White balance every shot or every scene?

[Sxio]

Hi All. Long time reader, first time poster.

I'm making my first short film soon. I've done some test footage and what I found was that from some angles, the light was perfect, but from other angles, it was really dark.

Should I white balance every shot? Or just for every scene?

Sorry for the elementary nature of my question. Wrestling with the nuts and bolts of how to make a movie here.

Thanks.

 

[Paul F]

White balance has nothing to do with if a shot is light or dark. Post some examples of what your talking about; there's not much to go on with just a description.

 

[Egg Born Son]

White balance is to set colour. The point of white balance is to show the camera what white is. It can use that information to show colours properly. Set it whenever you change your lighting. Exposure is set to control the light level hitting the sensor. That you need to adjust for every shot. It can be controlled with the aperture/iris in the camera or you may have to adjust the scene by increasing or decreasing the lighting. Use the zebra function if you have it to gain greater control. If you let us know what camera you have we can give you more specific instructions on where to find the controls you need.

 

[Gabel]

Well, I know I'm going to sound like an elitist old coot, but possibly... Learn to light by meter. Check contrast ratios, control fill (and negative fill) to compensate where needed and so on. There are lots of good guides how to light with a meter, which learn you how it works. That way you can light the room without the camera and control these thing beforehand (though you often cheat in lights for close-ups, but then it's more for character than exposure).

 

[Sxio]

Thanks for the great responses so far.

okay so what happened is I set up the scene, positioned the camera for the first shot, set the frame rate, shutter speed, aperture and iso... and then did the white balance.

That shot looked amazing. but the next shot, was waaaaay too dark. So I adjusted the iso to compensate, so I could keep the biggest aperture possible. And that lit it up perfectly, but when I edited it all together, the light levels were obviously greatly different in between shots.

So basically it looked very amateurish.

 

[Sxio]

Oh sorry, and I'm using a canon 600D. I have a 50mm prime and a 18-55mm kit lens. I'm trying to use the prime as much as possible, but I'm finding that I just don't have the space in many places to properly use it (i can't get far enough away to get everything in frame).

 

[Gabel]

Thanks for the great responses so far.

okay so what happened is I set up the scene, positioned the camera for the first shot, set the frame rate, shutter speed, aperture and iso... and then did the white balance.

That shot looked amazing. but the next shot, was waaaaay too dark. So I adjusted the iso to compensate, so I could keep the biggest aperture possible. And that lit it up perfectly, but when I edited it all together, the light levels were obviously greatly different in between shots.

So basically it looked very amateurish.

White balance has nothing to do with it. What you need to here is not to adjust in camera, but adjust on set. You need to add fill light to bring up the light levels, to keep everything even. Did you light it at all, or was it just ambient? I'm guessing that you are just starting out. Here are some GREAT articles on lighting:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/lighting_strategies_soft_light_vs._hard_light/
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/fill_light_the_underdog_of_lighting/
http://provideocoalition.com/index...._strategies_placing_the_fill_light_for_faces/

Hope that helps!

 

[Paul F]

Thanks for the great responses so far.

okay so what happened is I set up the scene, positioned the camera for the first shot, set the frame rate, shutter speed, aperture and iso... and then did the white balance.

That shot looked amazing. but the next shot, was waaaaay too dark. So I adjusted the iso to compensate, so I could keep the biggest aperture possible. And that lit it up perfectly, but when I edited it all together, the light levels were obviously greatly different in between shots.

So basically it looked very amateurish.

- Post examples so we know what you mean by 'greatly different'.
- tell us how you are setting exposure. Are you using a meter, a waveform monitor, zebras, your eye, an auto exposure or something else.

 

[Sxio]

- Post examples so we know what you mean by 'greatly different'.
- tell us how you are setting exposure. Are you using a meter, a waveform monitor, zebras, your eye, an auto exposure or something else.

