Proper exposure without zebra or false color tool in manual mode

[Borut]

Hello,

I read on this forum, that some of you here do not use zebras, false colors, grey cards, internal / external light meters or any other tools for proper video exposure (especially exposure of people in interviews or movie characters). Instead, you rely solely on your own eyes and experience.
I have JVC gy 5100 (with great B&W CRT viewfinder and additional external B&W CRT VF monitor) and Canon XL1 (with low resolution color LCD viewfinder) on which I can not lower the zebra level below 70 and 95, respectively. And I found the setting of 70 to still be too bright for facial skin. With such a setting I am loosing details. And I am aware that these tools can not take in consideration various skin tones and can only provide some initial guidelines.

Therefore, I would like to avoid zebras and aquire the skill to properly expose people without any tools in manual mode. I am definitly not interested in camera auto exposure function.

Would you share any tip or trick in terms of how to set the exposure right with just bare eyes (e.g. for caucasian skin or for any other skin tone). Should I need to look for adequte skin details by slowly closing the aparture and be careful to not underexpose? Will my eyes and fingers aquire the skill with a lot of practice?
I would really appreciate any help or advice from you guys.

Thank you in advance,
Borut Pecar

 

[Doug Jensen]

Therefore, I would like to avoid zebras and aquire the skill to properly expose people without any tools in manual mode. I am definitly not interested in camera auto exposure function.

STOP right there.
Embrace the use of zebras and acquire the skills to use them properly. DO NOT expose for human skin. Set your zebras for around 85-90 and expose so you just see a hint of zebra on bright reflected whites. Done. That's all you need to do. Any other method will just lead to frustration, as you have already found.

 

[Abe Halpert]

STOP right there.
Embrace the use of zebras and acquire the skills to use them properly. DO NOT expose for human skin. Set your zebras for around 85-90 and expose so you just see a hint of zebra on bright reflected whites. Done. That's all you need to do. Any other method will just lead to frustration, as you have already found.

Wouldn't it matter what gamma he's recording in?

 

[Borut]

STOP right there.
Embrace the use of zebras and acquire the skills to use them properly. DO NOT expose for human skin. Set your zebras for around 85-90 and expose so you just see a hint of zebra on bright reflected whites. Done. That's all you need to do. Any other method will just lead to frustration, as you have already found.

I have zebra set at 70-80 and currently I expose down until all of the zebra disappears from the face and even from the higlights of the face, but I still found the face to be exposed too hot. For my taste, I would need the zebra in the range of around 55 to 65. My main frustration is that the zebras can not be set lower. I know that this is not the problem with modern cameras.

So your suggestion is to forget zebras on the human skin and expose the whole image right so that no highlights are clipped. However I would rather expose to a face since it is usually the most important object of my shooting and should be properly exposed. I do not care if the background is over or under exposed...

 

[Borut]

Wouldn't it matter what gamma he's recording in?

Maybe I could modify my camera Gamma setting in order to get the exposure I want when the higlights of the face are just below 70 IRE. I will try this, I am not sure if I will not just get more contrast image, but still overexposed. However on my Canon XL1 which I use a lot the Zebra is at fixed value of 95 IRE and can not be changed. And even on newer Canon XL1s and XL2, zebra can only be set from 80-100 IRE. On my JVC gy 5100, the lowest zebra setting is 70-80 IRE.
Thank you so much for your suggestion.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Would you not be able to add a modern onboard monitor to either/both cameras? It would have to have composite in, which might preclude a lot of current models, but they do still exist. That would give you a lot of exposure tools including variable zebras.

I'm aware that my setup is not suited for the more nimble working environment that most here find themselves, but I feel that having a solid reference monitor (for me, a Sony A250) that you can view in an environment protected from ambient light is critical. I know the image on that monitor like the back of my hand, so I can judge exposure on it confidently. I prefer not to use the built in scopes, but I have an outboard scope monitor next to it that gives me the rest of the information I need. If I was on a job where I had work smaller and/or operate myself, I'd calibrate an onboard monitor as close to my A250 as possible, use a hood to shield it, and have the function keys set up to bring up at least waveform.

 

[Borut]

Maybe I could modify my camera Gamma setting in order to get the exposure I want when the higlights of the face are just below 70 IRE. I will try this, I am not sure if I will not just get more contrast image, but still overexposed. However on my Canon XL1 which I use a lot the Zebra is at fixed value of 95 IRE and can not be changed. And even on newer Canon XL1s and XL2, zebra can only be set from 80-100 IRE. On my JVC gy 5100, the lowest zebra setting is 70-80 IRE.
Thank you so much for your suggestion.

