Light Meter
- Thread starter avery
- Start date
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I have the Sekonic 308dc which gives me readings directly in Footcandles, a frequent parameter used to describe continuous lights. I also have a Minolta Spot Meter, which unfortunately is no longer manufactured... The Sekonic 758 Cine has both incident and spot capabilities as I recall. For 'good' metering I think both types are needed.
The one problem with getting 'older' meters is that many of them used batteries that are no longer available... due to the hysteria about mercury... and the battery manufacturers did not make an identical in voltage replacement.
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
I'd go with the 758Cine. It will be the only meter you need, and will last a long time. (And you can even create custom profiles for every camera you use.) You can check ebay for better prices- and sometimes Japanese Photography stores will sell them at a decent price too. However, the only thing to be aware of with ebay purchases, or from buying from Japan, is that the radio transmitter will most likely not work with any US gear. The radio specs are different in the US. This is really only a problem if you are using strobes / do photography. If you need those features, buy from a US reseller. If you don't, you can save the cash.
I've started a small collection of profiles for the 758Cine here:
http://www.ryanewalters.com/SP/sekonicprofiles.html
I've started a small collection of profiles for the 758Cine here:
http://www.ryanewalters.com/SP/sekonicprofiles.html
Bern Caughey
Veteran
I primarily use a slightly older Sekonic Cine all-in-one for convience, but last I checked the spot meter didn't read as deeply into the shadows as a dedicated Spot Meter, or was quite as accurate in incident mode as a Spectra.
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
Interesting. My meter (incident mode) has worked well with other meters, regardless of the brand. Some have. Been closer then others, but none have been so far off as to cause concern. But i think that is a result from different manufactures choosing slightly different midtone values. Minolta and Sekonic have different values from what i recall. I haven't had the chance to compare spot meter readings.
Before this gets into a "brand war" what I think is most important, is that regardless of the meter that is chosen, whoever is using it should figure out their preferred style of metering, and then stick to that style. As long as you are getting the results you need, and it is consistent / repeatable, then you'll be good to go. I think personal metering styles / habits are as much of the final look of the image as the lighting choices that are made.
Personally, I like a 2 in 1 meter so that I don't have to have even more thinks to carry around. And Sekonic has been delivering good results for me. (Before that I had a Minolta, and my first meter was old analogue meter.)
In the old analog days, I saw most professional cinematographers using Spectras. But in the digital age, Sekonic seems to be accepted. Flipping through the pages of American Cinematographer magazines, I sometimes see what look like Sekonic 758 meters being used.
-- Ken
-- Ken
cpc
Well-known member
There is no fixed standard for metering. The ISO specifications give a range of possible calibration constants.
Different brands can read differently and all be "correct" to their specifications. Gossen, in general, will give the shortest exposure, and Minolta the longest. Sekonic is in the middle. Differences can be as big as 1/3 EV.
This is a nuisance but doesn't really matter that much because meters should be used with understanding of the characteristic curve/transfer curve of the capturing medium. Exposure should be done for a specific meter + camera transfer curve combo. Besides, two correctly working meters can be matched with the help of correction values. Any decent meter has these.
Different brands can read differently and all be "correct" to their specifications. Gossen, in general, will give the shortest exposure, and Minolta the longest. Sekonic is in the middle. Differences can be as big as 1/3 EV.
This is a nuisance but doesn't really matter that much because meters should be used with understanding of the characteristic curve/transfer curve of the capturing medium. Exposure should be done for a specific meter + camera transfer curve combo. Besides, two correctly working meters can be matched with the help of correction values. Any decent meter has these.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Part of any initial use of meter+camera should be a calibration test to see if the indications match up with the photographer's style, or desire. I use to rate Tri-X still film at 200, rather than the manufacturer's 400. That was based on exposure test that gave me 'what I wanted', relative to my printing process...
I few months ago I read that in around 1960, most films were given a 'doubling' of their previous ASA ratings... based on the new speed rating standard...
