If a light meter is good enough for Deakins...

starcentral said:
Ok ok, the article is unrelated and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not to use a light meter but ok, let's get into it here in the early New Year of 2014:

Who is using a light meter to either get an exposure where they want it on the curve, or using it to manage ratios, or throwing one out the window all together?

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/roger-deakins-prisoners-interview
680x478



Cheers,
Click to expand...

I use a lightmeter and camera exposure tools such as waveform, falsecolor and etc.

morgan_moore said:
Pointless 1980s tech. Shooting I use the onboard tools. Pre lighting I'd use my Nikon d80

Shooting Kodachrome and strobe I needed a light meter - it's now in the attic
Click to expand...

I'm glad you never leave the camera for some good ol' set lighting. I can't imagine not having a meter on narrative work. Plus I really don't like sitting at the camera the entire time while lighting. As much as on-camera or monitor tools are helpful (and I use them) I like to be standing next to my subjects, with a meter and checking the lighting (making sure the lights are pointed as they should, how they fall off, etc. It's all about ratios. Plus, a waveform can only tell me so much. Some scenes, with a busy or complex composition can get a little confusing on a waveform. It's always great to take a spot reading or an incident light reading with a meter on the exact point you are wishing to meter. False color on Red cams, for instance, is a great tool as well. But it's ballpark. I like the meter. You don't have to use one but it's harsh to call it pointless tech. And why did you choose 1980's as a reference? Light meters had been around for at least half a century before the 1980's. I have my grandfather's light meter from the 1940's/1950 area, and it's still within a 1/4 stop of accuracy.

Mitch Gross said:
A light meter is absolutely important. It tells you what the lights are doing, not what is reflected off the objects it so happens to hit. It is an absolute, and if you wish to work with any degree of precision and consistency then it is a must.

I've lit entire features to a T4 key, which meant that I had a consistency to my feeling of depth of field and a certain look. If I was shooting a given film stock or now a particular camera sensor, then I know that my key light should land at, say, 50 footcandles. Bingo, now I know how to scout my locations, preplan my lighting and put together an equipment order. I've had complicated sets pre-lit the day before, with no camera in sight. All that is needed is a light meter and someone who understands how and why it is useful. Then there are only minor tweaks on the day. To dismiss the use of the tool is foolhardy at best.
Click to expand...

+1,000 Mitch
 
Ryan.

Firstly exposure tools on red and the like are spot on - they are reading straight from the sensor.

One trouble with Red is that the histo changes with iso which is a design flaw and why one should keep a red on 320 because the other Isos are pure fiction - but wfm and histo are spot on. You may be confused by them but that doesn't mean that I am. There are if course times when a wfm is too small to properly evaluate (hello Sony f5)

As for not leaving the camera - well I said I use a Nikon d80 - that is not the shoot camera - it is an around the neck tool - used away from the A camera

it is not much heavier or bigger than a large light meter but has rgb histo and with a 18-70 zoom works as a light Meter continuity aid directors framing aid and a bunch of other stuff - it also records all this stuff and takes bts stills and can record the position of lights too. With an expodisc it can also be used as an incident meter. It is therefore like a light meter but more flexible and half the cost!

1980s whatever. Basically I stopped using a meter when I stopped shooting film..
 
Last edited:
Hmm, to each is own. I use a meter on set all the time. So often the camera isn't ready yet and I can be dialing stuff in and making decisions for the new scene being lit. I also use it often to check the changing daylight spilling through a window for example. I feel a photo camera would be way more inconvenient for this. But I use dslr and iPhone apps as directors viewfinders all the time. Whatever works for you I guess. I like them separate.
 
I have never shot film motion pictures, only digital ones, starting with the 35mm adapters. I may sound like an idiot saying this but there are some good folks on this thread and I'm really curious to know so I'm going to ask:

Can you use a light meter, working with a gaffer to describe absolute values of light and how you want to light? Can a DP say something like "We are at T4 and I want those shadows 3 stops under," or can the conversation happen around highlights.. "they can't exceed T22." Something like that? Forgive my ignorance in advance but if Mitch says it's important to know the absolute values then I would think you could use them on set to light without running back ot the camera.

