When I tested the underexposure for Watchman's, I did various cocktails of underexposure with ProRes; some like 800ISO 3 under or 6400ISO and eventually the one I landed on was 1600ISO 2 under. The main reason why was the ability to control how the exposure was corrected in post rather than relying on the camera to correct the exposure when deviating from 800ISO. (Other reasons include how the noise level behaved when underexposing and recovering at various ISO's)
Ashburn was a few years later and for that project I learned from the trial/errors of Watchman's color grade and decided that 800ISO 2 under would work for this short film. Ultimately, it was because I wanted to control how to recover the image and the redistribution of the dynamic range. From what I could tell from the earlier tests, the redistribution of the dynamic isn't exactly 1:1 when changing the ISO of the camera.
During testing, I developed a REC709 LUT that corrects the underexposure for on set viewing and used it for Watchman's. I did the same for Ashburn, that LUT specific to that specific underexposure.
Am I crazy, though? Or am I just adding a lot of extra work that changing the ISO already does? haha
Could you talk about the noise level a little more? I'm finding significantly less noise in Pro Res file vs the raw file.
RAW vs ProRes: how much of a difference does it really make?
in General Discussion
Posted
Could you talk about the noise level a little more? I'm finding significantly less noise in Pro Res file vs the raw file.