However applying 1:2 (0.5) gain in the G and B channels we get
No but you shouldn't do that. Because blown out highlights will pick up a color cast. You should be gaining up and intentionally clipping.

2- If there's a color that should have read:
In the second set of numbers, the exposure is roughly higher. So it is somewhat more "overexposed".

3- I think you see why I think cameras (especially digital cinema) should stick with their natural white balance... and apply filtering as necessary to get the right WB in camera.

I think you see why I think cameras (especially digital cinema) should stick with their natural white balance... and apply filtering as necessary to get the right WB in camera.

#1 - Natural WB? What would that be? Manual WB OR one of the Presets? I suspect you don't mean the camera's AUTO WB?

#2 - Are you saying apply filters first and THEN WB?

So, what we ARE saying generally is that we should shoot to get the MOST information for that shot. This means having an "acute" awareness of that shot ( this means SKILL as far as I'm concerned), PLUS exactly what it means for the production in total and being alert. If one is doing non-controllable lighting scenarios it often means exposing for the darks and blowing the brights. Now, place somebody who does NOT have these awareness's and expect at best "fortunate" happenstances and at worst the ONLY shot that could have been had wrecked by expecting too much of somebody too early in the acquisition of their skills-base.

Using a camera is tough,. It work it is damn hard work. Sometimes it is easier than others. Often it is truly rewarding. If done with sensitivity and understanding it will lead ME unto better and greater things.

Colour Correction ain't no substitute for these things.

Now, creative COLOURATION or colourizing, that which happens when an artist mixes their palette is ALSO what we should be discussing here.

Has anybody seen rushes from superbly lit and focused and framed work? Well it it deadly dull. Well put together, but dull. It is when the whole post army horde get to grips with the stuff that the film pops into life.

And I guess herein lies the rub: We are a broad church of Users. And I bet a lot of us wouldn't even choose each other as business partners, let alone wishing to share artistic merits of this or that shot or process. But we are here. Drawn together 'cos we have an NLE that we all work with. How I/we develop our craft is a up to each of us. Each of us have different and various demands and financial constraints - having to employ personnel that may not be up to the job is a business decision - reaping the rewards of using talented camera operatives can also be the same. Relying on an NLE to correct poorly adjusted WB is again another business decision.

How does it go? In film expose for the brights - the darks will take care of themselves. In Digital expose for the DARKS and forget the brights.

Great thread this. Up to our usual standard - Team-Vegas!

Keep it up!

#1 - Natural WB? What would that be? Manual WB OR one of the Presets? I suspect you don't mean the camera's AUTO WB?
Certain cameras can record the "raw" output, with no in-camera processing applied. No electronic white balance, no matrix, etc.

Most cameras don't let you do this.

#2 - Are you saying apply filters first and THEN WB?
You would apply filters *to* white balance. No electronic white balance can be desireable.

In Digital expose for the DARKS and forget the brights.
Well IMO, you can pick whatever exposure you want. There isn't really a "correct" exposure.
In almost all situations, the dynamic range will exceed what the camera can capture. So you have to pick what slice of that dynamic range you want. Some people prefer to keep more of the highlight detail; this may be because blown-out highlights are more obvious than clipped shadows.

In the highlights, you have:
Clipping
Superwhites (some NLEs will clip these; Vegas by default doesn't clip these much)
?non-linearities / color shifting
Video knee (depends on camera; can be disabled usually)

In the shadows, you have lots of noise. You may also have a soft toe type curve/setting and/or black stretch settings that affect this region.

Your camera may allow you to change the overall transfer response / curve or specific portions of it. In the F900, you can load in your own LUT. The F900 also has a dynamic knee, which adjusts the knee settings based on what's being recorded (lower end Sony cameras may do something similar). Cameras that record "raw" allow you to manipulate this stuff in post.

If you drag a field monitor out when you shoot, you could simply get things right in-camera and do nothing in post. And you will know you have what you want in the can. If you learn your camera well enough, you can figure out how the zebras and such correspond to what a broadcast monitor would show. So you could figure out the desired exposure based on intuition and/or rules of thumb.
i.e. one rule of thumb you could use: Increase exposure until the *subject* (not background) zebras at 100 IRE (you need the zebras set at 100 IRE). Back off a tad until there is only a dot of zebras.
You can figure out your own rules based on different zebra settings.

