FEATURE REQUEST: Ed Lachman Zone (EL Zone) Exposure System

Definitely a +1 from me, for both Pocket cameras and Resolve

+1 We need this, would be useful in many different scenarios. At least on the bmcc 6kff?

+++1!

+1 for me as well, only thing missing from the 7" 12G video assist

Please, please, please BMD finish upgrading the features already in cameras like the URSA and 12K... like the RGB Histogram, the gyro stabilization and such. Yes, the older camera models' firmware should be brought up to date before a feature such as EL Zones, which can likely be accomplished just as well using a viewing LUT.

This would be great in Resolve, in camera, or in Video Assist.

Hey guys,

I'm not sure right now and would be glad if someone could help me. If I understood correctly, you would have to specify the log input format for the monitors that support El Zone, i.e. SmallHD and Atomos. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything about whether the monitors support Blackmagic at all. Does anyone have any information about this? The videos I found on Youtube had RED or other cameras in the test and in one video he went through the supported brands and I couldn't see any Blackmagic. Is this perhaps something that is not supported for Blackmagic cameras at all for legal reasons?

Thank you in advance.

This seems like a better idea.

https://sweetspot.camera/official-pre-launch

JB

Hey guys,

I'm not sure right now and would be glad if someone could help me. If I understood correctly, you would have to specify the log input format for the monitors that support El Zone, i.e. SmallHD and Atomos. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything about whether the monitors support Blackmagic at all. Does anyone have any information about this? The videos I found on Youtube had RED or other cameras in the test and in one video he went through the supported brands and I couldn't see any Blackmagic. Is this perhaps something that is not supported for Blackmagic cameras at all for legal reasons?

Thank you in advance.

I can confirm that SmallHD OS5 and OS6 do support BMD Gen5 gamma/colour in their colour pipe, but I haven't tried setting up the thermal EL Zone for it yet.

[Edit] Yup, SmallHD's EL Zone and Thermal EL Zone work with BMD Gen5 as long as you set up the colour pipe properly.

I got an email from Cullen Kelly about an initiative he is involved with. I don’t mean to derail the conversation of the EL Zone but this sounds similar and probably simpler to comprehend and used. Here’s the link to check it out.

https://sweetspot.camera/official-pre-launch/

One of the thing is that since it’s a LUT package, It could also work on the UMP4.6K G2 which no new firmware updates are released anymore.

Two entries above you

This seems like a better idea.

https://sweetspot.camera/official-pre-launch

JB

I don't own a BM camera, can you customize a button to toggle between monitor LUTs?

This seems like a better idea.

https://sweetspot.camera/official-pre-launch

JB

Well, I never, John! I thought you were pointing us to a subtle joke; telling us just to get our exposure right, the proper way - I'm still not sure, that's not what it is

Never, as far as I am aware, in the history of cinematography; when that was film, did any major lighting cameraman, use Ansel Adams and the zone system. That was a stills thing, where you could burn it in in the developer room. Like so many things in digital cinematography, ever since people fell on the Canon 5D MKII accidentally, to take moving images; a lot of stuff seems to come from stills not movies; FF being another one.

I'm not a DP more old broadcast guy, but I can't even get my head round false colours - I hate them and it's just zebras and eyeball for me; I need wysiwyg; but that's just me and what do I know.

As others have said, this Lachman EL is on all SmallHD monitors; including mine. If you really want to use it.

Isn’t false colour very much similar to the zone system?

Zone v is middle grey (green), zone 10 is white (red) zone 0 is black (purple)

JB

This seems like a better idea.

https://sweetspot.camera/official-pre-launch

JB

I don't own a BM camera, can you customize a button to toggle between monitor LUTs?

You can toggle a LUT on or off. You can’t toggle between different LUTs.

JB

Isn’t false colour very much similar to the zone system?

Zone v is middle grey (green), zone 10 is white (red) zone 0 is black (purple)

JB

Seems very much that way, to me too.

You can toggle a LUT on or off. You can’t toggle between different LUTs.

JB

Thank you.

Sweet Spot looks cool but I'd still like to see clipping indicators at either end. Depending on the camera Sweet Spot can be combined with other tools, zebras, traffic lights, histograms, etc., but it would be nice to use a single tool for one stop shopping. I would imagine the reason Sweet Spot doesn't do something like this is because ISO becomes a factor and you'd need a LUT for each making it a more complex undertaking.

