getting a good exposure

[dlevanchuk]

frustraiting ongoing problem..
when I'm recording a video on my t2i, the lcd screen shows good exposure, but as soon as I start editing the footage - image is either under or overexposed

What to you guys do to prevent this issue?? Any tips?

 

[Zensteve]

frustraiting ongoing problem..
when I'm recording a video on my t2i, the lcd screen shows good exposure, but as soon as I start editing the footage - image is either under or overexposed

What to you guys do to prevent this issue?? Any tips?

I would start by examining those really dark sunshades that you are wearing, in your pic.

Seriously though, I was planning on asking a similar question... how to correct the levels throughout a workflow?

I've had to manually adjust almost every camera monitor I've used, and even then it looks very different when it lands on the editing monitor. Heck, my two monitors (side by side) look different while playing the same video... and that's way different from the original camera.

How to prepare a proper workflow, including the monitor & graphics capability?

 

[brianluce]

Question: when you say it's showing "Good exposure", do you mean it looks good on the LCD? If so, that's not a good way to do it. If the built in meter is showing proper exposure and you're still too dark, 1) you camera may be broken 2) You monitor might need calibration 3) it may be a characteristic of the CAnon to read a stop or two off, if so, you'll have to run some tests and learn to factor that in with your exposure.

 

[dlevanchuk]

brianluce: i dont think t2i has build in meters.. I ve tried to do magic latent upgrade, but that just was a bit too clunky and distracting for me I just eyeball lcd screen
and adjust as nessessary

zensteve - what can i say, gotta keep the style glad im not the only one who has this problem.

 

[chilipie]

If you're just eyeballing the monitor, then I'm not surprised you're not getting the exposure you want - it's fairly high resolution, but it's not fantastic for judging exposure.

The following three steps usually work for me…

1) If you're using a superflat profile like Technicolor Cinestyle, it's often easier to change back to a profile that emulates the final, graded image with regards to saturation and contrast - the flatter profiles often lead to underexposure if you don't plan ahead to post and/or only judge exposure by the monitor.

2) Use the built in EV meter at the bottom of the screen (you can toggle this on and off with the Display button). This will give you an exposure value for the whole frame, +/- two stops. While this isn't a perfect solution it will get you in the right area, and often (in lower contrast situations) is enough to go on.

3) Take a still photo and use the histograms. Just line up the shot you want, press the shutter button, preview the frame and toggle the histograms with the Display button. A histogram is a visual representation of data distribution - the left is black, the white is right, and the values in between are varying shades of grey (in terms of brightness, not colour). When a bar hits the left or right edge it is said to be "clipping", which is something we try and avoid - it results in unattractive areas of pure white or black. If you'd like to learn more, try this article on understanding histograms.

 

[CamVader]

I ve tried to do magic latent upgrade, but that just was a bit too clunky and distracting for me.

That's too bad because Magic Lantern has some excellent exposure tools. An important thing is to shut off what you don't use with ML so there isn't too much information on the screen.

I agree with everyone else about not using the LCD screen for anything but framing. Getting exposure off of that would be like driving your car navigating by GPS and never looking out the windshield.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"Pro" monitors have a built in histogram or false color that simplifies the process quite a bit, but the best answer is a good old fashioned light meter. Failing either of those, the meter on the camera is better than nothing, especially if you have different options for how it meters (center weighted, etc...). Looking at the monitor just won't work.

 

[directorik]

So am I understanding correctly? No one uses a light meter for exposure?

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"Pro" monitors have a built in histogram or false color that simplifies the process quite a bit, but the best answer is a good old fashioned light meter. Failing either of those, the meter on the camera is better than nothing, especially if you have different options for how it meters (center weighted, etc...). Looking at the monitor just won't work."

 

[brianluce]

"Pro" monitors have a built in histogram or false color that simplifies the process quite a bit, but the best answer is a good old fashioned light meter. Failing either of those, the meter on the camera is better than nothing, especially if you have different options for how it meters (center weighted, etc...). Looking at the monitor just won't work."

