I used an electronic hand-held photometer lots in 35mm studio photography to gauge proper exposure but also the "zone" system of checking for falloff in lighting for shadows. I am wondering if this would have application to digital videography, I would think so. My question or thought is that shouldn't I be able to use the exposure photometer not to determine exact exposure (since it is difficult to know the "film speed / ISO" for a digital camera, esp. with ND filtration, gain, etc) but as a guide to obtain 3D lighting on subjects, background, etc. In other words, I might set an arbitrary ISO film speed for the digital camcorder of 800, then expose the highlights on an actor's face, the midtones, the shadows. In 35mm still photography a difference of 3 f-stops (from model's face to the backdrop cloth) meant a pure black background, I would think I would want the actor's face and background to only be 2 f-stops or less if wanting a dark but not black background, and perhaps a difference of 1/2 to 1 f-stop between the highlights and midtones and shadows on the actor's face? Am I correct in this logic, that the handheld photometer could have such use on set even with a digital camcorder?
Independent Filmmaking
http://borealpictures.com
To determine your cameras ASA frame up a gray card. The auto iris
will adjust to give you the middle gray setting. Set the appropriate shutter speed on you light meter and hold it against the gray card and adjust the ASA setting on the meter until the iris reading matches the iris reading on the camera. That?s your ASA.
There are meters designed for cinematography that have more variable setting for shutter speeds, but a photo light meter can still do it - you might have to set it close instead of exact. If you?re shooting 24p the shutter speed is close to 1/48 - for 30i it?s closer to 1/60.
For those of you not using a light meter, you can still properly expose your footage using a monitor. Set up your lights and camera, look at the monitor and adjust the iris. Add more light to the subject and adjust your iris until you have the light exposed properly on the subject and the background dark.
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
quote:
Originally posted by certified instigator
To determine your cameras ASA frame up a gray card. The auto iris
will adjust to give you the middle gray setting. Set the appropriate shutter speed on you light meter and hold it against the gray card and adjust the ASA setting on the meter until the iris reading matches the iris reading on the camera. That?s your ASA.There are meters designed for cinematography that have more variable setting for shutter speeds, but a photo light meter can still do it - you might have to set it close instead of exact. If you?re shooting 24p the shutter speed is close to 1/48 - for 30i it?s closer to 1/60.
For those of you not using a light meter, you can still properly expose your footage using a monitor. Set up your lights and camera, look at the monitor and adjust the iris. Add more light to the subject and adjust your iris until you have the light exposed properly on the subject and the background dark.
So we can pretty much trust what we see on the LCD monitor build into the camera for what the tape is recording (as regards exposure, highlights, shadows, contrast, color saturation, etc?) I am using a Canon XH-A1 HDV 3CCD.
A bit off topic: On the shutter speed issue, I shoot 24p so I will go with 1/48th or so shutter speed. But the other day I tried an extremely slow shutter speed just for experimentation, 1/6 second, filming a waterfall, and the effect was interesting-- I was seeing if I could get that look from the movie "Last of the Mohicans" where they were under the waterfall, then leaped out to escape; a surreal almost slow motion effect, and I think it sort of worked, giving that dreamy effect of the water flow.
Independent Filmmaking
http://borealpictures.com
quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf
So we can pretty much trust what we see on the LCD monitor build into the camera for what the tape is recording (as regards exposure, highlights, shadows, contrast, color saturation, etc?)
Not at all. While great for framing, those LCD screens are a terrible representation of what the final shot will look like.
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
quote:
Originally posted by certified instigator
quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf
So we can pretty much trust what we see on the LCD monitor build into the camera for what the tape is recording (as regards exposure, highlights, shadows, contrast, color saturation, etc?)Not at all. While great for framing, those LCD screens are a terrible representation of what the final shot will look like.
So what is the solution? Should I buy one of those more expensive 9" monitor LCDs for a live preview of the shot? Other?
Independent Filmmaking
http://borealpictures.com
Those are expensive, but generally nice. Depending on how much you need to move around, you can just get a DVD player with inputs or a monitor that's bigger but needs battery power. I use a DVD player I got for free cause the battery was dysfunctional. I keep it plugged in, and I plan on jury-rigging a battery to it whenever I need one.
"We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis
"We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis
quote:
Originally posted by danstin studios
Those are expensive, but generally nice. Depending on how much you need to move around, you can just get a DVD player with inputs or a monitor that's bigger but needs battery power. I use a DVD player I got for free cause the battery was dysfunctional. I keep it plugged in, and I plan on jury-rigging a battery to it whenever I need one."We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis
Yeah I was thinking the same thing-- that I could buy a small portable DVD player like you take on a jetliner and that has video input. But what makes that any better than the LCD screen on the camcorder, I am unclear on that. I am using a Canon XH-A1.
quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf
quote:
Originally posted by danstin studios
Those are expensive, but generally nice. Depending on how much you need to move around, you can just get a DVD player with inputs or a monitor that's bigger but needs battery power. I use a DVD player I got for free cause the battery was dysfunctional. I keep it plugged in, and I plan on jury-rigging a battery to it whenever I need one."We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis
Yeah I was thinking the same thing-- that I could buy a small portable DVD player like you take on a jetliner and that has video input. But what makes that any better than the LCD screen on the camcorder, I am unclear on that. I am using a Canon XH-A1.