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
Great point. As there is no such standard for digital cameras, this makes it all the more important to test and calibrate before hand.
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
I disagree. If you have calibrated the meter and the camera together, the meter can reliably be used to set exposure. I've been getting great results with the Alexa, Epic, C300, 5D, & GH2. I'll of course double check what the in camera meters are telling me. But 99% of the time I don't have to change anything.
What about the other 1% of the time? Because something CAN be done most of the time, doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
I think you missed the part where I said that I double check the in camera meters. That is what protects me that other 1%. The meter is great- but it's not recording the images.
I think you missed the part where I said that I double check the in camera meters. That is what protects me that other 1%. The meter is great- but it's not recording the images.
Why not just use the camera or monitor image and associated exposure tools in the first place then, since you are going to look at them for this purpose anyway? You are adding an extra step for no reason. Sure you look cool checking your meter and then calling out a stop, but that's really just posing.
My point stands - light meters should not be used to set exposure with digital cameras.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Given that I don't have a calibrated monitor nor a camera that puts out a waveform display, or a camera that is attached to devices that put out a wave form display... I've found the histogram to be sort of a 'ballparkish' indication. I check it for how much is on the left end or the right, to indicate gross under or over exposure, but otherwise for 'critical' shots, I meter everything. Of course I've been doing this since 'time began', and one did not have the ability to see the shot until the negs came back from processing...
When I'm shooting 'happy' shots, the histogram usually is good enough.
What really bothers me though, is not so much someone recommends using the waveform monitor, or similar... but when I meet up with someone who claims to be a 'DoP'... and then says 'well I have an LED light'... "And how many footcandles does the LED light deliver, at say 5 feet'... 'uh???, I just set it up and click the aperture and ISO until the image 'looks good''...
(slightly paraphrased recent conversation...)
If all it was to being a 'DoP', was point and shoot... I really missed the boat... could have been world famous by now no doubt...
Last edited:
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
First of all, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm just posing. I really don't see the benefit in calling names in a discussion. Really, what does this add to the conversation?
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Which works for me. In the end, as long as you use your tools to get consistent, perdictable results, that you can repeat for every client / project you work on, does it really matter how you get there? My metering technique and methodology have served me well over the years, so I'll continue to use it, until I'm as talented as some of the top ASC guys who can just light by eye and not even bother with a meter.
I have LOTS of reasons-
- I can prelight locations / sets we'll be at while we are filming other sets.
- I can have my assistant set the camera up to my specs while I work with the gaffer.
- I don't find histrograms to be very helpful or informative other then in determining over exposure. (If I want a value to fall at a certain stop, it can't help me.)
- Not all video outs can be trusted with waveform monitors
- It is something that keeps me moving quickly
- It is a tool I can use to KNOW that my ratios are consistent from shot to shot
...
Again, not true, see the above list. As long as I've done my home work before the shoot, my meter will get me there. And I haven't found taking a quick look at the incamera meters to take any extra time from the shoot, as it is a mere flick of the eyes just before rehearsal. And if there happens to be an issue with the exposure, which is very rare for me, it usually results from something I didn't consider, or mistakenly metered incorrectly.
But again, this is just my method. Use what works for you.
None of which are setting exposure on the camera. I already said that light meters are useful for lighting tasks. What they should not be relied on for is setting camera exposure. Did you read my posts, or is this just a knee-jerk reaction because you feel I insulted you?
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
Yep, read your post. And yes, it came off as insuating that people who use meters to set exposure are posers. I'm not sure how else to read it. If I was mistaken, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I think we may be using the same terms, but using them in different manners, or are approaching it from different perspectives. Or I could just be misunderstanding you all together.
When I approach a lighting a scene, I determine what all my parameters are (Frame rate, Stop, etc.), I use my meter to get the light the way I want it, and then I used that reading to set the stop. As I've tested out the cameraa system before hand, I know how it relates to what my meter is telling me, so I feel confident about that reading - and 99% of the time it works. So I'm confused as to how this approach is flawed and shouldn't be done? Please enlighten me ...