I'm using the histogram on my camera to make sure nothing's under or overexposed. Apart from that, I'm really just eyeballing it. Aperture wide open to get the best depth of field possible. I'm taking it this is not the way to go?

Here's what I've done so far. I just want to emphasise that this is literally the very first footage I've done, and isn't meant to be seen by anyone. There's lots of focus issues etc. But I'm hoping if I just work out the issues one by one, when I shoot this thing for real, it'll be a much smoother process with a semi-decent end result. I've been on a lot of amateur sets where they are wrestling with technical issues the whole time, whilst actors are sitting around waiting, and I don't want to be that director. That director is a douche

(can't seem to upload my video. It's an .avi and can't see it on my pc through the uploader)

So the technical issue that I'm having now is that when the shots transition, the lighting quality changes greatly. That's because I adjusted the iso between every shot, but it felt that if I left the settings the same, the blacks would've been crushed.

Right now I'm thinking I should have white balanced once (like I did), and just shot the whole thing slightly overexposed, and then tried to fix it in post. Then at least the levels would all be consistent and I wouldn't lose any shadow detail. Does that sound alright?

I hear what you're saying about lights but I'd like to work with ambient light for 2 reasons. 1. After buying a camera, lens, tripod, zoom h4n, reflector and grey card, my budget is hurting. I'd love to get some lights and mics, but I don't want to invest too much in my first film. This is more a learning process so the 2nd film I make will be better. I'd love the 1st one (this one) to be perfect, but I'm realistic. It probably won't be. and 2. I'd like to keep the learning curve down a little. I already have to learn camera, sound, cinematography and editing. Adding lights to the mix might be too much. I do want to get this done this year if possible. If I get too perfectionistic about it, it might never happen.

 

[Tolin]

So the technical issue that I'm having now is that when the shots transition, the lighting quality changes greatly.

Switching between different cheap still lenses does that (they differ in contrast, softness and so on). What you should have done is light the scene for the darkest take and the slowest lens, and then flagged off light as you switched to "brighter angles" and faster lenses. If you can't add light -- Remove light.

One thing's clear though -- It has absolutely nothing to do with your white balance and you really do want to look that one up.

 

[starcentral]

A histogram can be hard to gauge exposure, because really its telling you the range of brightness and darkness in an overall scene, and a scene can very well be towards the dark end (say a night time look or scene) or towards the bright end (say you are shooting the sky over sand). I would say stay away from using a histogram for exposure, but its okay to at least let you know if your signal is nicely spread out or all bunched up to one end.

If you really want to light like a pro and have consistent exposure on your subject's skin scene after scene, day after day, week after week and even months later if you have to go back and shoot more footage.... you should do what someone suggested and learn to start measuring the amount of light falling on your subject with a lightmeter, or waveform monitor. This will give you the best REPEATABILITY overall - which is what I think you are after.

I personally use a lightmeter because my camera does not have a waveform monitor built in and I don't want to drag around an external monitor and power it. If you're interested to know how I do it, I've written about it in my blog.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I'm using the histogram on my camera to make sure nothing's under or overexposed. Apart from that, I'm really just eyeballing it. Aperture wide open to get the best depth of field possible. I'm taking it this is not the way to go?

'wide open' is not the 'best depth of field'... it is the 'least' depth of field...

However, there are reasons to shoot wide open... 1) not enough light in the shot to give a reasonable exposure to 'the important stuff'... 2) some sort of 'aesthetic' reason...

You should indicate along with actual stills from your footage, what you shot the examples with, say 24 fps @ 1/50 (or 1/60) sutterspeed with an f/5.6 (or whatever...).

"prime" lenses may have a lower F number and so may allow for lower light shooting, but most still 35mm lenses still should stopped down 2 stops from 'wide open'...

If you don't have a short enough focal length for the shots you want with a 'prime' then use the zoom... but most zooms are 'slower' that is they have a larger F number for their 'wide open' aperture.

