE?

In this case, just a LUT. But I'm unclear on what you'd do differently in Resolve in this case beyond applying noise reduction. The client was happy with the look and had intended it to be lit to the desired look with only the application of the standard LUT. I was happy with the look. I just wasn't happy with the noise levels in the shadows, which happened to be a significant part of the frame. Would you plan on crushing the shadows? What would be your approach?

Sometimes the client wants you to behave a certain way and either you're going to be a good fit for that client or not. I get the feeling that you wouldn't be a good fit for this client. Which is fine and isn't meant as an insult to either you or to them. And there are some situations when I can be more assertive with them about technique, such as with gimbal operating because I'm their primary gimbal operator. In this case, it was tricky because the producer had done the same thing many times with many different DPs and had been happy with the results. Doing it differently and leaving her for the time being uncertain that she's going to get what she wants, not to mention disregarding a direct order, is already a strike against you.

That's why I made the comment about walking off set. If you're a plumber and somebody hires you and tries to tell you what to do, then you're in a position where you either do what they say or you ditch the client. So, do you want the client?

 

[Joshua Milligan]

Good post Joshua, and I agree with just about everything you've said and your methods. You are absolutely right that HIGH is far noisier than LOW and I think that is why Sony does not call the FX6 a "dual native ISO" camera. It is not. It has a HIGH sensitivity mode, not dual ISO. There is definitely a price to be paid in noise and overal courseness of the picture when you have to switch to HIGH. I avoid it as much as I can, but it can't be eliminated entirely, especially when I'm shooting 120 fps outdoors with Sony's relatively slow telephoto lenses, such as the 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3.

Hey Doug, just out of curiosity, have you ever thought about leaving Cine EI mode for situations where the LOW base isn't enough, but perhaps you don't want to go all the way up to HIGH base ISO? I haven't done that yet, but on my A7SIII when I feel something is a little dark, I just roll the ISO from the base of 640 (it's 640 on the A7SIII instead of 800) to maybe 1600 or even 3200 (or maybe somewhere in between) and I find that the shots look great like that. Better than going all the way up to 12,800.

I know that the FX6 is unlike the FS7 in that in Custom mode you can finally have the same Slog3/S-Gamut3.Cine option that's in Cine EI (I hated that Custom on the FS7 didn't have this), so the camera should work just like that A7SIII in Custom mode (in theory, again I haven't tested this which is why I'm asking your thoughts here). If it does really work like the A7SIII in Custom, then yeah you lose the ability to rate your ISOs or even to have a monitor LUT, but at least you could move your ISO up to something more reasonable, like 1,600. That would be super helpful if there aren't any negative effects. I'm assuming the shots would look and grade the same as Slog3/S-Gamut3.Cine in Cine EI mode?

And yeah I totally agree that this is not really a dual base ISO camera. More of a camera with a high sensitivity mode. That's a great way to describe it.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Joshua, I don't believe that you can retain the benefits of S-LOG while choosing to shoot in Custom Mode -- just so you can crank up the gain in low light. Yes, HIGH base mode is noisier than LOW, but it's still certainly clean enough for most purposes and I prefer to stay within the CINE EI mode throughout a shoot. It is simpler and provides a more consistent look. In my opinion, the FX6 is really only suited for CINE EI shooting due the lack paint menus, but please don't get me started on that rant. I try to stay in LOW as much as I can, but I don't give it a second thought when I need to tap assgin button #2 to jump to HIGH.

I prefer to shoot with Noise Suppression turned off for CINE EI on the FX6, but if you find that noise is an issue, I suggest you experiment with turning it on and running some tests. Maybe that is the solution you are looking for rather than jumping back and forth between CINE EI and Custom.

 

[Doug Jensen]

if you'd like and you have something online, feel free to link me to an article or video addressing the topic and I'll consider your approach.

Yes, I've posted on this topic many times on many forums, I've produced several instructional videos that touch on exposure, and it is a critically important part of the interview lighting workshops that I teach. Unfortunately I do not have the time to try to paraphrase all of that information and condense it down to a few posts here. No two situations are ever the same and dealing with different circumstances or styles is all part of the process of shooting interviews. That's one reason why my workshops run 3-5 days, so we can address and deal with a variety of challenges. You've asked a lot of questions and I know you are sincerely looking to compare notes, but I just don't have the time right now to give you meaningful and complete answers that will do the topic justice and not just lead to more questions and more questions. I've already written in earlier posts how I would set exposure for a normal sit-down 60 Minutes style interview with controlled lighting. That will have to suffice.

