The Secret to Cinematic Exposure (Game Changer!)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 เม.ย. 2024
- It took me a long time to figure it out by myself and I struggled for a long time trying to find a video that would show me how to achieve cinematic images (I didn't really know how to actually expose... at least I'd never achieve it with my old camera panasonic gh4 from 2014).
In this video I'm going to show you how to get that, even with an entry level camera!
I wish I had a video like this so… Enjoy.
Where I get High Quality Reference Stills from:
www.frameset.app/?via=JARED (10% OFF!)
My fav Music licensing platform (High Quality)
fm.pxf.io/musicbed-jared
Sign up for a free account and listen for yourself :)
I use MotionVFX for my titles and motion graphics:
mvfx.co/JaredFilms
Use code JARED10 for 10%off!
Find me on instagram: / jared.film
00:00 Intro
00:13 Pickin' you up
01:45 How does Cinema expose?
03:19 When and what to overexpose
03:46 Important Tip
04:17 Bad Examples in Cinema
05:20 Skin-Tones
06:22 Contrast:Ratio
07:04 Cheat Code
07:45 Exposure Tips
09:45 How to adjust Exposure
11:00 Avoiding Noise in Low Light
11:32 Tips & Tricks
12:31 Short RECAP
13:20 It's subjective!
14:05 Outro
---
A few of the links in this description might be affiliate links that help me earn a small kickback (at no additional cost to you!) and keep this channel going. Appreciate your support!
SUB Count: 878
#cinematic #cinematography #filmmaking101 - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Why I don’t recommend ETTR Anymore: th-cam.com/video/qdppSQps8fM/w-d-xo.html
(Cinematography Update / Part 2)
1. Always expose the brightest part of the image.
2. Work with these three factors, i) aperture ii)nd filter iii)add light
3. External monitors with luts and false colors.
4. Shoot at blue hour to avoid noise at low light, or day for night, or ETTR
Expose for your subject or how you want to show the subject. If that makes any sense.
no, ffs. that will give yield very inconsistent results
Excellent advice, filmstuff
“If you really take the time to get to know your camera” Something almost nobody does anymore because they are always upgrading to the latest. No bueno. Great video. Thanks for sharing.
Wow, this video is a game changer!
I can totally relate to the struggle of trying to achieve cinematic images without knowing how to properly expose them.
It's amazing that you're sharing this knowledge, especially for those of us with entry-level cameras.
I wish I had come across a video like this earlier.
Thanks for sharing your secrets!
Easily one of the best filmmaking videos I’ve watched in a while. Still working on shifting my shooting style from high dynamic range and super clean to more artistic, cinematic and intentionally exposed.
Appreciate it Dustin 🫡
Well done Jared! I really admire your passion for the subject. Keep up the good work.
This is great. I started in photography and then dove deeply into cinematography. Since then I’ve always felt cinematographers tend to have a much deeper understanding on lighting and exposure than most photographers. You have way less room for error given raw stills vs even raw video if not 8/10bit video.
100%
this is exactly where im at. have you found any solid resources you could share?
This. I'm a photographer and looking into cinema exposure standards because it's more involved. The reason is usually that cinematography is EXPENSIVE and the people doing it must know all the details, whereas photography is an art and less valuable for a given shot - usually. My gramps was in broadcast and an electrical engineer so I know they have stringent quality standards. The fact that stills cameras can't even show you a Raw accurate histogram, or waveforms, or some such, is kind of stupid when they can also shoot 30 frames per second at 48 megapixels RAW.
This is a little misleading for people who truly want to master exposure. Someone below explained it perfectly. When it comes to “perfect” exposure, if you have a character in the frame, their skin tone (specifically their face) is the priority. You have to make sure their face falls within the proper IRE range, that would be proper exposure, everything else after that is secondary.
So for the examples you said were “overexposed”, looking at the subjects being properly lit, technically those shots were not overexposed. The subjects probably fell within the proper IRE range. After that whether or not the DP or director chooses to adjust the surrounding light sources (windows/sky/light) is completely up to them and up to stylistic choice, if they want to keep everything natural and as is, that’s completely normal and is an acceptable choice by many.
