Now days the colorist has more to do with the final look of the film than almost all the other factors. By trying to make a perfect exposure in the DV camera (film technique) critical amounts of data can be lost that the colorist can't recover. Applying film techniques won't always work today.

Jeff,
You've got me puzzled with that post. Maybe we have a different interpretation of 'perfect'? I always though that the aim when producing the original, whether it be film or video, was to record the maximum amount for use in post.

Could you elaborate please?

Thanks,
Helen

Yes, very simply CCD's and CMOS chips behave in a very linear fashion. Camera designers can build in clip points or make them user adjustable etc. Panasonic has even gone so far as to incorporate these settings into downloadable files to customize the look of your camera, but that's for a different post.

How many stops of latitude is there in a DV file between white with no detail and black with no detail? I would say 5 to 6 stops for most cameras, especially in the under $4,000 price range. For the sake of this discussion and to make the math easier lets say 5 stops of light.

Our DV cameras record an 8 bit image. This provides us with 256 discrete tonal values (2^8). Most of us probably think that the 256 tonal values are divided equally between the 5 stops of exposure. But it isn't so.

When you reduce the exposure from maximum white by 1 stop it is a 50% reduction in light transmission. And with that transmission reduction goes 50% of your tonal values. That's right, 128 tonal values are in your top one stop of light. Put a clip on your whites (under expose) and half your detail is gone. The next stop is another 50% reduction, or 64 tonal values, another stop is 32 values, the 4th stop is 16 values and the last stop has only 8 tonal values. It's easy to see why under exposed video looks so bad. There's no tonal values in under exposed scenes.

Once those tonal values are gone (not captured on tape) there is little the colorist can do to bring them back. So how do I expose for video? Expose as hot as possible (over expose) without clipping the signal. Then in post pull the video into the bottom stop to create shadows. This requires a great deal of rendering, but will provide the greatest amount of detail (tonal value) for the colorist to work with. This technique is called Expose to the Right.

Jeff,
Having read your post I see that there is no difference in the way that film and video are treated. To sum it up: know your medium. Obviously you can't expose video exactly the same way as you expose film, but you can apply exactly the same principles: understand where a light value will fall on the response curve of the medium. As I suspected, it is just that we have different interpretations of 'perfect' and 'film technique'.

My earlier post suggested that one could treat a video camera the same way as film, but replace the densitometer with the numerical value display in an NLE (for example). That will reveal exactly the relationship that you have described - though you may get some surprises vis-a-vis true linearity. It is very well worth doing in practice.

Best,
Helen

<<<-- Originally posted by Helen Bach : Jeff,
Having read your post I see that there is no difference in the way that film and video are treated. To sum it up: know your medium. -->>>

You took the words off my mouth.

At first I was puzzled at Jeff's statements. Then I realized that it was really an attitude toward image handling, which I think is what I have always believed you should have. It gives coherence to what we do.

Video, more than film, is how you deal with the knees. I'd say it's only that. In film that's a problem that practically stopped being so.

In my mind I always compare video to old reversal 16mm film (7243?), which in the '70s we strived to mix with 7252 in lower light. Except for the grain (which video doesn't have), the 5 or 6 stops latitude was adamant. In those times we flashed the film as a way to lower contrast and improve grain, which is very much like working the black level in video. Though in video we can see the results at once. But the latitude limitations are similar.

When I started working in video, in the mid '80s, coming from film, I handled video as film. Opened the stop, burning the whites, used fog or low contrast filters, etc. Tubes were not too forgiving with overexpose, but it worked as a low budget "lighting" tecnique. It sounds quite similar to what Jeff says he does.

My only concern is "overexpose without clipping", as Jeff claims, which I don't think is possible without some gamma or contrast handling. Graduated NDs are a great tool for that, and I don't know why are not part of most basic DV kits. Pola screens not only lower your stop (which shooting at 1/60 is hard to keep low) but will handle the contrasts in a different way, also allowing some overexpose.

Sometimes the only way to keep contrast under control is to reframe.

Helen: can you ellaborate more on that camera stop/NLE numerical values routine? That seems interesting.


