FS7: What's your look and color process? Both in-cam and post?

That is no way to be setting exposure. Why do you think we have tools such as lightmeters, waveform monitors (with actual markings on them), and zebras? The reason is so we can have some precision and consistency from shot to shot. You're about to follow some really bad advice if you go down that rabbit hole. Shooting professional video is quite different from shooting RAW still photographs with an SLR where the goal is just to avoid clipping at either end.
 
Doug Jensen said:
That is no way to be setting exposure. Why do you think we have tools such as lightmeters, waveform monitors (with actual markings on them), and zebras? The reason is so we can have some precision and consistency from shot to shot. You're about to follow some really bad advice if you go down that rabbit hole. Shooting professional video is quite different from shooting RAW still photographs with an SLR where the goal is just to avoid clipping at either end.
Click to expand...

Okay Doug so he's wrong. How shall the WFM look in order to be correctly exposed? I ha e tried his method, and it gave me nice exposure, but it is wrong you say. I know that you're a pro, so please would you like to share your methods?
 
If you're going to use the waveform, it should only be used to measure 90% white or a 18% gray card. Jjust looking at the shape of the trace, with no regard of the reflectance of the subject isn't the right way to do it. So that kind of precision is hard to see with the little built-in WFM on the camera, so either use an external WFM or use zebras instead to determine when white has reached the correct exposure. There are many correct ways to set exposure, but some ways are just flat out wrong.
 
Doug Jensen said:
That is no way to be setting exposure. Why do you think we have tools such as lightmeters, waveform monitors (with actual markings on them), and zebras? The reason is so we can have some precision and consistency from shot to shot.
Click to expand...

I have no clue why we have zebras - they just add to the chance of getting the boom in shot. Light meters? occasionally handy for recces and pre lighting or maybe checking the consistency of a green screen. personally I pre light with a nikon d70 histogram.

what I do like however is my huge rgb Wfm on my 502 monitor.

in fact I don't really find it "pro" to work with the omboard screen as the wfm is too small

one needs to develop a bit of "feel" - one might want to expose a bit thinner on a landscape scene where clouds are important to the scene and may of course need to "spot meter" for a ballerina in a white dress on a black stage.

one also needs to develop "sense" when shooting and keep it simple for post - one would not be wanting to ramp iris for a set of interviews on the same lights/background set up just because the new talent has a different colour jacket

--

i think one needs to consider "data per stop" and load the image into the section of the capture that has most data per stop. This will lead to the most tonally sensitive capture and therefore the richest image

which portion of the capture has most data per stop? The middle 50% on the histo?

if it works it works .

personally I spend time on set delivering the desire of the director and capturing performance - selection of exposure is 1% of the Dp/op process and should basically just happen without thought. It should be instant and effortless. Mincing with a light meter just shows you up as a clueless forum wanabee unless you are actually shooting on film
 
Last edited:
Whats wrong with baking.. its just the same as a scene file but more subtle than matrix .. a 3D LUT anyway.. one can achieve greatness with baked in LUT,s and one doesnt have to mince one bit..
 
I was partially being silly - but also pointing out that my "thick middle" exposure methodology is best used when one is shooting for post - clearly if one is baking and does not want to do post then one would need another exposure methodology.
 
Donny 123 said:
Whats wrong with baking.. its just the same as a scene file but more subtle than matrix .. a 3D LUT anyway.. one can achieve greatness with baked in LUT,s and one doesnt have to mince one bit..
Click to expand...

This thread appears to have taken the "I'm more Pro than you" direction. The blue touch paper has been lit...
 
Really why..? I just wondered why baking in a LUT was not a good idea.. I do it all the time.. but Im willing to hear why it would be considered bad practice ..
 
Doug Jensen said:
If you're going to use the waveform, it should only be used to measure 90% white or a 18% gray card. Jjust looking at the shape of the trace, with no regard of the reflectance of the subject isn't the right way to do it. So that kind of precision is hard to see with the little built-in WFM on the camera, so either use an external WFM or use zebras instead to determine when white has reached the correct exposure. There are many correct ways to set exposure, but some ways are just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay, so either you're right or wrong. In any way I'm confused. I purchased Barry Greens lighting DVD about a year ago (a must have for anyone really, I really recomend it). I'm looking at the section where they talk about the WFM. He says that you can use it to directly see at what level things are at, and that it gives a correct and direct measurment of each element and how bright or dark they are. He really dosen't talk all that much about white or gray when using WFM but instead about looking at it and simply know that nothing clips, nothing is too dark and that it's all evenly spread out over the graph.

