How to Properly Expose a Video. Like a Real Cinematographer.

Grey card:

Light meter:

[csselement]

This guy is a pro at talking a lot and saying very little.

[doylelacrua]

I gotta be honest, I don't think this really explained anything.

[Supercon]

When I first got into cameras I was obsessed with learning everything and got caught up on "correct exposure" but quickly realized it was way more complex than just a straight forward answer
It depends on what you're looking at, what you're trying to bring attention too or away from, how bright it's supposed to be for the narrative
Sometimes you let the highlights blow, sometimes you let things fall into the shadows
The more you shoot, the more practice you get, the more you understand when to do what

[Stealt]

I think the best way to explain exposure in this instance is to demonstrate how you expose a particular scene and reason why the lighting is deemed to be correct.

[mmp]

How to properly expose a video
Him : By being good at it

[loudandclearmedia]

Interesting that there's no mention of false color.

[TeddyCavachon]

I learned lighting using B&W negative film with the axiom “Expose for the shadows / develop for highlights (to fit the dynamic range of the print paper. I shot my first portraits back in 1970s with a pair of shop lights with tungsten bulbs based on the advice in a Kodak “How to” book on portrait lighting which had the following instructions: 1) set aperture for desired DOF; 2) put a Fill light on the camera axis above camera and head of subject so the shadow it created fell straight back and down out of sight and the fill reached everything the lens recorded and set intensity distance so the shadow detail was recorded on the darkest clothing, then; 3) overlap the off axis Key light over the centered “neutral” fill and change it’s power / distance until the white clothing and skin are correctly exposed with detail and separation with the specular reflections from the lights.

Doing the same thing with a digital camera matches the contrast of the scene lighting at the subject distance EXACTLY to the range of the camera sensor with detail above the noise floor recorded in the shadows and detail and separation between smooth white objects and the specular reflections from the lights which provide important perceptual clues to 3D shape on nearly flat white surfaces is retained. From that baseline of “normal” looking detail at whatever distance the Fill and Key lights are set at:

If more Fill is added in step 2, the shadows will look darker and the lighting seem “softer”


If the Fill source is moved further back from the subject it will alter the near-far inverse square fall off and the contrast between highlights exposed by the Key and shadows exposed by the fill will be more gradual making the light seem, perceptually, “softer” because the shadows on the subject will also wind up lighter lighter in tone.

Conversely if less fill that required to record detail in the shadows is used the lighting will look “harder” but the shadows will also be filled with noise because there is no signal being amplified during a analog/digital readout from the sensor.

Moving the Fill light closer to the subject in the foreground will also make the lighting appear “harder” because the fill will fall-off front to back on the subject and space behind more rapidly.

To get dark moody low key lighting without noise you need to overfill the shadows during capture so they are record above the noise threshold and then pull them back down when editing. That is less obvious to those who have only ever used digital and only fill after setting key light for correct highlight rendering.

The better way to ‘see the light” is to start with just the Fill source starting with it on camera axis and above, then moving it elsewhere and observing where it creates shadows the lens sees. Any place where the Fill source creates a shadow will become a black noise filled void in the lighting pattern if the Key light does not hit it. The ideal fill is shadowless (from the POV of camera) fill with enough intensity to record detail on the darkest objects in the scene.

Since getting my first digital camera in 2000 I’ve set lights by using white and black towels draped over a gray card which create three distinct spikes on the histogram, adjusting my fill until detail is seen the the black one and its spike is just inside the left side of the histogram and then adjusting my key light until the non-specular reflections off the white one are 1/3 stop below clipping. The spike from a 12% gray card will fall in the middle. The spike from an 18% will not because 18% was the old ASA film speed / meter calibration standard but it changed to 12% in 1975 when the ISO system was adopted.

If you have white and black content in the scene, a decent set of eyeballs and a digital camera with histogram and instant playback you really don’t need a hand held incident or reflected meter but an incident meter is still useful if using many different lights to balance their strength relative to each other.

In case you are wonderings why Kodak stills makes and sells 18% card because Ansel Adams lobbied Kodak executives not to change the card to the new 12% ISO standard lest in confuse those trying to learn his Zone System.

[keithdennis]

Great advice! Producers that I've known, who started out as cinematographers, budget at least one extra day of camera rentals to test the main camera.

[stinkystealthysloth]

The video’s conclusion just left me really confused tbh. The analogy of the city/friend’s house made no sense to me either.

[jmjonas]

I actually use False Color, i prefer it 'cause it's quicker for me, i can easily see the contrast ratios and if i have to Dim a practical, all without leaving the camera!

[ropeyarn]

The job of the hand held meter is to measure the amount of light in Lux or Foot-candles falling on the subjects. Its just science, as they say.
The camera man tells the gaffers (lights) and grips (modifiers placement) how much light (in Lux) he wants (also where and when) in the scene and then deals with the camera settings himself. In this way the Director can make the decision on the lighting ratio (light vs. dark areas) ahead of time without knowing anything about the equipment. It's a beautiful thing, unless you are the only person handling everything.

[anhu]

OMG I remember playing MDK when I was a kid! You've unlocked a memory I didn't know I had!!

[keithgreene]

This reaffirmed that I am an artist. I often think of myself as a technician because I know what the buttons on ny camera do and what the meters are saying. I lose confidence in my film making when those meters do display perfect results. I need to trust my resolve more than the results.

[BorsukenSlayer]

You are not usually this funny i love it, great know how AND funny, me like!

[fatearther]

I forgot who said it but it was told to me by my photography teacher years ago “there is no“correct” exposure just perfect exposure for the scene”

[nh]

I don’t wanna say don’t use jokes, but they tend to confuse the point you’re making and make the video longer than it needs to be. I’d say put them in between points, so that the viewer gets a break to process the information. A recap at the end would be equally helpful. Plus I’m not sure what the main points of this video were. Middle gray is a starting point, got that.

[anthonydavis]

You're so good at explaining what is complex to some. The heart of all pictures, moving or stills, is exposure. Good video.

[masonrunnels]

One major thing kinda glossed over is shutter speed/angle. Most cinematographers pick the shutter speed as two times the fps. So at 23.976 which is typical for natural motion blur, you double it and that's ur shutter speed. Since there is no 1/47.952 shutter speed it's rounded to 1/50 or as an angle it's 180°. Cranking this value will result in little to no motion blur making things feel weird or undercranking (that's a fun little Easter egg) the value will cause way too much motion blur. But EVERYTHING on a camera affects light. It's kinda like that's the camera's job. And the absolute last thing that should be touched is your ISO. Cranking this number because it's dark isn't a great idea. You'll cause a lot of grain. No bueno. If you wanna make it brighter you get lights. Not saying there isn't a time or place with messing with these settings but the majority of the time you don't mess with them. That's for a number of reasons but a main one is consistency between shots. But people believe that cinematography is about camera settings. It is absolutely not. It's learning to cut and shape light. One tip I was given when I was a camera ac was to never accept lights as they were when you enter a place. Use the tools at your disposal to add light where necessary and to take it away where needed.

[abhinavjoshua]

This guy always amazes me. That exposure pun was good!

[axeffect]

For those like me who might have difficulty in understanding the video and what is said here. After 100 re listens what he meant (I think) is that expose for middle grey and from that point choose your fine tuning method of exposure based on your "taste". This taste of yours is that which then makes you a cinematographer or just a potato. You can just be all day middle gray exposure and be bland and screwing up your exposure for no reason. If you feel you are this person then do a lot of testing. If you feel your taste of exposure sucks then also do a lot of testing and develop that taste.