*Something to note about proper IRE levels when exposing - different formats from cameras have different curves resulting in different “ideal” IRE ranges. For example, if you’re shooting in log the IRE range of where a face should fall is different from if you were shooting in a non log profile closer to a .709 image. And on top of that, different log profiles for different cameras also have minor differences. For example, for the Sony FX series, when shooting slog 3, they recommend skin tones fall within 49-55 IRE (give or take). But other log profiles for other cameras may have a slightly different skin tone “sweet spot”.
It’s always best to just do your research on the camera YOU have. Figure out the ideal settings and profiles that are recommended for shooting the best results, and figure out what IRE ranges are recommended for proper exposure of skin tones etc. taking one video and applying it to all camera systems isn’t the most wise thing to do… No knock against the creator, but if the goal is to get closer to mastery, you gotta have the same approach as the professional do, and that is, 1) Know your specific camera system and it’s specific curves 2) Figure out what your SUBJECT is and make sure said subject is exposed properly, everything after that is up for creative/stylistic choice
Another great comment! I actually kinda feel bad afterwards for being a little misleading. (Should've said clipped or hot and not overexposed at this part, cus that's what I actually meant... or leave out completely) I just wanted to help out a few people and never expected it to blow up like this. But on the other hand i'm super happy that these conversations and discussions are happening, especially with more experienced people than me. Because otherwise we wouldn't.
Man that's a really complex passion that we have. There will always be so much to learn.
Again I would have had to express myself differently at some points. And now I would speak about it differently. I hope people are also reading these comments because they're damn valuable. Thanks again for your knowledge!
It might be proper exposure of the subject bad still bad lightening overall. The main charakters skin should not be an excuse for blown out highlights. It just looks bad. The human eye never sees "blown out" areas.
You might have not enough time for proper lightning. That's OK. But telling these are good shots is just not right. Especially for people who wants to get exposure right.
Yes, if you really have to choose whether to expose for highlights or main character, you should go for the character. But this is still a compromise far away from an ideal image.
@@maksimwalter9210Sorry, this is just wrong. Of course ideally you want everything properly exposed. When you're on a controlled set shooting a film or a big budget commercial, you will be able to control all of the elements (usually!). If you don't have time for proper lighting, then adjust your shot to frame out the hot source, use rolls of ND over a hot window, or stick a book light or a reflector in front of your talent; there are so many things you can do in just a few minutes. I used to shoot a lot of car commercials back in the 90s and I can't ever remember not having balanced a shot.
When you're shooting an observational documentary, there will be times where you're forced to choose between exposing your subject and blowing out highlights. Where is the focus of your frame? What is the important element? What's the story of your shot? Do you need to see detail through a hot window? Why? Does it matter if your subject is in silhouette? I've been shooting BBC docs for 20 years and I've lost count of the number of times I've chosen to let part of the frame clip. It was never "bad lighting", it was the correct choice of shot to tell the story.
@@jamesc9274 Could you at least read what I wrote properly? You are partly writing what I wrote already 😂
Like I said, if you do not have time: Fair enough. Go for the compromise and blow out the highlights. But still, this is a compromise.
" I've chosen to let part of the frame clip. It was never "bad lighting""
Probably it was bad lightening. Maybe it was the best you could do in that situation. Maybe there was no better possibility to get better lightening, but the lack of options doesn't make it good lightening.
But hey, as the pro with 20 years of BBC Docs, please tell me the story your blown out window told.
Rule number one: Always call your shitty shots "artistic choice".
@@maksimwalter9210 Mate. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Amazing the way you explained it! Very helpful mate! Keep it going 🔥
Thanks Maximilian!
Finally shared my thoughts and knowledge about this subject since i‘ve been avoiding making the video for a long time simply because i was still looking to explain it in the best possible way. (also couldn’t find such a video on the internet that deep dives in the art of exposure and i think i covered some new perspectives)
I hope it helps, let me know if you have any more questions!