The basic 'rule' I've been using for exposure starts with F/2.8 @ 1/50 @ ISO 100, and a 100 footcandles falling on the scene... 100 footcandles is 'quite a bit of light'... the ordinary 'living room' at night may have only 7-10 footcandles... and even the some people apparently like the 'cave' look of 3-5 footcandles... that's about 10 to 20 times 'less' light that that basic exposure value.

With highre ISO one gets more 'noise'... In the olden days of Film Film this was called 'grain'... people have now turned nostalgic about Film film grain, and 'hate digital grain' which becomes obvious in the higher ISO range like 'over 400/800' depending on the camera...

There is no free lunch. Either more light... or more grain... take your pick...

There are some postprocesssing tools that 'lessen' the digitial 'grain', aka 'noise'... but they are expensive and so, probably not used by those just getting started...

You can 'use' a histogram... sort of... but you have to put your camera in 'spot mode' and use a 18% grey card target. If the 'haystack' of the histogram is in the 'center' of the histogram, you have an approximately correct exposure. If the haystack is to the left, under exposure results, if the haystack is to the right, over exposure.

But I'd recommend getting a light meter... Ebay can be your friend here... I bought the Sekonic 308dc for about $300 off ebay, and I use it quite a bit for verifying the amount of light falling on a scene. I do have a spot meter from the olden days, but it is no longer made...

As for 'white balance'. This has only to do with 'removing' a color cast due to lights that are shining on a scene... Tungsten has a 'reddish/yellow' cast relative to 'bluish' mid-day sun, or shadows with 'north light'. Certain fluorescents have a 'greenish' twinge... etc... so to 'remove' that color cast one white balances... with a 'neutral grey card'... (or pure white card...)

I suspect your exposure difficulties are not from 'white balance', but from just not understanding the effects of how much light is required for a 'good shot', or that changing the camera angle with out also changing the lighting will affect things.

But post examples so we can make suggestions...

 

[Paul F]

...

Here's what I've done so far. I just want to emphasise that this is literally the very first footage I've done, and isn't meant to be seen by anyone. There's lots of focus issues etc. ...

.

Don't be hesitant to show some shots. We are all here to learn and share. It doesn't matter what the shots look like or what the subject matter is. Just post a frame grab of two different shots. That will help people help you.

 

[starcentral]

Opinions will vary, but I would never shoot wide open. Most lenses will produce distortion to some degree wide open, and also it will be very difficult to keep subjects in focus. I typically shoot and light wide scenes for f5.6 or higher, and drop down 2 stops (to f2.8) for close ups. This allows you to light for f5.6 and throw on an ND filter of 2 stops to get you down to f2.8. If you were to light at f2.8, then you have to keep this aperture for all your master wides, mediums and closeup shots.

If you don't want to light your scenes either using electrical lights or natural sources like reflectors or white boards, or by strategic positioning of your subject/talent, then do not become a DP or cinematographer. It takes time to learn, heck many of us are still learning and it is truly a never ending process but do not rely on technology of camera's ISO to do your work for you.

The best thing to do here is show your shots and get some feedback. There was one thread in particular on here that was so great as it showed the progression of the scene, lighting and camera angle over many attempts and after everyone's feedback on the forums the guy ended up with a really amazing looking shot! It had everything to do with the lighting, the background, the camera angle, and even what the talent was wearing.

Speaking of "first time films" here is mine, so stupid watching it now, but anyway here it is:

 

[morgan_moore]

I would say stay away from using a histogram for exposure, .

I disagree, a histo is what the camera is seeing, a big clear histo is a great tool.. but not all cams have a big clear histo

If one learns to read a histo then they are very valuable, especially DSLRs like the 5d where an RGB histo is available

The wide night shot with a lit face, tiny in the frame, is of course the sort of shot that a histo would fail unless you moved the camera, to examine the face as a significant portion of the frame

Id take something like a free held 550d to use as a directors monitor/light meter/continuity aid over a similar costing light meter any day

As for changing wb during a sequence.. I would not tend to do it?