I will only add that I do not shoot drama, music videos, or any other stuff where "creative" exposure would come into play. My comments on this thread apply to exposures for normal interviews and b-roll where there is a correct exposure target and anything that doesn't hit that target is incorrect for normal broadcasting standards. That doesn't mean that exposures which happen to miss the target can't be compensated for in post (that's the great thing about LOG -- lots of leeway) but I contend that there is almost always a correct exposure to aim for and anything else is wrong to one degree or another.

Finally, you are right that I'm not a good fit for certain clients and there are people and organizations that I would never work for again. It is a two-way street and there is a lot of power and peace of mind that comes from being able to say, "sorry, I'm busy that week."

 

[ahalpert]

I contend that there is almost always a correct exposure to aim for and anything else is wrong to one degree or another.

We can leave it there if you want to leave it there. I would just add that even if you expose to a white card, I think you're already making a creative decision by where you place the white card. For example, if you're standing in front of a window and filming doc b-roll of people catching window light as well as people standing farther inside the room in relative darkness, do you expose for people at the window or in the dark interior? Or do you expose for an area of the room in-between the lit and unlit parts? Or do you just capture as much detail as you can and sort it out in the grade? Or do you alter your exposure for your wides and your close-ups?

You may have an approach to this scenario that you consider the only acceptable approach. But I don't think it's about "accuracy" in this case

 

[Joshua Milligan]

Joshua, I don't believe that you can retain the benefits of S-LOG while choosing to shoot in Custom Mode -- just so you can crank up the gain in low light. Yes, HIGH base mode is noisier than LOW, but it's still certainly clean enough for most purposes and I prefer to stay within the CINE EI mode throughout a shoot. It is simpler and provides a more consistent look. In my opinion, the FX6 is really only suited for CINE EI shooting due the lack paint menus, but please don't get me started on that rant. I try to stay in LOW as much as I can, but I don't give it a second thought when I need to tap assgin button #2 to jump to HIGH.

I prefer to shoot with Noise Suppression turned off for CINE EI on the FX6, but if you find that noise is an issue, I suggest you experiment with turning it on and running some tests. Maybe that is the solution you are looking for rather than jumping back and forth between CINE EI and Custom.

Hey Doug, why is Custom mode different from Cine EI on the FX6 outside of workflow? I'm not trying to argue with you, I am just asking so I understand.

On the FS7, you had Custom mode and Cine EI. Cine EI was the only way to achieve the combination of Slog3/S-Gamut.Cine. Cine EI locked you at the base ISO of 2,000 and gave you three white balance settings, 3200, 4300, 5500. Custom mode on the other hand didn't have LUT support and didn't have Slog3/S-Gamut.Cine, but it did have the ability to change ISOs and to have a custom WB. It also had paint menus for creating your own WYSIWYG look which you created some awesome downloadable presets for in your master class.

On the FX6, the camera is somewhat different. Cine EI mode has Slog3/S-Gamut3.Cine like on the FS7, but unlike that FS7 you can have a custom WB and can change to a second base ISO for lowlight shooting. In Custom mode, you can also now have Slog3/S-Gamut.Cine just like in Cine EI, along with a custom WB. But unlike Cine EI, you can still have any ISO you want. What you lose is the ability to use LUTs and to have a workflow where the shooter rates the exposure. You do, however, lose the paint menus that the FS7 had.

So from what I've read online and from what I've seen in the menus on my own camera, it looks like you can achieve the exact same Slog3/S-Gamut3.Cine results in Custom mode that you could in Cine EI, it's just that the workflow is different. In one mode you work with LUTs, rate your exposures and lock the camera at one of the two base ISOs. In the other mode you don't work with LUTs or with exposure ratings, but you gain the ability to have whatever ISO you want. So from that standpoint, isn't Custom mode going to deliver the exact same results as Cine EI if both were shot to the same ISO and the same exposure, white balance, etc.?