Good Luck

Isn’t false colour very much similar to the zone system?

Zone v is middle grey (green), zone 10 is white (red) zone 0 is black (purple)

JB

No, as false color is based on IRE. The EL Zone System is based on stops.

I got an email from Cullen Kelly about an initiative he is involved with. I don’t mean to derail the conversation of the EL Zone but this sounds similar and probably simpler to comprehend and used. Here’s the link to check it out.

https://sweetspot.camera/official-pre-launch/

One of the thing is that since it’s a LUT package, It could also work on the UMP4.6K G2 which no new firmware updates are released anymore.

Sweetspot seems like a worse EL Zone System.

And I say that as it only reads skin tones that are only 1/2 stop below middle gray. My skin sits at 1 Stop below middle gray.

I love options and I think there are some aspects of the EL Zone system that really advocate for it, but after getting some more hands on time with it I've gotta say... it feels like too much of a good thing. I had to think about what I wanted from an exposure system and came to the conclusion that my needs boil down to:

- What is actually clipping on either end of the image?
- Where is middle grey?
- What are some rough ballparks for different skin tones?

Yeah, it is nice to have a spot meter style heads up for every stop in the exposure curve but when I'm in production and I'm dealing with a million different problems all at once I want to streamline my decision making process as much as possible. Turning my whole screen in to a solarized Technicolor painting just feels overwhelming, you know? It'd still be rad if BMD implemented it as an alternative option for their existing false colour setup, but for now I'm gonna stick to the current false colour design and my Sekonic L-858.

The reference was to the ZONE system as made famous by Ansel Adams. Not the EL zone system.

JB

- What is actually clipping on either end of the image?
- Where is middle grey?
- What are some rough ballparks for different skin tones?

Red / Purple
Green

Pretty much how I use false colour.

I don’t think skin tone references are THAT useful because everyone’s skin tones are different anyway AND you rarely want skin tones at the same level in narrative drama.

This is whey to me False Colour is already pretty close to ideal. I’m not going to once again explain why it’s not as accurate to have stops. It’s going around in circles now.

JB

The reference was to the ZONE system as made famous by Ansel Adams. Not the EL zone system.

JB

The Ansel Adams Zone system is based on stops. The EL Zone system is based on the Ansel Adams Zone System.

The reference was to the ZONE system as made famous by Ansel Adams. Not the EL zone system.

JB

The Ansel Adams Zone system is based on stops. The EL Zone system is based on the Ansel Adams Zone System.

Great that you brought this up.

It’s based on 10 zones.

How do you represent more than 10 stops?

Genuine question.

JB

The reference was to the ZONE system as made famous by Ansel Adams. Not the EL zone system.

JB

The Ansel Adams Zone system is based on stops. The EL Zone system is based on the Ansel Adams Zone System.

Great that you brought this up.

It’s based on 10 zones.

How do you represent more than 10 stops?

Genuine question.

JB

Negative film is said to have 9-10 stops of dynamic range. Print film keeps 6-8 stops. If you are using a camera that has more , it will fall in the extra stops.

EL Zone.jpg (64.11 KiB) Viewed 7851 times

If that doesn't work for you, you don't have to use it.

If that doesn't work for you, you don't have to use it.

I’m well aware of how it works.

What happens when you rate the 800 native camera at 2000 iso?

JB

If that doesn't work for you, you don't have to use it.

I’m well aware of how it works.

What happens when you rate the 800 native camera at 2000 iso?

JB

I'm not sure why you keep going in circles with this.

This question is answered in the video at 25:41

The whole system is based on the gray point.

Genuine question too, not trying to be funny here, Shaheed:

Can you point to any movies where the EL system has made a major contribution or advance to the art of cinematography? I know Lachman did Erin Brockovich and The Limey; both great movies, but not stand out in that regard; though perhaps that was before he came up with it all. Those of us old enough are well aware of Ansel Adams and the zone system for stills; but as I said the developing and printing was a key part of that; that never translated to movie film labs. So I'm curious to know as why now it's seen as an exciting new development; notwithstanding modern tech allows a parallel simile in motion pictures?

