Good Light Meter for HVX 200

M

max123

Member
Hi,

Could any one of you suggest a good, affordable light meter (with a 1/48 setting)to use with my HVX-200?
Also, which ASA setting I should use if I shoot 24P?

Karle
 
Shooter said:
IMHO - not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to hear your reasoning behind this... because there are plenty of things a light meter can do that your camera and all the scopes in the world hooked up to it can't, and it can fit neatly in your pocket :smile:

As for a good recommend, Sekonic makes some great meters, you can find some affordable older models on Ebay pretty easily. I personally use the Digital Cine Master.

I can't recommend an ISO setting, as I don't have an HVX200, but I highly recommend basing your rating off the cameras clipping point in the green channel.
 
I don't say you don't need one, but the spot-meter is quite a quite usefull tool. Only too bad it can only be centreframed...

Hit the zebra-button till it pops up.

ISO of HVX is said to be 320

Gunleik
 
Also, the HVX (and other video cams) are very tricky beasts, and are generally their own best meters. If you search, you'll find some reports that the HVX seems to have differing ISO equivalence depending on gamma setting and other camera variables. A light meter can be good for ballparking, but certainly use the camera itself as a final reference!
 
ullanta said:
Also, the HVX (and other video cams) are very tricky beasts, and are generally their own best meters. If you search, you'll find some reports that the HVX seems to have differing ISO equivalence depending on gamma setting and other camera variables. A light meter can be good for ballparking, but certainly use the camera itself as a final reference!
Click to expand...

G'morning old buddy...

Yeah the built in HVX meter is *really* useful. I have a Sekonic 558, but most of the time I know I can rely on the HVX's spot meter and dual (custom settable) zebras. The Sekonic is easier to roam around with if you want to check spots up closer, and reportedly is very helpful in green screen work (I have yet to do that), but one could probably do just fine most of the time with only the HVX.
 
Sekonic L-758 cine

Sekonic L-758 cine

I use the Sekonic L-758 cine. It allows you to build custom profiles for any camera. You need a computer to do this, mac or pc. It's really helpful getting an even lighting on a green screen.
 
ullanta said:
Also, the HVX (and other video cams) are very tricky beasts, and are generally their own best meters. If you search, you'll find some reports that the HVX seems to have differing ISO equivalence depending on gamma setting and other camera variables. A light meter can be good for ballparking, but certainly use the camera itself as a final reference!
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I tell people to ISO rate based off clipping. If you do that, you will always be safe. Basing off 50 IRE while shooting a gray card is, in my opinion, quite absurd with video. That middle gray can be remapped so many different ways. Your clipping point however, cannot.
 
A waveform monitor is infinitely more helpful in lighting a greenscreen.

A light meter can have some value in a video shoot, but mainly for "roughing in" lighting, and meeting certain predefined ratios (such as that you've decided you want to use an 8:1 key/fill ratio). But for fine tuning, the light meter is the wrong tool for a video shoot; the waveform monitor and a properly calibrated production monitor are far more helpful.
 
Barry_Green said:
A waveform monitor is infinitely more helpful in lighting a greenscreen.

But for fine tuning, the light meter is the wrong tool for a video shoot; the waveform monitor and a properly calibrated production monitor are far more helpful.
Click to expand...

I would disagree Barry. When viewing a waveform monitor pointed at a green screen, you certainly can see if the lighting is even, as this will manifest itself as a straight line on the waveform, however, if any part of the screen is uneven, the waveform monitor won't show you where its uneven beyond a vague generality like screen left or screen right. Thats the key reason why people light green screens with spot meters.

As for fine tuning, I disagree again. Your waveform isn't going to tell me what the reflective value of someones cheek is. A 1 degree spot meter will. Roughing in is usually done with incident meters or plain old photo metrics in advance (I use that a lot actually). But fine tuning is something you usually do with a spot meter, even if your working with video, actually even more so with video. Your margin for error isn't too forgiving.

I think a lot of people who have grown up around video approach it with too much of a what you see is what you get attitude, and its simply not the case, and Red One is proving that quite bluntly. I'm hearing so many reports from sets where people are so confused because its not a what you see is what you get format, and now that Red has introduced RAW cinema, this problem will only compound, as other companies introduce there own RAW cine cameras. If you know what the cameras range is and ISO rate based off clipping, you simply won't have to worry about what that monitor is showing.