Massive know-how and congratulations for the performance bro !!!! 💯🔥
Appreciate you bro!
I can only recommend that you analyze movie stills with false color luts for yourself. It helped me a lot to achieve and understand the right cinematic contrast.
Breaking photography habits is one of the hardest things to do when you've been trained and enforced to do everything in a clean and clinical way. I'm finally starting to really get filmic footage because I'm not afraid of breaking these unwritten rules.
Super solid tips! Great tutorial and editing on this 👏
Thank u
Very well explained. Thanks for the tip to shoot during day. Never thought about that!
Bro is the embodiment of "straight to the point"
This video was very helpful, unfortunately you don't get as much attention to such a great content, you're very underrated
Haha yeah I cut everything else out. Appreciate you man! and glad to have you onboard 🤝🏽
Der Ansatz ein „cinematisches Bild“ bauen zu wollen ist, denke ich, der falsche. Auf Fenster etc. zu belichten ist ein technischer Aspekt, den man bei jedem Projekt neu infrage stellen kann. Wichtiger ist es ein Bild zu gestalten, welches die Story vorantreibt oder untermalt. Alle auf YT wollen einen „cinematic Frame“ aber die meisten wollen die Bildgestaltung nicht gerne mit ihrem eigentlichen Sinn in Zusammenhang bringen: der Geschichte. Was bringt einem DOP ein schönes Bild, wenn es nicht zum Film passt
Great video man! Keep up the good work! I use false colors along with my light meter to get proper exposure and to help judge the contrast ratio.
Thanks Glen!
I would be EXTREMELY careful of using the ETTR technique. If you do this for every shot, you'll end up exposing your talent at different values which will cause problems when you cut your shots together and try to match them in the grade. Any digital sensor or film negative will shift colour slightly when filming the same thing at different exposures. This is especially noticeable on skin tone. The human eye and brain are programmed by millions of years of evolution to pick up even the most subtle shift and variation in skintone. Instead, you should aim to shoot your talent at the correct exposure value and then adjust the rest of the frame to match. So, when shooting drama, instead of exposing for the window in the example you use in your video, you'll want to use sheets of ND to knock it down to match the rest of the frame. When shooting docs or in less controlled environments, you'll have to manipulate the subject instead by moving them away from it so you're not shooting in front of such a hot source.
I was lucky enough to study under some very experienced cinematographers, including Haskell Wexler, Billy Williams and Carlo di Palma. They all had exactly the same technique. Peg the exposure using their incident light meter meter on the actor's face (the modern equivalent would be to use false colour or waveform on an 18% grey card). Then put away the meter and light everything else by eye. That was the thing they drummed into all of us: *use your eyes*. When youv'e finished lighting the scene, then fine, use your spot meters (false colour) to judge when something is too hot and then adjust your extreme highlights accordingly.
Good cinematography is always about photographing faces above everything else. They should always be your starting point, NOT the brightest part of the frame. Consistency between shots is what you should be aiming for. The very best cinematographers always shoot every shot in the scene, if not the whole movie, at the same stop. Ted Moore, for example, shot every single scene in all the early James Bond movies at t5.6 which is utterly crazy when you consider how slow film emulsion was back in the 1960s.
Thank you for the insights! I see what you’re arguing especially with the changes in exposure on skin tones and consistency. Now, there’s a lot what comes to my mind that I’d like to ask but also like to argue. And I’d really like to have this conversation with you since it’s a hot topic that imo should be talked about more. But I’ll just say this for now:
I definitely don’t recommend using ETTR all the time, as I said when your camera is bad (at low light) that can be a great way of manipulating actual exposure to get good looking results. Of course it’s not an easy way because it takes time to get right and all… especially when you have to make the camera work (and it’s actually working against you).
I actually never went back to ETTR since I upgraded to a cinema camera.
