FS7: Overexposing on the FS7 for cleaner shadows
- Thread starter RASL
- Start date
basspig
Veteran
I've done it twice. The first time, I got an Olympus C2000Z and it had intermittent issues with out of focus right third of the frame, depending on how the lens racked in and out. The second was a Canon HV20 purchase, where something went amiss with the auction and to get my money back, I had to leave positive feedback for the seller before he would issue a refund. This was before BillMeLater existed and I'd payed with a cashier's check. So I avoid questionable sellers and stick to reputable ones now.
Clermond
Veteran
that's why I do not sell electronics via Ebay / PayPal. Buyer protection is 180 (!) days where the buyer can freeze his payment just on an unproved request. In the end they leave a negative feedback no matter how it went. As a seller you can only leave positive feedback. Ebay does nothing for private seller.
Just wanted to thank everyone for their time and answers! They were very helpful and gave me a clear idea of how to proceed with my next project for better results in image quality.
And I hope things work out for those who are looking for the extension unit or other accessories.
Again, thanks a lot!
And I hope things work out for those who are looking for the extension unit or other accessories.
Again, thanks a lot!
JPNola
Veteran
Many advise overexposing but it is counter-instinctual for me to expose an interview with hot-spots on the subject's face that, at least in the VF with a LUT enabled, are white-without-detail. What, in the old days, we would call "screaming hot". Exposure that in days of yore would have easily resulted in an unhappy call from the client.
It seems goofy that in this day and age there isn't a means of having the VF show you exactly, or near exactly, what the likely final product will look like. We shouldn't have to be shooting with an image that looks bad to the camera operator but will, fingers crossed, look good after Post.
I find myself reverting back to my instincts and exposing with just a healthy amount of 70% zebras on the hotter parts of the face. Usually the forehead / cheeks / tip of the nose. I rarely have time to use a light meter and I am often shooting in light levels that change during the shot as things go from full sun to partly cloudy. Or I am handheld and following a subject as they move through various light levels.
I'd rather risk noise in the shadows than a subject's face being overexposed to the point of losing detail.
broughtonfilm
Well-known member
Isn't using MLUTS in Cine EI exactly that? Set your EI index at any ISO lower than the native one, say 800 ISO, and you are overexposing while seeing not overexposed image in the EVF.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Not only is it exactly like that, but we even show how you can match that adjusted viewfinder image to match an Odyssey7Q+ that's also using an exposure compensation LUT. Our LUTs were specifically designed to match what can be seen in the viewfinder so that an operator could trust his or her eyes. This is also useful if you are just going to use the camera's internal recording, but of course I think it better when using Odyssey.
Anyway, all is detailed in the video I linked to earlier in this thread. Here it is again. BTW, I helped Nick Shaw shoot this in my hotel room at IBC 2015. Since it demonstrates EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE IS DISCUSSING HERE IN THEORY, least y'all can do is watch it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdOb7A0csyE
The video refers to RAW output, but it works just the same for video output or internal recording with the MLUT not applied.
broughtonfilm
Well-known member
Not only is it exactly like that, but we even show how you can match that adjusted viewfinder image to match an Odyssey7Q+ that's also using an exposure compensation LUT. Our LUTs were specifically designed to match what can be seen in the viewfinder so that an operator could trust his or her eyes. This is also useful if you are just going to use the camera's internal recording, but of course I think it better when using Odyssey.
Anyway, all is detailed in the video I linked to earlier in this thread. Here it is again. BTW, I helped Nick Shaw shoot this in my hotel room at IBC 2015. Since it demonstrates EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE IS DISCUSSING HERE IN THEORY, least y'all can do is watch it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdOb7A0csyE
The video refers to RAW output, but it works just the same for video output or internal recording with the MLUT not applied.
Exactly. The only gotcha is that NLE's and grading software don't adjust exposure automatically based on EI rating so one has to either adjust exposure in post manually or use compensated LUT's.
Ben Scott
Veteran
I don't think Liam is advocating overexposing anything. Just treating EI as an arbitrary number as opposed to some exact amount of gain, and exposing correctly based on the waveform.
