Light meters

[OldBoyScott]

How important is it to use a light meter with the Red cameras? Also what is the light meter of choice of the Red camera owners?

[Granty]

I take it that a light meter is overkill for a Scarlet, I imagine it will have a shit hot light meter in the cam. I used light meters all the time for 16mm and film photography, because you needed to, but now that you have live feedback and LCDs the whole thing is pointless, you can stop up and down and see what it does to the image in real time. A light meter really isn't needed in a digital real time world, I know many a purest will nark on at me for this, but screw 'em - these dudes still have a guy waving a red flag infront of thier car.

A light meter can have a use in spot metering, but you have eyes and realtime feedback, you know if you need a reflector or a fill light, or if you are training yourself to use film, then it is a good way to test your knowlegde. I know a guy, cine dude, and he guessed the colour temp and light with his eyes, spot on all the time, great skill from years of working in film, kind of useless now.

[Nikolai]

Wait... I'm no expert, but I thought that the whole point behind RED was to bridge the gap between film and video, so, like with film, you wouldn't be able to trust your eye as what you see is what you get... which would mean you WOULD need a light meter considering aperture is the only "finite" aspect of the image that you cannot play around with as a RAW file...please correct me if I'm wrong though...

[dvpixl]

There's many who will disagree with you productbe. but I can sort of see your pragmatic approach about it. It's not a sin to NOT use a light meter - but having your ground covered and putting a number on a quality of light can make the difference between having complete control and "ok, I think that looks good".

[Granty]

That was what I was kinda saying, it won't do you any harm to stretch to a light meter, it with help in setting up contrast and balance, but setting up live then taking a quick still or short preview and viewing on a laptop is a better setup for any shot and is a light meter X 1000. Photogrphy and film have light meters because the process was expensive and wasn't instant. It is cheap and instant now, and many a photograph would use a light meter for setup, than throw on the instant film back, take a preview shot, then switch back to film and roll. Many a digital photographer only really use the light meter to balance flash light now, the cameras metering is excellent with a live shot bounced to a laptop to preview.

I can think of a few setups when a light meter is required to help setup Dfilm, but for the rest a live setup with a frame grab here and there viewed on a laptop can't be beat, hands down it will be the new professional standard once we are all digital.

[Stefan Christou]

Wait... I'm no expert, but I thought that the whole point behind RED was to bridge the gap between film and video, so, like with film, you wouldn't be able to trust your eye as what you see is what you get... which would mean you WOULD need a light meter considering aperture is the only "finite" aspect of the image that you cannot play around with as a RAW file...please correct me if I'm wrong though...

Red are not bridging the gap by bringing the worst of film and video together. It's the other way round.

They are bridging the gap by taking the best aspects of film (resolution, dynamic range, variable framerates, depth of field, PL lenses) and mixing them with the best of video (affordability, ease of use, repeatability, instant appraisal of results and real-time monitor, built in sound, metadata) with the best of digital stills photography (low compression, high resolution, image quality, lossless flexibility through RAW, low light performance), then adding fast read/refresh rates, in a durable easy to use package and selling it's cameras for about a tenth of the competition's.

Get it?

You can use a lightmeter as you can (because Red cameras shoot RAW) change the look of your footage a massive amount in post. But you will always only be adding the good results you get by shooting in Redspace and not taking away from them or getting an entirely different result.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Wait... I'm no expert, but I thought that the whole point behind RED was to bridge the gap between film and video, so, like with film, you wouldn't be able to trust your eye as what you see is what you get... which would mean you WOULD need a light meter considering aperture is the only "finite" aspect of the image that you cannot play around with as a RAW file...please correct me if I'm wrong though...

Syndrum already corrected you above, but let me say this too...

Light meter exists because you can't see what the camera is seeing in film (only with years of experience, like mentioned), on RED One you look at LCD with histograms and traffic lights and it does a light meter's job for you.

:thumbsup:

PS: Light meters come in handy to set specific exposure to two different objects. On a camera with zebras you can set it to any IRE value you like, therefore making it easy if you want a specific amount light for certain zones... I don't know how it would be done on a R1 though. Do R1s have zebras?

[Peter Majtan]

How important is it to use a light meter with the Red cameras? Also what is the light meter of choice of the Red camera owners?

Light-meter will help You set Your scene lighting much faster, but it is not absolutely necessary to use with Red One...

Seconic is my personal choice for both film and Red One...

http://www.sekonic.com/main/

[David Rasberry]

I use light meters for both film and video cams, have since the 70's. For my taste the in camera meters tend to overexpose a bit and unless you have a reference monitor in a controlled environment like a production truck, the on camera LCD's and viewfinders are a poor reference.
With either film or digital, you are exposing a light sensitive medium that will require an optimum amount of light to get the best results. An incident light meter is very useful for determining highlight and fill ratios and setting an optimum exposure for a given set of conditions.