I ask because; and bear in mind I'm not a DP; it seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist - i.e. digital cameras and log/raw offer such latitude now, that it's very hard to get it wrong. People seem to totally overlook a grade that might and should happen too.

I don't really get neither; again perhaps from ignorance; the obsession with 'middle grey'. As John pointed out that is such a moveable feast. And once again, if your exposure is in the ball park with no unrecoverable clipping; a good grade will make most of it pretty.

What happens when you change ISO? What happens to that middle grey zone V? Which ISO rules does it follow? What happens to the extra stops in a system that has more than 10 stop dynamic range spreads. What happens to those when you change the ISO?

You have to be able to answer those questions. Not just say we’re going around in circles and that they just add extra colours.

Yeah I am making a point. You want an exposure system that isn’t tied to the underlying exposure of the sensor, but it tied to the perceptual end result. I don’t think that’s the basis of “good” exposure technique. At best it tells you a ratio of lighting differences. But is misleading unless you know what you’re doing on underlying exposure technique. Never mind that not a single person can even agree on terms like dynamic range, useable dynamic range or what recoverable dynamic range is. Because they are down to the individual taste of the person viewing. Quantum exposure anyone?

This could lead to the same kinds of discussions and core misunderstandings we already have around crop factor calculations where the underlying knowledge of what you’re changing isn’t registering with the DP.

JB

Genuine question too, not trying to be funny here, Shaheed:

Can you point to any movies where the EL system has made a major contribution or advance to the art of cinematography? I know Lachman did Erin Brockovich and The Limey; both great movies, but not stand out in that regard; though perhaps that was before he came up with it all.

Did you watch that entire video above that I posted? It answers many of the questions you are asking.

Can you point to any movies where the EL system has made a major contribution or advance to the art of cinematography? I know Lachman did Erin Brockovich and The Limey; both great movies, but not stand out in that regard; though perhaps that was before he came up with it all.

All those projects are before he came up with it. Every camera company has there own false color with different colors and variables. These don't translate to different cameras. With this system, you have use the same meters on multiple cameras and get similar and repeatable results.

I ask because; and bear in mind I'm not a DP; it seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist - i.e. digital cameras and log/raw offer such latitude now, that it's very hard to get it wrong. People seem to totally overlook a grade that might and should happen too.

Having LOG and RAW does not negate the need to properly light your scenes. They also don't help when doing reshoots. You still have to properly light your scene. This helps you light your scene because you can see what is overexposed or underexposed by looking at the color. It's False Color with stops instead of IRE.

Those of us old enough are well aware of Ansel Adams and the zone system for stills; but as I said the developing and printing was a key part of that; that never translated to movie film labs. So I'm curious to know as why now it's seen as an exciting new development; notwithstanding modern tech allows a parallel simile in motion pictures?

I don't really get neither; again perhaps from ignorance; the obsession with 'middle grey'. As John pointed out that is such a moveable feast. And once again, if your exposure is in the ball park with no unrecoverable clipping; a good grade will make most of it pretty.

You can move middle gray with raw, but at the end of the day, your camera has a set dynamic range, and set limits. The better you expose your image when filming, the less corrections you have to do in post.

Nobody, as far as I know, made a system like the Ansel Zone system that worked on film like this one does. When you use a light meter, you can take a reading and tell your grip gaffer that you want to decrease this section by 1/3 a stop, and they can do it. When you are using IRE, you can't say, hey reduce this light by 25 IRE.

Light meters use stops, Resolve uses stops in the HDR Panel, and your camera uses IRE......? It's natural that you want your camera to use stops as well.


You should watch this master class starting at hour in

Yeah I am making a point. You want an exposure system that isn’t tied to the underlying exposure of the sensor, but it tied to the perceptual end result. I don’t think that’s the basis of “good” exposure technique. At best it tells you a ratio of lighting differences. But is misleading unless you know what you’re doing on underlying exposure technique. Never mind that not a single person can even agree on terms like dynamic range, useable dynamic range or what recoverable dynamic range is. Because they are down to the individual taste of the person viewing. Quantum exposure anyone?

This could lead to the same kinds of discussions and core misunderstandings we already have around crop factor calculations where the underlying knowledge of what you’re changing isn’t registering with the DP.