I agree 110% with what Glenn says about exposure, anything clipped is bad. Bald heads under spotlights, shiny cheeks, icky stuff if you let it get too hot and you really cannot fix it. The HDV cameras for some reason seem to make more of a mess of it than the DV cameras.
After my last pathetic attempts at shooting a live stage production I'd also agree about having a GOOD monitor with you. I made the silly mistake of thinking a little LCD would do, BIG mistake.
If you can get your hands on an old Hamlet waveform monitor they might also be very handy. The one we used to have knocking around would superimpose waveforms onto the video going into a monitor, might be very handy. I've seen some of this old tech go for a song at auctions.

Of course nothing beats years of experience and really knowing your camera.

Bob.

Well IMO, you can pick whatever exposure you want. Thanks! And yes I do understand what you mean.

There isn't really a "correct" exposure. Oh yes Glenn, there is. It's the ONE that tells the story. The ONE that provides me with enough of the detail to do it. THAT'S the right exposure - no? All our numbers and zebs are but nought if we don't know what the purpose is.

Of course nothing beats years of experience and really knowing your camera. Bob, yes - and KNOWING what not to shoot - and I do have a balding head!

Sometimes I think these discussions wither and drain anyway on function and leave form/design gasping thirstily in the desert.

Sometimes I think these discussions wither and drain anyway on function and leave form/design gasping thirstily in the desert.
====================================================

That's true enough but how do you measure form/design?
I can say there's a noise in your audio centred on 235Hz and we'd all have a pretty clear idea of what I mean with no argy bargy.

But I'm more than willing to give the creative side a go.

On the last shoot I mentioned before, I deliberately avoided getting anything too hot (well I didn't quite succeed, 3 rings sounds nice until you're fumbling in the dark and hit focus instead of aperture!).

Anyways the parts that I didn't stuff up do look luscious, yes it's dark and falls off into black but the colors look way richer than normal video, the shiny gold, yellow and red material looks very rich. Might I even say it looks more like film than video?

I think a lot of the bad press video gets relates to the traditional lighting for video. Just my two Bob's worth, interested to hear what others think.

That's true enough but how do you measure form/design?

Pick one of the following .. or all 3 Bob: Aristotle, Plato and esp Socrates. And then wind forward to any of the Renaissance brush pushers - Leonardo had a go. And so it goes on. There is no substitute for being aware.

Great thread!

Plenty of great minds as you've mentioned who could tell you in an instant that A looks better than B, no argument there but that wasn't the point. They could even perhaps tell you why A looks better than B but to assign a quantitative value to it, I think not.
After all isn't that why we call it Art, not Science?

Now there's oodles of science involved in what we do but as we all know all the science in the world will not save a bad story, bad science might damage the telling of a good story but the story will survive.

I think I've raised much the same point myself as where you started this, it's kind of odd that we all talk about the mechanics of editing but not the art, we whine about many of the things Vegas can't do and jump for joy at many of the new features. No one much questions if we should even be using these things for creative reasons.

Perhaps what's a more viable topic for discussion is how the toolset(s) assists or hinders the creative process. For example I never thought real time playback mattered much until I understood more about the art of editing.

Bob.

"Plenty of great minds as you've mentioned who could tell you in an instant that A looks better than B, no argument there but that wasn't the point."

Yes it is! They KNEW why something looked better and argued from logic WHY! And that WAS exactly my point!

"They could even perhaps tell you why A looks better than B but to assign a quantitative value to it, I think not." They had values - they had the Gods and Muses on their side!! They KNEW they were correct. They even KNEW that the smallest thing was an Atom! And that without the "advantage" of a bubble chamber or electron microscope. They had the theory spot on.

"After all isn't that why we call it Art, not Science?" Maybe. And maybe not. Speak with the guys who demonstrated "spatially" the 3-D intricacies of DNA. Extraordinary mental 3-D gymnastics and "what-ifs" - Crick & Watson.

I am not arguing for NO science. If anything I'm always requesting more relevant and pertinent and User-graspable science. When I open my oil paint tube, I want a certain yellow. I don't NEED to know just how it was processed. If I did know then maybe I could think of using it better. But for starters I really don't need to know - I just wanna paint!