But still I’d recommend it to people that are pretty new to cinematography to at least try out especially if you don’t have a cinema camera. I think it’s great for the learning curve. At least that’s also what got me to this point trying everything and pushing it.
Again I think your comment is great and gives a whole other perspective. It’s definitely gonna be on my focus to level up my cinematography. But also for the ones that want to dig deeper, the one’s that are already more advanced.
Other than that, it would be a “part 2” to this video since this one was mainly for amateurs or people getting into cinematography.
@@jaredfilms Hi Jared, I don't quite understand your point, my friend. Why would you recommend a stills technique to a beginner that's innapropriate to shooting video except in a very few rare cases? Not only will they end up with a bad image, they won't understand why the muddy colours and high levels of noise they get in their image are because the important areas of the frame that should be properly exposed are actually underexposed, which is the common danger of this technique (you can see it in your first talking head shot at the beginning of the video).
Recommending the wrong technique to a beginner is never a good idea, you're just teaching them bad habits that they will have to relearn later on.
@@jamesc9274 Agree! He should just admit, and move on. At the end of the day all he wants, and all you want is to help give people the proper techniques to film at a high/pro level. Teach it right, learn it right, and then bend the rules but don't bend the rules before you understand the fundamentals.
What does it mean to expose at t5.6 on every frame ? Does it mean your aperture is locked at t5.6 and your exposure at 0 ?
@@Samuel_Maillard Hi Samuel, it just means that he lit every scene so that when shooting at 1/48th second (24fps with 180 deg shutter angle) on 50 ASA film, there was enough light to expose the scene correctly at the t-stop he wanted to shoot at (in this case t5.6) . If you decide to shoot at only one t-stop, then you're effectively locking all your parameters if you're shooting on the same film stock because your shutter speed will never change. In those days, cinematographers used light meters to take a reading in the area of the scene he wanted to measure (for example in front of an actor's face). With digital cameras there's no need to do this, you can juse use a waveform or false colour either directly on the actor's face or if you want to be more accurate on an 18% grey card. Of course you'd need to know where skin tone and 18% grey lies on the curve for your particular camera and which IRE value is correct for your sensor. By the way, a handy tip for exterior documentary shooting is that green grass in temperate climates is usually very close to middle grey and it can be much easier when you're in a hurry just to point the lens at the ground to get a quick and accurate reading.
great breakdown 🔥🔥🔥
I always struggle with exposure. Loved this video man!
That's exactly why I made it. Happy to help :) I used to be in the same place... was never sure enough
Great breakdown! I feel like I knew these things but you really put it in perspective!
Thanks Wesley!
Omg. This answered so many, many questions for me. Subscribed and thank you.
Welcome!
> secret to exposure
> bro is underexposed
Loved this video! Thank you for the tips!
You’re welcome mate!
Wow, this is definitely the recipe for cinematic imagery! Even if I don’t consider myself as a beginner this really gave me clearance. Thanks for making this
You’re welcome, that’s exactly why I made it 😊
EDIT: My bad, just saw your recent upload addressing not to use ETTR!
Hey Jared, nice video and well put together. I'd just like to clarify about your "how does cinema expose" section. When we shoot films, we monitor with a 'show LUT' and expose for the final look in camera. We rarely ever ETTR on set (I've never personally seen any DP do this on a big budget film set). In post, the colourist will usually stick close to how it was exposed by the DP but still build the look up from scratch plus any power window/automation adjustments that couldn't be done on the day with Livegrade. Also, a lot of DPs I've worked with keep skin tones around 50% and under, even as low as 20% for night shoots. The reason we expose so low for cinema is because, usually the movie will ideally be viewed in a darkened environment (like a cinema) and also because it gives a lot of headroom for exposure (equal stops above and below middle gray rather than interview style 70% IRE). There are some unique examples where some movie shots are overexposed on purpose for creative reasons (eg. in the matrix when Neo opens the door to the tv screens room). False colours are really good for viewing monitors outdoors or uncontrollable environments, but on set when DPs expose inside the DIT tent which is blacked out, they almost always do it by eye. We usually always stick to the cameras native ISO and swap NDs or pull iris.
