John Waldorff wrote:But Marco Solorio from onerivermedia said that it is better to overexpose. John Brawley also wrote about that.
Hmm but what did they mean? 20% zebra, or 40%?
If you go for no zebra, then it is not really overexposed.
Cheers
No zebra showing would indicate nothing is overexposed. The darkest content may actually be underexposed when you "protect the highlights." You might typically achieve that setting zebras at 100% or 95% in the BMCC. The lowest setting for zebras is 75% in the BMCC if I recall correctly. if you used that setting you would likely be crushing the blacks and reducing your dynamic range I think. Something slightly less than 100% zebras may be desired though if the scene is very bright such as shooting snow on a sunny day. Okay, chilly example; better, shooting on the sunlit beach at mid-day... You might want to have a little extra safety margin as some snow or water reflection is going to be brighter than you expected.
If you want to expose so that you get more detail and less noise in the blacks, then you may well have zebras for the highlights. John has mentioned that in some scenes, you would intentionally clip the highlights in a correct exposure for most of the shot, for example at the extreme, if you shoot someone arc welding, you are going to intentionally clip the arc but the rest of the shot will be exposed correctly.
My point is showing some zebras, with the camera set at 100% zebras, isn't necessarily an overexposed shot, just a choice you make depending on what you want to expose for and where clipping is allowed. In a typical shot, given the large dynamic range of the camera, you would want to expose just under the point zebras show.