Carlos

Not too get far off-topic here, but this may be a point worth noting as a follow-up to the immediately previous posts.

I've just gotten one of Tiffen's "Ultracon" series of filters (in my case, a 4x4). In brief, this graded series of filters (ex: Ultracon 1, Ultracon 2, ... up to 4) is designed to give you a bit more latitude when shooting high-contrast scenes such as brightly lit sunlighting or dim scenes with bright highlights / light sources. That is, they give you an extra stop or so in exposing your dark areas before you clip your highlights. My preliminary (informal) experiments with the Ultracon 2 suggest that these fellows really do seem to perform this magic as advertised.

They are not cheap...good filters never are. But they may be a very valuable tool to have if you're using a camera (as most of us are) that only affords 5 stops of latitude.

Forgive me if these Ultracons are old-hat to you. I just learned of them recently and had the impression that they are a newer product.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : Not too get far off-topic here, but this may be a point worth noting as a follow-up to the immediately previous posts.

I've just gotten one of Tiffen's "Ultracon" series of filters (in my case, a 4x4). In brief, this graded series of filters (ex: Ultracon 1, Ultracon 2, ... up to 4) is designed to give you a bit more latitude when shooting high-contrast scenes such as brightly lit sunlighting or dim scenes with bright highlights / light sources. That is, they give you an extra stop or so in exposing your dark areas before you clip your highlights. My preliminary (informal) experiments with the Ultracon 2 suggest that these fellows really do seem to perform this magic as advertised.

They are not cheap...good filters never are. But they may be a very valuable tool to have if you're using a camera (as most of us are) that only affords 5 stops of latitude.

Forgive me if these Ultracons are old-hat to you. I just learned of them recently and had the impression that they are a newer product. -->>>

I believe you are quite on topic. It would also be very interesting to have other opinions or experience stories on these and other graduted NDs.

Grads have not always been easy to find, except on pro sizes, but they are a precious tool to keep those contrasts under control and still get a beautiful image.

They should be part of every basic video kit, and I assume it probably is with people reading this lighting threads.


Carlos

I've owned a set of 4 Ultracons for close to 10 years. While I think they can be very handy for particular types of high contrast, overall I think they may be a bit too sophisticated for the casual user. I say this without trying to be insulting, it's just that they are high-maintenance filters. They MUST be protected from stray light, meaning vigilant flagging via the mattebox or stand-mounted flags. As you pan off areas of high contrast, you will see the density of the shadows change. And they can occasionally cause a color shift.

Carlos, just to clarify Ken's use of "graded" to mean that the Ultracons are available in several grades i.e. strengths; the Ultracons are not graduated nor do they incorporate ND.

In terms of grads, they are fine filters but I'm not sure if I would consider them a basic filter. They have quite a few limitations, in that they are not recommended for shots that involve tilting as the effect will ride through the frame, nor if your subjects head is high enough in the shot that it crosses the horizon line, which is often the case. They are great for landscape and establishing shots however. The other thing that takes them, I think, out of the realm of a casual (i.e. budget-minded) shooter is that you really need a set of different strengths of ND as well as hard and soft grads (wide shots call for soft grads and telephoto shots for hard grads.), which can be up to six filters for starters. And then there's colored grads...I recently saved a murky, cloudy sky by using a hard ND6 grad in the bottom of the tray, allowing the sky to open up from gray to white, then adding a Sky Blue 2 grad to the top to insert some blue color into the sky.

Many readers of this forum are desperately seeking a quick form of alchemy--"how can I make DV look like film"--and always assuming or expecting that a simple filter or setting on the camera will achieve that. I just get a bit concerned that they will rush out and buy something and then be disappointed that it doesn't magically transform their footage into "The Matrix" or something.

Filters are a tricky investment for DV filmmakers, I think, in that they are generally looking to spend the least amount possible and buy a single filter rather than a set. As I'm sure from your experience you are aware, Carlos, one size doesn't fit all when it comes to many types of filters--simply altering your focal length will often require switching out filters to maintain the same look, since the effects of the filter will be more or less pronounced (as is the case with diffusion, demarcation lines with grads, etc). Of course, one can make great use of whatever one has and work with the results. If you can only buy one grade of filter in a class, that's generally better than nothing at all, but consistency from shot to shot may be compromised as a result.