And, point in case, real time Previewing is what it is fundamentally, crucially, always ever what it is ALL about. Put a mark on a canvas - real time Previewing! Your personal Road to Damascus was with someone who you respect - you had your awakening moment. I understand that. When I got my MONSTA! pc for the first tie I glimpsed the Nirvana that Vegas CAN produce. However, and for most people's requirements - split/paste/copy/trim and little FX-ing you got it. But you've seen something else. And no, " it's kind of odd that we all talk about the mechanics of editing but not the art, " It is not odd. It is that the hard work of understanding, reading, researching, improving, challenging, discovering, failing, pursuing, obsessing, failing again, valuing, questioning, more failing, criticism, some success, more obsessing is not what people want to do. OR can afford the time to do. THAT is the monkey on the back ( no offence meant to our nearest evolutionary cousins here! ) of artists. And guess what, it often don't pay well either. Stupid really? Don't you think?

Perhaps what's a more viable topic for discussion is how the toolset(s) assists or hinders the creative process. Yes/no. Guess how many takers you'd get for it here? I bet it would be of very little interest. This is, and for the most a technical Forum. I love it, and the knowledge that you, Glenn and many many others here is immense. There wont be many takers for the "other" chat here. I'd love to be wrong. Please prove me wrong.

Now, where on Earth did I put that contact number for Hamlet? (Lol!)

Yes it is! They KNEW why something looked better and argued from logic WHY! And that WAS exactly my point!
I don't think you can easily say that X is better than Y.

For example, some of our tastes are just different... for example, people have different favorite colors, favorite foods, etc. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... so to say that X is better than Y, it makes sense to define the audience. Is it you? Is it me? Is it everyone in the universe? Is it people who can buy the product? Is it people in your home country? Is it people who can appreciate art?

2- IMO, taste and preference change over time. If you eat too much of a food, you get tired of it. Things go in and out of fashion. Preference depends on what slice of time you look at.

i.e. Shakespeare wasn't as respected in his time as he is now.

3- Sometimes our verbal responses don't correspond to actual enjoyment. Most people would say that Shakespeare's plays are masterpieces. On the other hand, they may not find them that entertaining.

Sometimes consensus about preference is a bit of facade, subject to snobbery (i.e. people hating on reality shows) and other social factors (you don't want to look stupid for saying that Shakespeare is boring).

Now back to the actual question or problem: I thought that my suggestion to make it Sepia thus warm and fuzzy was a practical solution to the white balanse problem but didn't get any feed back on it.

((Garo))

Glenn, of course I completely agree with you.

The ancient philosophers "KNEW" they were correct about form and beauty. They even had logical ways they could argue their case.

You really think I share their ideas? "I don't think you can easily say that X is better than Y." - Glenn? Are you referring to me? Where do I say this? Interesting . . .

As to Mr Shakesbones, off the page, where I guess most of us HAD our first audience with the Bard, often leaves, well it did with this individual, completely bored and wanting to be somewhere else!

Then I saw Larry Olivier in Hamlet . .. well, that was it . .sold . .. "Ah, is THAT what Shakespoke is about!!!" . . I then went on to read, study, attend performances etc etc . .

"Shakespeare wasn't as respected in his time as he is now." Now THAT I didn't know? From where did you draw your information? I thought the Globe Theatre, where he would put on his plays, here in London was doing great business? Fancy, didn't know that, Glenn?

Actually he, along with his gang of playwrights, were the equivalent of the Podcasters of today: Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, and the young upstarts of his day, Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. He enjoyed a golden age of English play writing, performances and Royal patronage that had never previously existed. Actually, greater than Podcasters! Maybe the Minghella or Lean of their day!

And yes, fundamentally, all is driven by expression. Whether it is driven by small or global markets and/or self expression and damn the audiences, it IS about expression. How we get there, what we employ in arriving at that cathartic point in our lives, ultimately is immaterial. We just have a need to express. If I can do this by achieving WB for a small part of what I'm about then I'll use that tool.

Simple!

If I have misread, misunderstood anything you have said I apologise.

Thanks Garo! Yes I agree with you! LOL . . . g

Shakespeare wasn't quite as popular as they other more famous playright in his time, who is largely forgotten now.
I don't know all that much about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jonson#Relationship_with_Shakespeare

The ancient philosophers "KNEW" they were correct about form and beauty. They even had logical ways they could argue their case.
Maybe different people have different ideas about form and beauty. Certainly there are some ideas about beauty that are different over cultures (i.e. ideal weight, make up).

2- Back to the topic:
Yeah you could apply some heavy effect or make the video black & white, but you could also trying fixing the white balance.