I tried to lower the gamma setting, but it did not help

 

[Borut]

Would you not be able to add a modern onboard monitor to either/both cameras? It would have to have composite in, which might preclude a lot of current models, but they do still exist. That would give you a lot of exposure tools including variable zebras.

I'm aware that my setup is not suited for the more nimble working environment that most here find themselves, but I feel that having a solid reference monitor (for me, a Sony A250) that you can view in an environment protected from ambient light is critical. I know the image on that monitor like the back of my hand, so I can judge exposure on it confidently. I prefer not to use the built in scopes, but I have an outboard scope monitor next to it that gives me the rest of the information I need. If I was on a job where I had work smaller and/or operate myself, I'd calibrate an onboard monitor as close to my A250 as possible, use a hood to shield it, and have the function keys set up to bring up at least waveform.

Thank you for your suggestion. I am afraid that modern high resolution reference monitors are not appropriate for old SD video. I don't like how these modern high resolution monitors presents the SD. It just does not look right. SD video looks so good to me on old CRT studio monitors, but I hate how it looks on these new LCD monitors.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Wouldn't it matter what gamma he's recording in?

In this specific case, no. His camera is an ancient 1/2" standard definition CCD relic with limited dynamic range and no modern gamma choices or other paint menu options. Having never touched that camera before, I can't say exactly what the best zebra setting would be, but I'm extremely confident it is going to be somewhere between 85-90. That's why I gave him a range rather then a specific number.

But looking beyond this one specific situation, you are correct that the best zebra setting would depend on the selected RERC709 gamma mode, whether someone is shooting LOG, or RAW, other paint menu choice, etc. Fortunately, it only takes a couple of minutes to determine the correct zebra level after the camera has been setup and then you never need to think about it again unless other changes are made to the camera.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I tried to lower the gamma setting, but it did not help

Choosing a gamma as a method to set the exposure? That is the tail wagging the dog. A really bad idea if you care at all about the rest of the image.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I have zebra set at 70-80 and currently I expose down until all of the zebra disappears from the face and even from the higlights of the face, but I still found the face to be exposed too hot. For my taste, I would need the zebra in the range of around 55 to 65. My main frustration is that the zebras can not be set lower. I know that this is not the problem with modern cameras.

So your suggestion is to forget zebras on the human skin and expose the whole image right so that no highlights are clipped. However I would rather expose to a face since it is usually the most important object of my shooting and should be properly exposed. I do not care if the background is over or under exposed...

You came here asking for a solution to your exposure problems and I gave you a fool proof, simple, easy to use method that has been used by myself and thousands of other professional camera operators for decades to expose human faces perfectly without regard to skin tone, skin color, race, creed, gender, political affiliation, or shoe size.

But you don't want to listen or consider that maybe the best way to expose quickly, accurately, and with precision -- is not to expose for faces at all. You seem bound and determined to bang your head against the wall trying to find a magical way of exposing with zebras on faces, rather than considering that maybe there is a much better way.

You are absolutely correct when you say faces are "usually the most important object of my shooting and should be properly exposed. I do not care if the background is over or under exposed..." I agree 100%. And that is exactly why exposing with zebras on human skin doesn't work unless everyone you shoot has the exact same skin tone. Do you ever shoot whites? Do you ever shoot blacks or latinos? If so, how could one zebra setting cover those varying skin types? It can't.

If you expose for bright reflected whites, then all faces, regardless of tone, will be perfectly exposed. It is simple as that ,and quite similar to using the incident light metering method ((rather than reflective).

And think about this. Even if you do find some magical technique for exposing with zebras on faces, how is that going to be of any use when you are shooting other scenes that do not have humans in the frame? Exposing for white works for faces and everything else in the world.

You already know that exposing for faces won't work. That's why you started this thread. So stop and consider trying another technique even if your gut reaction is to reject it. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink it.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Thank you for your suggestion. I am afraid that modern high resolution reference monitors are not appropriate for old SD video. I don't like how these modern high resolution monitors presents the SD. It just does not look right. SD video looks so good to me on old CRT studio monitors, but I hate how it looks on these new LCD monitors.