Charles,

I have the feeling that you may have a wrong idea about my experience or if I know what I am doing when I talk about the advantages of using grad NDs. Believe me I do know quite well what I want or what I am after.

Your explanation on how a graduated ND works is certainly on the spot, and I am very much aware of their limitations. In a way a graduated ND is very much like a split-diopter lens, in the sense that you have two separate areas that take care of two different fields.

Grads are much more easier to deal with, but you have to be careful when you move your camera. Pans are usually alright, but tilts can certainly be a problem. There's a separation area that you have to be aware of and be very conscious on how to deal with it.

Grads now come in several grades, but until recently you could only find them in .3, rarely in .6 grades. Now .9 is also available. For colour grads I certainly see a much more limited application for. They wouldn't be on my short list.

One thing puzzles me: why do you compare a budget minded shooter to a casual shooter? They are quite different in all respects.

What I say and stay by is that a set of at least three grad NDs may solve your shot when working in video, particularly in documentary situations which are difficult or impossible to control. More particularly in DV, where dealing with the contrasts can be even harder. They are also a must in professional video, where cameras can handle perhaps two stops more but still have the same knee problem. In fact, in "budget no object" video job I would certainly order a matte-box where I could have a very large grad filter that I could move in a straight line during the shot if necessary.

No doubt that to use a grad ND you have to know what you are doing, but that is the same with polarizers too. But grads are not so hard to learn how to properly use them. If you mean it's not the same as an UV it certainly is not. Fog and low contrast filters are also hard to work with.

My interest is not in making DV or video to look like film: is how to better shoot video that might be blown up to film. Quite a different matter. Because what I have to do is handle the video limitations so they work in my favour.

But I never tried Ultracons until now or other low contrast filters that do not take resolution away from video, which as I see it is the most important thing when blowing to film.

Carlos

Carlos, my intention was not to question if you know what you are doing. I actually indicated in the last paragraph of my post that due to your experience which you laid out for us earlier, you seemed more than qualified to speak on this issue. The comment that begins "Many readers of this forum" was not aimed at yourself.

I probably should have been more careful than to equate "casual" with "budget-minded"--these days everyone has to be budget-minded. I was referring to what I observe to be the vast majority of the users of this forum, to whom the purchase of a single filter is a substantial investment. After all, we regular hear "I want to buy a matte box to make my camera look more cool; what's the absolute cheapest one I can get?"

In this vein, then, I would personally not recommend that grads should be considered part of a "basic video kit" as many readers here know it. As we agree, you need a set of grads to cover the essentials, which is a substantial investment if we assume a minimum filter size of 4x4 (which may not necessarily cover a wide angle adaptor). I do think they are valuable as I indicated, and I do use them myself. I also use a Preston Microforce with a digital motor as a zoom control, which delivers the most delicate and sensitive response available, and I consider it part of my own "basic" shooting kit; but I wouldn't bother recommending it for readers here due to the cost.

Charles,

My intention was not to declare myself as a person who knows all and aware of all techniques. And my experience is quite likely a lot less vast than many people collaborating or reading this forum, you included. So let's go on.

Of course I understand your concern and agree with you on how something we declare as "universal truths" are only so within a context, particularly experience on how to use a tool. And there should be a certain responsability in not being light in our statements.

It happens that the danger can be the opposite too: not showing tools or routines that could be problem solving if used with certain care. We are also used to how expensive certain accessories, like filters, can become. Perhaps after a year we can look back and see how several suggestions here became real helpers in spite of looking "dangerous".


Carlos

Maybe it's time to open a separate thread somewhere to deal with grad NDs, their specific problems and how to best use them.

Your words there to be careful and mine to use them might work as they should: positively.

My concern with the word "budget" was mainly because I too wanted to take it out from seeing it as the equal of "cheap" and, worst of all, the opposite of "high quality". A strong example comes to my mind, which is how the late Nestor Almendros used mirrors to light the inside of a hut in "The Blue Lagoon", as he himself describes on his book. Coming from a budget oriented past, he used simple tools to get great results.