So two pro's saying different things about the same tool, I might be missing something but still very confusing that different people use the same tools so differently...
 
Donny 123 said:
Really why..? I just wondered why baking in a LUT was not a good idea.. I do it all the time.. but Im willing to hear why it would be considered bad practice ..
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to you mate. Ignore my bad quoting.

I bake LUTs and love the results I'm getting straight out of the camera. It's not bad practice, it's just another practice and one I'm very much in favour off.

The beauty of the FS7/F5 etc is that they can accommodate various workflows and doesn't limit the operator with rigid constraints.
 
Admir said:
So two pro's saying different things about the same tool, I might be missing something but still very confusing that different people use the same tools so differently...
Click to expand...

A woman in the shadow of a tree set against a blue cloudy sky, what do you expose for?

It's unlikely a camera can cope with the full dynamic range of the scene so you have to make a creative judgement about what is the most important information in the scene. Do you clip the clouds to expose for the woman's face or expose for clouds and underexpose the woman? What is the motivation in the shot?

You can have all the measurement tools you like it, thankfully operating a camera requires creative control. The tools should provide you with enough information to allow you to expose correctly and consistently once you've made your creative decision i.e. if you chose to expose the woman's face then in subsequent shots her face is at the same exposure level.

I have absolutely no problem exposing with the VF, zebras and the waveform on the FS7. Piece of cake.
 
Nirv said:
A woman in the shadow of a tree set against a blue cloudy sky, what do you expose for?

It's unlikely a camera can cope with the full dynamic range of the scene so you have to make a creative judgement about what is the most important information in the scene. Do you clip the clouds to expose for the woman's face or expose for clouds and underexpose the woman? What is the motivation in the shot?

You can have all the measurement tools you like it, thankfully operating a camera requires creative control. The tools should provide you with enough information to allow you to expose correctly and consistently once you've made your creative decision i.e. if you chose to expose the woman's face then in subsequent shots her face is at the same exposure level.

I have absolutely no problem exposing with the VF, zebras and the waveform on the FS7. Piece of cake.
Click to expand...

Well that's exactly what I was talking about on page 4, to use the WFM and common sense in order to determine where the talents brightness is at in order to get him or her at the right level, you really can't do that much about the surroundings as they will either blow out or be underexposed. But since the FS7 has quite a large DR this is less of a problem than lets say with a GH4 or an EX1.
 
Nirv said:
I wasn't referring to you mate. Ignore my bad quoting.

I bake LUTs and love the results I'm getting straight out of the camera. It's not bad practice, it's just another practice and one I'm very much in favour off.

The beauty of the FS7/F5 etc is that they can accommodate various workflows and doesn't limit the operator with rigid constraints.
Click to expand...


ah ok thanks.. Yes totally agree
 
Admir said:
Okay, so either you're right or wrong. In any way I'm confused. I purchased Barry Greens lighting DVD about a year ago (a must have for anyone really, I really recomend it). I'm looking at the section where they talk about the WFM. He says that you can use it to directly see at what level things are at, and that it gives a correct and direct measurment of each element and how bright or dark they are. He really dosen't talk all that much about white or gray when using WFM but instead about looking at it and simply know that nothing clips, nothing is too dark and that it's all evenly spread out over the graph.

So two pro's saying different things about the same tool, I might be missing something but still very confusing that different people use the same tools so differently...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Barry wasn't talking about shooting log - there's a difference using a WFM monitor to gauge a general, over-all exposure and using it to make an accurate, nailed on exposure. Those differences are magnified when shooting log as opposed to rec709.
 
Liam Hall said:
I'm guessing Barry wasn't talking about shooting log - there's a difference using a WFM monitor to gauge a general, over-all exposure and using it to make an accurate, nailed on exposure. Those differences are magnified when shooting log as opposed to rec709.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, he was talking about ordinary in camera looks (Rec709).

Hey! That means that I can use the FS7 WFM with a Rec709 lu.... Oh yeah, nevermind...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top