On zebra 1 if you were to set the level to 70% and the Aperture range to 20%, does that mean the range is equally spread either side of 70%? Thus you see zebras at 60% and they disappear at 80% or does it mean the only occur after 70%, thus between 70% to 90%.

Also I've not had the option of apertured zebras before, so what are their main applications?

The first. But personally I would set a much tighter (narrower) aperture or it will be far to imprecise to be useful.

Agree with Andy, 10 over 10 under, also prefer to set skin tone Zebs at 65% on non log shoots. I find the stock 70% a bit high for Caucasians. Especially those white white skinned Irish lasses!

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

I wouldn't set exposure based on anybody's skin tone. Skin tone is a complete unknown value that varies greatly from face to face -- even if you do only shoot Caucasians. And here in the US, where we are just as likely to be shooting blacks, latinos, and asians, it is an especially poor practice to base exposure on skin. It really amounts to guessing. I prefer to be more precise.

And I'd never use Zebra1 on any camera that offers the much better Zebra2 alternative. No matter how small you make the aperture for Zebra1, that aperture will not provide precision I need, and worse, if the exposure exceeds the aperture, zebras disappear again and I might not even realize I have exceeded the targeted exposure. A recipe for disaster.

So in what scenarios will zebra 1 be useful?

Question then Doug. How do you set your exposures? I use Zebs as a guide to get me in the ball park. Given the opportunity I always use scopes and a known setup monitor for final adjustment.

If covering a fast moving basketball game or worse still outdoor football match you don't have that luxury though. Yesterday the stadium we were in was half in sun and half in deep shadow. Keeping the Zebs on the players legs is the only way we can keep 8-10 cameras, if not on CCUs, within a bulls rush of one another. Leave it up to the camera ops and there is too much inconsistency in exposures between the cameras. At least telling the ops to keep the Zebs consistently on the the skin tones gives us a pretty close exposure variance between cameras. Then again I know a few cameraman who never use any measurement means other than a well set up VF and consistently get get some of the best exposed footage I've seen. All comes down to the skill of the operator.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

So in what scenarios will zebra 1 be useful?

None that I can think of. Not one.

Question then Doug. How do you set your exposures?

I use zebra2 to set expsoure 100% of the time. It is never turned off and I live an die by what my zebras are telling me. I could not set exposure without them. But I judge exposure by zebras on white -- not skin. Skin is too variable and the levels required for zebra to appear on skin also also means zebras are going be cluttering up too much of the image. A mess. White is what you want to set exposure by. Bright reflected white is a very consistent and reliable consistent indicator of exposure that is found all around us. In your example of sports, I'm sure that one team is almost always wearing white in their uniform. Easy.

All comes down to the skill of the operator.

Not true. There are rules and right and wrong ways of doing things for exposure. Why do we have light meters, waveforms, histograms, zebras, false color, and zebras if we could just eyeball it and by the seat of our pants? The attitude that it "works for me and I get the results I want" is always the refuge of people who really don't want to learn and/or use the proper techniques. The camera has a great built-in exposure tool (several actually) that requires no effort to use and actually take all the guess work out of setting exposure, so why not use it?

"I'm sure that one team is almost always wearing white in their uniform."

If only that were the case Doug. if you are on the tight camera with only three to four players in the shot through out the whole game and there is nothing white in their game strips white is not an option. Take the new Zealand national team the "All Blacks" for example, dressed in total black strip. Occasionally you might get a white football post in the shot but that's of little use.

As can be seen a lot of shooters work with Zeb #1 so I don't think one can out of hand say "None that I can think of. Not one." You may find that the case but I can assure you there are many very good cameramen out there who produce great results and use Zebra #1 all or most of the time.

https://community.sony.com/t5/FS7/How-to-properly-expose-S-Log/td-p/486569


Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

We'll have to agree to disagree because after shooting for 38 years with nothing but zebra 2 as my exposure guide, in every l kind of situation you can imagine, has never failed me or left me guessing at my exposure.

BTW, there are things being said in the thread you linked to that are absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong. Things that are are not open to interpretation and actually do a disservice to fellow professionals who may take it as gospel. If you want to listen to advice form people who's videos we have never seen (and therefore can't judge the results they claim are so fantastic), or an engineer pretending to be a cinematographer but has very little professional real-world shooting experience, then you are welcome to go down that path. But that doesn't make it right, or the best way of operating the camera. Can I drive a nail with a screwdriver? Yes. But there is a better tool in the tool box for that called a hammer. Can someone get results they like with Zebra1 or by just looking at the viewfinder and making a judgement call, yes. But is there a better tool in the tool box for such things -- a tool that makes life easier and produces consistently more accurate and more consistent results. YES!