JB

Did you argue why people used film? It had 10 stops of range. Print had 6-8 stops of range. You take an Arri 35 with it's 17 stops of range and print it to Vision 3 2383 Print Film and those extra 6-7 stops are going to get rolled off.

You're the only one who has issue with this. You are set in your ways on how a picture should be exposed and that okay. What works for you doesn't have to work for someone else, but that's you to come to terms with. For some reason, you feel the need to have someone prove its value to you.

I see the value in it. If it were on these cameras I would use it. You don't see the value in it. I think you should ask Ed Lackman or Shane Halburt what you are missing.

Light meters use stops, Resolve uses stops in the HDR Panel, and your camera uses IRE......? It's natural that you want your camera to use stops as well.

Mine uses foot candles actually. I use these two at the moment.

https://global.sekonic.com/sekonic-l-39 ... ght-meter/

https://www.spectracine.com/product_2.html

There’s two reasons to use a light meter. One is to tell you the absolute lighting levels and therefore the lighting ratios. Something I like to do. Stops don’t tell you the absolute light levels, only the exposure for a given set of camera settings. But you might have two different cameras, or one running at a different frame rate, or two different framing compositions on different sides of the key light on the same setup.

Lighting using meters really doesn’t tend to get measured in stops if you’re using lighting ratios and fc.

This is why *real* cinematographers using light meters measure in Fc or LUX. Yeah I am trying to provoke a reaction here.

Knowing what’s unrecoverably clipping, what’s unrecoverably crushed in blacks and where middle grey is should tell you everything you need for EXPOSING an image.

Lighting?

Trying to interpret lighting in stops through a image doesn’t make a lot of sense because while you might think that’s how you should light, it’s not really the best technique to use to visualise what’s going on. You can also just look at what the sensor see ins a given known space like REC 2020 and WHYSIWYG

JB

Did you argue why people used film? It had 10 stops of range.

Probably more in negative.

Print had 6-8 stops of range.

Probably

You take an Arri 35 with its 17 stops of range and print it to Vision 3 2383 Print Film and those extra 6-7 stops are going to get rolled off.

Which is likely what was happening with film negative that held onto highlight information for more than 10 stops but wasn’t exactly recoverable.

You're the only one who has issue with this.

I don’t see Blackmagic thinking this is a good idea. One of their own colour science team posted early in this thread remember? Don’t think anyone addressed his questions. Mine are in the same thinking…

You are set in your ways on how a picture should be exposed and that okay. What works for you doesn't have to work for someone else, but that's you to come to terms with. For some reason, you feel the need to have someone prove its value to you.

I’m pretty familiar with how this all works. What I’m questioning is methodologies and assumptions about how you are working and why you assume everyone works this way.

I see the value in it. If it were on these cameras I would use it. You don't see the value in it. I think you should ask Ed Lackman or Shane Halburt what you are missing.

Isn’t that what we’re doing here?

JB

Light meters use stops, Resolve uses stops in the HDR Panel, and your camera uses IRE......? It's natural that you want your camera to use stops as well.

Mine uses foot candles actually. I use these two at the moment.

https://global.sekonic.com/sekonic-l-39 ... ght-meter/

https://www.spectracine.com/product_2.html

Ok. I know cinematographers who eye ball everything. That's what works for them.

There’s two reasons to use a light meter. One is to tell you the absolute lighting levels and therefore the lighting ratios. Something I like to do. Stops don’t tell you the absolute light levels, only the exposure for a given set of camera settings. But you might have two different cameras, or one running at a different frame rate, or two different framing compositions on different sides of the key light on the same setup.

And there are cinematographers who wouldn't even touch those two light meters. I am not going to tell them they are wrong.

Lighting using meters really doesn’t tend to get measured in stops if you’re using lighting ratios and fc.

This is why *real* cinematographers using light meters measure in Fc or LUX. Yeah I am trying to provoke a reaction here.

Not exactly sure why or what you are attempting to invoke a reaction for. If anything, it comes across like you are insecure of your abilities.

Knowing what’s unrecoverably clipping, what’s unrecoverably crushed in blacks and where middle grey is should tell you everything you need for EXPOSING an image.

And the EL Zone chart accounts for middle gray, overexposed blacks and overexposed whites. In addition, allows you to see your skin tones. You mentioned Sweet Spot earlier. It doesn't do any of those things and it's a lut with no legend.

