White balance every shot or every scene?

Just be a bit careful about working within these defined parameters in the ways suggested. You could end up with some very "boring" images".

If you are using an incident light meter you must know that it does not know the tonal value of what is in the scene it is measuring. eg a black cat or a white cat.

It does not know if the intent of the scene is dark, high key, flat, even...etc.

I am suggesting.. trust the eye-ometer and also suggesting the waveform is far more valuable to you than the light meter.

Simply ... stay with in the waveform extents by lighting control and exposure control.

BTW - what do you consider is "proper exposure" for the grey card in reference to setting up a scene?
 
Hi Shooter, thanks for that, your suggesting to not forget about artistic attent and get bogged down in too many technicalities?

I was gonna light the grey card for a f5.6 reading on my light meter then work from there (placing the grey card where my talent would be, thought it sounded like a simple plan and not to confusing.
Any folly in my idea?
 
dwyz said:
Hi, hope its ok to regurgitate this thread, its a good learning tool for me :-)

Ive decided on my preferred camera settings so once ive used my light meter to expose a grey card properly then how do I ensure I keep within a 5 stop range?
So I can go 2 under/over, I get that, but what exactly is 1 or 2 stops?
Say I expose at f5.6?
(left my camera on set, reading from a spare lens)
Is it f4 and f2.8 under, and f8 and f11 over?

Shooting the 1st scene Friday night, feel a bit overwhelmed.
Click to expand...

I shot, lit, and directed a music video last week which is still in editing but I posted the intro recently and thought this would be a good example to describe how I approached the lighting for this particular scene.

http://youtu.be/BE-Wa05JyAM?hd=1

Details about the shoot:
The recording studio room where the grand piano was located was approximately 2500 square feet (50x50). It had dimmable house lights which I turned off and did not use at all. The room was black with no windows or stray light coming in. I used 4 ARRI tungsten lights in total:

- ARRI 1k open face (with barn doors)
- ARRI 650w fresnel (with barn doors, + scrims)
- ARRI 300w fresnel (with barn doors + 1/2 spun)
- ARRI 150w fresnel (with barn doors)

Three lights were used to light the artist and the piano. I had under an hour to setup the lighting without the talent who was in makeup so my lighting assistant and I quickly went to work... using our light meters.

Since I knew I would be filming from both sides I wanted f5.6 on the talents face where he would be sitting at the piano bench. The 1k ARRI was placed on the artists right side and gave about f5.6 from about 40 feet away. We played with the distance and flood/spot knob until we got f5.6. On the artist opposite side (his left side) we put a 650w against a wall and it could not go any further back. It was probably 15-20 feet away and too powerful so we scrimmed it plenty to again give me f5.6. Lastly a 150w ARRI was used as a hair/back light on our talent placed squarely to his back at about 10 feet away.

The 4th light, a 300w ARRI with spun was placed just off-camera right in the scene at 00:06 where the artist walks through the doorway to off-camera right. You can see the lights reflection in the glass doors on the left. Not seen in any footage here, this same 4th light later on was adjusted to between f2.8 and f4 to put a nice round spot on the background but not bright enough that it would be competing with our main talent.

With my talent lit at f5.6 I frequently used a 0.3 or 0.6 ND filter which cuts by 1 or 2 stops so my taking lens could be set at either f2.8 or f4. My talents white suit was reading under 100IRE, his skin around 44IRE, the background dark corners between 10-18IRE which were later crushed in post. I used the barn doors of the 1k to adjust how much light was getting to those back walls. I kept it low so I could make it black in post if I wanted to by crushing it as I did in this example edit.

What Shooter says is true. It is not just a matter of numbers and meter reads, or working within 5 stops. The subject you're lighting will determine how much light it actually reflects and is picked up by your camera and what level IRE it is. Shooting within "5 stops" would be a great idea, but is probably not going to happen for most scenes. I prefer to shoot on the lower end of a camera's dynamic range all together, for example keeping "middle grey 18%" at 30 or 40IRE depending on the in-camera gamma curve I am using. Also this way when I shoot against the lights as I did in this case they did not blow up too much and still looked great on camera.


Photometrics:
- Lighting: f5.6 at 800ISO on subject. (approx 84 foot candles)
- Skin at approx 45IRE.
- Shadows lit for 10-18IRE. (might have been f1 or f1.4 on meter read)


Details about the camera:
- Fortunately I am shooting with the Sony F3 where the native ISO of the camera @ 0db gain is 800ISO. I'm almost always using a combination of built-in and lens ND filters to reduce light. 800ISO is a gift from the gods.
- 1920x1080 @ 24p, 1/48th shutter, 0db gain.
- F3 in SLOG mode picture profile yields almost 13 stops of dynamic range.