Carlos foolishly asked: Helen: can you ellaborate more on that camera stop/NLE numerical values routine? That seems interesting. so blame him for what follows! Well no, blame me.

Best,
Helen

Here we go. Although I would like to make this thorough, I will compromise and make it brief. Apologies for any lack of clarity that creeps in, please feel free to add your own clarifications or corrections, or ask for more explanation. For the sake of completeness I'll cover some ground that I'm sure you already know. Of course, I make no claim that the methods I'm giving are correct - they are just one approach, and much variation is possible. For brevity I have not explained all the implications of varying from the given method.

Preface: the most important conversion is from emotion to image. There are no formulae for that.

Method 1: for use with an incident meter (assuming no real-time digital WFM available).
Point the white-balanced camera at an evenly illuminated 18% grey card and defocus enough to lose any surface detail. Either let the auto exposure settle on an aperture setting (shutter speed remaining constant throughout), or set the aperture manually to give mid grey. Adjust the lighting so you get an approximately correct exposure at you favourite aperture (or exactly mid-range, say 5.6), then fix that aperture. Now set your meter to that aperture and adjust the exposure index ('film speed', EI) so that the meter is balanced when placed on the grey card (use a flat receptor if you have one, rather than a dome). This tells you the approximate speed of your camera, and this will be sufficient for most purposes. To get a more accurate answer, record a series of tests for later analysis with an NLE or whatever. Suppose that the approximate speed comes out to EI 160. Set your meter to EI 100 and adjust the lighting until you get the correct reading at your chosen aperture (throughout these particular tests the exposure should be varied by varying the lighting, not the aperture). Record a few seconds. Do the same at 125, 160, 200 and 250 EI, varying the light each time. Now import the footage into an NLE or After Effects (or import a still into an image editing program such as Photoshop) and use whatever tool is available to read the RGB values for each EI setting. Whichever EI setting leads to RGB values closest to 127 is the camera speed.

The characteristic curve of the camera can be determined by using the aperture and shutter speed settings to over and under-expose over a range of stops from the 'correct' reading obtained by using your meter at the EI you just determined, then reading off the RGB values as before. This method is dependent upon the accuracy of your aperture and shutter speeds (the shutter speeds should be accurate!).

Method 2: for use with a reflected light meter (including a spot meter).
This is much the same as Method 1, except that you can use any neutral-coloured card, it doesn't have to be an 18% grey card. With a spot meter you can also use a grey scale when finding the characteristic curve. The method should be obvious.

Using a waveform monitor
If you have a waveform monitor (WFM), just set the camera aperture to give 50% IRE, then find out from the meter what EI will give the set aperture. If you were using an analogue WFM, it would be worth checking the recorded digital signal with an NLE.
Waveform monitors that read the analogue output of a digital video camera are not necessarily the best way of measuring the signal. The best way is to read the values of the digital signal. Some WFMs do this. This applies to using a monitor from an analogue signal as well.

T-stops and f-stops. If your camera has T-stops, they are the 'correct' ones to use. If you only have f-stops, use them. You are measuring what is important to you: the effective speed with your camera and your meter. As long as you are consistent in the use of T-stops or f-stops and don't mix them you will be OK. The effective speed using f-stops will probably be a third of a stop slower than using T-stops (no big deal really).


end of part 1

part 2

Background:
Grey cards. The standard grey card has 18% reflectance. This is taken as mid grey. 18% is about 2.5 stops down from 100%.
In video this is usually set at between 45 and 55% IRE (assuming a range of 0-100% IRE for the sake of this discussion, using a % value instead of absolute IRE to avoid set-up complications) depending upon how you want your video to look (the mood?).
Kodak say 45% IRE (they use % IRE for the same reasons that I'm using % IRE) for an 18% grey card. I'll use 50% for this.
How does that transfer to RGB values? 50% IRE transfers as 127, which is half way between 0 and 255 (ie 256 values). The relationship between IRE and RGB values is normally linear, sometimes with an offset to the IRE values.