Lighting?

Trying to interpret lighting in stops through a image doesn’t make a lot of sense because while you might think that’s how you should light, it’s not really the best technique to use to visualise what’s going on. You can also just look at what the sensor see ins a given known space like REC 2020 and WHYSIWYG

JB

You're saying "don't use this visual spotmeter, just eye it instead". What works for you doesn't have to work for everyone else.

Did you watch that entire video above that I posted? It answers many of the questions you are asking.

No, but I have now; and I see a lot of logic in it and to be fair Lachman said a lot of things that made sense; I can see the value in stops/log scales as opposed to 'IRE'; I can see the value in a standardised scale across all cameras (though manufacturers could have adopted that with false colours too) etc.

Having LOG and RAW does not negate the need to properly light your scenes. They also don't help when doing reshoots. You still have to properly light your scene. This helps you light your scene because you can see what is overexposed or underexposed by looking at the color. It's False Color with stops instead of IRE.

The way this was done in film days, was by a lightning cameraman establishing a replicable contrast ratio, across a set, with a light meter, without reference to the camera itself almost - taking your meter around the set. Knowing your filmstock, ASA, and testing out at the lab was the other variable, learnt through experience. The former could still be done by anyone with any camera; and a light meter. I get that Lachman has that 'spot' meter now in the camera; but the old way was incident too.

You can move middle gray with raw, but at the end of the day, your camera has a set dynamic range, and set limits. The better you expose your image when filming, the less corrections you have to do in post.

Nobody, as far as I know, made a system like the Ansel Zone system that worked on film like this one does. When you use a light meter, you can take a reading and tell your grip gaffer that you want to decrease this section by 1/3 a stop, and they can do it. When you are using IRE, you can't say, hey reduce this light by 25 IRE.

Again this partly assumes nobody grades; it's all done by the DP - I grade because that's my job. I actually have that very SmallHD monitor in the video too.

Again I said why no one used the Zone System in the film days - it was completely untranslatable to the movie film process. If Lachman wants to get back to that familiarity - to light and expose in the way that DPs understand; it's really all new; notwithstanding stops, and all that.

You should watch this master class starting at hour in

I get a lot of it; and he makes a good case; but no it still didn't answer the basic tenant of the question I first posed, Shaheed.

I don’t see Blackmagic thinking this is a good idea. One of their own colour science team posted early in this thread remember? Don’t think anyone addressed his questions. Mine are in the same thinking…

You don't have to see how Blackmagic thinks this a good idea. People are requesting it for a reason.

I’m pretty familiar with how this all works. What I’m questioning is methodologies and assumptions about how you are working and why you assume everyone works this way.

Interesting response as you are judging how everyone else works and why they don't work like you.
I never stated how I work. I only stated I see the value in EL Zone System.

Isn’t that what we’re doing here?

JB

Last time I checked, I was neither Shane or Ed.

At this point you are akin to trolling. It's no different than Marc giving negative criticism in Resolve Feature Requests.

And this posted at the stop of that forum:

Tony Rivera
Blackmagic Design

We appreciate the input from people who use our software and have suggestions/ideas on how it can be improve your usage. Additionally, offering support for other requests that have been posted already is great feedback as well. That said, lets be supportive of these ideas and avoid criticism of the suggestions here.

And the EL Zone chart accounts for middle gray, overexposed blacks and overexposed whites. In addition, allows you to see your skin tones.

Except it CHANGES what it shows with a change of ISO. Middle grey moves around when that’s not what’s happening at a fundamental sensor level.

You’re using it for LIGHTING but it’s driving what you’re doing for EXPOSURE.

You mentioned Sweet Spot earlier. It doesn't do any of those things and it's a lut with no legend.

I think it’s more useful than the EL system. I’d also argue that FC already does what sweet spot does if you pay attention to what’s green. Sweet spot is showing what’s middle grey only, which is a pretty good way to determine exposure consistency SHOT TO SHOT (which is what Sweet spot is trying to address)

I’ve told you why I don’t think it’s a good system and why there are problems implimenting it. BMD have said as much as well on the first page. I think you have to really be able to answer those questions.

This stuff would take engineering time to do and maintain for each camera. Is it worth it?

