Hyper Gamma 4

[Robin Probyn]

Any comments,tips, hints.. ..

Thanks

[Uli Mors]

In PDW700 and alike HG4 is the "heaviest" hypergamma curve (compressing most dynamic range into the 109% video levels)

There is a very nice explanation from sony on the sony website:

Sony : Digital Cinematography with Hypergamma : United Kingdom

Best regards

ULi

[Robin Probyn]

Ok yes thanks.. I've read the Sony stuff.. but thanks for your time sir

[Alister Chapman]

What do you want to know? Use it where you want greater latitude, but it will have less contrast. More latitude = lower contrast image when viewed on a normal TV or monitor. It's really designed to be graded, hence recording up to 109, but if you add in some negative black stretch you can make the pictures a bit more contrasty.

[Robin Probyn]

Thanks Alister yes Ive read your various articles about gamma,s .. and from the Sony site..

Yes all to be graded 10 ways to Sunday.. film rec/Hypergamma was specified as a must.. I went with 4 for latitude up to 109%.. on the same program before I was shooting with HDX900 in film rec..

One question.. I put my pana monitor to film mode in its menu.. BT900.. setting from normal.. on the logic that the pana film rec is also a higher latitude cure .. was that a good idea? also followed your advise and under exposed a bit esp faces.. and of course the VF was "darker" than Im used to seeing.. I guess thats something you get used to..

Maybe a stupid question but.. in a case of not full grade but some tweaking which is pretty easy these days. For max latitude but being on the safe side .. wouldn't hyper gamma 2 .. then be a better curve than STD5 anyway.. I'm thinking of doco shoots here.. monitor for interviews but not when hand held run and gun..

Thanks again

[Doug Jensen]

What difference does it make if you have a monitor or not -- or what it's settings are? You shouldn't be judging exposure or dynamic range with a monitor because it may or may not have any relevance to what is actually being recorded. Show me two monitors, and I'll show you two different pictures.

Judging exposure with a monitor is akin to judging audio by how it sounds in your headphones instead of looking at the meters.

To answer your question, yes HG 2 (or any of the hypergammas) is going to be better than STD5.

[Robin Probyn]

Yes I wouldn't take the monitor as gospel.. but I,ll plug it in and have a look when possible.. Im not getting vector scopes etc out in the field on a doc shoot..

I judge exposure all the time from the VF of my own camera,s.. I agree tricky on a camera thats not your own.. are you a studio cameraman Doug.. on doc,s its very different..

Thanks

[Doug Jensen]

I do about 80% of my shooting outdoors in fast-moving situations and all I need for exposure is my zebras and nothing more. I never want to spend time grading or correcting footage so it is important to me to nail my final "look" right in the camera. I never judge exposure or color by the image in the viewfinder -- not even with the $12K C35W on my F800. No viewfinder is good enough, and your eye and judgement is too influenced by external factors to be trusted. It's the same reason a good pilot will trust his instruments even if it doesn't feel right to him at the time.

[Uli Mors]

Hey Doug,

"...is akin to judging audio by how it sounds in your headphones instead of looking at the meters."

Wow - I totally disagree. How do you "read" a bad sound on the meters? Thats the reason why good soundengineers bring their own "trusty" headphones or monitors.

OK - judging exposure is a bit more scientific , thats what zebras are there for.
And I quite often ran into situations, where an underexposed pic still looked great in my C35WR... (that thing looks toooooo good), cheating me...

As always, its a matter of training and knowing your own production equipment well. For example I am quite well trained to shoot with my Astroh DM3105. It always takes some minutes to get used to it, but after a while I can rely on it (and it shows WFM too).

my 2c.

best regards

ULi

[Alister Chapman]

Were not flying planes, we are supposedly producing images that are as well as technically correct also artistic. There is scope to push and pull exposure, zebras are a guide only, a tool to help. When I used to shoot S16 it was normal to take an exposure reading of a scene and then adjust the exposure up or down based on what I saw with my eyes. Do I want to favour shadows or highlights, is this scene meant to be bright or meant to be dark. Video is no different. The Hypergammas remain moderately linear to about 75%, so provided you keep mid tones and skin tones below about 70% you shouldn't have any issues with small push or pulls in post. I believe a well known or well calibrated viewfinder monitor is by far and away the most useful piece of exposure equipment on the set. I haven't used zebras for years, don't need them, don't want them, they push you to expose everything the same instead of using light and shadow to help tell the story. The viewer doesn't care whether faces are 65% or not, all they want is a pleasing image, exposed creatively.