***SPECIAL THANKS TO DDIRECTOR from DVXUSER who worked with me on the lighting during this very long day of shooting!
 
Last edited:
I was gonna light the grey card for a f5.6 reading on my light meter then work from there (placing the grey card where my talent would be, thought it sounded like a simple plan and not to confusing.
Any folly in my idea?
Click to expand...

I guess firstly.
Do you want the skin tone of the talent sitting around the mid gamma area? Interview ...probably yes, Drama..probably no. TVC could be anywhere. (Hi key, flat, dark, contrasty etc)

secondly...do you have enough lighting assets to light the rest of the scene as you wish to?

In general practice..I find that I light a scene with regard to what I have to deal with in the scene. eg. a lot of window light usually means pull out the bigger lights (HMI) to balance up the levels.

I dont tend to think of my f-stop in the first instance because I know I can control that with NDs (and maybe a bit of ISO - rarely)..but I do consider f-stop as part of the total equation.

"F-stop consideration" = exposure (creative intention of shot + lens focal length + light control)


The big lighting and image thing for me is ...where I set the levels of all the elements in the scene. Highlights, mids , shadows. To me ..these are part of the composition and how I direct the eye of the viewer.

I do this with the eye-ometer first then check them on a waveform ( and occasionaly with a spotmeter , incident meter during set up).

My rule is "light to the eye".

Some cine students were on my set once and they observed me and the crew lighting something.

One asked " how do I know when its lit"?

Caught out a bit..I responded (after thought)... "when it looks right".
 
Shooter said:
I guess firstly.
Do you want the skin tone of the talent sitting around the mid gamma area? Interview ...probably yes, Drama..probably no. TVC could be anywhere. (Hi key, flat, dark, contrasty etc)

secondly...do you have enough lighting assets to light the rest of the scene as you wish to?


One asked " how do I know when its lit"?

Caught out a bit..I responded (after thought)... "when it looks right".
Click to expand...

Definitely after a dramatic look, any suggestions?
Didnt really understand the gamma question.
Im a bit outta my depth really, will just have to take the shoot armed with what I have so far and learn from it :-)

I do have enough lights for the scene, ill have to post some results for judgement :-)

Love your quote, guess you can't beat the eyometer haha.
 
I disagree with lighting by eye if what you mean is that you light in a manner that makes the overall image "look good" to your eye on an on-set monitor.

What might look "good" on screen at the time of shooting may not be as suitable for post production work as far as grading, colouring, or further work in post. For me lighting by eye yields a very "broadcast TV" look.

Also if you are shooting using flat picture profiles, gamma curves, or SLOG as found on some cameras and not using LUT's on display monitors then you will be looking at something that looks like this when you shoot; and using your "eye" in this case would not be a good idea.

103_0958_01640x360.jpg
 
i think he meant more by looking at the actual scene, in real life... not on a monitor. it takes some experience, but when you have the light where it "looks pretty good" to your eye, then you start fiddling with instruments to make adjustments. I mean, not to put any words in anyone's mouth, but that's how I usually go about it.

of course it's only a general rule. sometimes i'll want to know how hot someone's backlight is compared to someone else's, in which case i trust my light meter more than my naked eye.
 
Yeah I don't think that's what shooter meant either, but I wanted to clarify either way that what you see is not necessarily what you get later, unless you want to of course.

Here is a raw un-treated version of the same edit posted above.

 
I mean... to use the eyes to light in every way possible.

View the live scene , view the monitors, view the wfms and view the info from any meters...then factor it all.

Naurally I allow headroom for CC / grade... and how much...depends on what I am doing.

I do tend to burn in more of "the look" than others might do these days though.

I, am the Cinematographer and the Colorist is an enhancing and contributing artist ..in my old school (film) view of things.

I do have a lot of respect for the art of the colorist ( they make meand the job look better than I am) but I dont want them lighting the scene from "nothing".

What I do burn in, is a "direction" for the colorist to pick up on.

I take pride in the fact that colorists comment on how easy it is to work on my footage.

BTW - I use monitors that I really trust ..but ultimately in the digital world...its the eye and the WFM.
 
^ ah yes of course, that all makes perfect sense. Use the eyes everywhere you can, on all tools.. for sure indeed.

For example I hate the histogram, absolutely HATE it and I think it is the most useless video tool that exists... yet I still take an occasional look at it to see where my signal is spread. But unless you know what "to expect" to see on a histogram then a tool like that can be quite useless or misleading.