As an aside, I'm looking for a way to light talent without asking them to bob their heads side to side like Lucy and Linus so I can see them in the waveform monitor ;)
 
This is an interesting thread. I have been thinking about this, not that I have a project where it's even relevant in the foreseeable future, but re: waveforms/false color vs light meters, if cam, WFM, and false color are readily available, and you're not working with a large crew (say, you ARE the gaffer/DP/everything), why light meter over WFM or vice versa? Real world scenario: you're working on a movie, trying to keep consistency across shots and scenes with regard to ratios and light levels. Let's say you know you like your keys to be at x level and fills at y level, and you like the "lamplight" on the walls to be z level. Why a meter vs WFM/false color to measure these things and keep consistency? Someone mentioned WFMs being confusing to read with a lot in the shot. Good point there, what else? Someone else mentioned wanting to see what the lights were actually doing vs simply reading reflected light in the shot, but ultimately, isn't the reflected light all that matters--i.e. what it looks like in the scene/shot?
 
hscully said:
Can you use a light meter, working with a gaffer to describe absolute values of light and how you want to light? Can a DP say something like "We are at T4 and I want those shadows 3 stops under," or can the conversation happen around highlights.. "they can't exceed T22." Something like that? Forgive my ignorance in advance but if Mitch says it's important to know the absolute values then I would think you could use them on set to light without running back ot the camera.

As an aside, I'm looking for a way to light talent without asking them to bob their heads side to side like Lucy and Linus so I can see them in the waveform monitor ;)
Click to expand...

Calling out f-stops to your gaffer is exactly how it can work and if you have an AC you can let him know what to set the aperture to on the lens. I've never talk about "highlights" per say but I will take readings of "direct" light that I know will be acting as highlights so I know where it is relative to my key, and my shadows. I also light my shadows so I know they are above the noise floor of most cameras, for me this is usually 2-3 stops under middle grey but it varies.

I won't lie my final check is usually the monitor for sure, but primarily lighting using "lighting ratios" is just the way I like to roll. In many cases once the confidence and trust is built up with my crew I can even start doing takes without looking at the monitor.

And no - I would never ask a CEO of a company or an actor in a film to hold still so I can zebra off their face or study it on a waveform monitor. That honestly sounds quite ridiculous to me. I'm also not a fan of whipping out a grey card during a shoot or on a set as for me it just seems a bit on the weird side. A light meter properly calibrated to your camera tells you exactly where middle grey is and from there once you have that point of reference it becomes easy to work with.
 
Last edited:
Josh Bass said:
This is an interesting thread. I have been thinking about this, not that I have a project where it's even relevant in the foreseeable future, but re: waveforms/false color vs light meters, if cam, WFM, and false color are readily available, and you're not working with a large crew (say, you ARE the gaffer/DP/everything), why light meter over WFM or vice versa? Real world scenario: you're working on a movie, trying to keep consistency across shots and scenes with regard to ratios and light levels. Let's say you know you like your keys to be at x level and fills at y level, and you like the "lamplight" on the walls to be z level. Why a meter vs WFM/false color to measure these things and keep consistency? Someone mentioned WFMs being confusing to read with a lot in the shot. Good point there, what else? Someone else mentioned wanting to see what the lights were actually doing vs simply reading reflected light in the shot, but ultimately, isn't the reflected light all that matters--i.e. what it looks like in the scene/shot?
Click to expand...

