XL-1 black level

[Chris Hurd]

Adrian -- there are no stupid questions in our community... have no fear and post anything you want to know. Be sure to browse the boards with the Search tool at the top of the page, you'll be surprised at all the hidden lore you'll find.

;-)

[Charles Papert]

Regarding setting the zebra at 70% for skintones:

There's so much great discussion on this board about achieving a film look with digital (so much so that there is a whole separate category for it, and I should probably post this there as well). My feeling is that skintones should be kept below 60% and more like 50% (%=IRE) to achieve a film look, if that is the desired effect. Washed-out skin tones is one of the curses of video. I tend to expose a solid stop under whatever the camera meter considers proper exposure, to achieve better saturation.

[Michael Rosenberger]

I don't claim any knowledge of shooting digital for film, so I may be off here, but 50% seems super low for skin exposure. I was taught, again for video, that 70 to 80 IRE is about right depending on lighting. Should be getting no washout or highlights in that range. On our expensive cameras we had dual zebra and set one for 75 and one for +100 to check skin and overall highlights, respectively.

A good link for exposure for DV filmaking is here
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Location/5272/expose01.htm

Good Luck.

[Don Williamson]

If you're using an XL1, probably your best bet is to adjust black level in post, if it needs adjusting. I use Apple's Final Cut Pro on a Mac and find I can do a great deal to improve detail in black/shadow areas using the "proc amp" filter, the contrast filter and color balance. Mainly, what is commonly needed is to reduce overall contrast. Proper tweaking can result in an astounding improvement of your video footage. The proc amp filter allows you to adjust black and white levels independently. Proper use allows you to minimize the blown out white effect and crushed blacks. One of the delightful qualities of High Definition TV is the greatly improved contrast ratio. To imitate this with a 1/3 inch chip DV camcorder requires a little post production "magic".

[Charles Papert]

Michael:

My preference for a lower exposure for skintones came out of a dissatisfaction with standard video footage. I too was "taught" years ago that skintones should peg at 70 IRE, and came to feel that was just another rigid engineering concept. In the film world, no-one ever recommends a "proper" exposure for skin tones, it is purely an aesthetic choice and one that should be made based on the look of the individual scene. A reduced exposure on faces will add saturation and create a richer look. When I referred to washed-out here, I didn't mean blown-out i.e. over-exposed. I just feel that a classic exposure of skintones on video nets an image that is actually a lighter tone than the face appears in person, which is to me not as flattering (unless the intention is to purposely achieve this effect).

[Michael Rosenberger]

Good stuff Charles.

I did think that when you said washed out you meant blown out. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, how video transfers to film is WAY beyond me. All things being equal with lighting I don't see why you couldn't go as low as 50 IRE. I brought up the 70 mark as a point of reference for most wedding, event and other situations were lighting is not so controlled. Trying to set IRE to 50 for skin would under exposed the picture as a whole in most cases for video on a TV.

It is the curse of video, but with larger chip cameras you can compensate better. Especially if the camera allows skin tone detail and chroma adjustments. With the Xl-1S, well...there are some pasty looking faces at times.

I haven't experimented too much with frame mode on the XL-1S, but I think it is also forgiving and seems to like the lower exposures for rich color and even video. Shot a whole fly fishing piece at Lee's Ferry on the Colorado River like that and in the clients words, "wow!"

[Rob Lohman]

Charles,

I tend to expose a little bit lower than the what my meter is
telling me as well. Gives a much better look imho. Now I only
need a (field) monitor to truly judge my images. I was wondering
though, your saying that you go a full stop below what the
meter is telling you. Which camera/lens settings do you change
and how do you know it is a full stop?

Thanks!

[Charles Papert]

Rob:

I haven't done it mathematically in years--my old Betacam method was to zoom in on a closeup, press the momentary auto exposure button on the lens, then stop down to taste from there. With the XL1, I have the B&W viewfinder set up in a way that I trust the image it presents, and I dial in the exposure based on that (on the manual lens). I think that in general, I tend to prefer an exposure that is about a stop down from what the video cameras think is good. I suppose there may be something I could do with the exposure adjustment dial on top of the camera, biasing it to meter under a stop, but I never seem to use the camera's meter as it is.

I don't know whether I should chalk all this down to experience or laziness, but it seems to work out fine in the end...!

[Michael Rosenberger]

The benefit of experience is an "accute and unwaivering sense of accuracy," I would say.
:)