Underexposed shots

[DDirector]

I don't know how to display a waveform on the Red One.
As I said, we don't have a Red Monitor. If there is an option to turn on the waveform on the monitor through the camera menu, then I will. But, I could not find out how to do it. Anyone know?

If there isnt one, then I dont see how I can calibrate my light meter without a monitor that can display a waveform.

If I am able to, or I am able to use a Red Monitor next time, and my mid grey is set to 50% IRE, but my lightmeter is slightly off, how do I adjust it on my light meter - I can do this later on my computer to pertinently calibrate my meter, but what if Im on set and need to rush? How would I adjust?

 

[Derek Chingwell]

Have you downloaded the manual from Red? https://www.red.com/downloads

There are instructions for various configs - without hists/goalposts/stop lights you're fighting against the camera - as you need a base to calibrate from and you don't seem to have that.

 

[starcentral]

Also, if I can do a test before the next shoot and if the exposure is under by about 1/2 to 1-stop, what do I do about it then?
Camera says 5.6 is middle grey @320 ISO, but Im getting 4.3 @320 ISO. What would that mean? - As in how would I adjust that on my meter?

If you want the f-stop on your meter to match your lens, then after you take a meter read adjust your ISO on the meter until your f-stop reading goes from 4.3 to 5.6. You should see the ISO on your meter go from 320 to around 600 ISO for example. Use your new ISO value for the rest of your shoot and forget what the ISO is set to in the camera.

This sounds crazy though right? 600 ISO on an original RED one non-mx?

Here is one possibility, early reports with the original RED One non-mx firmware version v20 it was reported that the false color indicator was 1+1/3 stops open compared to what was being measured with their meter! Firmware v30 was suppose to fix it, but some users still had problems with the new firmware. This would mean that if you were lighting for f4 on your meter, it would be 1 stop over, or f5.6 on the camera. Or if you trusted the RED false color tool you would end up 1 stop under. An explanation for this is RED wants you to protect your highlights by shooting at least 1 stop under, but this is neither confirmed or denied. Shooting 1 stop under is a technique used by many DP's when shooting LOG or RAW, so just tell your producer/director it was "intentional" :happy:

One tool you can use to check the level of the grey card for 45-50 IRE is FALSE COLOR. (page 56 of RED manual) RED's false color will show GREEN for a grey card when its lit correctly.

*EDIT* My last tip is to completely ignore what you see in any VF or monitor until after you've performed this calibration. Then as a last step tweak the VIDEO & COLOR settings all you want on the RED since this is for preview purposes ONLY and I repeat WILL NOT be recorded onto the RED RAW footage. If you don't know the concept of LUT then I highly suggest you read and understand what it means.

One thing people need to remember is that RED's first camera had a variety of different issues, and more than likely were not even consistent from camera to camera because RED was new at the time and working very fast and hard against the clock to deliver what they promised. It was their "first" camera, so anything is possible and people on the forums who reported issues were given all kinds of crazy explanations by RED which even professional DP's such as David Mullen did not agree with at times. I'm sure performance might have even varied from batch to batch and I even read articles where some RED One's were custom tweaked by RED's team for certain studio productions/...

Jim Jannard, on Feb 17 2010, 04:57 AM, said:

There are some new changes coming with the new FLUT Science camera builds... which will start with Build 30. Your meter now matches the camera. Incident metering will match mid grey.
Jim

 

[Matty_g]

Theres a variety of other problems here but...

If your footage shot at 320 iso is actually 2/3-1 stop under why not just properly expose your new footage at 200 iso?

 

[starcentral]

Lowering your ISO will make the footage darker not lighter. What do you mean?

The only problem here is assuming that a manufacturers own rating is correct - as stupid as that sounds. There are extensive articles online where people complained about the original RED One grey level. The Sony F3 a more recent example also has a different rating than is actually seen once "on the charts". So at the end of the day if you are going to use a light meter (which so many people get wrong then cuss at light meters and call them useless) then you need to learn how to determine your own working ASA of the camera with and stick with it.

Alternatively you can just lose the light meter and turn the grey card green in the RED camera which is representative of 45-47 IRE. I use a spot meter function built into the F3, which the RED One also has. The tools are there!

 

[nothing]

Reset all settings on the camera and start from there. There are many ways to set up a Red One to sabotage you.

For best results I like to make sure I am viewing raw, but I do know some like to view 709 - but the important thing is to know what you are looking at. Usually one of the shortcut keys is set to switch this setting.

Set your exposure using Red's on-screen histogram and stoplights (false color too if you like it, but I've never seen that not slow someone down) not your light meter. This is far more accurate, since it is based on what your camera is actually recording. Any other method introduces inaccuracies and room for error.

