PDA

View Full Version : Rec 709 vs RAW graded on the Chinese Lanterns in Montreal



loic
10-26-2012, 07:32 PM
Here is a video with 3 shots comparing the rec 709 and the raw graded images.


http://youtu.be/KVk5_ot4Ohs

CaptainHook
10-26-2012, 08:36 PM
Youtube lets you watch in original quality now? When did that happen, i've never noticed it before!
Thanks for the upload! :)

Trevor Roach
10-26-2012, 08:42 PM
Very nice video.
I know everyone keeps saying expose for the shadows, but a video like this really helps to explain why and how much you cant get away with.
Appreciate it, man!

Hank den Drijver
10-27-2012, 05:22 AM
Very nice video.
I know everyone keeps saying expose for the shadows, but a video like this really helps to explain why and how much you cant get away with.
Appreciate it, man!

Trevor, I can't follow you. Usually when shooting digital you expose for the highlights, not the shadows. And rightfully so. With film you expose for the shadows. Because digital sensors hard clip highlights and celluloid soft clips them. And because digital sensors are relatively clean in the shadows compared to film. So that's why with digital you're careful not to overexpose highlights and with film you're careful not to underexpose shadows. Now as this clip shows, with RAW there's more highlight-data to recover than with REC 709 so people CAN (but not must) work the old fashioned way of exposing for the shadows and still recover those highlights in post. REC 709 is not a high dynamic range enviroment by definition, but RAW is.

Trevor Roach
10-27-2012, 08:52 AM
Trevor, I can't follow you. Usually when shooting digital you expose for the highlights, not the shadows. And rightfully so. With film you expose for the shadows. Because digital sensors hard clip highlights and celluloid soft clips them. And because digital sensors are relatively clean in the shadows compared to film. So that's why with digital you're careful not to overexpose highlights and with film you're careful not to underexpose shadows. Now as this clip shows, with RAW there's more highlight-data to recover than with REC 709 so people CAN (but not must) work the old fashioned way of exposing for the shadows and still recover those highlights in post. REC 709 is not a high dynamic range enviroment by definition, but RAW is.

I guess I'm a little confused then, haha. From what I've understood, to get the best results with this camera, you turn zebras to 100% and expose to just under peaking. I'm going to admit I'm still learning a lot, and haven't shot on film before having "grown up" shooting on DSLRs. I know with DSLRs you expose for the highlights for the reasons you mentioned.
I've just heard (or at least I thought I had) JB and others say to expose for the shadows. I could very well be wrong, so forgive me =)

Hank den Drijver
10-27-2012, 11:50 AM
I guess I'm a little confused then, haha. From what I've understood, to get the best results with this camera, you turn zebras to 100% and expose to just under peaking. I'm going to admit I'm still learning a lot, and haven't shot on film before having "grown up" shooting on DSLRs. I know with DSLRs you expose for the highlights for the reasons you mentioned.
I've just heard (or at least I thought I had) JB and others say to expose for the shadows. I could very well be wrong, so forgive me =)

You're forgiven, TR ;-) Could very well be that JB tells people to expose for the shadows, don't know why. I'd keep a keen eye on the 100% zebra though, which in essence is the same as exposing for the highlights. The BMCC is digital and will clip hard in the end. I think the way this night shoot was done is smart, easy and gives excellent results.
regards,
HDD