We are talking about an exposure tool. In the same way that you have learned how to interpret the B+W viewfinders on your cameras as a representation of the image, not the final image itself, a modern LCD panel will just be another flavor of interpretation that gives you the ability you are looking for (variable zebras) and all the others (false color etc) as well. In fact if you opted for false color, you wouldn't have to worry about how the image looks, it just becomes a bunch of color blobs. So why wouldn't that be a simple fix?

Beyond that, I'm curious--do you only view this footage after the fact on a CRT display, and never share it with anyone?

 

[Borut]

We are talking about an exposure tool. In the same way that you have learned how to interpret the B+W viewfinders on your cameras as a representation of the image, not the final image itself, a modern LCD panel will just be another flavor of interpretation that gives you the ability you are looking for (variable zebras) and all the others (false color etc) as well. In fact if you opted for false color, you wouldn't have to worry about how the image looks, it just becomes a bunch of color blobs. So why wouldn't that be a simple fix?

Beyond that, I'm curious--do you only view this footage after the fact on a CRT display, and never share it with anyone?

I have these two cameras and they work very well for my needs and are extremely fun to use. Me and my family and friends like to view my footage on a CRT studio monitor. I would rather not to buy any additional equipment unless it is necessary. And with Canon XL1 I am shooting outside on trips, in the mountains, etc. and would rather avoid additional external monitor. And as far as I know, the price range of these modern viewfinders with all the exposure tools are well above the price of my two old cameras. But thank you for your suggestion, I will consider buying an used external modern viewfinder.

You came here asking for a solution to your exposure problems and I gave you a fool proof, simple, easy to use method that has been used by myself and thousands of other professional camera operators for decades to expose human faces perfectly without regard to skin tone, skin color, race, creed, gender, political affiliation, or shoe size.

But you don't want to listen or consider that maybe the best way to expose quickly, accurately, and with precision -- is not to expose for faces at all. You seem bound and determined to bang your head against the wall trying to find a magical way of exposing with zebras on faces, rather than considering that maybe there is a much better way.

You are absolutely correct when you say faces are "usually the most important object of my shooting and should be properly exposed. I do not care if the background is over or under exposed..." I agree 100%. And that is exactly why exposing with zebras on human skin doesn't work unless everyone you shoot has the exact same skin tone. Do you ever shoot whites? Do you ever shoot blacks or latinos? If so, how could one zebra setting cover those varying skin types? It can't.

If you expose for bright reflected whites, then all faces, regardless of tone, will be perfectly exposed. It is simple as that ,and quite similar to using the incident light metering method ((rather than reflective).

And think about this. Even if you do find some magical technique for exposing with zebras on faces, how is that going to be of any use when you are shooting other scenes that do not have humans in the frame? Exposing for white works for faces and everything else in the world.

You already know that exposing for faces won't work. That's why you started this thread. So stop and consider trying another technique even if your gut reaction is to reject it. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink it.

I have just figured out the method you suggested. Initially, I misunderstood what you meant by "bright reflected whites." I thought you were referring to any random bright patches (e.g., from the background) and that I should set the exposure based on those. However, you were actually referring to using a white card placed in front of the face before shooting. Setting the zebra on this white card and then capturing footage is indeed a very good idea.
I have an X-rite ColorChecker (for photography, not for video) at home, and I tried a similar method with the 80% gray patch and the zebra set at 80%. It worked great, but I found it a little clumsy for every shot, especially when shooting outside. So, I was wondering if there is an easier solution. However, using a white reflective surface instead of the tiny X-rite patches might be worth trying, especially when shooting indoors. Should I buy a conventional white card for setting the white balance in photography, or is there a special reflective white card specifically made for video?
Do you have any proposals for shooting outside when I don't have enough time to use a white card or when I don't want to bother people with it? For example, when shooting on trips, in the mountains, etc.? Thank you again for your answer, and I'm sorry I didn't understand it initially.

 

[Borut]

Hello everyone,

For indoor (studio) shooting, I will definitely use a white reflective card and set my camera zebra to around 85-90, as Mr. Jensen suggested. This will ensure that white in the region of my object (human face) will appear white on the camera. However, will this method also ensure that black appears truly black on the camera and that 50% grey will transform to around 50 IRE in camera, or should this be corrected using another setting (e.g., gamma)?