Are we really debating what is "proper" exposure and what is not?

It's an impossible question to answer. In the studio, where you control the lighting, things are allot easier. But when you are out in the field you need to make 1000 judgement calls that many times involves blowing out something to rescue something else that is more important.

Imagine a brown grizzly bear at the edge of a raging BRIGHT white waterfall catching salmon. The bear gets one and he's ripping the fish open and dark red blood is all over his teeth,....you have a snap judgement call, you gotta get into his dark face and capture that dark bloody drama even if it means clipping the hell out of that white water behind him. Shooting in uncontrolled situations many times means throwing away and sacrificing image to "save" other areas that are more important.

Then of course, there will always be 1 guy that says,..."ehh...you were 2 stops too much" and another will say: "Nah,...you were 2 stops under, there's not enough inside that bear for us to lift out" The colorist will always Monday morning quarterback. Hell if you are the colorist, you prolly will do that to yourself too!

In terms of "rules". I dont know. You see allot of commercials today and even Hollywood movies that are shot and graded with the "rules" completely thrown out the Window.

Look at "Mad Max: Fury Road"...it's great movie but look at how it was shot, look at how it was exposed? Look at how it was framed and the "rule of thirds" (or lack of it) My God,...look how that movie was color graded. Look at the "Revenant", an excellent movie. Notice how each of those scenes were exposed. These movies follow ZERO "rules". They burned the rule book for proper exposure.

I guess I'm just simply trying to say that there isn't any hard and fast "rule" in any video production that cant be broken. It really boils down to this:

DOES THE END RESULT LOOK GOOD?

If the answer is "no",..you screwed up. If the answer is "yes" than it's mission complete.

Everyone's opinion is different about what looks's "good" and what doesn't. So that's why this whole thing is an impossible question to answer.

I do find this funny: If you make something that looks great....some people are FAR more interested in the "steps" that you took to get there. Yes,..it's awesome...but did you take the "proper" road to get to awesome or did you take the "wrong" road to reach awesome.

CT ;-)

Are we really debating what is "proper" exposure and what is not?

It sounds like maybe you are, but I am not. Contrary to what some people say, "correct" exposure is not a debatable topic.

If you exclude theatrical or dramatic reasons for purposely choosing to underexpose or an overexpose a scene,exposure is either right or it is not. Obviously there's some shoulder area where it can still be close enough as to be acceptable, but there is only one point where video is correctly exposed. That is not up for debate. And I also contend that the fastest, easiest, and most consistent method of hitting that correct exposure by using zebra2 on a white target. Very simple and no guessing. The question shouldn't be "does it look good?" . .. it should be "does it look the best it could be?" THAT is mission complete.

What I'm trying to say, and maybe I'm not doing a good job at it, is that many times in nature, no camera captures all the dynamic range of a shot. Therefore, as the cameraman, you are stuck with the decision of what to get in your (let's say) rec709 6-7 stops of range. What "objects" you expose perfectly and what you throw away in the highlights or in the shadows is up to you.

Are you shooting a spectacular ultra bright cloud formation shaped like President Obama? Great!....protect every tiny sun lit detail even if it means sacrificing the puppy in the dark shade under a tree.

Now your friend might see your video and say "Oh man, why did you protect those stupid clouds like that?...I wanted to see more of that cool dog way down there in the shade!!" Who is right and who is wrong?

You pick what's important and balance it with the rest of the scene based on how critical it is. This is why cameras auto exposure is wrong many times. It might be overall very balanced on the histogram but it doesn't know that those clouds that look like the President.....are extremely special to the shot!!!!

I'm only trying to say there is a big judgement call based on the importance of various scene elements. Scopes, zebras and histograms are VITAL tools but there is still a little more to exposing some shots than just "metrics".

Hell,...I look at commercials all the time and I say, "ehh...+1ev....eh, -1ev....yeah, just right...etc" Sometimes these guys go over and under for artsy looks. Who am I to say they made their commercial or TV show wrong?

CT

We all know this, right?