I also find that spot metering really forces people to develop a more critical eye for lighting, which is a good thing. Waveforms and vector scopes have there places, but I mainly see them as useful ways to monitor a signal which is what they are meant for, but not lighting a set.

Just my two cents.
 
cardmaverick said:
I would disagree Barry. When viewing a waveform monitor pointed at a green screen, you certainly can see if the lighting is even, as this will manifest itself as a straight line on the waveform, however, if any part of the screen is uneven, the waveform monitor won't show you where its uneven beyond a vague generality like screen left or screen right. Thats the key reason why people light green screens with spot meters.
Click to expand...
? I put it in line mode, and I can tell immediately where it's uneven... I agree if you're viewing the full mode you would have a case, but in line mode it's simplicity, bliss, and perfection. :)

But fine tuning is something you usually do with a spot meter, even if your working with video, actually even more so with video. Your margin for error isn't too forgiving.
Click to expand...
I'm a fan of light meters, I have a Sekonic 508C, I'm a big fan of the spotmeter in the HVX and HPX, etc. With that said, I think I've seen a lightmeter used on a professional video shoot maybe exactly once in the last 8 years, used to fine-tune anything.

There are too many video cameras, each with different response characteristics, sensitivity, etc, to make a light meter a reasonable tool to rely on under many/most scenarios, for much other than roughing in or getting ratios. I guess if you only worked with one particular camera, with one particular gamma, then you could become a lot more adept with the lightmeter. But I find the waveform and production monitor combo much more useful because they automatically factor all those differences in. With those tools, what you see is what you get.

I think a lot of people who have grown up around video approach it with too much of a what you see is what you get attitude, and its simply not the case
Click to expand...
With video, that's exactly the case. A calibrated production monitor will show you exactly what you're getting.

, and Red One is proving that quite bluntly.
Click to expand...
The Red One's not a video camera though. It's its own, unique, raw digital thing; it doesn't conform to video standards.

I'd probably find the light meter approach to be much more useful with a Red, from the perspective that first of all you can't really monitor what you're getting anyway; it's much more like film in that sense. And second, as I understand it there are no gamma curves or anything else like that; what it sees is what you get (and you do all image manipulation in post). So with a scenario like that, it's much, much more like working with film, and the light meter is the proper tool for film work. You'll have to go through and map out the characteristic curve and any prudent Red cinematographer is going to have to understand how the Mysterium processes light. But once you know those things, a light meter would be ideal for setting proper ratios and exposure throughout.

If you know what the cameras range is and ISO rate based off clipping, you simply won't have to worry about what that monitor is showing.
Click to expand...
For a raw signal like an Andromeda or a Red, or film, that's true. For any video camera that's totally not true and not accurate. What the monitor is showing is the only thing that matters.

The gamma curves in video cameras are going to push your midtones up, or down, or crush the darks, or extend them, or do any manner of manipulation to your signal. There is no flat linear response in a normal video camera. If there was, then using the light meter would be a simple approach, but there isn't.

I also find that spot metering really forces people to develop a more critical eye for lighting, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Waveforms and vector scopes have there places, but I mainly see them as useful ways to monitor a signal which is what they are meant for, but not lighting a set.
Click to expand...
Well, we should agree to disagree. Lighting a set is one thing, but if the video processing is redistributing your values around and the knee and toe are doing odd things to your video, you *have* to compensate for what the camera is doing. You can't force the camera to just like your lighting setup, you have to make the lighting comply to the camera's processing. I mean, obviously you adjust the camera settings as best you can, but when working with video the only rational approach (to me) is results-based. Whatever you have to modify at the source, well, you do what you gotta do so that the end result looks good. And the only way to know the end result is to monitor the results, and adjust the lighting appropriately to compensate.
 
