What light meter are you using these days?

Finnegan

Finnegan

Well-known member
I've long used Sekonic's L-758 Cine but the spot meter is broken and the incident globe has taken a fair amount of wear and tear throughout the years, and sending it away for repair with the tool no longer under warranty may be too expensive. Since it's Christmas, and I'm in the spirit of giving, I figured I'd gift myself a new light meter with potentially newer features/functionality and a lower price point (although this last part isn't a big deal).

So, what are y'all using these days? Is there one you'd recommend?
 
I use the cheap and simple Sekonic L-308DC DigiCineMate about 98% of the time. I always work with incident readings and have no real use for a spot meter. I also have the L-508 that starcentral mentioned, but the absence of a direct lux/footcandle readout on that one is a fatal flaw for me -- it makes it difficult to measure the output of individual lights and just about impossible to calculate key/fill ratios and such. My background is in traditional TV broadcast studio lighting, where incident readings in footcandles were everything (and only the engineers were allowed to change the iris, grrr). Which reminds me I've been intending to offer that L-508 in the Marketplace here for awhile ...

- Greg
 
I rarely, if ever use spot meter myself and agree that incident is all you need.

By the way, the L-508 can measure foot candles but not directly using the readout. You have to set the meter with some dip switches on the back and then after you take a reading look up the value on a small table chart that is easy to keep on your smart phone as a screen shot, etc..

I always get in the habit of taking foot candle readings with new fixtures or modifiers / lighting setups and jot them into my notes for future reference.

I will share with Greg my sentiments to not go crazy on an expensive and fancy meter. Just get what you can afford and stick with a reputable brand name. Also be sure to rate the ISO of the specific camera you are using with the lenses you will be using, and a grey card, waveform monitor and proper even lighting. Most people who curse light meters don't go through this step them blame the light meter for not getting them "proper" exposure. It's a tool, and really up to you to calibrate to your equipment to get the optimal results with it.

Cheers,
 
Finnegan said:
I've long used Sekonic's L-758 Cine but the spot meter is broken and the incident globe has taken a fair amount of wear and tear throughout the years, and sending it away for repair with the tool no longer under warranty may be too expensive. Since it's Christmas, and I'm in the spirit of giving, I figured I'd gift myself a new light meter with potentially newer features/functionality and a lower price point (although this last part isn't a big deal).

So, what are y'all using these days? Is there one you'd recommend?
Click to expand...

I have a Minolta Spot which is no longer made, and use it for 'contrast' checking. I use the Sekonic L-308DC for most motion picture 'basic light' check and that mostly in footcandles...

I have calibrated the meters to my lens/camera, which at present is the Blackmagic Pocket, and the Lumix 14-150mm zoom, a 28mm f/2.0 Nikon lens, and a 25mm f/1.9 c-mount Wollensack. I've been shooting mostly RAW mode, but occasionally ProRes HQ.
 
starcentral said:
By the way, the L-508 can measure foot candles but not directly using the readout. You have to set the meter with some dip switches on the back and then after you take a reading look up the value on a small table chart that is easy to keep on your smart phone as a screen shot, etc..
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, I actually became pretty good at that at one point, but the process is clumsy enough that it really slows down the whole setup, and the resolution isn't all that great, interpolating in-between values on the chart and all. Not cool when you're yelling back and forth to the guy up on the ladder who is focusing the light. :) That's why I used the word "direct" in my first reply. The L-308DC reads fc/lux to two significant digits (1%) with one button press, which is quick and plenty accurate.

- Greg
 
starcentral said:
Also be sure to rate the ISO of the specific camera you are using with the lenses you will be using, and a grey card, waveform monitor and proper even lighting. Most people who curse light meters don't go through this step them blame the light meter for not getting them "proper" exposure. It's a tool, and really up to you to calibrate to your equipment to get the optimal results with it.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about what you mean by "rating the ISO of the specific camera" in the quoted part of your post. Do you simply mean it's a matter of making sure that the light meter's reading for your key matches middle grey on the waveform monitor?

For instance, I shoot on a Canon C300. Canon rates middle grey at 32 IRE on the waveform (when using Canon Log). So, if I light a test shot (model, grey card, color card) and meter the grey card at F4, setting my lens at F4 should put the grey card right at 32 IRE on the waveform monitor -- right? Is that what you mean?
 
