Better Color/Film Looks by Under-Exposing

[Bill Ravens]

Michael...

If I have time, I'll do as you asked. Really, post-processing is SO much in the eye of the beholder, yes?

Randy...
Sorry I almost misled you.

Here's some shots with a matrix setting I'm experimenting with. It uses CINEMA instead of HISAT. I really wish I could find a camera setting that required NO grading. Even small CCing takes a lot longer to render out ;o(

[Randy Strome]

Originally Posted by Michael H. Stevens

I agree with Randy that maybe the CINEs could be pushed more, but to my eye I see more highlight detail to work with in the STD. Of course, there may be detail in the CINEs that might come out in post not obvious here. Would be interesting Bill if you took those four shots and gave them some post to get each one the best you could and then post those four.

Hi Michael,

What you are seeing may be due to the nature of the test. Correct me if I'm wrong (I am used to it) but it looks like for STD the exposure was set (perfectly) which left the whites at the far right and black at the left edge. It looks like that same exposure was used for the Cines, which left the whitest white at under 200 for the Cine 1 example. It would follow that the open whites of STD would still be more open even if the exposure had been set to neutral or more right, but the gap may be narrowed significantly.

In any event, I am stoked to see Bill's new PP's. Like I said before, I hesitated to comment because I am entirely incapable of producing any workable PP's and am just trying to best maneuver with the one's that more capable users have been kind enough to offer up here.

[Bill Ravens]

Randy...
Seems like you know better than you think you know ;o)

Quote: Originally Posted by Michael H. Stevens
"I agree with Randy that maybe the CINEs could be pushed more"

Which brings me to the point I was making earlier, altho' I guess I said it rather poorly because everyone misunderstood me...

Using the CINEGAMMA setings, if I open the iris more, to balance the histogram more to the right, I end up overexposing the whole scene, washing it out and blowing the hi-lites very easily. The cinegamma settings really balance the whole image luma range to the left and it takes a LOT of "S" curve to bring it out. So much that the entire image suffers from banding and more noise.

[Bill Ravens]

double post

[Bill Ravens]

Here's what Michael asked for.
Post-processed images for TC2S1 and TC2C1. Not as dramatic as I wished but, nevertheless..

Note that :
1-TC2C1 needed more highlite correction, histogram is slightly more combed. More sky, less foreground detail

2-TC2S1 needs less endpoint correction, esp. on the hilights but an inverted "s" gamma correction to get it looking good to my eye. More foreground detail, less sky.

[Benjamin Eckstein]

This is all making my head spin too. When I went out and shot snowy footage on REALLY BRIGHT day (http://www.vimeo.com/723938), I used Bill's settings with Cine1, and it seemed to work out well, although I made a point to underexpose the snow, which when I watched the footage I realized I had underexposed too much. It was so bright that it was hard enough just to see everything in the viewfinder. Bill are you saying that Standard1 would be a better gamma on a day like that (specifically the shots with the x-country and downhill skiers)? A few shots I had to bring up more in post.

This camera is forcing us all to become engineers I think. Not bad, just different! But we all appreciate those (like Bill) who are doing the grunt work for us. Thanks.

BE

[Bill Ravens]

Ben...

Yes, that's what I'm saying...but, you'll need to do some post CCing.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Eckstein

This camera is forcing us all to become engineers I think. Not bad, just different! But we all appreciate those (like Bill) who are doing the grunt work for us. Thanks.

BE

I wouldn't go that far...

Reset the camera to factory specs then run out and shoot anything. Now compare that to what you were shooting with before. (Before the EX1 I mean)

For most of us shooting with older and cheaper cameras the results will be far better than what we could achieve previously. Even if you were shooting with a well tweaked competitively priced camera like the HVX200 or the XH cams the out of the box experience with the EX1 is "wow."

If you were shooting with an F900 fully tweaked out you may be disappointed by the factory set up on the EX1.

Thing is, all of this "engineering" we are on about offers us the ability to get fully tweaked out and provide a very satisfactory B-Roll for an F900. In some applications we can even forgo an F900 rental entirely with the EX1 in hand.

In my mind its all about the practice of cinematography. Older cameras made all the decisions for us- we just set exposure and hoped that the engineers at Canon. Sony, Panasonic et al. thought about the situation we were about to photograph- if we even thought that much about it.

This camera gives us back some of those decisions... and with them the power to make absolutely stunning images. It also allows us to make a really bad image. C'est la vie.

[Benjamin Eckstein]

Originally Posted by Alexander Ibrahim

I wouldn't go that far...

It was sort of a joke.

Before I went freelance and was a staff shooter, I didn't spend much time on camera forums, where I found out about all the "measureabating" that was going on, and yes, some of the previous cameras I used were less tweakable. I guess I was just blissfully ignorant, but now, I am reading and comparing more, for better or for worse.

[Michael H. Stevens]

The camera gives us back some of those tweaking, yes, but it still needs MORE POST than I was expecting or want. I'm hoping that as I get better at using the EX1 I may be doing less, however Bill seems to be confirming (and I know Phil Bloom did too) that while the image is much better, we will need just as much tweaking as with HDV.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Eckstein

It was sort of a joke.

Ooooh! I am so good at missing those!

Wait... what? What do you mean, "that's not a good thing?"

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Michael H. Stevens

The camera gives us back some of those tweaking, yes, but it still needs MORE POST than I was expecting or want. I'm hoping that as I get better at using the EX1 I may be doing less, however Bill seems to be confirming (and I know Phil Bloom did too) that while the image is much better, we will need just as much tweaking as with HDV.

I wouldn't say you need to work the image more in post... I mean that's one way to do the job, but its wrongheaded.

The problem I see is that too many aren't lighting a scene. They are pushing past the boundaries of the cameras sensors and then expecting technology to save them.

That was very easy on even the best HDV units. Its harder on the EX1. Its even harder on RED. It remains pretty darn easy compared to shooting 5219.

Regardless of your sensor's capability its still the exact same problem though.

So... the question I often ask photographers who have a hard time getting the results they want shooting HD is, "Where is your light meter?" The answer should never be "My camera is my light meter."

The next thing I try to find out is if they are actually lighting, or if they are just illuminating. Then of course I wonder if they are placing shadows.

The number of people who can't answer these questions in the affirmative disturbed me.

This job is easier if you photograph well from fundamentals.

Then the picture profiles these cameras offer and DI can be used for artistic effect... not to obtain exposure.

[Michael H. Stevens]

Alex: Great if you are in a studio, but me and a lot of the Ex1 crew, because it is a light camera, are in the field with natural light and nothing else.

[Randy Strome]

Originally Posted by Michael H. Stevens

Alex: Great if you are in a studio, but me and a lot of the Ex1 crew, because it is a light camera, are in the field with natural light and nothing else.

Yup. Yesterday I was shooting surf in sunny conditions with quickly moving patches of overhead clouds that were changing the exposure by many stops in a scene that (even if static) was already pushing the dynamic range of any camera. ND 2...ND1...oh crap, where's my surfer...Just keeping up.

We are all doing different things with this little beauty, which is why the flexibility of PP's is so cool. I feel like Bill and the likes are offering us a new film stock each time they work up a PP. Props!

[Michael H. Stevens]

A CLARIFICATION AFTER TESTING

What I have said is not strictly true when addressed to our hyper-gammas. My tests have shown me that while I stand by saying a little underexposing gives more headroom (detail in highlights) I now believe the hyper-gammas already do this. By this I mean if you expose not to the max of the histogram but to the 100% zebra you are about a stop under what a light meter would give. So I do now say I believe exposing to the 100% zebra gives a better result that going below or over that.
Mike