Only slightly off topic - I use an exercise I have my students do to help understand exposure and what you can do with it. (It's an exercise I originally got from photographer Jerry Lake when I was taking his course at the Corcoran). Students need to take the 'same' shot at three different exposures -- but they need to find a shot where the exposure changes result in images that have different (and valid) meaning, depending on the exposure. Many of the students use windows (silhouette with detail outside vs different degrees of being 'blown out') - but I've been amazed by some of the other exposure-dependent images they've come up with! It's to help them understanding that exposure really is one of the creative choices placed in the hands of the cinematographer.

Right on Dave!

Numbers and measurements are important. I will never argue or put this down.

However, the aesthetic "look" of what "things" you are exposing and visually bringing attention to is where the "art" comes in. Exposure tools don't exactly make these decisions for you. They just give your more information to base your creative judgement on.

CT

You know, it's really easy to come up with all kinds of unique situations where standard exposure techniques won't work very well or where creative decisions or judgements about setting the exposure may be the only choice. Should I give you my examples too? What those situations come down to is exposing for the most important subject in the frame, and everything else is allowed to suffer as necessary. Fine. I do that too. Every pro does.

But those extreme examples aren't the norm and isn't really what this thread about. I'm addressing the other 99% of the time when there are rules that must be followed, there is one correct exposure, and there are fast, quick and easy techniques that can be used to ensure consistency and accuracy. That is what I am talking about. What happens the other 1% of the time is not the norm.

"DOES THE END RESULT LOOK GOOD?"

As Cliff states. This is the final arbiter as to how you will be judged on your work. There is no hard and fast rule on how you expose. It comes down to the dynamics of the camera you are shooting with, whether it's film or digital, how the subject matter is lit, what is the most important part of the image that you want exposed as correctly as possible.

Don't hold back Doug, you say you use Zeb #2 100% of the time. Understand that Doug but what levels are you setting Zeb #2 at in the various Custom, CineGamma and LOG modes. Unless you can give us guidance here on the levels used we have nothing to go on to judge your assertion that Zeb #2 is the only way to go. As you would surely know that in Cine-EI white clip changes with ISO and LUT settings. It would be nice to see some empirical data to help convince me that Zeb #2 is the only way to go. Please convince me I'm always keen to learn :))

If Zebra #1 has so little use I am somewhat bemused then at the number of shooters I know who use it extensively with award winning results. I guess I also have to ask then why have Sony and the like have gone to multi thousands of $$$'s development of Zebra #1 capabilities and Zeb #2 of course in their cameras over the years if Zebra #1 is so useless. Sorry I can't agree with your sweeping statement that Zeb #1 has little value. So yes I guess we agree to disagree on that point.

Also somewhat bemused by your comment that in 38 years you never used anything but Zeb #2, that puts you back to around 1978. I was also around then, having started in the industry before that even. I can stand correction on this but I seem to recall the first Zebras I saw were the 70IRE Zebs which were on the 300 line BVP-300 which from memory we didn't receive until the late 70's, in fact around about '78. At any rate that's all bye the bye. To me I use Zebra #2 at 90% white much like I used to use a spot meter for peaks in film and Zebra #1 much like and Incidence Invercone reading for average exposure indications. All these exposure tools are but guides. It's up to the cameraman to use them to the best of his ability but in the end the final judgement is made by the human operator and that judgement is based on his skill and experience.

For me one of the people who has encapsulated good theory on exposure most succinctly in the modern digital shooting environment of extended dynamic range cameras in their various shooting modes is Art Adams. He is another one who states:

"I still set exposure largely by eye using a calibrated viewfinder, but if I saw a diffuse white object on the set I could check my exposure using zebra 1 and see if it was actually exposed to be 90% white (75 IRE on that particular gamma curve). If not, I made a little aperture tweak to place that object at the 90% white value for whatever mode I was in, and the result was almost always a slight improvement."

Each man to his own poison I guess, that's democracy!

The Sensation of White: Why I Set Zebras for 90% White Instead of White Clip by Art Adams - ProVideo Coalition (http://www.provideocoalition.com/the-sensation-of-white/)

Back to Cliff's statement:

"DOES THE END RESULT LOOK GOOD?"