Finnegan said:
I'm curious about what you mean by "rating the ISO of the specific camera" in the quoted part of your post. Do you simply mean it's a matter of making sure that the light meter's reading for your key matches middle grey on the waveform monitor?

For instance, I shoot on a Canon C300. Canon rates middle grey at 32 IRE on the waveform (when using Canon Log). So, if I light a test shot (model, grey card, color card) and meter the grey card at F4, setting my lens at F4 should put the grey card right at 32 IRE on the waveform monitor -- right? Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

Yes, making sure that when you take a meter reading of your key that the proposed f-stop from the light meter matches the f-stop on your camera lens when you have middle grey on the waveform monitor. ie. 32% IRE for Canon Log, 41% IRE for Sony S-log3.

But there's a very good chance it won't, so you will adjust the ISO on your meter until the f-stops do match. Voila! This is your "new" ISO rating for your camera, not what the manufacturer's generous "marketing" native ISO is said to be :happy:

There are a lot of reasons why a given light meter will likely not match middle grey on your specific camera from various manufacturer light meter calibration constants (range from 12% grey, 14%, etc.. and rarely 16% grey which is what most grey cards are) so this process of rating your camera ISO is critical if you want to use and trust your light meter to know once you've nailed middle grey. From there it's quite easy to adjust accordingly for what you want.

Below are a few links to blogs I wrote a long time ago about how I rated the ISO on the Sony F3. It was the best thing I ever did. From doing so I knew that the ISO of my F3 @ 24fps 1/48th or 180 degrees 0db, 0 ND was 800 ISO or that I would require 42 footcandles of light @ f4 to expose a grey card at 50%.

http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2012/05/f3-through-its-paces/

http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2012/01/lightmeter-use-with-the-f3/

This is not the first time I have written a post on DVXuser about using light meters and most will try to debunk it or think I'm trying to show off or something by talking about why a light meter is so valuable. In the end, the only time I'm showing off is when I'm pre-lighting a set the night before and walking around with only a light meter and not a bunch of camera's turned on. :happy:
 
Finnegan said:
I'm curious about what you mean by "rating the ISO of the specific camera" in the quoted part of your post. Do you simply mean it's a matter of making sure that the light meter's reading for your key matches middle grey on the waveform monitor?

For instance, I shoot on a Canon C300. Canon rates middle grey at 32 IRE on the waveform (when using Canon Log). So, if I light a test shot (model, grey card, color card) and meter the grey card at F4, setting my lens at F4 should put the grey card right at 32 IRE on the waveform monitor -- right? Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

Yes, as far as I'm concerned... the use of the meter is to 'know' apriori where the values fall on the IRE display, at least in the modern digital motion picture world. This is equivalent to taking density readings off a negative and knowing that for a give ASA/ISO the density of the negative is X...

For the Blackmagic cameas and RAW using the BMDFilm 'loggish' representation, the magic value for the 18% grey card is 38.4%... ok... 37-39% but essentially a value that is reasonable.

Perhaps for the Canons it is 32%... for a Rec 709 type recording mode, it may be more like 45-50%.

A step wedge will then indicate how much over or under one can go before the highlights 'clip', or the lows go under. There is also a consideration for 'noise' in the dark/black areas.

For people, like me... using non T-stop calibrated lenses each lens needs to be check for a given camera... once one has a 'good idea' on how the meter relates to the resulting values, one can then 'guarantee' what the results will be.

This has nothing to do with the creative choices, but when one wants to go 1 stop under for an effect, one knows how to proceed give the calibration of the meter.
 
starcentral said:
But there's a very good chance it won't, so you will adjust the ISO on your meter until the f-stops do match. Voila! This is your "new" ISO rating for your camera, not what the manufacturer's generous "marketing" native ISO is said to be
Click to expand...

So, just so I'm ultra clear on the process of light meter calibration...

1. Frame up a grey card, set lens at F4 and camera at 850 ISO (Canon's 'native' ISO)
2. Light grey card to 32 IRE on the camera's waveform (Canon's IRE rating for middle grey)
3. Meter the card, and adjust the light meter's ISO to match the F-stop on the lens

Is that right? In your experience how much discrepancy between the light meter's ISO and the camera's ISO can there actually be? There's something weird about walking around with a light meter that's set at like, 400 ISO vs. 850 ISO on the camera -- not that those are actual numbers. Although, I suppose if it matches then that's all that matters...
 
Yes, you got it.