[KKeller]

I meter everything, it doesn't matter what I am shooting on, then I verify the overall levels with the in camera meter. I use my light meter to work out contrast ratios and the in camera one for exposure settings on lower end digital cameras that are difficult to calibrate my meter to.
Plus metering is so nice when pre-lighting a scene.

I am missing a spot meter at this time, does anyone have a recommendation for a good stand alone spot meter? I use the Sekonic L-358 for Incident and Reflected but don't have a spot. I have used the Sekonic L-758 in the past and loved it, but I couldn't afford it when I bought my 358.

[David Rasberry]

I meter everything, it doesn't matter what I am shooting on, then I verify the overall levels with the in camera meter. I use my light meter to work out contrast ratios and the in camera one for exposure settings on lower end digital cameras that are difficult to calibrate my meter to.
Plus metering is so nice when pre-lighting a scene.

I am missing a spot meter at this time, does anyone have a recommendation for a good stand alone spot meter? I use the Sekonic L-358 for Incident and Reflected but don't have a spot. I have used the Sekonic L-758 in the past and loved it, but I couldn't afford it when I bought my 358.

The meter in my GL2 works quite well as a spot meter substitute for checking highlight and deep shadow areas when zoomed in. Overall I usually find I get best results with the GL2 shooting 1-2 stops under the internal meter reading.

A quick and dirty way to calibrate your Sekonic for a particular camera is to take a manual reading from the camera on an 18% gray card, then match the exposure reading with your Sekonic held in front of the card. That should give you a reasonable ASA/ISO rating for the camera.

[KKeller]

A quick and dirty way to calibrate your Sekonic for a particular camera is to take a manual reading from the camera on an 18% gray card, then match the exposure reading with your Sekonic held in front of the card. That should give you a reasonable ASA/ISO rating for the camera.

I have done this but it usually acts a little goofy. Now-a-days I just have a good understanding based on chip sizes and the manufacturer for an educated guess of the ASA.

[David Rasberry]

I have done this but it usually acts a little goofy. Now-a-days I just have a good understanding based on chip sizes and the manufacturer for an educated guess of the ASA.

The best way to figure ASA for a digital camera is with a log grayscale chip chart and a waveform monitor. That nails it pretty well, but with a lot of cheaper cameras it is impossible to turn off some of the auto functions like highlight compression that screw with the readings.

[OUinLA]

It's a lot easier using a light meter over using the LCD or frame grab. With a meter you can set each light to the brightness you want without having to constantly walk back to the camera and look.

Not to mention, the camera operator is usually working on the camera movements with stand ins while the DP is lighting.

If you are getting a 4 from your key and you want the fill two stops under that, you're light meter would come in handy.

BTW, I like Sekonic and Minolta

[David Rasberry]

That was what I was kinda saying, it won't do you any harm to stretch to a light meter, it with help in setting up contrast and balance, but setting up live then taking a quick still or short preview and viewing on a laptop is a better setup for any shot and is a light meter X 1000. Photogrphy and film have light meters because the process was expensive and wasn't instant. It is cheap and instant now, and many a photograph would use a light meter for setup, than throw on the instant film back, take a preview shot, then switch back to film and roll. Many a digital photographer only really use the light meter to balance flash light now, the cameras metering is excellent with a live shot bounced to a laptop to preview.

I can think of a few setups when a light meter is required to help setup Dfilm, but for the rest a live setup with a frame grab here and there viewed on a laptop can't be beat, hands down it will be the new professional standard once we are all digital.

Laptops will show you that you have an image, but do not provide the ability to critically judge contrast and exposure. The LCD displays are just not up to the task.

[Theta]

I have been burned so many times going only by a monitor that for me a light meter is practically a necessity. I don't use it constantly, but I do use it for the shots where its important and if I'm doing a particularly complicated or low light setup. A monitor will tell you if you're in focus, a histogram will tell you the frequencies of light you're looking at, but only a light meter will really tell you that your subject is properly lit.

Considering that the lenses from Red and elsewhere are going to have T stops on them, really, there's no excuse not to use one.

[Cedric_Akins]

I actually have two light meters, an older model Sekonic and a Spectra II. Both of which still work fine. That is one tool that every cinematographer should have in thier tool kit.

[neptune13]

If you have a meter in-cam or handheld use it. I've seen many mistakes by eye, mostly lighting over exposure on all types of monitors its easy to do when you've been shooting hours and hours, the measurements are a good quick way to get this part of the production right. :cuss:

[Isaac Brody]

I feel naked without my Sekonic. If I'm not using a good HD monitor I wouldn't leave home without mine.

[PsYcHoSiD]

:happyhappy:*sings*Zebra is my best friend, through thick and thin, we'll always be together...

Seriously though, light meters eliminate alot of the "Ah... do we have to..." work in post