Steven West

I built a 5 stop False Color Powergrade for Resolve that essentially tells you the contrast ratios in a still frame (within 5 stops) Like you said, it’s impossible to know the ratios set on set for a few reasons, but what you can take away from back-engineering shots this way is if you find a look you like or are aiming for, you can check the ratios in the Powergrade and apply them on set yourself. The Powergrade I made is limited to REC 709 also, so it’s really only useful for looking at end-result stills.

I had an old Minolta Colormeter that I wanted to calibrate and the only place I could find after scouring the internet was this place in LA: Quality Light-Metric, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #550, Los Angeles, CA 90028. 323-467-2265 It’s a few years ago now that I called them to enquire so I’m not sure if they are still around, but if they can fix and calibrate Minolta meters, chances are they can clean a Sekonic.

It’s difficult to say by description only, but it sounds a little bit like you are describing haze. Could it be there was some dust particles in the air that were backlit by the light coming in and lowering the overall contrast of the scene? Some old houses and places with deep pile carpets can hold a lot of dust and moving around inside kicks that up and it can take quite a while for it to settle again.

If it was me I would talk to a VFX artist about the best way to achieve this. But off the top of my head, I would say that you could get a plate of the flower (and it doesn’t have to be tight) moving it around using a wire or whatever you need to make it move the way it needs to move. In post, remove the wire or whatever you used and composite the flower to the aerial footage. As long as the lighting and colour temps match somewhat, a good VFX artist should be able to use live action of the flower instead of having to actually make one. Then you’ll have petal movement, lighting changes etc all baked in and looking natural. For the out of focus aerial shot, that might prove to be trickier. I think most consumer drones like the Mavic are fixed focus and I’m not sure how well VFX can mimic DOF to really sell the idea that it was all captured optically in camera. Another option might be to have a flower made which is much more rigid than a real flower and try that on your drone or glider. The petals might not move at all in that case though. Look at sugarcraft flowers - they’re super realistic but very rigid and cheap to have made. If there is a budget for it, I would consult with VFX artists.

I’m not sure there is a best way to clip highlights; just ways of clipping. If you retain them when shooting and clip them in post, it’s just a matter of keying the areas (using a luma key) of the area you want to affect, then shifting the values of that area to taste. Retaining the detail is going to give you more control on exactly how you push those values, because you have the data recorded. As each camera sensor, situation and intention is different, it’ll be a good idea to test (easy to do even at home) both workflows and see which one gives you the look you’re going for.

That’s great. I didn’t know you could get a spot attachment for that meter. It’s a bit pricey and only does 5 degree spot but should be good enough. The previous model to the flagship Sekonic is a great choice too. It’s a non-touch screen device which makes it a bit easier and quicker to use, but popular because of this and even used, almost the same price as the touch-screen model.

Just for clarity, you would need to a reflective reading from like a wall or something, not an incident reading for the key to BG ratio. Also, a spot meter is handy because light reflects off of the same surface at different angles and intensities depending on its surface properties and how it’s lit. EL Zone system is based on stops rather than IRE values so yeah it does the same thing as a reflective metering solution would. And, as tempting as it may be to solely lean on that as a metering solution, you will still want a lightmeter for…. Just so many reasons (when you’re learning / tech scout / setting up etc). The Minolta meters are old, but from time to time you will be able to find the accessories on places like eBay I’m sure. Old as they are, even if the calibration has drifted over time, they have a calibration dial built-in so you could calibrate it with a known accurate meter. I used mine for about 20 years and recently got the latest Sekonic and when I tested them side by side, they both gave the same incident readings. I think the old Pentax Spotmeters are a favourite with many folks. More of a street cred thing I think these days so their prices might be pretty high due to the desireablity. Unfortunately lightmeters are more of a niche product these days so for something with reflective, spot and incident - either you go all out on the flagship Sekonic or take your time and build you own kit like with the Minolta.

For sure. I checked the manual and it has frame rate and shutter angles. The only thing is it doesn’t do spot of course. For about half the price of the L-308X, you could pick up a used Minolta Flashmeter V. You can get 5 and 10 degree spot accessories for them and they have a DIP switch in the battery compartment that allows you to switch it to ‘CINE’ mode, similar to that Sekonic. Because the accessories are not permanently attached, it can be a bit cumbersome to be switching from incident to spot and back again all the time. (Though they just twist on - only takes a second) When you’re reading your key to BG without a spot meter, you’ll be limited to incident readings and that won’t tell you what the reflected reading is of whatever is in the background. For example, if you have a dark grey BG and light that to be say, 1 stop under key, it’s going to look completely different to the same scenario but with say, a yellow BG. Or pick up a monitor that has Ed Lachman, ASC Zone System implemented. I think SMALL HD added it in an update recently. Also more and more camera manufacturers are doing so. https://www.elzonesystem.com

I’m not sure this is the answer you are looking for, but, regarding choosing the distribution of Highlight and Shadow detail, I would say: How much information you want in any of the zones from darkest to brightest depends on the look or mood you’re going for. You control the ratio of silhouette to background (subject to BG contrast ratio). Variations of that ratio will give a different feeling/tell a different story, just as a key to fill ratio would. A 3 or 4 stop over-middle grey bright area is going to produce a very different feeling than the same area being only a stop over. To the second part: If the information in the shadows is necessary to tell the story, then you want to keep that in there. If it’s not relevant and if it’s not going to otherwise distract by omission then, let it go…. into the darkness.

Wow, that's incredible! You just don't notice any focussing going on at all, I assumed it was fixed. I have seen some BTS on that actual shot and I think they ran it 3 times or something and got the choreography down, but the guy (host) in the final part of the shot kept missing his lines and so they had to do it again and again... I'm going to go back and look for the shadows now! Thanks again for all your insights I really appreciate it.

Hi Gregory, Many thanks for your detailed reply. I think I am just overthinking stuff. I do want to say that zone focussing in stills is not auto focus; it's actually fixed. We set a distance and use the DOF determined by that to set up a zone wherein subjects in that zone would fall into what's called 'acceptable' focus, but nothing in the shot would be in critical focus unless they were at the exact distance set on the lens. Thinking of the Copacabana Steadicam shot in Goodfellas where it looks like the operator is keeping distance with the couple and keeping them in the DOF is maybe the way the shot that one? Or would you say they used a focus puller on that shot?

I'm fairly new to the world of filmmaking and have a question about focussing that I was hoping someone could help me out on. I come from a commercial stills background but used to use zone focussing to shoot street photography as a hobby years ago. I understand Hyperfocal is used sometimes, but I was wondering if zone focussing is something that is used/factored into in some shots, particularly follow shots or leading shots for example. On a shoot recently pulling focus myself I found I lost focus sometimes on the moving subject and there were times it was a bit too soft. I got to wondering if zone focussing was a thing in filmmaking since it seems it would lend itself perfectly to moving shots like follow, orbit or leading type shots on say a Steadicam or gimbal. I understand that for most productions there is a focus puller, but in the case of working alone, could it make sense to use zone focussing? Say you have a follow shot and you decide on walking behind the subject a few feet using a 35mm lens and f 2.8. The DOF is not going to be great and if you are pulling focus yourself there is most likely going to be a lot of drifting in and out of critical focus, so in cases like that, do cinematographers grab a DOF calculator and decide on a lens, distance and aperture in the cases they can't use a focus puller and roll with an acceptable level of sharpness by just keeping the subject(s) within the depth of field, instead of constantly trying to track the subject and keep them as sharp as possible?