About discrepancies, I'm usually finding 1/2 to 1 stop of discrepancy between my specific light meter and most camera's I've tested. ie. ISO ends up lower than camera's rating.

There is something weird about working with a discrepancy (should you end up with one) but if you know it's 1 stop for example you can leave your meter set to your camera's ISO and then just add/subtract one stop to your actual meter reading. If that proves to be too mind bending most meters will allow you to introduce exposure compensation which you can use so that everything does eventually match up.

If you want to blow your brain with more about why meters don't match grey cards and hence camera's, here's a post I wrote earlier this year:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...00-ISO&p=1986560854&viewfull=1#post1986560854
 
About a year ago I pulled the batteries from my pricier meters, shelved them all, & picked up a Sekonic L-308DC.

The L-308DC isn't quite as sensitive, or functional, as my other meters, but it's compact size makes is easier to travel with, & I primarily use light meters the days for setting ratios, not exposure.
 
Finnegan said:
Is that right? In your experience how much discrepancy between the light meter's ISO and the camera's ISO can there actually be? There's something weird about walking around with a light meter that's set at like, 400 ISO vs. 850 ISO on the camera -- not that those are actual numbers. Although, I suppose if it matches then that's all that matters...
Click to expand...

It should be no more weird than setting your light meter to 200 using a film that has ASA 400 from the manufacturer... and then cut the development by 1 stop's worth to compensate.

In 1960 there was a revamp of the ASA (now ISO) system which essentially doubled the spreeds of films across the board... yet, most people when I began shooting stills often used 1/2 the manufacturer's rating...

The reason being, shadow detail was more affected by 'under exposure', and so, if one wanted to have good shadow density, the lower ASA rating provided...

I think with cameras these days that are really delivering 10-12 stops worth of dynamic range, one can play the same game. For the 8 stop/Rec 709 type recording on the other hand there is very little wiggle room, and so one probably advised to protect highlights with 'under exposing'. Which is exactly what one would do for Slide/Reversal film in the olden days.
 
I still use my trusty Sekonic L398. Incident readings only. The meter sensitivity matches well with my D16. Too dark to get a reading, too dark to shoot. My D16 is factory ISO calibrated to a light meter. Shooting an 18% gray card at nominal ISO rating produces a 12 bit raw code value of 512. Dead in the middle of the 12 bit code range numerically, 3 stops under white clip. When previewed as 10 bit video in Resolve, the middle gray point is still at 512, middle of the gamma encoded 10 bit video scale. Knowing what my key/highlight meter reading and my ambient shadow lowlight reading are allows me to choose exposure using a visual interpretation of the scene to an Adams zone scale. This is so deeply engrained that once I know the lighting conditions for a scene, I don't need a meter or waveform reference to accurately set exposure. I do highlight checks with the D16's raw view mode which shows right down to the pixel what is clipped or not in the raw data. Easy to choose the exact highlight clipping point based on scene conditions.
Normally I shoot within a +0/-3 stop range of high key light reading at the subject.
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
I still use my trusty Sekonic L398.
Click to expand...

I still have the L28C2 (predecessor of the L398, virtually identical) that I bought while I was in college in about 1976. I'm sure the modern digital meters are more accurate and certainly more sensitive in low light, but there's still something very satisfying about an all-analog instrument that doesn't need any batteries and is more than sturdy enough to pound nails or drive a truck over. I still use it a fair amount for measuring ratios in studio situations when I'm dealing with light levels more or less toward the middle of its scale (100 fc give or take a stop or two). It will probably still be working decades after my new digital meters are worn out.

Cyclone -- I used to aspire to own a Spectra in my film days. They don't seem to be as common or popular nowadays, but certainly were considered to be the top of the line back when.

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
Cyclone -- I used to aspire to own a Spectra in my film days. They don't seem to be as common or popular nowadays, but certainly were considered to be the top of the line back when.
- Greg
Click to expand...
Thank you, Greg, for your kind words about the old Spectra. When I take it out these days (like you: for balancing ratios), I have to admit that I have been ridiculed. And like you said, it doesn't need batteries!
 
I have a significant number of gripes about the stupidity of the user interface on the Sekonic L-758 Cine I use. However they're not quite as frustrating as carrying round separate incident and spot meters, so I put up with it.

It's not perfect, but it is a workhorse. If you don't need a spot meter, there are certainly smaller, simpler options available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top