But wasn't there that article by those ASC guys that found that old school light meters are inferior to what's built in these days? I never read the article, but a lot have accepted it as conventional wisdom. One of the conclusions was that hand held light meters are only good for determining ratios.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Inferior to what's built into a high dollar monitor, maybe, but WAY better better than the in camera meter. The meter in the camera has to use some kind of averging, weighting, etc... to give you one exposure number for the whole frame. That is always going to have the potential to be skewed.

 

[Tinalera]

I ashamedly admit I hadn't thought myself using a light meter-


I have learned not to use the display for anything EXCEPT framing. I am learning lots just by reading this thread!

 

[directorik]

I have been on a lot of professional sets shooting digital in
the last 6 months. I see DP's using light meters every day
and for every set up. Even when I'm shooting reality TV we
use light meters all the time. No one is using the in camera
meters.

While the DSLR's give people the option of using great lenses
and getting that all important shallow DOF, the better the
camera (and lens) the more work should be done to get a
great image. The screen on any DSLR should never be used
to judge exposure. You all want better images? That's going
to take some effort on your part beyond pointing, looking at
the screen and pressing record.

 

[brianluce]

I'm not a DP but those pro sets might just be using meters for ratios.

 

[directorik]

Fine.

We have no argument. You believe they are only using
meters for ratios. I work with them as a camera operator
and get my exposure setting from them. But you may
very well be right. I am not in any way trying to convince
you or any to use a light meter.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

There are workarounds if you are on a tight budget and can not afford a lot of equipment, but there is no denying that a light meter will help you be more efficient and get you the proper exposure.

 

[Murdock]

So am I understanding correctly? No one uses a light meter for exposure?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[brianluce]

Fine.

We have no argument. You believe they are only using
meters for ratios. I work with them as a camera operator
and get my exposure setting from them. But you may
very well be right. I am not in any way trying to convince
you or any to use a light meter.

Well if you're an operator then you would know. I don't have that much experience on Hollywood sets and my comments are based 99% on what I've read, particularly with regards to an ASC article that suggested hand held metering wasn't something in the mainstream any more. But I don't follow these things that closely. I do know that my Canon wasn't that friendly for finding the sweet spot for exposure -- at least in video mode -- and I too looked into the viability of using hand held metering. Bottom line, DSLR's aren't engineered from the ground up as video cameras so there is the constant requirement to find workarounds, from shoulder mounts, to audio decks to expensive ND filters. Personally, I think, provided you're not smitten by Zacuto, the tradeoffs are well worth it.

 

[hepabst]

There is no sin in using a light meter. I like shooting full manual mode with film and my DSLR. So I personally want and need to know what the light is doing.

I trust my light meter.

 

[directorik]

Well if you're an operator then you would know. I don't have that much experience on Hollywood sets and my comments are based 99% on what I've read, particularly with regards to an ASC article that suggested hand held metering wasn't something in the mainstream any more.

An article you didn't read...

Again, not arguing or attempting to change your mind. 99% of
what you have read suggests DP don't use meters any more which
is different from my experience on set. I admit to not reading that
much about it so I'm sure you're right. Of course everyone shooting
film still must use light meters, right?

Bottom line, DSLR's aren't engineered from the ground up as video cameras so there is the constant requirement to find workarounds, from shoulder mounts, to audio decks to expensive ND filters. Personally, I think, provided you're not smitten by Zacuto, the tradeoffs are well worth it.

Very true.

These are cameras designed to be used by still photographers who
always use light meters to set exposure. Again, this comes from my
experience working with still photographers and may be different than
what you read. So it seems to me that using a light meter would fix
the issue dlevanchuk is facing. And it seems to me someone making
a movie using a DSLR should at least consider using a light meter to
gauge exposure - as you point out, these cameras are different that
a camcorder in the same price range.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting anyone who can't or doesn't want to use
light meter should use one. There are always work arounds to everything.