That is the thing. I rarely work with a large crew and currently, shooting with a Sony FS-100, I do not have a WFM I can use. ... And I $%&@ing hate a histogram! I would love to have a WFM and am looking to get a monitor that has one I can use. Until then, I need to use what I have available, and what I know how to use, to help me set my exposure. Setting your exposure is definitely a technical decision but it is also a huge creative decision that I think is a major part of the art of cinematography. Whether a WFM or a light meter is better, or the best way, to set exposure or set you lights is a useful discussion but it really comes down to what you are comfortable with and what you have available. For me my Sekonic L-398, that I have had for over 20 years, and the Pentax Spotmeter V that I recently purchased are the tools I have available and I am very comfortable using them. Do I think that this is the best way to set exposure for digital video or that everybody should do it that way? NO, of course not but it works, for me.
 
morgan_moore said:
Ryan.

Firstly exposure tools on red and the like are spot on - they are reading straight from the sensor.
Click to expand...


The exposure tools on the Red (for example) help me land the general exposures. Yes, you are correct... for instance, the 'predator vision' false color visualization is accurate in the sense it is from the sensor. My ballpark statement was in reference to those values being non-descript inside of their color designation. For example, if a pro cinematographer or gaffer is trying to match exposure across shots or carrying a consistency, just landing the exposure of an actors face into the "tan" or "green" false color spectrum can carry a varying difference in illumination since those designations are zones within themselves. Same with the other exposure tools to differing extents.

Camera exposure tools are great for using to expose the overall image; see an overview of your exposure. They can save your life under the gun, however the light meter is still *the* tool that can most quickly identify specific and exacting exposure information from a subject or scene. I can use a light meter to understand my values of any object to specitivity of 1/10th of a stop. I can't do that (or as easy) with anything else. Waveforms are great but unless it's a close up, deciphering very specific values and ratios can be more bothersome than taking a reading with a light meter.
 
Last edited:
I use my Spectra Pro all the time to maintain a constant illumination and lighting ratio on any given shoot. That way the depth of field (among other things) is constant from shot to shot. It's so easy to light to a given t-stop without having to always look through the camera or at the monitor. You can literally walk the set and know what you've got.
And, like David Jones, I always use it for scouting. It's the quickest way to understand what you'll need on the day of the shoot and you can prepare your crew.
 
Ryan.
I've not used that false colour on red fair point if it is zonal. I just meant the exposure tools do what they say they do. A Light meter can for example be set on a different iso to the camera leading to error - human error not the individual machines not working. There may also be some variations on true iso of cameras and f stops with lenses marked in f not t values or plain marked wrong

A 2014 (not 1980s) tech light meter would synch iso with the cam by wifi can cut half of that space for error!

But really I'm not talking tech im talking culture.

Every item on set needs maintaining, checking, not losing, shipping, storing, charging, thinking about.

ergo every item that can be left at home or disposed of completery makes the shoot and shhoter more efficient and slicker

in that context of limited resources - even deakins has limited resources - I say that my d80 and 17-85 is a more useful tool as it is so functional.
 
Last edited:
I use my Spectra Pro all the time to maintain a constant illumination and lighting ratio on any given shoot. That way the depth of field (among other things) is constant from shot to shot. It's so easy to light to a given t-stop without having to always look through the camera or at the monitor. You can literally walk the set and know what you've got.
Click to expand...


Do you ever change the lens or the focal length on the lens? Do you ever move the camera closer or further away for the subject?

Why would any one want constant depth of field? DOF is part of "story telling".

Yo must make very boring films.
 
I use my Spectra all the time as does my crew. When lighting stages (shooting in REC709) a waveform monitor isn't going to tell me what the fall off is at 20 feet, 30 feet, etc. unless I have my gaffer walk around with a gray card while I point the camera at him. Just a whole lot easier (and realistic) to tell the crew what I want the reading to be and let them hang lights, position them, etc. Plus stage crews don't necessarily know how to run cameras, and we're usually pre-lighting before my camera op's are on set.

I'll always use a WFM for final adjustments, but find the light meter such a time saver in the pre-light. It's always around my neck and I've created the scene files for the cameras so I know exactly where middle gray falls. So for me, a very helpful tool.

And when shooting with an Alexa, you can be pretty sloppy with your exposure readings and still get nearly perfect results in your color grade. I'm not suggesting this as an efficient way to work, just saying you can be off a little without paying the penalty.