Nuff said I think.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

@Doug- Happens to wildlife shooters all the time. Hell, I was just shooting a green parrots nest in a very high palm tree. The sky was cloudy white but still super bright and the angle I had was almost straight up at those birds. I was pissed cause I had to over expose the crap out of it to get in that nest well. (and I was out of zoom)

This is not unusual, this is common when shooting wildlife. You cant use lighting, you cant compete with the sun, you can't tell the animals to move and sometimes you cant even change your own angle.

But yes, I agree, these situations are unfortunate and undesirable. What you may be protesting are the guys that over expose or under expose deliberately. Or, maybe the "cinematic wedding" videographer who goes wide open on heavy ND with a 3 inch DoF on the bride outside and blasts her with tons of "heavenly", glowing, sunlight. He takes his lens hood off and forces as much blinding lens flare as he possibly can in the shot. He gives her that all pure white, clipped-off "angel in the clouds" look? Is it "that guy" that you are upset with? lol

I dunno Doug. I'm seeing so much stuff on TV today (drama, NOT ENG work) that goes for that "artsy" and very "edgy" overly bright or overly dark look.To get those extremely "stylized" looks, you need to sometimes bend the rules. Who knows where they are exposing things in the field but in post?,...Hell, we all know about "day for night" shooting too!!...but at the very least, they are certainly shifting tones all around heavily to get those looks in post.

Again,...for an ENG industry guy, this is a sin. In news, you stay in range and you capture broadcast legal.

CT

Question for Doug....

So using zebra 2 (at 100%) on an Sony FS5 your visual on white would be a total zebra or just the beginning of seeing zebra for the best exposure?

Thanks in advance,

Dano

You know, it's really easy to come up with all kinds of unique situations where standard exposure techniques won't work very well or where creative decisions or judgements about setting the exposure may be the only choice. Should I give you my examples too? What those situations come down to is exposing for the most important subject in the frame, and everything else is allowed to suffer as necessary. Fine. I do that too. Every pro does.

But those extreme examples aren't the norm and isn't really what this thread about. I'm addressing the other 99% of the time when there are rules that must be followed, there is one correct exposure, and there are fast, quick and easy techniques that can be used to ensure consistency and accuracy. That is what I am talking about. What happens the other 1% of the time is not the norm.

This just aired tonight across the entire US. You have darker color skin on a dark suit under a shady roof with some intense sun behind him. Scopes show 100 IRE slammed up there VERY hard. (graphic is taking up allot of that space too) You can image what his 100% zebras look like in that background. I'm betting there is allot more harsh white in the scene behind that lower third too.

Is this that rare "1%" that you are talking about? Is this "properly" or "correctly" exposed in your opinion? Or, should he have pulled those highlights down and pushed the president's face and his suit down to the bottom of his scopes?

Me?, without being there myself, I'd guess he did the right thing. He was forced over pretty badly to protect the important object of his shot. I also don't think this is in any way a "rare" 1% problem when shooting outdoors.

Just my humble opinion....

Question for Doug....

So using zebra 2 (at 100%) on an Sony FS5 your visual on white would be a total zebra or just the beginning of seeing zebra for the best exposure?

Thanks in advance,

Dano

Hi Dano,

You've got the right idea of how it works, but your number is wrong. The correct Zebra2 value to use depends on the paint menu choices you have made -- with your choice of Gamma being the most critical setting. Different Gammas require different exposures.

BTW, there is more to setting exposure that just making sure nothing clips. That's how DSLR RAW photographers shoot stills, but video is different. Simply not clipping highlights -- does not equal good exposure.

So 92% might be the correct target for one Picture Profile, while 88% might be the correct target for another Picture Profile. But with that said, 100% would almost always be wrong because that would put whites unnaturally elevated. I have never seen a good Picture Profile or a Scene File that was designed for 100% whites.

And if you are shooting with an S-LOG gamma, your zebras need to be a lot lower than 100%. In fact, down around only 60% if you want to follow Sony's advice (BTW, that is advice I do not agree with, but that is a subject for another day).

Also, it depends on whether you are shooting for a WYSIWYG look (with no grading planned) or if you'll be grading in post. Each of those two workflows, which are also determined by your choice of Picture Profile, would require a different exposure level. This is why when I provide Picture Profiles and Scene Files in my workshops, training videos, and camcorder field guide books I always suggest a Zebra2 setting to use that will ensure the best results. Giving someone a Picture Profile without telling them how to expose for it would be like giving someone a cookie recipe without telling them how to bake it after the ingredients have been mixed.

