- Posts: 185
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:38 pm
Hello everyone,
I know a lot of this can be explained by learning the principles of cinematography, coloring etc., but I would be interested in a trained eye's examination of the footage I captured recently with my URSA Mini Pro which is linked below.
Mainly, I'm just wondering regarding exposure levels: as you can tell by observing the footage quite a few of my shots are blown out and clipped. However, when I was looking at the monitor I really enjoyed what I was seeing and when I stepped down 2 stops on the ND filters I felt that the image lacked the same punch that the overblown images had. And having reviewed, edited and processed my footage I am actually very happy with the images that I captured which have portions of them blown out.
I understand that imperfect images can be a part of the creative process, but just to localize it to a particular shot(s), would I be correct in saying that the dynamic image that was achieved at 0:22 and 1:03 would not have been possible if I shot at a "correct" exposure i.e. where there was no blow out? or would it have been possible to pull up the highlights in post etc to get the same affect?
I feel like there are two ways you can shoot a film, especially in dynamic "doc" style environments as opposed to pre-planned fiction, 1. you can make sure everything is technically correct on the camera's display or 2. you can go by your eye and what feels right. Which way do you guys go? Assuming that you're not shooting RAW of course
I know a lot of this can be explained by learning the principles of cinematography, coloring etc., but I would be interested in a trained eye's examination of the footage I captured recently with my URSA Mini Pro which is linked below.
Mainly, I'm just wondering regarding exposure levels: as you can tell by observing the footage quite a few of my shots are blown out and clipped. However, when I was looking at the monitor I really enjoyed what I was seeing and when I stepped down 2 stops on the ND filters I felt that the image lacked the same punch that the overblown images had. And having reviewed, edited and processed my footage I am actually very happy with the images that I captured which have portions of them blown out.
I understand that imperfect images can be a part of the creative process, but just to localize it to a particular shot(s), would I be correct in saying that the dynamic image that was achieved at 0:22 and 1:03 would not have been possible if I shot at a "correct" exposure i.e. where there was no blow out? or would it have been possible to pull up the highlights in post etc to get the same affect?
I feel like there are two ways you can shoot a film, especially in dynamic "doc" style environments as opposed to pre-planned fiction, 1. you can make sure everything is technically correct on the camera's display or 2. you can go by your eye and what feels right. Which way do you guys go? Assuming that you're not shooting RAW of course
Last edited by James McDonagh on Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.