I'm trying to get some footage of cloud formations and it appears that I will have to really underexpose to get them to show up. It appears that setting the IRE to about 50 or 60 percent results in sufficient detail of the clouds as viewed on the flip out camera display. However, the frame will still need to include the surrounding countryside for purposes of the project, even though the trees and buildings are practically dark at those settings. For my purposes, dark trees and buildings or even black ones are fine and exactly what I need; however, my concern is that when it is viewed on tv or on a movie screen, those severely underexposed trees and buildings will be noisy or otherwise full of weird artifacts. Anyone know if such severe underexposure is problematic? Thanks in advance.
Is too much underexposure bad?
- Thread starter dhffhd
- Start date
Re: Is too much underexposure bad?
The solution to this problem is using an ND Grad filter that gives you about 2 stops less exposure on the sky while leaving the foreground with trees etc. properly exposed as well.
An ND Grad is a piece of glass to put in front of your lens that has a gradient from Neutral Density grey at the upper end to clear at the lower end. The transition from ND Grey to clear is somewhere in the upper third of the filter and is done by a nice gradient (hence the name) so you don't see any steps from grey to clear.
The solution to this problem is using an ND Grad filter that gives you about 2 stops less exposure on the sky while leaving the foreground with trees etc. properly exposed as well.
An ND Grad is a piece of glass to put in front of your lens that has a gradient from Neutral Density grey at the upper end to clear at the lower end. The transition from ND Grey to clear is somewhere in the upper third of the filter and is done by a nice gradient (hence the name) so you don't see any steps from grey to clear.
Re: Is too much underexposure bad?
Thanks for the info. The thing is, though, we kind of want to keep everything else way underexposed except the clouds. Kind of a Wuthering Heights thing. But if the underexposure is gonna leave us with artifacts in the very dark areas, we have to regroup.
Thanks for the info. The thing is, though, we kind of want to keep everything else way underexposed except the clouds. Kind of a Wuthering Heights thing. But if the underexposure is gonna leave us with artifacts in the very dark areas, we have to regroup.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Is too much underexposure bad?
As mentioned above consider getting an ND GRad which is your overall best solution for shooting skies while keeping the landscape properly exposed. Without the GRad your best bet is keeping the sky in the upper third of the frame which might not be what you are looking for. Another solution might be to shoot with the sun behind you which will at least give you more light on your landscape. But get the ND GRAD!
As mentioned above consider getting an ND GRad which is your overall best solution for shooting skies while keeping the landscape properly exposed. Without the GRad your best bet is keeping the sky in the upper third of the frame which might not be what you are looking for. Another solution might be to shoot with the sun behind you which will at least give you more light on your landscape. But get the ND GRAD!
taubkin
Veteran
Re: Is too much underexposure bad?
I don't think he wants to use the ND grad. He just want a sillhoueted countryside, right? Use the camera Spotmeter and chech the levels on those trees. If they are over 10% lower the pedestal of the camera so they don't turn milky. If you keep them really dark you won't have artifacts, but I think if you keep them in the 10-30% area, you will have some noticable grain, i think.
I don't think he wants to use the ND grad. He just want a sillhoueted countryside, right? Use the camera Spotmeter and chech the levels on those trees. If they are over 10% lower the pedestal of the camera so they don't turn milky. If you keep them really dark you won't have artifacts, but I think if you keep them in the 10-30% area, you will have some noticable grain, i think.
taubkin
Veteran
Re: Is too much underexposure bad?
The master pedestal control works on the Knee of your gamma curve, you can find it in the scene file menu. Lowering the pedestal would make the blacks darker, if you overdoo it, people would say you "crushed" them. Like when you use the levels tool in photoshop to get more contrast and you end up loosing detail on the darker portions of the image. Basically, your almost blacks turn into black. If you raise them you will get an uncontrasted image with "milky" blacks. Sometimes they can be good too... Play with it and you'll get it...
The master pedestal control works on the Knee of your gamma curve, you can find it in the scene file menu. Lowering the pedestal would make the blacks darker, if you overdoo it, people would say you "crushed" them. Like when you use the levels tool in photoshop to get more contrast and you end up loosing detail on the darker portions of the image. Basically, your almost blacks turn into black. If you raise them you will get an uncontrasted image with "milky" blacks. Sometimes they can be good too... Play with it and you'll get it...