Once again, really good video! just wanted to clarify this particular section of the video!
Yeah for sure! Thanks for sharing your insights, especially with what IRE values you go. As I mentioned in this video ETTR was something i figured worked for my worse camera. Wouldn’t recommend any more too. (Did an update video on this, -> pinned comment)
Very well explained. Thanks for your effort!
Thanks for your comment 😊
that was a really great explanation thank you very much
perfectly explained, you nailed it! Thanks a lot!
Happy to hear it was helpful 🤝🏽
more valuable advice than my 3 years in film school lol earned yourself a new sub! 🙏
Haha damn, appreciate ya!
Informative video 👌🏿👌🏿
A fresh dude ;) - Nice vid - keep on going!
Monitoring Rec709 instead of Log will display blown out highlights where your camera in actually capturing details. I would use conversion LUTs on the monitor just to get a better feel of the image, not for waveform/false color monitoring.
AMAZING VIDEO!!!!! this help a lot
None of the shots you showed as "bad example" are bad. They're artistic choices and they totally look "cinematic".
Yes, I agree with you. I would have had to express myself differently at the point. And now I would speak about it differently again. In the end, everything is subjective. It is art. Also if you find it pleasing as a viewer or not. And i’m pretty sure all these DPs knew what they were doing with their shots.
What does artistic choice has to do with the technical part?! They are technically bad, overexposed, this is just strait up undeniable... Unmovable fact, they are technically bad, period. It has nothing to do with a story, but with a camera man and screaming director, with strict deadlines, budgets, human factor etc, etc. But who cares?! Lots of junk holes like Netflix has lots of "cinematic" garbage that nobody watches. And there are lots of technically bad films with interesting story. Technical part has nothing to do with "artistic choice", I can make underexposed black square Malevich film and call it artistic, but it will still be technically bad image.
@@warhamburger40k81 none of the shots are overexposed. Having high highlights does not mean an image is overexposed. There is nothing technically bad about those shots.
@@warhamburger40k81 that’s silly to think these are “technically” bad or overexposed. No one would expect to see detail behind the person and the detail on the person at the same time, given these conditions.
I would argue that these examples are exposed properly, as this is what you would expect in the real world.
@@J_HNP Yup. When there might be doubt, just do what your eyes see. As I said I took it back (calling them bad examples). And i agree on what you just said that all look realistically exposed/lit but the one (again imo) with Jim Hopper - this one could have had more detail in the background since it fills quite the screen and the viewer is watching from a cave or tunnel i guess and your eyes would also expose more for the background and not him standing close... As i'm writing this I remember how it is when coming from a tube/tunnel into brightness cus eyes take some time to adjust exposure changes... so again it also depends on the sequence what shot was shown before etc... but when judging from this still alone...
Great knowledge 👊🏾🎥
this really helpful
Good stuff man. Helped a lot!
Happy to hear man!
Nice video bro, very informational.. by the way do you happen to have a video on how to get Smoove cinematic skin that pop out for Davinci resolve
Thank you
Wonderful tutorial!!!
Excellent video!
another option (in a controlled enviroment) is to bring external lights "down"; by adding blinds, ND films to the windows, or such things.
🙏🏽 yeah for sure! Also mentioned this in part 2
Great video man, thank you 🙏🏽
Glad you liked it, Navik!
Thank you for all the valuable info.
Any time man!
Thank you for this! This helped me a lot
Glad it helped!
Great job 👏🏾
Great explanation. Thx.
Useful video. Cinematography is a complex subject! And every camera does it differently too. I'm guessing you're using a Glimmerglass or Black Mist filter? I have a Glimmerglass 1 filter and it makes my shots on my Sony ZV E10 look unbelievably dreamy. Ppl probably think I'm nuts running around outside in the Aussie sun with a portrait lens and filters but the results are out of this world, totally different to what you'd get from a phone camera for instance.
Thank a lot for your content 🙏
Amazing content!! Cheers from Portugal
Obrigado Guilherme!