I have an X-rite ColorChecker at home, which has several gray patches in the last row: white (95%), neutral (80%), neutral (65%), neutral (50%), neutral (35%), and black (20%). If I set the zebra according to the white patch and make an appropriate exposure of the ColorChecker card, will all the other gray patches on the card automatically transform to the correct IRE values in the camera? For example, will the neutral 50% patch transform to 50 IRE and the black 20% patch to 20 IRE? How could I check this without using the zebra?

Do you think that setting the exposure using a white card with the zebra at 90 IRE is just as effective as using a gray card (50% neutral) with the zebra set to 50 IRE or a black card with the zebra set to 20 IRE (I can't do this since my zebra setting can't go that low, but hypothetically)? Considering that human skin is closer to 50 IRE, might using a neutral 50 gray card with the zebra set to 50 IRE be a better option (not for me, since I can't set the zebra to this value)?

I apologize if my questions are confusing. I'm quite new to this area, although I have some experience in photography, which I find difficult to directly translate into video. I would appreciate any additional clarification.

I also tried to use my Sekonic light meter to help me with video exposure. I set it to ISO 400 and a shutter speed of 1/50 s. My JVC camera gain was set to 0 dB. I measured the incident light on the object, but the aperture values obtained from the light meter were way off (about three stops too low). So, I must be doing something wrong.

Thank you for your help.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Do you have any proposals for shooting outside when I don't have enough time to use a white card or when I don't want to bother people with it? For example, when shooting on trips, in the mountains, etc.?

Finding something bright white is really easy. White is all around us. Paper, signs, clothing, cars, hats, logos, airplane fuselages, rocket nose cones, feathers of a bird, trash, paper cups, book covers, etc. The list is endless. The differences between different shades of white are insignificant. Usually less than a 1/3 stop between different whites. When you start looking for white (under the same lighting as the subject, of course) it is all around us. Sometimes it might not be right in the frame, so you pan over to something white, set the exposure, and swing back to frame up the shot and start rolling. About the only time I actually pull out a white card is when I'm shooting interviews or working under other controlled studio lighting.

I was shooting b-roll at sunset this eveing at a small harbor in Maine for stock (and fun) and I can recall setting exposure from boat hulls, seagull feathers, white lettering on darker colored boats, a kayaker's white paddle, two signs on posts, and some white hats and shirts. Not once did I struggle to find something to expose on. Not once did I wonder if I was correctly exposed. Not once did it take me more than 2 seconds to set exposure.

A nice benefit of using zebras at a level where I just barely want them to appear on the brightest whites means that my viewfinder is never cluttered with zebras. If you set your zebras for gray cards or some other target you'll be seeing zebras everywhere. What are you gonna do then, constantly be toggling them on and off? I never turn off my zebras. I never have to because I barely see them, and when I do see them they are giving me critical information. Peaking and Zebras, I couldn't shoot without them but many people just don't understand how powerful and essential they are . . . when properly configured.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I have an X-rite ColorChecker at home, which has several gray patches in the last row: white (95%), neutral (80%), neutral (65%), neutral (50%), neutral (35%), and black (20%). If I set the zebra according to the white patch and make an appropriate exposure of the ColorChecker card, will all the other gray patches on the card automatically transform to the correct IRE values in the camera? For example, will the neutral 50% patch transform to 50 IRE and the black 20% patch to 20 IRE? How could I check this without using the zebra?

You can only have one exposure for the entire scene, right? So different shades and colors have to fall into the right zones all on their own when the exposure for white is correct. But the particular look you get is really a function of your camera's paint menus. If you want highlights that roll off nicely without clipping, black levels to be black but not crushed, good midtones, etc. then you need to choose the appropriate paint menu settings for YOUR model of camera. Nobody else can help you choose the right paint menu settings unless they have the exact same camera. I suspect with an old relic like you have, you'll have to come up with the right combination on your own. And even then, you still won't be able to get a better look than the cheapest modern-day consumer camera. A lot of people are nostalgic for typewriters, but people who really want to get something written use a computer. Good luck.

 

[Borut]

Finding something bright white is really easy. White is all around us. Paper, signs, clothing, cars, hats, logos, airplane fuselages, rocket nose cones, feathers of a bird, trash, paper cups, book covers, etc. The list is endless. The differences between different shades of white are insignificant. Usually less than a 1/3 stop between different whites. When you start looking for white (under the same lighting as the subject, of course) it is all around us. Sometimes it might not be right in the frame, so you pan over to something white, set the exposure, and swing back to frame up the shot and start rolling. About the only time I actually pull out a white card is when I'm shooting interviews or working under other controlled studio lighting.

