Highlights and External Recorders

Shooter said:
I actually "expose" for the shadows also but I do it with light control and not the aperture or other camera controls. eg more light, less light, fill or negative fill.
Click to expand...

I agree totally on set where you can control the light. Since most of my recent work is in the wilderness - whitewater rapids to be exact - I watch the bright 'whitewater' and expose accordingly, then in post, work the shadow areas with the gamma.
 
snp said:
I agree totally on set where you can control the light. Since most of my recent work is in the wilderness - whitewater rapids to be exact - I watch the bright 'whitewater' and expose accordingly, then in post, work the shadow areas with the gamma.
Click to expand...

Understand entirely and I would do exactly the same.
 
jonathon- thanks for sharing.

And yeah, I also think it's the sensor (and/or the processing after the sensor), not the codec...
 
Great thread!

Getting ready to go into PreProduction on the 2nd season of an 8 ep food series shooting Jan/Feb.

Last season we shot AF102 w/KiProMini with a lot of 5D mixed in, this year, they are a bit more organized and it's going to be 2 AF102s w/KiProMinis with 5D for the wanky food pack shots

I'll be B camera over the entire series & also most likely the Colorist as well (I did both on season1)

Going to sit down and do some real camera tests at the end of this month and decide on a gamma with the DP. Im still not 100% convinced with Cine D, which we ran last time.

I know for a fact i can get more info out of the shadow with an External Recorder, so at least a stop under when the highlights are an issue is mandatory.

Need to do more testing with B Press, yes its punchy, but I really like it, although I haven't checked my shadow/external recorder theory with this Gamma.

Also very keen to play more with Cine V. Haven't used it since the HVX days where it was quite extreme..

Keen to hear about your results Shooter.
 
jonathanrichards said:
Here's another couple of tricky highlight examples that the camera coped well with I think.

View attachment 42879View attachment 42880

Only just a very slight tweak to the top end to get these highlights in check.
Click to expand...



Hi Jonathan

I just saw your presentation at Mc video. I am deeply impressed of the quality of the air recordings!!! It is inconceivable that you make with such a “simple rig” these excellent images!!! (10+) Certainly seen the type of the old helicopter, without a stabilistation system !

Thanks for your nice presentation.

Best Wishes,

Menno Mennes
info@hollandheritage.tv
www.hollandheritage.tv
 
Joe Lawry said:
Great thread!

Getting ready to go into PreProduction on the 2nd season of an 8 ep food series shooting Jan/Feb.

Last season we shot AF102 w/KiProMini with a lot of 5D mixed in, this year, they are a bit more organized and it's going to be 2 AF102s w/KiProMinis with 5D for the wanky food pack shots

I'll be B camera over the entire series & also most likely the Colorist as well (I did both on season1)

Going to sit down and do some real camera tests at the end of this month and decide on a gamma with the DP. Im still not 100% convinced with Cine D, which we ran last time.

I know for a fact i can get more info out of the shadow with an External Recorder, so at least a stop under when the highlights are an issue is mandatory.

Need to do more testing with B Press, yes its punchy, but I really like it, although I haven't checked my shadow/external recorder theory with this Gamma.

Also very keen to play more with Cine V. Haven't used it since the HVX days where it was quite extreme..

Keen to hear about your results Shooter.
Click to expand...

Joe,
if you have time, give a look at this profile:
Detail -5
Coring -3
Chroma -5
Phase 0
Pedestal 0
Gamma Low
Knee Low
Matrix Norm1

Like many, when I bought my AF100 I spent some time with the camera connected to my 37'' LCD to check out which settings give the lowest noise. I choosed this profile because images are less contrasty than B Press but not as flat as Cine D.
Here are some screengrabs from our last shoot using this settings, with little grading on DaVinci.

Hope this helps
Carpenteria01.jpgCarpenteria02.jpg
 
Hi Menno,

Thanks for watching the MacVideo talk and so glad you got something from it.

Yes, I was surprised at the results myself. It was a combination of all the factors. The type of helicopter (jet turbine and not piston - less vibration), good weather, shooting from the open door, the fig rig, the over cranking and the proximity of the helicopter to the caravan ie. we were LOW.
 
Another shot taken today with much blown out highlights. Sometimes there's nothing you can do but make them look as pleasant as you can in post.

twobusinessmen.jpg
 
There's actually headroom for saving ugly highlights with a shoulder effect in post. I do it all the time when I want to shape highlights. Most often the need for blown parts are in the background and throwing them out of focus or do the shoulder trick makes it look good.
 
Yeah, i actually crush my whites a bit, but that's a matter of preference cause i like the way they look that way and it makes them soft.

here is a quick edit with music added of a scene we shot today for our web series. Tons of blown highlights, but still pleasing to see.

 
Last edited:
Dont confuse "headroom" in post with legalising in post. If an image has headroom it means there is useable data ( ie detail)

No doubt post can improve the highlight and the general image but it certainly does not restore any detail from the highlight.

Papas example is fine (and the film looks great) but also note that in the sunny highlights on the guys black suits...there is no detail at all. (and that is a highlight on black - imagine if the guys had white suits)

Everything that hits 100% + becomes white and is "detail challenged".
 
Shooter said:
Dont confuse "headroom" in post with legalising in post. If an image has headroom it means there is useable data ( ie detail)

No doubt post can improve the highlight and the general image but it certainly does not restore any detail from the highlight.

Papas example is fine (and the film looks great) but also note that in the sunny highlights on the guys black suits...there is no detail at all. (and that is a highlight on black - imagine if the guys had white suits)

Everything that hits 100% + becomes white and is "detail challenged".
Click to expand...

Yeah, no argument there, the detail tha's gone is gone. What is nice to know is that although there has been so much talk about ugly looking highlights with the AF100 and people complaining about it left, right, and center, the point is that yes, things will blow out, but you can still make them look easy on the eyes without diverting too much attention to them. And i believe a lot of these complaints come from people who got spoiled when being introduced to VDSLR's, where highlights blew out gracefully and left the image with a pleasing blown white.
 
What techniques do you guys use in post to clean up clipped channels (ugly yellow or blue in partially blown highlights) ? I'm using CS5.
 
If I ever had to...I would use a Flame Suite for that.

Far beyond me to fix it in post but within my range when I shot it.
 
hmm im learning new things here
whats the safest low IRE before things go noisy and cant be cured? 25%? 35%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top