JB

Again this partly assumes nobody grades; it's all done by the DP - I grade because that's my job. I actually have that very SmallHD monitor in the video too.

Again I said why no one used the Zone System in the film days - it was completely untranslatable to the movie film process. If Lachman wants to get back to that familiarity - to light and expose in the way that DPs understand; it's really all new; notwithstanding stops, and all that.

You should watch this master class starting at hour in

I get a lot of it; and he makes a good case; but no it still didn't answer the basic tenant of the question I first posed, Shaheed.

If you take a picture and you exposed and lit it correctly when you shot it, that's less work that the colorist, whether it's the same person or a different person color grading it. As far as I know, film cameras had no way to properly view the image on a monitor.. If they did, it was very low res. That was a technical limitation.

Using this, you can possibly color grade using light while you are shooting before it even touches Resolve. Just like how makeup is photoshop in real life.


What was the basic tenant of your question again?

If you take a picture and you exposed and lit it correctly when you shot it, that's less work that the colorist, whether it's the same person or a different person color grading it. As far as I know, film cameras had no way to properly view the image on a monitor.. If they did, it was very low res. That was a technical limitation.

Using this, you can possibly color grade using light while you are shooting before it even touches Resolve. Just like how makeup is photoshop in real life.

This is basic misunderstanding of what a colorist does, or the value of them either; and they are not necessarily looking for less work, neither - the possibilities in post, married to the flexibility of modern cameras, are very extensive.

What was the basic tenant of your question again?

Can you point to any movies where the EL system has made a major contribution or advance to the art of cinematography?

But I'm getting beyond my pay grade here, in any case, so I'll leave it to you and John.

Except it CHANGES what it shows with a change of ISO. Middle grey moves around when that’s not what’s happening at a fundamental sensor level.

You’re using it for LIGHTING but it’s driving what you’re doing for EXPOSURE.

You mentioned Sweet Spot earlier. It doesn't do any of those things and it's a lut with no legend.

I think it’s more useful than the EL system. I’d also argue that FC already does what sweet spot does if you pay attention to what’s green. Sweet spot is showing what’s middle grey only, which is a pretty good way to determine exposure consistency SHOT TO SHOT (which is what Sweet spot is trying to address)

I’ve told you why I don’t think it’s a good system and why there are problems implimenting it. BMD have said as much as well on the first page. I think you have to really be able to answer those questions.

This stuff would take engineering time to do and maintain for each camera. Is it worth it?

JB[/quote]
SmallHD, Atomos, Colourlab Ai, Pansonic, and Sigma had no problem implementing it.


You have your opinion. In mine, Sweet spot is a weaker version as EL Zones the doesn't cover all skin stones. And it doesn't cover under or overexposure.
Again, False Color isn't based on Stops and changes from camera to camera.

https://www.filmmakersacademy.com/blog- ... one-guide/

There are two crucial elements here.

The first is the ability to measure scene contrast, used to control lighting. The second is placing the exposure correctly onto either film or sensor.

While you can use false color or something like sweetspot or the EL process, if you know how to use one, a couple minutes with a meter is a very excellent method for tight control.

But it does take some dedicated practice time to figure out the precise meter settings that relate to camera settings and capture capabilities. Many people, including some of the professional crowd, actually don't have enough practice time to work quickly and confidently with a meter.

This is where the camera based processes, whether false color, EL, or sweetspot or something else, become attractive.

Professional workflows always demand speed, accuracy, and especially consistency. If you always deliver correct media on time, the "how" is not that important.

That said, I'm more with John on this.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

This is basic misunderstanding of what a colorist does, or the value of them either; and they are not necessarily looking for less work, neither - the possibilities in post, married to the flexibility of modern cameras, are very extensive.

So you are saying you want to fix blown out or underexposed footage? Or do you want to fix it in post?

Can you point to any movies where the EL system has made a major contribution or advance to the art of cinematography?

I already answered that question. It's fairly new. It's another tool to use. That's like saying What movies used a color checker?

So you are saying you want to fix blown out or underexposed footage? Or do you want to fix it in post?

As I said, it is very very hard these days to get the exposure that wrong. I know it happens and yes I have to deal with it a lot in TV; but they are dipswitches often and with cameras the way they are; as good as they are today, these things should only ever occur, if you really need that shot, regardless - which does happen in docs - but should never ever happen if you are lighting a set; not these days. I'm not a DP, a broadcast guy and I don't need EL (or false colours), when I am shooting with my UBG2, and I often have less control over that lighting; that's all I know.