I was shooting b-roll at sunset this eveing at a small harbor in Maine for stock (and fun) and I can recall setting exposure from boat hulls, seagull feathers, white lettering on darker colored boats, a kayaker's white paddle, two signs on posts, and some white hats and shirts. Not once did I struggle to find something to expose on. Not once did I wonder if I was correctly exposed. Not once did it take me more than 2 seconds to set exposure.

A nice benefit of using zebras at a level where I just barely want them to appear on the brightest whites means that my viewfinder is never cluttered with zebras. If you set your zebras for gray cards or some other target you'll be seeing zebras everywhere. What are you gonna do then, constantly be toggling them on and off? I never turn off my zebras. I never have to because I barely see them, and when I do see them they are giving me critical information. Peaking and Zebras, I couldn't shoot without them but many people just don't understand how powerful and essential they are . . . when properly configured.

Thank you again for the detailed description of the exposure method. I have already conducted a few tests and discovered that for my JVC GY 5100E, the best zebra setting for reflective bright whites is 85 IRE. I found that the majority of randomly tested whites (cheap Chinese white balance card, white sheets of paper, white bag, white coffee pot, etc.) are 5 to 10 IRE "less white" than the white patch on the X-Rite calibration card, which is rated at 95 IRE. Therefore, I chose the 85 IRE zebra setting.

Using this zebra setting, exposure on various household white objects gave me roughly the same lens aperture setting as setting the zebra to 95 IRE and exposing the camera to the X-Rite 95 IRE white patch. With my JVC camera set to 85 IRE and exposing for reflected bright whites, I achieve excellent results. Thanks to you.

Sadly, with my old Canon XL1, which I mainly use for outdoor shooting (it's a smaller camera compared to my JVC and more convenient to carry), I cannot change the zebra setting. Its factory default is set to 95 IRE. I will try to employ the same exposure technique as with my JVC, but I am concerned that the image will be somewhat overexposed since random reflective bright whites do not yield 95% reflectance. What do you think?

 

[Borut]

You can only have one exposure for the entire scene, right? So different shades and colors have to fall into the right zones all on their own when the exposure for white is correct. But the particular look you get is really a function of your camera's paint menus. If you want highlights that roll off nicely without clipping, black levels to be black but not crushed, good midtones, etc. then you need to choose the appropriate paint menu settings for YOUR model of camera. Nobody else can help you choose the right paint menu settings unless they have the exact same camera. I suspect with an old relic like you have, you'll have to come up with the right combination on your own. And even then, you still won't be able to get a better look than the cheapest modern-day consumer camera. A lot of people are nostalgic for typewriters, but people who really want to get something written use a computer. Good luck.

I couldn't find a "paint menu" in my JVC camera, but based on Sony camera manuals, I believe it is similar to the JVC "camera operation menu". This menu includes settings for Master Black, Detail, Detail Frequency, White Clip, Knee Point, Color Matrix, Gamma, Flare, and more. I will try to learn more about these settings.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Thank you again for the detailed description of the exposure method. I have already conducted a few tests and discovered that for my JVC GY 5100E, the best zebra setting for reflective bright whites is 85 IRE. I found that the majority of randomly tested whites (cheap Chinese white balance card, white sheets of paper, white bag, white coffee pot, etc.) are 5 to 10 IRE "less white" than the white patch on the X-Rite calibration card, which is rated at 95 IRE. Therefore, I chose the 85 IRE zebra setting.

Using this zebra setting, exposure on various household white objects gave me roughly the same lens aperture setting as setting the zebra to 95 IRE and exposing the camera to the X-Rite 95 IRE white patch. With my JVC camera set to 85 IRE and exposing for reflected bright whites, I achieve excellent results. Thanks to you.

Sadly, with my old Canon XL1, which I mainly use for outdoor shooting (it's a smaller camera compared to my JVC and more convenient to carry), I cannot change the zebra setting. Its factory default is set to 95 IRE. I will try to employ the same exposure technique as with my JVC, but I am concerned that the image will be somewhat overexposed since random reflective bright whites do not yield 95% reflectance. What do you think?

You could use your X-Rite patch with the XL1, since that delivers at the 95 IRE. Or your other whites, and then stop down one stop (10 IRE = 1 stop).

 

[Tom Roper]

To say that 10 IRE = 1 stop would have to be more a rule of thumb because the f/stop scale is exponential while the IRE scale is linear. Not saying this does not work in practice.