Really enjoy it
One of my favourite thing about this video is the many controversies that triggered in the comment session
So much to learn from them too in a way or another
Your false color images are very useful to see what you're talking about visually. Great video
Great video. Learned alot
Cooles Video, Jared. Auch, dass Du auf Englisch sprichst. Keep it up bro :)
Thanks so much
This is gave me some ideas. Thanks for this video.
You’re so welcome (:
Just to tell you, this thumbnail is amazing, I clicked in an instant without knowing you or being subscribed. Can't tell you why, just loved it.
Wow, thank you!
Wow so much information thanks!!!
Happy to hearr ❤️🔥
This is something I stumbled upon naturally. I was super disappointed with my shots because I was told the ETTR. Eventually, one shoot I was so disappointed and mad at my images I just decided to make everything DARK… VERY DARK. ( I was prepared to give the client a refund for the shoot) the moment I put it into the editor…. It was beautiful. All my highlights were gorgeous and everything was amazing. The shadows? Were way closer to black but I was so much more pleased with the images. 10/10 best advice right here
Great video!
You are a great teacher!
Woah hearing it for the first time… thank you so much, means a lot 😊
Very cool video man! Well explained! IRE mesurement is not that accurated actually but It helps!! Keep inspiring man!
Thanks for watching, Carles! Do you mean the deviations from camera/monitor to camera/monitor?
This is challenge for short filmmakers because we use different apps to apply special effects for a part of a particular scene and those effect sections have different colour mood diffently from the actual camera used to shoot.
Great video thanks I learned a lot.👍
Glad to hear it!
great video my dude!
Thanks for the visit!
Very helpful! Laying in my bed ar 2 am and learning to look different at exposing🤝
I gotchu bro 🤝🏽
You got a subscriber🎉🎉🎉
Awesome video! Very appealing image
Thank you! Cheers!
spoken like a 🐐
Hey! Great content - I do have a question which is confusing to me.
Waveforms - when shooting in Slog3 (Sony) and Using the rec709 Lut monitor , do I based the Waveform of the Slog3 or the Lut?
thanks! Uhm I‘m not sure, I would try with and without and compare those graphs if you’re not certain of what the waveform is based on. At best you’re reading the waveform based on your log (what your camera sees)
Nice Video Bro
Great video! Got me out of my fear of overexposing slightly 😂
That’s the goal!! Thanks mate
this was soooo helpfull thanks
I'm so glad!
Ur video cinematography feels like Wong kar wai Movies💙
appreciate you!
Ich habe gesehen du kommst aus Deutschland, super informatives Video, hat mir sehr geholfen. danke :)
Great video, love the style. These comments are like a cinematographer’s happy hour. ❤
Yeah for real, it’s great. Love it. Better than reddit
May I ask whats the song from the intro? I've felt in love with it!
sure! it’s 'The Fall' by the chainsmokers. it’s a great song, i‘ve pitched and eq‘ed it a bit though
@@jaredfilms Thank you so much!
Precious info! What makes your image in this video not sharp like there is a fog without having it, kind of films looks? Lens? Filter? Post?
Thanks 🙏🏽 shitty filter in the first place and accidentally too much noise reduction in post :|
Nice vid dude, I am struggling with exposing right. I wish I had false colors in camera as I cannot carry an external monitor around.
Thanks! That’s why I really like Bm cameras it also therefore has a way better accurate reading
The thumbnail is next level
Thanks for the love dude!!
I see people saying prioritize skin. While this is true, know that you can always add light to a skin tone to bring it to proper exposure but never take light from blown highlights. I have learned personally to always expose for highlights and adjust for skin either in post if I'm not too far off or add light to the scene.
This video was dope, subsribed
Thanks!
Hey man I was wondering how you got that IRE graph 0-1 in Davinci? I wanted to see the values of my stills like you are showing.
what do u mean 0-1? For showing false color in DaVinci i use the OFX 'False color‘
What are you shooting the video with? I do see one light tube but what camera and lens do you use. And are you using a promist as well I mean the talking head part please. Thank you.