With RED, I seem to rely on a variety of exposure readings: stop lights, histogram, and false color for skin tones.

YMMV
 
starcentral said:
Calling out f-stops to your gaffer is exactly how it can work and if you have an AC you can let him know what to set the aperture to on the lens. I've never talk about "highlights" per say but I will take readings of "direct" light that I know will be acting as highlights so I know where it is relative to my key, and my shadows. I also light my shadows so I know they are above the noise floor of most cameras, for me this is usually 2-3 stops under middle grey but it varies.

I won't lie my final check is usually the monitor for sure, but primarily lighting using "lighting ratios" is just the way I like to roll. In many cases once the confidence and trust is built up with my crew I can even start doing takes without looking at the monitor.

And no - I would never ask a CEO of a company or an actor in a film to hold still so I can zebra off their face or study it on a waveform monitor. That honestly sounds quite ridiculous to me. I'm also not a fan of whipping out a grey card during a shoot or on a set as for me it just seems a bit on the weird side. A light meter properly calibrated to your camera tells you exactly where middle grey is and from there once you have that point of reference it becomes easy to work with.
Click to expand...

Ha! I whipped out a gray card in the governor's office in Philadelphia while shooting S-Log. No way I wanted to screw that shot up!
 
A couple of very handy on-camera tools are the spotmeter (giving average data levels/IRE/whatever from a small frame area) and the spot-waveform (waveform of a small rectangle in the frame). This way you can isolate small portions of the frame and still have precise sensor+transfer curve based feedback. In fact, I'd say these two are the most useful digital on-camera tools. Shame that most cameras don't have them. Cluttered scenes are no issue in this case, because you can select only the part that interests you.
Of course, a lightmeter can be everything one needs as long as it is calibrated to the camera + transfer curve used. It is not much use if you don't take the specifics of the signal in consideration.
 
Shooter said:
Do you ever change the lens or the focal length on the lens? Do you ever move the camera closer or further away for the subject?

Why would any one want constant depth of field? DOF is part of "story telling".

Yo must make very boring films.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...


Consistent aperture within a scene is a very common and important goal, IMO. You can change the DOF during a scene should story call for it (say a character has love on first sight, becomes ill, or has an epiphany, etc) however, all 'normal' scenes typically benefit from consistency. Narrative cinema is about the illusion. The illusion of continuos temporal storytelling in order to establish a reality.

I understand and what you are saying. If shooting a scene at a T4 , the 25mm wide shot focused to 25' will have much deeper DoF than the matching CU's on 50mm at 7', despite being also at T4.

The idea, in this sense, would be to stress the importance of at least shooting the same stop (or close to it) on matching CU's (unless a story reason calls for the opposite). Imagine the above example; if one CU was shot at a T2, while the other was shot at a T5.6 (assuming exposures match), the very distinct difference in focus falloff might be distracting and weakens the illusion of a story reality by showing the artists hand. This another argument altogether...

However the last and arguably real reason many professional cinematographers try to shoot scenes at a specific stop would be optics. This is becoming less important as lenses get better, but I should first point out that a lens can only be made to be most optimal at one t-stop. If anyone has ever used older lenses like panavision supers/ultras, arri supers/standards, super Baltars, Cooke speed panchros, or any prime set before the 1980's or cinema zoom before the 1990's... Than you know what I mean. These lenses have drastic differences in contrast, sharpness (and sometimes color!) from open stops to middle stops. I would imagine the heavy stress on a consistent stop (outside of the aesthetic reasons given above) would be to give an optical continuity in the image in many other ways than DOF.

In today's world, our modern lens sets have better designs, better coatings and despite performance still varying at different stops, the disparity is not as great and is more forgiving, especially with our modern luxury of a DI, where at least some contrast and color can be wiggled back in order.

although not as important today, it's a wonderful practice to get in the habit of, unless the specific story at hand calls for otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top