Thoughts on "true" viewing of your film

[ramkuma]

I am curious as to what people's opinions are in how your film color and lighting looks, comparing 1) the LCD screen on your camera, 2) looking into the eyepiece of your camera, and 3) viewing on your desk top computer screen. What are your takes on the different colors, lighting, etc through each of these vehicles? It seems to me that looking through the eyepiece to set up your shot for best color and lighting results in it being skewed dark--what looks good through your eyepiece ends up looking dark on your desktop screen. Thanks.

 

[Boncrek]

This is where expensive monitors and true calibrated equipment comes into play.
If you use a calibrated monitor onset and also use a calibrated computer monitor during editing then you should have no surprises when it comes to changes in exposure or colour.

The cheap workaround is just to test out different setups and turn up/down the brightness of your particualr viewing aid.
So if for example you're using the camera LCD and you find your images too dark then just turn up the LCD brightness to compensate.
Same goes for the viewfinder. It wont replace a true calibrated monitor onset but it will help.

PS-In my experience I dont use the relative "brightness" to determine my exposure but instead I use the zebras.
I always make them come to the point where they almost touch my subject.
So if im filming someone in a white shirt for instance against a bright background I would put Zebras on 100% and make my exposure so that the zebras are just starting to come unto the shirt (indicating overexposure) and then back of a little.
That way the persons exposure is just below that will be perfectly exposed.

 

[ramkuma]

Interesting you mention the zebra. I just did a test with the zebra at 70, 90, and looking through viewfinder with my own eye with no zebra. The 90 setting came out the best as far as brightness when I looked at the tests back on my PC. Since, from my understanding, it is always best to be a little below blow out, rather than a little above blow out, I will keep the zebra at 95 rather than 100.

 

[Boncrek]

Yeah when I keep the zebras at 100% it makes me know for SURE what is overexposed. No guessing as 100% is well 100%.
That way I back off the exposure after I see what is overexposed. (My camera doesn't have 95% Zebra, just 80% then 100% lol)
I basically want to the main subject to be just under clipping (note that other parts of the image may be overexposed like the sky but you're subject will be perfect)

 

[Jim Simon]

You should actually be looking at skin tone more than anything else in the scene. About 80% zebras is best for this. If that means white shirts and other areas get overexposed, so be it. Proper skin exposure is what more people will notice.

 

[Boncrek]

You should actually be looking at skin tone more than anything else in the scene. About 80% zebras is best for this. If that means white shirts and other areas get overexposed, so be it. Proper skin exposure is what more people will notice.

Ok just so I can learn something here: you should wait for 80% zebra to be on your subject's skin right?
Meaning in the stripes should be all over their skin when set at 80% zebra?
Hmmm I now need to check with my camera again cuz I dont remember seeing any 80% zebra lol

Another question, why 80%? What about 90% or 75%?

 

[Jim Simon]

With zebras set to 80%, you should just barely see them in the highlights of the skin. They should not be "all over" the skin.

 

[Mike Harvey]

With zebras set to 80%, you should just barely see them in the highlights of the skin. They should not be "all over" the skin.

+1

You should just be seeing zebra in the brightest part of the skin (usually forehead and/or nose). More than that, and it doesn't give you a lot of room for error.

 

[Boncrek]

With zebras set to 80%, you should just barely see them in the highlights of the skin. They should not be "all over" the skin.

Thanks, good to know. Now I need to reread my manual on how to set 80% zebras .
Since we're on the subject of exposure: Would you use a waveform over zebras if you had it built-in?
I'm thinking I'd use the zebras for run n' gun situations when time is of the essence and then use the waveform for shots that have time to be set up and perfected.

 

[Michael Carter]

I've come to the conclusion of late that the best under $1k you can spend is on an on-set monitor that can be calibrated.

I got the little Marshall 5.5" - made for DSLRs but man... blows AWAY the 150's screen. And it has blue-only. And monochrome. And 1:1. And Peaking. And you can get a great hood for an extra $20. $550 or less.

I even use it when editing now to check color with a Matrox Mini. You could get a blackmagic for what, well under $200? And have a decently calibrated monitor - albeit small - and still use your main screen for overal work. And hit the 1:1 button to check for noise, etc.

I imagine the SmallHD would be handy as well. Either can go on your hot shoe. It really changes your game for exposure if you don't have a big production monitor. And even if you do, you can use the thing on cranes, steadicams, whatever. As underwhelmed as I was when I first stuck it on my T2i, I've come to rely on it for exposure - and on the 150 it's killer. I really really love that little thing.

 

[Jim Simon]

Would you use a waveform over zebras if you had it built-in?

I might add the use of the waveform, but not substitute it for zebras. If only because the waveform won't show you exactly where in the scene the highlight is, the zebras will.

 

[Admir]

I've been using only the HMC's LCD for a while but now I purchased a Ruige TL480HD monitor, for the price it's unbeatable! But it dosen't have zebra function, and that makes me flip out the good old HMC monitor just to check what it thinks about the exposure. But I've seen that when turning the zebra off, I can choose to have the exposurecheck in percent on the side of the monitor, now this function can be displayed on my extrenal monitor.. But the only question is, at what percentage should your subject be in order not to be over exposed? I found out after some testing that about 60% is nice, but still I'm not sure.. What do you think?

 

[ramkuma]

But the only question is, at what percentage should your subject be in order not to be over exposed? I found out after some testing that about 60% is nice, but still I'm not sure.. What do you think?

I think its like the chicken or the egg. If a face is correct exposure, the background is blown out. If the background is correctly exposed, the face is dark. I am settling with 95%--kind of a random choice.