All buying a bigger lcd screen of that type will do is enlarge what you can see. Again, great for framing, but as a representation of what you're actually going to see- not that accurate. Instead of a larger lcd screen you may aswell buy a magnifier. This is why pro production monitors cost so much- what you see is really what you get.
=========================
There's daggers in mens' smiles
=========================
There's daggers in men's smiles
quote:
Originally posted by rizzo
All buying a bigger lcd screen of that type will do is enlarge what you can see. Again, great for framing, but as a representation of what you're actually going to see- not that accurate. Instead of a larger lcd screen you may aswell buy a magnifier. This is why pro production monitors cost so much- what you see is really what you get.
Looking at this site, which monitor(s) would allow me to see "reality" of what I am filming, for monitoring purposes while filming?
http://varizoom.com/monitorsindex.html
Also it seems to me that monitors are more important when shooting film compared to DV, because with film you have no idea what is being shot without a monitor. With DV, we can preview and review immediately if only using the onboard camcorder LCD. The question is how important is a monitor other than the LCD monitor and eyepiece that is already part of the camcorder?
All of the screens on that page will give you a better idea of what the shot will eventually look like than the lcd screen on the A1
=========================
There's daggers in mens' smiles
=========================
There's daggers in men's smiles
If all you need is something to preview and review immediately what you have shot then the LCD screen is fine. I was responding to your question about exposure, highlights, shadows, contrast, color saturation, etc. The LCD screen isn't good for any of that. A TFT monitor is better than the camera mounted LCD screen.
However, a good NTSC monitor is just as good for checking exposure, highlights, shadows and contrast as they will be seen in the final product. I use an off the shelf 13" CRT monitor. If checking color saturation is essential to you as you shoot then you'll need a fully calibrated NTCS screen and a wave form monitor. Check the Sony PVM-8042Q for example.
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
quote:
Originally posted by certified instigator
If all you need is something to preview and review immediately what you have shot then the LCD screen is fine. I was responding to your question about exposure, highlights, shadows, contrast, color saturation, etc. The LCD screen isn't good for any of that. A TFT monitor is better than the camera mounted LCD screen.However, a good NTSC monitor is just as good for checking exposure, highlights, shadows and contrast as they will be seen in the final product. I use an off the shelf 13" CRT monitor. If checking color saturation is essential to you as you shoot then you'll need a fully calibrated NTCS screen and a wave form monitor. Check the Sony PVM-8042Q for example.
It just seems to me (I admit inexperience here though) that with digital it would be less important on set, not unimportant just less important then when shooting film; I mean with digital you have opportunities in post to alter color saturation, hues, contrast, brightness; with film you pretty much have what you have when the shot is taken on set, although of course you could do digital intermediary and also development of the film allows some tweaking, but with digital so much can be done in post. That said of course I understand the need for watching shadows, contrast, illumination, color during the shoot, but isn't digital going to be more forgiving because so much can be done in post?
My opinion is a good monitor is considerably more important when shooting DV than when shooting film. What you see on the on camera TFT monitor isn't what the film is exposing - not even close. But it's only that - my opinion. I never even open the LCD screen on my camera during a feature shoot. I only use it when I'm doing a lot of hand held work for a reality TV show and then only for framing. I don't even trust it for focus.
Once again, my response to you was only in answer to your question about trusting the LDC screen on the camera. They just aren't as reliable as a good, separate monitor. I do not mean to suggest you must have a monitor. What YOU need in an on set monitor is what's important. If you are satisfied with the LCD screen on the camera then you don't need the expense of a production monitor.
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
Recently at a shot, when we we're shooting with a Canon XL2, we had a monitor hooked up to it, and I was assistant camera operator for one scene. We'd get everything ready on camera, focus up, and it would look really great on the LCD, but then the people on the monitor would be back there telling us we forgot to focus and that everything was looking really soft. I would come back there and I'd have to agree with them. Focus is hard to do on the LCD. But what do you guys suggest for on shoot's that would give in accurate representation of what it will look like on a TV? I've seen people who have old TV's they hooked up to batteries and they lug around. Is that accurate enough? What would be the best option for a low budget?
"We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis
"We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis
quote:
Originally posted by danstin studios
Recently at a shot, when we we're shooting with a Canon XL2, we had a monitor hooked up to it, and I was assistant camera operator for one scene. We'd get everything ready on camera, focus up, and it would look really great on the LCD, but then the people on the monitor would be back there telling us we forgot to focus and that everything was looking really soft. I would come back there and I'd have to agree with them. Focus is hard to do on the LCD. But what do you guys suggest for on shoot's that would give in accurate representation of what it will look like on a TV? I've seen people who have old TV's they hooked up to batteries and they lug around. Is that accurate enough? What would be the best option for a low budget?
dang; makes me want to use autofocus instead of manual focus since i do not have a monitor, i just have the camera and its LCD.