But here is the key: Once you have chosen your Gamma/Picture Profile -- then the best Zebra2 number that goes with those settings can be locked-in and followed religiously except for a few extreme and unusual situations. For 99% of most setups you can trust your zebra to nail the exposure. It takes the guess work out of exposing and provides extremely consistent footage from shot to shot.

If someone creates their own Picture Profile or Scene File from scratch then they will need to also go through a few steps to determine how it should be exposed. But once that number has been determined, they are good to go from that point on. Easy and reliable.

As for how much zebras you want to see covering the white target, that is something that varies a little bit from camera to camera model and an operator must practice a little with his/her camera to get proficient. On the FS5, where the zebras stripes are too bold and kind of crude, I normally want a white target to be showing a lot of zebra, but not totally covered. On my FS7 and F55 I would allow a different amount of zebras, but the overall idea is the same. And let's be honest, the difference between having full zebras vs. partial zebras on something like a white card is only a fraction of an f-stop. Well within the margin of error.

I hope that helps point you in the right direction, even if it isn't a totally complete explanation. That would require more time that I have today.

But going back to the original Zebra 1 concept, I don't think we should trivialize its potential usefulness in many documentary situations. And knowing and being able to set not just the midpoint level, but also adjust the min/max range for them to display is a great feature. While it's great to be able to set up with a white card or grey scale to preset exposure, these are not options for many of the shooting situations we're often faced with in documentary, political or event situations. Following a subject as they move continuously from room to room or inside to outside, adjusting iris while shooting a complete Broadway show with well over a hundred lighting cue changes, or my favorite pet peeve of being in an interview line situation where the crews to either side of you (and they pack you in about every 2' - the width of a narrow 2-step ladder) are constantly turning their sunguns (and in some cases astra lights or 1x1 panels as well) on and off and re-aiming them for their celeb interviews while you are continuing to shoot your interviews. It's really convenient to know where Zebra 1 is set and how it plays on the subject, so that when the light on them suddenly increases by a stop and a half it can be brought within range. There's no pause/reset time option, you just have to go with the flow and make everything as usable as possible, often rolling straight through from one interview into the next into the next - and that's when having a zebra reference in the skin tone range is useful. Maybe this is just a small niche use, but I think most of the other 30-40 camerapeople on the Tony awards arrival line with me last Sunday worked the same way.

+ 1 To that.

Exactamundo D.S! Couldn't have put it better myself. That's exactly where I use Zeb#1 a great deal of the time. Under those, as much as I hate the expression, real "run 'n gun" situations were every second your lighting can change and you just have to get it right on the fly and it usually the peoples faces that are the most important area of your shot regardless of their skin type or color. All the while playing elbow bash and shoulder shove with your compatriot camera ops :))

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Over the years camera manufactures have added tools to cameras to help us. Tools such as zebras. If 70% zebras are really so un-helpful and such a terrible thing, why is it that the default zebra level on just about every video camera sold to day 70%.

I don't think this is an accident or mistake, it is because it is actually very useful. While I am not advocating exposing every single face at 70%, knowing where your skin tones sit can be very useful. If you know where 70% is, you can choose to expose those skintone darker or brighter than this with a simple twist of the iris ring.

Similarly zebras at 90% can be useful for white with Rec-709 if you want the correct technically perfect exposure of a 100% evenly illuminated front lit scene. Sadly many real world scenes are not evenly illuminated, working on a shady side of an otherwise bright street, shooting into the sun, in rooms with uneven lighting. In these cases zebras are a useful guide, but the real skill comes form correctly interpreting what your chosen guides are telling you and adjusting the exposure to provide the best compromise for the type of scene you wish to capture.

If it really was as simple as "white at 90%" there would be no need to ever use manual exposure as auto exposure would always be perfect.

+1

Alister - "If it really was as simple as "white at 90%" there would be no need to ever use manual exposure as auto exposure would always be perfect."

I think Alister says this well. In my opinion, "metrics" are not the determining factor of "proper" exposure. It's the operators "judgement" that does this job. The "metrics" provides the vital tools to help make that decision. Going over or under those values are OFTEN necessary. You have a limited capture range and you often need get what's "important" in that range and sometimes sacrifice other areas to do so.

