Underexposed shots

cpc said:

Sam, I am not familiar with Red cameras, but there is no general technical reason not to be able to use the linear data for a WFM source (when the WFM is in the camera). If they can build a histogram for it, they surely can source a WFM with it. But ideally, viewing the video on a calibrated display with your basic post LUT applied and a WFM displaying the linear raw signal (without the LUT) sounds like the most useful combo.
Click to expand...

Indeed that would be perfect, but its not how it works (afaik)

They (Red cameras) could indeed, in theory, generate a WF, they dont however do that (to my knowledge) in practice - they do, however, have a whopping great histogram (which can be set to display raw data.. and stupidly, IMO, also set to show the histo from the lut/look you are viewing)

Most on set WFs are gererated by the monitor using the data given to the monitor so they are working from the LUT given to the monitor rather than the raw file data and are therefor IMO a risky tool to use without proper understanding.

Hence my serious belief (emperical not theoretical) that the Raw histo is the best exposure evaluation tool for Epic/Scarlet, Ive only got minimal experince on R1 so cant really comment on that..

S
 
starcentral said:
So all you vets never used a light meter to help learn the process of lighting, and how to establish ratios and how to check for them?
Click to expand...

Absolutely did so.

Shooting film ..it was necessary and of course the only way.

But...I dont think I ever worked out or lit to any specific ratio though. I coudl not tell you the key fill ratio of a single shot I have done in 40 years...apart from a graphic copy set up. (1:1)

I always and still do... flatten the ratio (contrast) when I shoot people close ups from their wider shots. Never ever calculated it. Raise the fill.

I did mention in one of my posts (this thread) how I believed using a meter was part of learning the practical side of lighting and I believe it.

What it doesnt do is help you be a creative lighting camera person though. Thats the eye and the experience ( and maybe a talent)
 
Not trying to kick you while you are down, but the bottom line Michael is you made a choice to shoot a movie with tools you are not familiar with. If scheduling time to get acquainted with an unknown camera is not in your budget, a better choice might have been to shoot your movie with a tool set you had a better understanding of.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Hey, here's a beneficial route for this topic to take: How would one go about familiarizing oneself with a new camera? Assuming you've researched it well and just need the hands-on time (as well as to test the specific camera for unique problems), when would this be done? Is it reasonable to expect a rental house to let you in for a few hours the day (or days) preceding your shoot to try out the particular camera you'll be using? Or would you add a few extra days to your rental and pick it up early?
I've only ever rented cameras I'm intimately familiar with (and can be tested quickly and easily) so I've never had to go through the testing phase at a rental house.
 
Download the manual and become familiar with it & keep a copy on a laptop or tablet when on location with the camera. Build extra time into your first rental of a new camera so you are comfortable and competent when you do shoot. Always check the operation of rentals before you leave the rental house if you do a pickup. The majority of the cameras we rent are shipped to us, but reputable rental houses like Fletcher or Able always check their rental cameras upon return and before they are shipped.
 
sonofaresiii said:
Hey, here's a beneficial route for this topic to take: How would one go about familiarizing oneself with a new camera? Assuming you've researched it well and just need the hands-on time (as well as to test the specific camera for unique problems), when would this be done? Is it reasonable to expect a rental house to let you in for a few hours the day (or days) preceding your shoot to try out the particular camera you'll be using? Or would you add a few extra days to your rental and pick it up early?
I've only ever rented cameras I'm intimately familiar with (and can be tested quickly and easily) so I've never had to go through the testing phase at a rental house.
Click to expand...

Borrow a friends, ask the rental house to set you up in a shooting lane which they should do for free, read the manual 80 times, and develop your own check list of what camera settings you want to check before you commit to rolling. ie. shutter speed.angle, iso, gain, FLUT, fps, resolution mode, etc.. etc.. and know your strategy for determining exposure in-camera and test it, then test it again, then again.
 
cpc said:
The thing with the eye is that it is highly unreliable. See, there is that thing called eye adaptation. The eye opens and closes its iris according to the illumination around, so humans perceive varying light levels in the same way. So you can learn to judge ratios by eye, but you can't judge the exposure by eye. You still need a reference for it, be it a WFM, a meter, or whatever.
You can, of course, extrapolate exposure levels by knowing what lights you've set up, how you set them and knowing their photometrics. But even then, metering the key should be easier and faster to do; and safer.
Click to expand...


I thought about this tonight, when I had a night exterior to shoot on a darkened ballfield. I had four heads burning (an M18 spotted into a 4x4 mylar bounce up high on a mambo combo for backlight, a 1200 skipping off 4x8 foamcore on the ground for side fill, a 1x1 Litepanel for a little additional fill, and another 1200 back edging a chain link fence in the background). This current job is one of the toughest schedules yet. No stand-ins and no rehearsals--we went right to picture the second I was done lighting. I walked to the monitor as roll was called and realized I hadn't yet seen anything on camera. Lo and behold, the exposure was dead on at 2.8 (where I had the cameras set) and nothing needed tweaking.

This isn't meant to toot my own horn. More to refute the notion stated above that one can't judge exposure by eye.
 
Thanks for doing this experiment, Charles. That's interesting.
But did you only use your eye there, or did you exercise your previous knowledge and experience of the particular lights and their photometrics? What if these were lights you've never used before and you didn't know anything about them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top