If so, then why couldn't someone who's working on a shoot where the lighting is a little dim, but not dim enough to go all the way up to a noisier 12,800 ISO instead choose to shoot the project in Custom mode for that particular shoot and just work with a lower ISO of 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, or even 3200? That's the way the A7SIII works and it's really clean in those other ISOs. And on that camera I would rather jump to 1600 for example to increase my exposure slightly than I would jump all the way to 12,800 and have to add ND, especially when 12,800 adds some noise. Don't get me wrong, 12,800 is crazy clean for what it is, but do we always have to go all the way there when we just need a small bump in our exposure?

Again, I'm not trying to argue here with you about Cine EI vs Custom mode. I'm a big fan of working in Cine EI mode. I just am trying to continue our conversation on the matter so that all of us can better understand the FX6 camera and how it works. And if we can fully understand the tradeoffs, then it will help all of us pick the best workflows for a specific shoot. Thanks for the good chat. I love talks like this!

 

[JimmyMcV]

My big shoot is tonight. I walked through the space (though there was still some daylight)

Since we do have camera lights and we're allowed to get close to the performers (and need to anyway since we don't have a sound person and our audio is our camera shotguns) I'm hoping we can shoot 70% of this at Low Base.

I did some tests and the pulled down High Base stuff is going to take so much more time color correcting. The colors really start to go wacky.

I'll probably leave the EI at low base at equivalent to ISO (800) and do half (overexposed one stop) for High Base.
So for my fx6 half of high is 6400.
For the fx9 it's 2000.

Low base does look so much cleaner.

I do have that Neat denoise plugin but the processing takes forever.

Since I'm stabilizing many of the shots in post, I should probably start and stop the cam a few times, right? Since there are so many scenes. Or does it matter?

 

[Joshua Milligan]

My big shoot is tonight. I walked through the space (though there was still some daylight)

Since we do have camera lights and we're allowed to get close to the performers (and need to anyway since we don't have a sound person and our audio is our camera shotguns) I'm hoping we can shoot 70% of this at Low Base.

I did some tests and the pulled down High Base stuff is going to take so much more time color correcting. The colors really start to go wacky.

I'll probably leave the EI at low base at equivalent to ISO (800) and do half (overexposed one stop) for High Base.
So for my fx6 half of high is 6400.
For the fx9 it's 2000.

Low base does look so much cleaner.

I do have that Neat denoise plugin but the processing takes forever.

Since I'm stabilizing many of the shots in post, I should probably start and stop the cam a few times, right? Since there are so many scenes. Or does it matter?

Hey man, why do you think you'll need Neat Video before you even go on the shoot? With the FX6, you shouldn't be needing any sort of denoiser. In fact, I personally haven't used a denoiser in many years and I shoot a lot of doc stuff, including wildlife doc projects. A proper exposure should yield good enough footage to not need anything like that in post outside of an emergency.

Also, why do you plan to stabilize many shots in post? I've seen this a lot since the FX9/FX6 came out. So many people are relying on post stabilization in Catalyst Browse to get smooth footage. That's a long, time consuming process, especially if you plan to use it a lot. For me, I only use the gyro sensor data stabilization in CB when I somehow accidentally made a shot shaky (it happens), or if I wanted to make like one shot on a commercial project a little smoother than I was able to get it on the shoot. But I'm certainly not going into a project thinking that's going to be my workflow. That sounds like a nightmare!

 

[Doug Jensen]

We can leave it there if you want to leave it there. I would just add that even if you expose to a white card, I think you're already making a creative decision by where you place the white card. For example, if you're standing in front of a window and filming doc b-roll of people catching window light as well as people standing farther inside the room in relative darkness, do you expose for people at the window or in the dark interior? Or do you expose for an area of the room in-between the lit and unlit parts? Or do you just capture as much detail as you can and sort it out in the grade? Or do you alter your exposure for your wides and your close-ups?You may have an approach to this scenario that you consider the only acceptable approach. But I don't think it's about "accuracy" in this case

You see, that is the problem with this conversation about exposure, there are literally thousands of different "what if" scenarios that anyone can throw out there. Never ending. I'll answer one and you will bring up another "what if". That is why I tried to limit the conversation to a standard 60 Minutes style interview, which is easy to deal with. I cannot spend time explaining my process/methods for every contigency.