S

 

[starcentral]

I disagree, a histo is what the camera is seeing, a big clear histo is a great tool.. but not all cams have a big clear histo

If one learns to read a histo then they are very valuable, especially DSLRs like the 5d where an RGB histo is available

The wide night shot with a lit face, tiny in the frame, is of course the sort of shot that a histo would fail unless you moved the camera, to examine the face as a significant portion of the frame

Id take something like a free held 550d to use as a directors monitor/light meter/continuity aid over a similar costing light meter any day

All a histogram will show you is the distribution of dark to light pixels the camera is seeing, and a properly balanced exposed image will not necessarily have an evenly distributed histogram. In fact if I took a photo and ONLY showed you the histogram you would never know if the image was exposed properly or not, because it all depends on the scene to begin with. So the histogram is used in conjunction with evaluating the actual scene brightness and darkness, and has very little to do with determining a "proper" exposure. If you're suggesting to bring the camera to the subjects face so you can fill your frame and then read your histogram, that is pretty impractical. You should be lighting your scene long before you talent gets there and sits waiting for you to do it.

A light meter is how to do that.

 

[Sxio]

'wide open' is not the 'best depth of field'... it is the 'least' depth of field...

I think I've got you. So the least depth of field is when only what's in focus is sharp and the background is blur? That's what I was going for. So if that's the best technique for the least depth of field, why would you then close the aperture 2 stops?

That's 2 or 3 times it's been recommended to get a light meter. I would love to, but another $300 for a tool I don't know how to use properly (yet) is out of the question. I need to learn how to get the most out of the tools that I have.

For everyone who's mentioned the light meter, I am listening and thank you for the advice, it's purely a budget consideration at the moment. Otherwise I'd have lights, better lenses and stand alone mics as well. But the wife would kill me.

 

[Sxio]

White balance has nothing to do with it. What you need to here is not to adjust in camera, but adjust on set. You need to add fill light to bring up the light levels, to keep everything even. Did you light it at all, or was it just ambient? I'm guessing that you are just starting out. Here are some GREAT articles on lighting:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/lighting_strategies_soft_light_vs._hard_light/
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/fill_light_the_underdog_of_lighting/
http://provideocoalition.com/index...._strategies_placing_the_fill_light_for_faces/

Hope that helps!

Thanks for the links Gabel. Really interesting stuff. So I need to light the set better. But what if that's not an option? I have the light from the window and a reflector.

So does that mean that I'm limited to adjusting in camera?

 

[Sxio]

White balance is to set colour. The point of white balance is to show the camera what white is. It can use that information to show colours properly. Set it whenever you change your lighting. Exposure is set to control the light level hitting the sensor. That you need to adjust for every shot. It can be controlled with the aperture/iris in the camera or you may have to adjust the scene by increasing or decreasing the lighting. Use the zebra function if you have it to gain greater control. If you let us know what camera you have we can give you more specific instructions on where to find the controls you need.

Awesome reply Egg Born. You nailed it and I understand now. So I guess I have to install magic lantern then? (so I can get zebras) Great! Another bloody thing to learn to use!

 

[Sxio]

Switching between different cheap still lenses does that (they differ in contrast, softness and so on). What you should have done is light the scene for the darkest take and the slowest lens, and then flagged off light as you switched to "brighter angles" and faster lenses. If you can't add light -- Remove light.

One thing's clear though -- It has absolutely nothing to do with your white balance and you really do want to look that one up.

I wasn't changing lenses for the scene, the iso was the only adjustment I made.

For the next test shoot I'll start with a smaller aperture, and adjust it, and leave the iso on 100.

Thanks though and believe me, EVERY response I get, gives me another thing to google. I'm absorbing everything I can about the craft. Everything gets looked up. Can't believe I was so off about white balance! I was worried about the shade of colours, and really I needed to adjust the amount of light in the scene, or the amount of light hitting the camera's sensor.