Hold on, video is supposed to be linear. Shouldn't that mean that half the light leads to half the IRE, so one stop down (rather than 2.5 stops down, for example) should be 50% (and 127 RGB)? No. When video is said to be linear, the linearity is between the response (IRE or RGB) and the log of the amount of light reaching the chip. This is easy to explain with diagrams, but I'll try to put it into words. Imagine the familiar response curve of video: the line is straight and rising left to right. The left-hand (vertical) scale is IRE, and is linear - ie the distance on the graph between 20 and 30 IRE is the same as between 80 and 90 IRE. The bottom (horizontal) scale may be 'stops'. The physical distance between stops is the same. This scale is not linear in terms of the amount of light falling on the chip. Suppose that the stop scale runs from 0 to +8. The half-way mark (+4 stops) is not the half-way mark in terms of light, it is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/16 of the way in terms of light. So it isn't really linear. To put it more technically, gamma is a log-linear ratio, not a linear ratio.

There is further non-linearity because video cameras do not have a straight line relationship between the IRE response and the log of the amount of light reaching the chip. They will show some roll-off at the shoulder (top right of the curve) - to compress highlights a little and give a bit more dynamic range before those white holes appear. There will also be some rounding at the toe (bottom left of the curve) which can lead to the muddy shadows characteristic of bad video.

What does calibrating to 18% mean? It means that an object with 100% reflectance (there is nothing that achieves true 100% diffuse reflectance, by the way) will not be over-exposed if it is illuminated at the same level as the grey card, and if your camera has 2.5 stops of latitude above the middle value - which it probably has.

Is an 18% grey card necessary? Only if you are using an incident meter to calibrate. Any neutral coloured card will do - grey or white - if you are using a reflected light meter, including a spot meter. It's best to avoid white paper with optical brighteners. The value of the comparatively expensive grey and white cards made for photo, film and video use is that the manufacturers should have put some effort into achieving a neutral colour. The reflection density (greyness) of the card does not matter, so long as the card fills the view of the camera and of the light meter cell. If you are using an incident meter, you must use an 18% grey card.

Effective speed, the film analogy:
There are at least two distinct ways of determining film speed: toe speed and mid-tone speed. The former is exemplified by various standards and by the zone system used in B&W still photography (expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights). Toe speed is primarily a feature of the film: the development process has comparatively little influence. The second method is exemplified by the LAD (Laboratory Aim Density) method. The LAD method emphasises the importance of mid tone/skin tone exposure. In a nutshell: the film manufacturer tells you what the R, G and B densities should be for an optimum grey card exposure. For current Kodak motion picture camera negative films they are 0.80, 1.20 and 1.60 using Status M filters in the densitometer. To determine the speed you do a series of grey card exposures under different lighting levels using the same camera/lens settings. You set the lighting level by fixing the aperture setting on your meter (assuming the shutter speed is also fixed) and adjusting the film speed index in third-stop decrements and increments around the manufacturer's rating. So for 250 speed film you would set 160, 200, 250, 320 and 400 for example. You would then adjust the lighting level to give the correct exposure at each speed index.

Thanks a lot, Helen!


Carlos

Originally posted by Carlos E. Martinez : No doubt a CRT monitor and a waveform are excellent tools to work in video, probably some of the best.

But metering a frame using a combination of incident and spot meter may go a bit farther.

Not as far as a field waveform monitor, which is really the ultimate way to go.

As long as you can use the right ASA reference (where do you get that for different camera models?) and know how to handle a spot meter (not many really do) what is the real problem?

No problem if you compensate for hot spots more aggressively than film --

Two techniques for finding the Exposure Index are in an appendix my book (ASA technically refers only to film).

John wrote Two techniques for finding the Exposure Index are in an appendix my book (ASA technically refers only to film).

John,

Just out of interest, are they anything like any of the methods I mentioned?

Thanks,
Helen

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jackman :
Not as far as a field waveform monitor, which is really the ultimate way to go. -->>>

It's quite likely I may be alone in saying this, but I still believe that in practical terms (like portability, ease to use and quickness) an incident light meter comes first, a spotmeter second and fwm third. All three can be extremely accurate and consistent if properly used.