I just wish all the NLE ,s could read the Sony Metadata.. Im never present at the grade.. even if I carve it into the directors forehead.. that all my rushes are 2 stops over.. the message wont get through.. and everyone will just think I have ... over exposed everything by 2 stops because I don't know what Im doing.. guaranteed ..
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
You've already identified the problem right there. You are exposing WRONG. Yes, I will use the word "wrong" knowing full well that it will piss some people off who think that exposing for faces is an acceptable way of shooting. Everyone's face is different, right? So you are just guessing if you expose by skin tones. You need to expose based on a consistent target such as a white card or 18% gray card, or use an incident light meter if you want to. Even in normal REC709 mode exposing for faces is just dumb. Yeah, I'm gonna say "dumb" too. I've already posted on this subject a dozen times or more already so I'm not going to go spend time going through it all again.
And let me say that if you are putting faces anywhere near 70% in S-LOG you are really, really, over-exposing. I shoot S-LOG or RAW almost all of the time and exposing is easy and the results are predictable and really easy to grade in post. I love it and clients love it. If someone can't get good results with S-LOG then they need to examine what they might be doing wrong. Yeah, there's that word again. This isn't rocket science.
Also, one last thing, when you rate the camera lower than what Sony recommends you are not over-exposing. You are exposing where the camera should be rated in the first place. If you follow Sony's guidelines you are actually under-exposing.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Yep.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Not read the whole thread but exposing from faces is IMO not always wrong at all.
In many scenes the face of the talent is the most critical part of the scene and one therefore wants that part of the scene to be exposed at the point (im not going to say what that point is) to provide the 'richest' negative'.
For example with a dark skinned person is one better to make an exposure from, say a grey card, and then find that the skin is in the 'thin' part of the 'negative' and quite noisy? Or is one better to open up until the dark skin is richly exposed in a 'thick' part of the 'negative'
At the light end it would be IMO important to protect any hotspots on a bright part of a light skinned person. One should stop down until the light persons skin is again in the 'thick' middle portion of the 'negative'
Exposing like this is not wrong, one could argue that in terms of aquiring a 'negative' with a good s/n ratio in the 'important' part of the image is completely right.
Obviously your lighting ratios, desired look, post choices, need for consistency (maybe on multiple folks interviewed on a similar background) and other factors will come in to play..
I often expose off my hand as it is usually with me,
S
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
You can justify guessing at the exposure anyway you want to, but it's still wrong. And not only that, there should be no need to compensate the exposure for a dark skinned person unless you have arbitrarily decided that you want to make the person look lighter skinned than he/she actually is. The correct exposure is EXACTLY the same for the darkest skinned person and the lightest skinned people you can find. Exactly the same. The correct exposure should not based on what you are shooting, it should be based on how much light is falling on the subject. This is the whole principle of taking a reading with an incident light meter. The light meter doesn't know or care what the shot is, it just wants to know how much light there is falling on the subejct -- whatever it is. And you can accomplish the exact same thing using zebras and a target with a known reflectance value, such as a white card or 18% gray card. We resist this basic principle of exposing?? It takes all of the guess work out and provides very, very consistently exposed images that are easier to work with in post.
You know, if I have an interview setup and I have perfectly exposed for a light-skinned Swede and he/she gets up and leaves and a dark-skinned Nigerian sits down in the shot . . . the exposure would be exactly the same. If it is not, then the exposure wasn't right for the first person either. This is photography 101.
BTW, YOUR hand is a consistent target so it might work for YOU. But that is not the same thing as saying you can expose correcly just off any hand that happens to be nearby.
You know, if I have an interview setup and I have perfectly exposed for a light-skinned Swede and he/she gets up and leaves and a dark-skinned Nigerian sits down in the shot . . . the exposure would be exactly the same. If it is not, then the exposure wasn't right for the first person either. This is photography 101.
BTW, YOUR hand is a consistent target so it might work for YOU. But that is not the same thing as saying you can expose correcly just off any hand that happens to be nearby.