Good eye on that tube! Back then I was using a gh4 with the 18-35 stills lens from sigma. Not sure about the diffusion filter anymore. Nowadays I'm using the BM 6K G2 and typically no filter though
Amen !
Great video! Subbed :)
Hey, thanks and welcome :)
how do you adjust the wording have that red-ish glowing effect, I have no idea how to do so, how do you make it/how to achieve that exposure red highlights
It’s called Halation. I made a video where I also show this insight:
Emulating Tungsten Film - CineStill 800T (DaVinci Resolve) + PowerGrade
th-cam.com/video/qH0Ruqlaefw/w-d-xo.html
around timestamp 11:18
In this video here though I just did it for fun on my text layers.
I love you brow, i am from Brazil
nice .. can you tell which camera and lens you are shooting for this video? ..thanks
this video was lumix gh4 with sigma 18-35
hey, what movie is it on the top left corner of the thumbnail? great vid :)
It’s actually from a commercial titled “Pirelli - 150 Years”
It's also important to remember that when we look at movies, that is a graded shot. These shots are certainly exposed a bit differently than what you see in the final movie, so it's hard to really judge how it was exposed on the day.
for sure. I think i mentioned that in the video tho
@@jaredfilms yeah you did, my bad for committing TH-cam's cardinal sin of commenting before the end :D
@@rolithesecond Haha no worries it’s in this case a nice reminder for ppl
I thought this was a really helpful video
Hey I was wondering what camera you we’re filming on??
this video? lumix gh4
Thank you for this video. The video itself is very good, the information itself and the way of presenting it is very clear. but don't get me wrong, I cannot say the same about your A-Roll. It looks way more soft than it should be and the effect reaches the point where it looks not soft cinematic-ish but rather as if you forgot to clear your lens, or use the cheapest vintage lens/installed lens from disposable camera to your regular camera.
anyway, I just wanted you give you my perspective and didn't want to be rude in any way.
Fair enough man! I‘m not happy with it either… made some decisions I now wouldn’t. Also had to denoise quite a lot so that’s what destroyed it on top for me. You should check in on some of my newer videos though to make yourself a picture of it :)
Instant subscribe.
Love to hear that haha!
Most cinema cameras drastically change dynamic range seperation (bright and dark areas) with changing ISO...for example : you shoot outside and it's a bright overcast day...normally you would stick with a low ISO or the native ISO in conjunction with using an ND...but...if you increase ISO just two stops higher than native ISO...the details that the sensor can capture in the bright areas drastically increase.
This also works in the other direction...dark scenes ISO 100 because sensors capture more shadow details with lower ISO's.
Liebe Grüße aus Mannheim 👍 und viel Erfolg
I remember learning about this around a year ago. It was funny because the higher ISO increases the cameras sensitivity to light but also introduces more noise (an oversimplification) so you’d think that you would want a lower ISO to not overexpose a bright exterior. But it’s the opposite, where the higher ISO shifts the cameras dynamic range to read more details in the highlights, so you’ll just need to stop down the aperture or use NDs to compensate
@@cannibalraptorbecause of how cinema cameras work, you only have one or two native isos, higher iso than native just underexposed the image. Old cameras like the 5D mkII, had a "real" iso value for every stop change. Only ±⅓ stops would be equivalent to the cinema cameras. Modern cameras do indeed only have one or two native "real" ISOs. For still, grab a camera with an iso invariant sensor and shoot it at base and use exposure compensation to make your "iso" DR 200/400 are also soft iso settings for shifting highlight retention alike the cinema cameras.
hey what´s the name of the firts sound effect or nade of the track played on the video at the very begining?
it’s a song. The Fall by tcs
@@jaredfilms thansk dude.
Please what was the software you use to edit the photos thank you.
What do you mean editing the photos? I was using DaVinci Resolve which is an video editing/grading program
I noticed the best videos tend to have a dark filter over them