The fourth most important element is a well regulated field monitor. In fact, using just one of those three with a good monitor might be the right combination.

Perhaps a mix of incident meter and fwm could be the best, as I think the incident ball provides a consistency that is fast and easy to follow. But this is probably nitpicking and a matter of opinion. All three can be used properly and provide superb results.

Of course we are talking of situations where we can adjust the lighting. If the lighting is set, all three should provide the right stop. Though in the end a good monitor and the DP experience should decide which stop that is.

My intention is to suggest which tool might be better for every situation: documentary, fiction, location, studio, etc.

<<<--No problem if you compensate for hot spots more aggressively than film -->>>

No doubt. The about eight stops difference between film and video latitude demand to do that. Perhaps some day we will be able to "paint-down" hotter spots during recording.

<<<--Two techniques for finding the Exposure Index are in an appendix my book (ASA technically refers only to film). -->>>

Can you comment about them here?

Of course ASA refers to film index. But we can cross reference film sensitivity with video sensitivity and get to some numbers. In fact camera manufacturers could provide this number.



Carlos

i will shoot a out door theatre 2 part performance. first part is during day light, and the second part is at night with stage lighting.

my thought is to sit in, during a performance prior, and take meassurements with a spotmeter to get some readings.

could anybody comment please..

thanks

Karl:

OK in theory, as long as you know how your particular camcorder relates to the resulting range of f-stops. Unless the performs happen to be wearing nice flat costumes made of 18% gray material, you'll obviously be taking numerous readings of highlights and shadows and interpolating the results, then making an evaluation of what exposures seem best, then setting those on your camcorder for the taping--but whether or not those are the optimal exposures that deliver the best image may be suspect for the reasons detailed in this thread.

If you have the camera in your posession for the rehearsal, it may be more efficient to simply bring it along and shoot some tests; you can try bracketing exposures (make note of the timecode and f-stop, or whisper the f-stop into the onboard mike) and then you can evaluate the footage on a good monitor (or use a waveform, histogram etc. within your NLE) to give you a foolproof set of stops that will serve you for the actual taping.

That said, the day exposure may be variable depending on weather and how much ambient light penetrates the proscenium. You might have to improvise on the day (and on a partly cloudy day, be ready to ride the exposure).

Karl:

OK in theory, as long as you know how your particular camcorder relates to the resulting range of f-stops. Unless the performs happen to be wearing nice flat costumes made of 18% gray material, you'll obviously be taking numerous readings of highlights and shadows and interpolating the results, then making an evaluation of what exposures seem best, then setting those on your camcorder for the taping--but whether or not those are the optimal exposures that deliver the best image may be suspect for the reasons detailed in this thread.

If you have the camera in your posession for the rehearsal, it may be more efficient to simply bring it along and shoot some tests; you can try bracketing exposures (make note of the timecode and f-stop, or whisper the f-stop into the onboard mike) and then you can evaluate the footage on a good monitor (or use a waveform, histogram etc. within your NLE) to give you a foolproof set of stops that will serve you for the actual taping.

That said, the day exposure may be variable depending on weather and how much ambient light penetrates the proscenium. You might have to improvise on the day (and on a partly cloudy day, be ready to ride the exposure).

hello charles,
thanks for your advice, and you're right. i am better of to sit in with my camera and do some shooting/ measurements/ readings in regards to lighting and sound. i will also tape on vhs for a later evaluation.
my biggest problem will be the audio, since they do not use any sounds system. "shakespeare". by the way, they have the best costumes, flat, props etc i have ever seen. most of my ethnic dance troupes have white satin costumes!!

thanks again. will keep you posted.

greetings

karl

are you thinking of doing anything for that sound situation? or jsut gettingthe best you can with the camera mic?

are you thinking of doing anything for that sound situation? or jsut gettingthe best you can with the camera mic?