 

[Matty_g]

Did not mean drop the camera ISO. Was a mistake. Meant to say drop your meter to iso 200.

 

[DDirector]

Did not mean drop the camera ISO. Was a mistake. Meant to say drop your meter to iso 200.

Yeah, that makes sense. I did the best test I could with the false colour as that was the best thing I could find from the menu. I noticed after more seraching there is a waveform on the evf. No idea how exactly it looks or works, but ill try and see it next time.
From what I recall, it was about 1/3 - 2/3 of a difference. Not much, but it was a rushed test without a waveform.
But, when I do my spot meter, it was WAY off by a few stops. Makes no sense.

I will set ISO on my meter to 200.

 

[morgan_moore]

Light meter wave form monitors, any post longer than 10 words, it's all BS (unless you are really across the those tools) why dont you just heed this..

Set your exposure using Red's on-screen histogram and stoplights .. not your light meter. This is far more accurate, since it is based on what your camera is actually recording. Any other method introduces inaccuracies and room for error.

I think I threw my lightmeter away in about 1998

 

[morgan_moore]

If you don't know the concept of LUT then I highly suggest you read and understand what it means..

..and realise its just a way of not viewing what you are recording, which is a route to disaster, my minimal experience of red (epic) is that is it best viewed in raw mode. end of.

the only complexity of the camera is working out that you have to turn all the white noise (LUTs) off..

 

[cpc]

Light meter wave form monitors, any post longer than 10 words, it's all BS (unless you are really across the those tools) why dont you just heed this..

I think I threw my lightmeter away in about 1998

You do realize that a digital WFM is really just a more sophisticated and useful histogram, right? Anything you see in the histogram, you see in the WFM + more.
Also, I wonder how do you light with your light meter thrown away? Do you read the camera histogram while moving lights around? Doesn't sound practical.
(sry for slight offtopic)

 

[morgan_moore]

You do realize that a digital WFM is really just a more sophisticated and useful histogram, right? Anything you see in the histogram, you see in the WFM + more.

A raw shooter like red must(?) put a 709 narrow DR signal out to a monitor ie a LUT which the monitor then interprets to create the WF, so the data displayed in the WF is not the raw data but the 709 LUT .. so its not the same or as true I would suggest

In an edit suite the WFM is indeed IMO preferable to a histo for grading

Also, I wonder how do you light with your light meter thrown away? Do you read the camera histogram while moving lights around? Doesn't sound practical.
(sry for slight offtopic)

I guess im used to interpreting the peaks in the histo and also know my ratios from sheer old age/experience

On a big set where one maybe lighting setup two while your operator shoots setup one I could see a need for a light meter.. or cheapo DLSR to get exposure and ratios correct before the camera arrives - but ive never been DOP on a job of such a scale!

if you must use an external device..
IMO a cheapo DSLR is the best lightmeter/directors VF/continuity tool etc - I carry a crappy old nikon D80 with a 24-120 zoom lens for use around the set, zoomed to 120 it can be a spot meter - of course the ISO needs synching to the camera (which may not be the same number)

Back to topic, ive had no worries with scarlet/epic just using the histo..

 

[CharlesPapert]

Chalk another one up for "sheer old age/experience". Even in the film days I rarely metered everything, once I got my eye tuned, just the key and the rest to eye. And that's pretty much how I do it now. Once I'm up and running in a given set, I can light all day without a meter, using the waveform and calibrated monitor and my eye. Ratios are all interpretable anyway. Deciding you want the backlight at a half stop under key is fine, but it will read totally differently on a blonde head vs brunette, and even within that, different hairstyles will provide more or less reflectivity. If you find yourself metering everything then tweaking most of it once you get back to the monitor, there wasn't much point to the metering part to begin with, except maybe that you look cool in the BTS footage.

The primary instances that I meter comprehensively these days is when I need to recreate a setup in another way, such as relighting to a higher stop for high-speed work or recording values to rebuild for later green screen work.

There used to be a sort of stigma to lighting from the monitor. It's not the case any more. WYSIWYG is a powerful tool. I bring my 24" Flanders on every job and I never have any surprises in post. I know that a lot of people have to work run-and-gun and don't have the "luxury" of a calibrated high end display, so the waveform and false color are good weapons in that instance.

 

[Shooter]

Also, I wonder how do you light with your light meter thrown away? Do you read the camera histogram while moving lights around? Doesn't sound practical.

Experience and using the eye ometer.