There is no automatic camera logic that always knows what is "important" and what is not. Example, a very dark grizzly bear's face in front of an extremely bright white waterfall. If you adjust for white, sure, you have nice detail in the water but your bear is now a shadowy silhouette. This could be "proper" exposure in terms of the metrics of highlights, but if the show is about bear eating salmon, than the exposure is "wrong" because you can't see the fish he is swallowing in his mouth. The "proper" exposure would be to open up, burn that waterfall and get down into his shadow to see his teeth ripping apart that salmon and capture that dark red blood all over his face. That's the "important" part of the shot. It could be a "wrong" exposure from a metric point of view but it's a completely right exposure from a "narrative" point of view.

Nobody cares about that background waterfall...except the camera's auto exposure logic...right?

This is just 1 example of 100 billion that we see everyday out there. Hopefully we can get away with 1/2 stop over or under but sometimes we are forced to go more. Obviously studio work is a 101% a completely different world in terms of exposure.

Metric values in exposure don't override good "narrative" judgement in exposure!

CT

Wow, I wish I had the time to write a proper reply, I really do. There's an awful lot of bad information being spewed here that really does a disservice to people who might want to actually learn the correct way of operating their camera. Really sad. But I can't spend the time it would take to go point by point correcting what is being said here so I won't bother even trying. I've already spent too much time on this. The old phrase, "You can lead a horse to water . . ." comes to mind. Anything I say will just lead to more arguments and excuses from people who will never acknowledge there is a reason why professionals use light meters, waveforms, histograms, zebras, and other tools to achieve exposure with precision. If guessing were good enough, we wouldn't need any of those tools. So I'm going just to voice my opinion that a lot of the info being posted on this thread is dead wrong -- or would only be applicable in the most unusual situations -- and really have no bearing on the other 99.9% of situations we find ourselves shooting. Why waste time taking about extremely rare and unusual circumstances, as if that would help someone learn to shoot the rest of the time? If someone wants to follow the advice from someone who has repeatedly promoted the lazy and amateur practice of "exposing by eye from what the viewfinder looks like" (in other threads) then they get what they deserve. Exposure precision is necessary, easy, and quite possible to achieve for any professional who wants to bother doing it. Anyone who tells you differently is wrong.

Doug Jenson - "So I'm going just to voice my opinion that a lot of the info being posted on this thread is dead wrong -- or would only be applicable in the most unusual situations -- and really have no bearing on the other 99.9% of situations we find ourselves shooting."

In a few posts up, we have a dark skinned president giving a speech under shaded cover in front of a very bright street and park. That background is blown out dirty style. I can imagine that guys monitor with zebras all around the president. I feel for that camera guy but he HAD to get the President. He just cant bring the background in range and turn Obama into a faceless, talking silhouette.

Do you think this is a rare or "unusual" problem? I think we have all been in stuck in this situation a million times in our lives!

It's NOT about "guessing" or "eye balling it" either. When you are over or under exposing,...YOU KNOW IT when you are doing it. Most of the time you are gritting your teeth and saying "damnit!" as you are doing it. Obviously, if we are all paying attention, we all know full well when it's happening but we do it anyway for a "REASON".

Yes, there ARE "reasons" to under and over expose and they are not "rare" when shooting outdoors.

CT.

From Wikipedia

..."Correct" exposure may be defined as an exposure that achieves the effect the photographer intended....

Succinct and to the point.

And while it is also correct to say that with Rec-709, 90% reflectance white is represented by 90 IRE, it should also be remembered that Rec-709 is a DISPLAY standard, not a camera standard and in fact 90 IRE is also supposed to result in an on screen brightness of precisely 100 nits. But 100 nits in a typical daytime living room is very dim, so most TV's get cranked up so that 90 IRE is much, much brighter, typically 300 nits with a decent LCD TV. So if we are adjusting the display to compensate for different viewing environments should we not also adjust the exposure brightness for different capture environments. 90% white is a very useful engineering reference level to know, but it is just that, an engineering reference.

Most of us will be aware that daytime TV shows tend to be extremely brightly lit while evening chat shows lit less brightly. A large part of the reason for that is because during daytime viewing brighter images tend to look better while in the evenings in darker living rooms lower key scenes are more pleasing.

I always find it a quite fascinating exercise to download a few movies or high end dramas and look at where white is or skin tones are. White is rarely 90% and skin tones are typically around 50%. I've attached some samples from a few randomly selected movies that I picked a few years ago. Skin tones fall between 45 and 60%, so that means white would fall between 65 and 80%, yet I doubt anyone thought these movies were under exposed.