Did I mention how much I hate the histogram?
 
Must admit ... the histogram as used by DSLRs and the RED cams is more of a mystery to me than a WFM!
 
Shooter said:
Just be a bit careful about working within these defined parameters in the ways suggested. You could end up with some very "boring" images".

If you are using an incident light meter you must know that it does not know the tonal value of what is in the scene it is measuring. eg a black cat or a white cat.

It does not know if the intent of the scene is dark, high key, flat, even...etc.

I am suggesting.. trust the eye-ometer and also suggesting the waveform is far more valuable to you than the light meter.

Simply ... stay with in the waveform extents by lighting control and exposure control.

BTW - what do you consider is "proper exposure" for the grey card in reference to setting up a scene?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. I tend to use that as my basis, especially for the GH2, as keeping in general within those stops will give me a range that is very clean for post. It looses detail and fast. Therefore, controlling your range means you can have as much detail as possible, plus you won't risk extra noise (in say blacks) doing it this way.
This is simplifying it. I tend to keep this as a base rule, as it works well most of the time anyway, however, you might want the scene more darker and contrastier, in a way that doesn't allow the same area. Then just do tests how of it handles over/underexposure and you can work with that.
And Shooter, I know you speak highly of waveform. I like it too. However... Most cameras here lack them, same thing with most monitors. It's a great tool, but something not all have available. A meter is nice, as it is something you have use for all the time.
But learning to light with a meter is good, in something you described: You light the room, not for the camera. I worked with one DP who lit EACH frame at the time, meaning it took A LOT longer than needed, without feeling spacious. Once I got my meter, I learned to light not what the camera sees, but the environment. Especially it helps you understand fill level. As a meter won't tell you if a light is hard, soft, diffused, filtrated or anything. That is something one has to look and learn, same thing where it falls.
But your meter tells you how strong your light is, how much light it delivers for the camera and how it compares to other lights or the ambience of the room. This means you learn to control each light. When I learned metering, I stopped being confined by the camera. Sure I doubled checked everything, but I could be in a new room giving orders for the rig with the camera still not in the room.
 
Incident readings are always used with an eye, anyway. ;)
There is a good reason cinematographers prefer them to reflected readings. An incident reading is always consistent exactly because it doesn't depend on subject material reflectivity. As a result, they kinda implicitly convey (real) scene mood in the sense that a low reflectivity (dark) scene will appear dark, and high reflectivity (high key) scene will appear bright. You will generally need to do some exposure compensation based on artistic intent and desired mood, but not as extreme a compensation as with reflected readings. For example, where a dark scene may need to be compensated -2 stops with reflected readings in order to appear dark enough, it will only need a little compensation in the opposite direction (if any) with incident readings.

An incident meter is still a powerful tool in the digital age if you know your camera, dynamic range and transfer curve tonal distribution well. And it is much cheaper than a WFM. :)
 
Gabel said:
And Shooter, I know you speak highly of waveform. I like it too. However... Most cameras here lack them, same thing with most monitors. It's a great tool, but something not all have available....
Click to expand...

It has not really been spoken of, but one thing I use which most cameras have is a "spot meter" function or "marker function" which basically puts a small square in the centre of your VF/LCD and shows you a readout of the light level (thus reflected).

As I mentioned in my earlier post where I dissected how I lit a scene in a 2500 sq.ft. studio to my liking, it was my camera's spot meter I used after setting up my lights and taking meter reads to see how much light was being reflected in my shadows/dark area along the back wall of the shot. It's also not un-common for me to put it on the subjects clothes and face to see what values I'm getting and make note of them for when I switch to different lenses, positions in the room and different shots.

My main purpose of using a meter is I can do it weeks, days, or hours before shooting actually starts with talent on set. Most of the time I'm working in space rented by the hour and nobody wants to pay for me to take extended periods of time to setup lighting. I always go in with a plan, use my meter to setup lighting quickly, then use zebras and marker function to "see" what the camera is seeing and what will be recorded.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Wow this thread still bumped along for a while after I left!

I left because I had a film to make.

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGV_avO7umA

I'm back for more brutality. If you have the time, feel free to rip it to pieces.

Even though the process hurts, it will make the next one better.

Also, I hope this helps any other neophytes out there. I said I wanted to make a movie, and just less than a year later, I'm back with my first finished short movie. I did it. And that's pretty cool. And even though it's not the best short film ever made, I had to start somewhere. It would have been nowhere near as good without the help and criticism from this forum.

Thanks guys!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top