I sometimes wonder in these forums when it is mentioned that the meter is very useful for setting up lighting. (ie without the camera)
Well of course it is...but I then wonder how often on indie and low budget films...a pre light is part of the reality. (Camera and general tests rarely seem to be in the "budget" ...or done.. so I can never imagine that the "budget" includes extra lights and time to "prelight".)

I am with those that say forgo the hand held meter in the digital reality but add...its a great tool to learn and understand practical lighting. On set when it matters is a kind of crazy time to experiment and learn how to work a meter especially when the real tools are sitting there. The "eye" is one of these tools..if not the most important.

FWIW: Last times I pulled a meter was to balance a chroma screen, check available free light on a location.. and to do some camera / lens tests. I have never set the exposure on any digital cinema camera with a hand held meter.

 

[cpc]

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.

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.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Well, there's the science of it and then there's the human factor which shouldn't be underestimated. You light to a given stop long enough and you can start to gain a "sixth sense" of where that exposure lies. I don't claim any magical powers but when you are building setups 13 hours a day every day, week after week, knowing what light level will deliver a 2.8/4 at ISO800 becomes intuitive. It's not a replacement for having the other tools of course, but it helps shortcut a good amount of the time.

When I was having renovations done on my house, I discovered other innate "voodoo" that I had never identified before. One was detecting issues with level in the subfloor. I'd walk around and "feel" areas that were off, put a bubble on them to confirm and mark them for the contractor to check out. He was often suprised at how I could sniff them out when he couldn't, especially the more subtle ones. Who knows if years of operating handheld or Steadicam had something to do with developing an extraordinary (meant literally) sense of environmental level via tactile feedback from my feet. Really interesting to discover though.

Now, when it comes to day-to-day life, I'm relatively hopeless in many ways so it all balances out!

 

[Shooter]

I find my eye to be very reliable and its what gets me repeat work

But...when I talk about the "eye-ometer" its is not about the technical aspect so much as the "creative judgment" of eye and brain.

Its a way of looking at the actual live scene in front of you , in the viewfinder / monitor and then using the tools and gained knowledge and experience to bring it to a "screen" .

I dont get hung up on exposure ratios and equations. What I see comes first.Creating and controlling an image in an intentional way.

 

[Shooter]

Sixth sense...Thats really interesting Charles.

My steadicam experience (years ago - Vers 1 and 2 steadicams) gave me a unique ability to "feel space".

I could back up within inches, unsighted to walls and obstructions without crashing and my feet could place themselves without tripping on traps. I could literally feel the "pressure ( presence) of the objects near my body.


I also can light my sets and have a strong idea of where we are on the exposure scale without a meter or any other tools. Famliarity with the lighting units is obviously part of this.

 

[cpc]

Yeah, this is really an application of previous knowledge when lighting (being familiar with the lights used, and previous readings of these lights, etc). I am mostly referencing guessing the light level by eye. Similar to how some musicians can hear a tone and figure the pitch without a reference. Imagine being dropped in a place you didn't light and without obvious references (i.e. noon summer sun) and asked about the light levels. Experience doesn't apply here.

Charles, nice anecdote. Reading your thoughts is always a delight.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Yes sir. We speak the same language.

Ours is a medium that has many technical/scientific/mathematical facets. I think a lot of newer practitioners to the business like to approach it from this level because it's easier to wield numbers and factoids than approach the craft from an artistic standpoint. How many times have we seen folks ask "which picture profile/plug-in can I use to duplicate the look of this [insert beautifully shot high budget movie]?" Those with the need for immediate gratification rarely like to hear that the root of successful cinematography comes from the cumulative experience of having simply shot a lot and getting good at it (or being naturally gifted, but we hate those people! kidding).

I'm about to start a three week job for Yahoo that has had an almost comically rushed prep schedule (we will start shooting with perhaps half of the locations tech-scouted...12 to 15 pages of narrative a day). In nearly all instances I'll be shooting from the hip, with no shot list or lighting plan designed in advance. I have a three ton electric and three ton grip package at my disposal. Everything is a calculation, based on the simplest and quickest possible setup that will get the job done and look good. It's all instinct and prior knowledge and maybe I'll even come up with a new way to skin the cat. We'll see.

All of those tools--knowing the instruments as Shooter says, knowing what the range of existing light levels in a practical location are when we walk in the door, knowing the camera, all of this adds up to an intution on how to proceed without wasting any time. Same intuition that allows me to light from the set within maybe a half stop range, and then once I get to the monitor I can make final tweaks as needed (and since I rely heavily on dimmers and dimmable units, some remote, that process can be done quickly and often from outside the set as the actors step first take their marks).