hello stefan,

thats a very good question, and i don't have an answer at this point.
this is an open air theatre, which plays music during the performance, but the actors do not use any mic's whats so ever. a lot of spoken words and singing. there are 2 marathon shows, at the first one i will take charles advice, run the camera to get some readings in regards to lighting, but also to see about the sound. the acustic was excellent.
there is no way to set any mic's anywere.
i have seen both shows, and think that i can pick up enough quality sound with my on board mic.
since that is a big professional company, it is interessting to see how all those different level work, just by agreeing to have a videographer.

will keep you posted.

greetings

What an interesting idea. Do a play with all actors in 18% grey square grey costumes, and using a giant Kodak Q-13 color card as backdrop. All lightning done with 5500K softies of course. All actors miked with lavs in advance, with all frequencies adverticed in programme.

Now - who could goof that? ;^)

hello charles,

well, it's over. what a long weekend. from 1:00 pm till mid night, both days.
did set up my camera on saturday switched between av and tv. (day light show) that did not rtealy help, since on sunday there was a total different light conditions, around 5 pm, both days, there was such a strong contrast.....
the two nights shows went very well, since they had excellent lighting. no refletive light from the costuems/ faces etc (over exsposure)
i like to think that the canon tents to have very warm colors, leaning into the color red. don't know yet how to control that. should i use filters?
the audio was terrible, no mics, no sound board, only my on board mic. lucky me since they do not care about the audio quality.

here are the things i learned:
warm cloth, incl gloves!
write down every setting on the camera during rehearsal
write down what the actors do
watch out for low flying bats

greetings

help....

just got some feedback from my weekend client, the afternoon shoot came out nice, but the night show still has to much red in it.
setting:
nd filter off,
3200k
-3 gain
1/60
2.4

where is my mistake?????

thanks

karl

Wow. This is quite a thread. Could be posted as a tutorial on shooting. Of course, someone might point out if you worry too much about the minutiae you may do a lousy job of shooting. But lots of good information here.

Karl, you may not have done anything wrong. The big unkown in your situation is what's going on with the lighting. You can tweak your camera till the cows come home, but if the lighting designer is doing something "creative," you may not be happy with your results. For example, it is very common to light a stage production using 3200K instruments for the overall fill light (with or without colored gels), and keying with a spolight(s) that is 5600K. While this doesn't look bad to the eye, it looks like a mistake on camera. In that situation, the common course of action is to white balance to the spotlights, and let everything else go warm. Not the ideal fix, which would be to ask the lighting designer to color balance his spotlight to 3200K, which he may or may not be willing to do. So you may wish to have a discussion with the lighting designer, and see what he is doing with the show, color balance-wise. If he is using spotlights to key the show, you might want to white balance your camera manually to a spot light, rather than use the preset for 3200K on your camera. If he is already color correcting his spotlight, it may be warmer than 3200K, say around 2800K, which would result in your pictures being warmer than they should be. That's why a manual white balance under the key (spot) would be advised.

However, my gut feeling tells me you are using a Canon camera which tends to warm up the reds, versus the Sony cameras which tend to be a bit cool. Look at a tape of the evening performance. Do the faces look good, but the reds are too hot? I would suggest pulling down a bit of the saturation in post, which is an easy fix with most NLE's, that can be done with no rendering hit. So much can be done in post today, it is almost not worth stressing at the shoot if you protect your master, exposure-wise.

The best case scenario: Before the evening performance, you get the lighting director to give you a typical key light situation on stage with no color lights polluting the test. This should be his properly color balanced key light, be it spotlight or just stage lights, set to his maximum key level. You then white balance and set exposure to this level. (Shoot a Kodak Gray Card Plus under this light. You can use it later in post if you know what you are doing) Then leave your settings alone. It is his show; if he wants to lower his levels for effect, that is his decision, leave your iris setting, or you will end up chasing your tail. If your client complains, you tell him, "Hey, that's the way your lighting director lit the show. Talk to him."

If you have the time when you are doing the set-up, you could add a cast member in a red outfit. Look at him on the monitor. Too warm? Then cheat the white balance. Cover your lens with a CTO gel (or use the proper Warm Card) to cheat the white balance toward blue just a tiny bit. If you don't know what I am talking about, fix it in post.

Wayne Orr, SOC