Last edited:
I understand where you're coming from Barry, but if your shooting a project that matters, you'll (hopefully) have taken time to figure out how the camera is remapping tones, etc.. Once you have done that (figured out the various settings combos you want, and their effects gray scale wise), you can spot meter all day. Thats what I did back when I had to work with the HVX. I figured out the settings I wanted, then worked with the meter to get it setup and I never had any issues. In fact, I actually took post into account as well, which is why I say video is not what you see is what you get, it can change rapidly in post and if you didn't light for a certain post process, your screwed in some instances. So with that said, I guess I should correct myself, it can be WYSIWYG, but sometimes it isn't depending on potential post processing. Spot metering is a real skill in my opinion, and that seems to be another reason why people shy away from it. They simply don't know how to use them (or more accurately, where to point them)... I really need to write that tutorial sometime.... LOL.

Also, just to throw this out there again, the best way to set a spot meter up for video is to base it off clipping. After that point, its all operator skill.
 
Barry_Green said:
The gamma curves in video cameras are going to push your midtones up, or down, or crush the darks, or extend them, or do any manner of manipulation to your signal. There is no flat linear response in a normal video camera. If there was, then using the light meter would be a simple approach, but there isn't.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this, film doesn't have a linear response either, especially in the shoulder and toe regions, yet people still use a light meter with film.

Anyhow, I agree we can agree to disagree. If you can create awesome images one way or another go for it, but I'll always recommend light meters, as they do more than figure out exposure, which everyone seems to forget about. I never go on a location scout without my meter, and I'm not looking at f/stop readings, I'm looking at LUX/FC etc...
 
can you give us only an anticipation of your tutorial.??
for example about how to set and base a spot meter off clipping??
 
shiny4 said:
can you give us only an anticipation of your tutorial.??
for example about how to set and base a spot meter off clipping??
Click to expand...

When I can find the time. I wanna do this right, meaning shoot some video for it, not just text. I feel like this tutorial needs real examples, as well as being able to really watch me do the setup. That makes a world of difference for some people. I'd rather not leave anyone out, I've gotten a bunch of PMs and email asking when I'll make it.

Ironically enough, you do need some scopes to do this properly LOL. But you also use some test charts as well.
 
"Not worth the trouble."

The thing about setting a stop on an HVX is there is a limited degree of attenuation available. Maybe 1/3rd of a stop. A real film lens is adjustable ifinitely between the marks. Practically in 1/10th of a stop.


I have a case full of various meters from a career in film shooting. (Sekonics, Spectras, Pentax Spotmeters etc). I even went through a stage of shooting the set lighting on a B/W Polaroid camera and interpreting the results subject to my interpretation and experience with the film stocks. The meters can play a part in digital shooting - no question - but I prefer DVRack any day of the week. Its a shot saver and problem solver.

I once part owned a film processing laboratory and did numerous tests for myself and cinematographers using our neg analysis devices to work out film curves and exposure responses. (grey scales, wedge charts etc). It eventually related back to waveform monitoring ( simply black to white zone response) . Telecine for example. If only in the early years I could have had a waveform monitor built onto the side of my light meter.

I sometimes told "students" that I thought I saw in black and white zones when I lit and read a scene or a set ....but it always came back to a bit of the "eyeometer" and a bit of a guess. One can get far to technical.
 
I found a incident light meter very useful for lighting, a lot faster than the waveform and better for pre -lighting because you can tell the gaffer what are you looking for. After lighting is done, the light meter can go to sleep, I adjust the exposure by eye, looking the waveform or a good calibrated monitor.
Finding the ISo for your camera is easy and smart to do. Get a gray and white card, put them together and light the whole thing very even, check in your waveform and open or close the iris until whites are around 100 ire, and gray at 50, now you know the iso of your camera. If you want to be very accurate do it for every built in ND filter,those are not precise.
My lightmeter, Spectra IV, simple, accurate, great tech support in USA and bulletproof
 
Shooter said:
"Not worth the trouble."
Click to expand...

I think most of the people here, who have shot film, would have to agree with shooter. Using a waveform is way more accurate. Why would you meter something that you could see plain as day on the monitor. It doesn't make sense to me. Roughing in lights, is exactly what it means...rough. Experienced gaffers can choose between a 1k and a 650 without the need for a meter. The DP can tweak every single instance of a lamp from the waveform. All that being said, there's also the best gauge of them all...thats your eye. I've seen a couple of video guys use light meters on shoots, and I have to say, I think they just wanted to look cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top