So you are saying you want to fix blown out or underexposed footage? Or do you want to fix it in post?

As I said, it is very very hard these days to get the exposure that wrong. I know it happens and yes I have to deal with it a lot in TV; but they are dipswitches often and with cameras the way they are; as good as they are today, these things should only ever occur, if you really need that shot, regardless - which does happen in docs - but should never ever happen if you are lighting a set; not these days. I'm not a DP, a broadcast guy and I don't need EL (or false colours), when I am shooting with my UBG2, and I often have less control over that lighting; that's all I know.

You'd be surprised what happens on smaller sets. It's hard to get exposure wrong if you know what you are doing... But many don't. This is why they switch camera brands for small features.
Yeah this would be for the Cinema Cameras more anything.

You should try it out on your SmallHD. Ironically, since Atomos has beef with Blackmagic, SmallHD is the only one that supports Blackmagic cameras that have EL Zones.

There was a guy that made a LUT version of EL Zones. When I used it, it worked quite well.

You'd be surprised what happens on smaller sets.

I can imagine...interestingly perhaps; years ago when I was a film student I devoured this sort of sort of stuff and scoured for books on or by the great lighting cameramen; classic Hollywood mainly and some British.

The studio mantra was 'Light the Money!'; so lighting - and they had to work quick then too - started from the stars and outwards, from then on. Filmstocks were very limited and slow, then; lenses poor and lab flexibility for push and pull, narrow. It was customary to work at one consistent f stop throughout, quite often f5.6, for two reasons: that was usually the sweet spot of these lenses and to have a natural progression of DOF from shot to shot, through focal lengths and framing distance. Both practices have gone out of the window now.

Similarly, lighting ratios were understood through experience of those filmstocks; and there were a lot of hot lights then to get to f5.6, on some very big sets too; a good DOP, would know 10 stops, from kicker to fill; key to arc. It was people like James Wong Howe who threw out those rules and often used available light and hand held - incidentally, he was promoted to DOP after he accidentally discovered that velvet in front of the camera prevented actor's blue eyes from turning white, with orthochromatic film stocks; after he stood in to shoot Mary Miles Minter, a long forgotten silent film star. Panchromatic stocks came later.

Anyways, with that slice of history, all I'm saying is you could still adopt a sub-set of those methods today; you could light to a limited contrast ratio, that covered a pre-determined range of stops, even today; with a good meter; hell, your phone even - without recourse to yet more confusing fancy colours in the viewfinder. I did shoot a lot of film back in the day, long ago, when I still had dreams beyond broadcast

With Adam Wilt‘s Cine Meter II and a small clip-on hemisphere, an iPhone is a really good incident light meter. Just to mention it, if you care about lighting ratios.

Incident metering is fine for lighting your subject but it’s not going to tell you if a window is clipping, nor will it tell you how many stops over key. I can see the value of turning the sensor into a spot meter but I’m not a big fan of the EL implementation which I feel would be less distracting were it luma based rather than roygbiv.

Good Luck

This is basic misunderstanding of what a colorist does, or the value of them either; and they are not necessarily looking for less work, neither - the possibilities in post, married to the flexibility of modern cameras, are very extensive.

I just want to say that, as a DP, exposure is not just a technical but also a creative decision, by me and/or the director. I don't want it be changed in a 'creative' way by the colorist. I've had it happen to my footage quite often: dim scenes, where things were meant to NOT be seen, were pushed up until those things could be seen.
That mostly happened with unexperienced colorist, who are more inclined to mistake the vast options of coloring tools for vast creative freedom.

So to all beginner colorist, if you think you need to make essential changes, especially in exposure, please communicate with your DP/director about it

This is also why I think getting exposure right in camera is important for me as a DP, it's a creative tool, it can change the mood of a scene and therefore I want it to be as close to the intended look as possible in camera.
Any tool that can help is a good tool.

This is also why I think getting exposure right in camera is important for me as a DP, it's a creative tool, it can change the mood of a scene and therefore I want it to be as close to the intended look as possible in camera.
Any tool that can help is a good tool.

This is an exposure tool.