The human visual system is very good at adapting to differing brightness levels. Show it something we know from experience to be white and it will accept it as white over a wide range of on screen brightness levels.

Doug: You call me an "engineer pretending to be a cinematographer". Yet you are the one taking the engineering approach to a creative craft. Always expose white at 90% according to the meter. You can't get a more engineered approach to exposure than that. (Why oh why Doug do you always have to resort to derogatory comments, personal attacks and put downs when people offer alternate approaches).

A huge amount of the TV and film production community choose to expose differently to that. These are not people guessing, dead wrong, spewing bad information nor are these rare or uncontrolled circumstances. These are extremely experienced people at the top of their game.

Doug,

Thank you for the answer to my question.

PS...Your Vimeo stream service on the Sony FS5 rocks...


Dano

Alister is spot on here and I bet virtually all that are reading this would agree.

Today, in this industry, there is almost nothing that requires ONE and ONE WAY only to do something. There is so much "rule" bending these days. Hollywood guys WAY over and under expose shots to create "edgy" looking scenes. Hell, forget Hollywood, Commercials and TV dramas too. We have established cinematographers shooting major studio movie scenes with DSLR cameras and lenses. TV shows like "House" shot with 5D-III's. Philip Bloom shooting gorgeous "Wonder List" scenes on CNN with his A7s. This kind of thing used to be laughed at by industry "pros" not too long ago.

My point is. We have billions of media hours shot over exposed, under exposed, with deliberately bad lighting with cameras that are not "proper" for broadcast at all,...let alone "Hollywood" level production.

And allot of it looks AWESOME!!!

People cant get caught up in hard and fast "rules" for "proper" approved ways of doing things. They cant say they that somebody else is "wrong" because something was not done according to rigid traditional production rules.

Yes, for the nightly news, or in the studio, these levels and doing procedures right all have have their proper place. If you are doing a 60 min interview, you are going to go for a very traditional conventional look. However, there is a completely different creative world too where all these rules that are taught on instructional videos MIGHT NOT APPLY.

"Proper" exposure is what the camera guy and the colorist determine it to be for narrative and artistic reasons and not because of ONLY where these values fall on the scopes.

There are MANY ways to do things, not just one. There is not ONE way to expose a scene and everything else is "wrong". A true "cinematographer" would understand this?

Also, to put people down for simply having a different opinion or having a different way of thinking is also pretty arrogant too.

CT

Always expose white at 90% according to the meter. .

I'm just going to respond to this one comment, and then leave it at that. You guys can have the last word, because I really don't care enough to discuss it further and I do stand behind every thing I've posted on this thread.

But for the record, I have NEVER recommended the practice of always exposing white at 90%. I've never said that. And I don't see how what I have said contradicts the examples you guys are bringing up. Yeah, different programs and scenes have different styles. No kidding! We are in agreement much more than you think. I never even said the that "correct" exposure would not be different for two people shooting the same scene for different purposes, tastes, styles, or gammas. You are reading things into my posts that I never said. Our difference in opinion is not so much about WHAT is the correct exposure, as much as it is about the proper METHOD to measure and/or attain that correct exposure. There is a big difference between those two things and was really the original topic of this whole thread before it went off the rails.

So, with that one correction, I'll leave you guys to beat this dead horse all you want. The floor is yours . . .

It sounds like maybe you are, but I am not. Contrary to what some people say, "correct" exposure is not a debatable topic.


I thought I'd better post one more time just to beat someone to the punch who will surely throw this quote of mine in my face as proof that I am contradicting myself in later posts. So I'll clarify. Two people may not agree on what the right exposure in a given situation should be. Perhaps I want 80% whites while someone else wants 85% whites, etc. Another person's target may be 50% skin tones. Obviously we have different tastes, styles, grading workflows, scene files, delivery destinations, moods to set, times of day to capture, etc. The definition of "correct" exposure may very well be different for different people. But with that said, once that exposure target or goal has been determined by the individual, after that there is only one correct exposure and anything else is a deviation from the target. And what a professional needs is a way of measuring exposure quickly reliably, and with precision to hit that target consistently. No guessing and no exposing by eyeball in the viewfinder. If that makes sense to someone, great, if not, you are free to follow your own path.

Much better post Doug. You didn't insult or throw any daggers at anybody.

This is a big improvement and I'm proud of you.

CT ;-)