PDA

View Full Version : Does this camera have a light meter built-in?



Brad Ferrell
05-18-2012, 10:33 AM
?

I'm composing a shopping list. Which light meter would you recommend? I've been using Canon's built-in meter for the 7D.

Barry Green
05-18-2012, 02:11 PM
It has zebras, which is sort of the video version of a lightmeter. Plus it includes UltraScope, which if you plug into a computer, will give you extensive scopes and waveform and all sorts of excellent signal-monitoring capabilities.

Brad Ferrell
05-19-2012, 10:24 AM
Thank you.

kylebrodeur
05-20-2012, 03:23 PM
It is very cool that the BMCC comes with UltraScope, but I don't have a Mac that supports Thunderbolt. I rely on the 7D's light meter heavily. I've used zebras before and I'm not saying they do not get the job done, but I personally don't like them. I prefer waveform or at least a spot meter. If you didn't want to use zebras and thunderbolt wasn't an option would recommendation would you give then? Thanks.

Barry Green
05-20-2012, 11:51 PM
Thunderbolt isn't a Mac-only thing. It starts arriving on Windows systems in June.

I don't know what other exposure tools the BMC may or may not have, all I remember is zebras.

You could use an actual external light meter, obviously; it'll work much better on a BMC (or other raw camera) than it would on a video camera, because there's no processing of the image going on, so it should be a pretty linear exposure.

rommex
05-21-2012, 02:04 AM
Yeah, I guess my Sekonic is going to get more workload with BMC ) In fact, this workflow resembles more film shooting. Isn't it we all pursue -- film-like process? ))

pharpsied
05-21-2012, 07:55 AM
Thunderbolt isn't a Mac-only thing. It starts arriving on Windows systems in June.

I don't know what other exposure tools the BMC may or may not have, all I remember is zebras.

You could use an actual external light meter, obviously; it'll work much better on a BMC (or other raw camera) than it would on a video camera, because there's no processing of the image going on, so it should be a pretty linear exposure.

http://asia.cnet.com/asus-introduces-thunderbolt-enabled-motherboard-62215534.htm

pharpsied
05-21-2012, 07:58 AM
Sorry if this has been put up already... it's big and heavy but it shows pc implementation of thunderbolt and bodes well for pc users and Ultrascopes...
http://asia.cnet.com/product/asus-g75vw-core-i7-3610qm-processor-2-3ghz-12gb-ram-46236240.htm

Barry Green
05-21-2012, 11:05 AM
Yeah, I guess my Sekonic is going to get more workload with BMC ) In fact, this workflow resembles more film shooting. Isn't it we all pursue -- film-like process? ))
That's what the raw CinemaDNG is all about -- it's meant to be treated as a Cinema Digital Negative.

I think a light meter with a video camera is a really bad idea, because the light meter can't possibly account for the processing, shadow-lifting, midtone raising, highlight-rolling-off or harsh-highlight clipping that goes on in a video camera. A waveform monitor is an infinitely better tool for setting exposure in a video camera. But with a linear raw sensor, a light meter becomes a realistic and useful tool again. All you really need to know for exposure when shooting raw is what's clipping (well, okay, not really, but sort of). Expose as high as you can without clipping, and correct the exposure and curve in post. But when it comes to establishing the look of your scene, the light meter is going to be far more important now. Knowing and understanding lighting ratios and profiling the sensor and understanding how many stops over and how many stops under you can reasonably expect, that's all going to be valuable knowledge. The monitor will help, obviously, but as stated before I wouldn't really rely on the monitor for the "look" of the footage because it's going to be showing a flat ungraded image. Would be nice if it could have uploadable LUTs so we could program the monitor with the basic idea of what the grade will look like, but I think it's been stated that such a feature will not be supported...

Brad Ferrell
05-21-2012, 11:16 AM
I think it's the lack of experience out there creating a digital negative in RAW and working with Digital Negatives that's causing a lot of people just to accept the internal codecs and ignore the RAW workflow. I'll still throw this out there...is metering any different if you're shooting ProRes or DNxHD?

Barry Green
05-21-2012, 11:22 AM
Well, let's clarify -- there's obviously no difference between metering for ProRes or metering for DNxHD; clearly those will be the same. So presumably the question is: is there any difference between metering for raw, and metering for a compressed codec? And maybe John can answer better; I can't see why there would be a difference there. What would make the difference is whether you were shooting with the 709 "video" gamma, or the linear log film gamma. Choosing between those two may very well make a difference in how you meter. I guess it depends on whether you can actually record wiht that gamma, or if it only applies to the monitor, I'm noot sure on that point.

Tzedekh
05-21-2012, 12:12 PM
What would make the difference is whether you were shooting with the 709 "video" gamma, or the linear log film gamma.
"Linear log film gamma"? I'm a little new to log formats. Can something be both linear and logarithmic?

Barry Green
05-21-2012, 12:36 PM
No, you're right -- the sensor is linear, the encoding is log, but the horribly misworded way I said it was meant to say -- without a video curve added to it.

Tzedekh
05-21-2012, 01:24 PM
Choosing between those two may very well make a difference in how you meter. I guess it depends on whether you can actually record wiht that gamma, or if it only applies to the monitor, I'm noot sure on that point.
On the BMD Cinema Camera page, under "Compressed Recording Formats," it says, "Apple ProRes and Avid DNxHD. All compressed recording in 1920x1080 10-bit YUV with choice of Film or Video Dynamic Range." I assume that means log film or Rec709.

Barry Green
05-21-2012, 02:04 PM
Yep, that's what it sounds like to me, that would be your two options: rec709 or log. Rec709 for quick-turnaround, log for heavy grading.

laco
05-21-2012, 03:45 PM
Yep, that's what it sounds like to me, that would be your two options: rec709 or log. Rec709 for quick-turnaround, log for heavy grading.

Anyway, with Davinci you can always import your log clips, apply a Lut, and Render "source files" with a rec709 curve.
But still you'll have both:)

The Davinci 9 render screen looks promising...

Brad Ferrell
05-27-2012, 04:36 PM
Coolio. Thanks a lot guys. Now how about some help picking out some Zeiss ZF.2 glass over in the "Best Three Lenses" thread?