Consider a simple scene, two people at opposite ends of a room. One standing in the light coming from a window, one sat in a dark corner. Your doing three separate shots an wide showing both actors and one of each actor. Do you expose both faces the same or do you allow the darker one to fall into the shadows? Do you just use zebras to get both the same or do you use a monitor and your judgement to evaluate just how dark you can allow the dark shot to be before it becomes too dark? How can you do this without resorting to using your viewfinder or monitor?

S-Log and Log curves are a little different because the mid range exposure window is very narrow. This forces you to be much more precise with the upper limits of your mid tone exposure, so for these you do need to actually measure or meter your exposure levels and then rely on the extended dynamic range and post production grading to achieve the look you want. You can under expose, but the overexposure window is much smaller.

I'm not going to get into yet another exposure debate with Doug. He has his method and it obviously works well for him. I have my own and it works very well for me. We will never agree on this particular subject, that's fine. I've said what I want to say.

[Uli Mors]

Perhaps its a good idea to sort out WHAT has to be filmed. Do we shoot "scenic" way or ENG style.

Last one usually (interviews and alike) ask for a proper (aka 70%) exposure - Zebras are a big help with that.

Shooting scenic is undoubtly something Alister describes.

Again, know your tools, see what results come up with either method, dont hesitate to shoot experiments and talk with your friendly editor.

[Doug Jensen]

Deleted.
Changed my mind about posting on this topic. I've got better things to do than to go down this slippery slope.

[Robin Probyn]

Hi Doug

Im a freelance cameraman,Im not shooting my own productions.In all these shoots for natgeo/discovery/BBC etc they are always graded to some extent.. some more than others..and they actively don't want a baked in look..not a case of just shooting at any exposure and "fixing in post" but the idea that the footage straight from the camera has to be perfect is not the case.. its like the difference of shooting reversal or negative.. neg is much the better way to go because of the latitude it gave you. a good grader/colorist can do far more than can ever be baked into a in camera look.But it does add to the budget.
Perfection is not mandatory in fim rec or HG. .. they are designed for grading ,the total opposite of what you state .. even REC709 ..doesnt need to be perfect from the camera.Ive been on sets with the tech guys wanting to throw themselves under a bus because some reading is too high or low.. but the picture is great.. and well within tech parameters ..

If you are doing it all yourself and its just a finical consideration to not want to do any grading then thats your choice and of course you would want to have the picture looking exactly as you want it,as you have no choice anyway..

Im with Alister here.. never use Zebra,s.. consistent exposure from shot to shot could work for a shoot all set in the same location at the same time of day under uniformed flat lighting.. if not, you run the risk of consistently boring lighting and mood..
Where do you set your zebra,s with a very high contrast scene.. you are forced to make a judgement of your own .. for the mood and the look.. how can an electronic readout decide that for you.. Are the interiors s of The Godfather 1 and 2 badly light.. studio exc,s at the time claimed so because they were paying $1 million for Brando and you could see him properly.. but once the film made a fortune due to its mood and feel.. they were quick to acclaim their expert choice of Gordon Willis as DP.. ok we are not shooting feature films but the thinking is the same.. even on docs.. no one at home is writing into the BBC about the fantastic chroma levels achieved in Dr Who or Sherlock..


Using and trusting your own eyes,with tech knowledge to make a valued judgement must be the corner stone of any type of photography .. I don't want to be on the plane where the pilot flies into a mountain when he can see it but computer says its not there..

[Doug Jensen]

Sounds like you've got it all figured out, so I'm done with this thread. Good luck.

[Robin Probyn]

Hi Doug

Sorry please don't take anything personally.. its a forum right... I just put my thoughts..a part from don't ever trust your own eye or a monitor.. and stick with Zebra readings..(in the field) I havnt heard in any detail how your system would say cope with a high contrast scene.. I would honestly be interested to know how you shoot like this .. for a most basic ENG at a beginners level (which of course I know you are not !!) I can see this is belt and braces rock solid advise.. but anything beyond that I can't see how it works.. but totally willing to learn something new..

Thanks