Overexposure problems when using Marvels Cinestyle v 3.4

[cayenne]

Hello all,

I'm trying to work and learn more with flat settings for video. I've shot some sample tests:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13012.0

And I found that using Marvels, and even the manual flat settings as recommended by many on the site here...that when setting exposure in the viewer, that when it showed proper exposure in the in camera meter, that the output was quite overexposed.

On the test footage, on the two clips where I underexposed by about 2 stops, I had much better footage and room for color correction/grading...nothing was blown out like with the ones I'd set by the in camera meter.

Those test shots are also of me trying out setting white balance with and Expodisc which seemed to work pretty well...but this exposure things seems to be a problem I'm having....anyone else have this problem?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

 

[JasonATL]

cayenne - I read over your other thread, too - so I'll respond to a couple of things.

First, to your question here: yes, I tend to underexpose (according to the camera's meter) when using Marvel. Actually, I rarely even refer to the in-camera meter. Rather, I use the histogram to set my exposure. As Axilrod suggests in the other thread, it is often desirable to preserve the highlights. The only way you can do this is to use the histogram. Also, the histogram I use is Magic Lantern's, which has a very helpful clipping indicator and a way to set/change white balance (and a vectorscope, if you prefer to set white balance by looking at the vectorscope).

Second, I prefer Marvel as a "flat" style compared to Techinicolo Cinestyle in many circumstances because it isn't so flat that you must do a ton of work in post to get some contrast back. However, Marvel is flat enough to preserve some shadow detail and some highlight detail in my experience. Properly exposed (as you are seeing), Marvel looks pretty good out of the camera, yet holds up nicely in grading.

Regarding the lack of LUT for Cinestyle: I never used a LUT and was pretty happy with what I could get Cinestyle to achieve. The problem is that I HAD to apply something to every clip and I sometimes suffered problems with banding because I was stretching so much. My point is that, without a LUT, you get most of the way there by adding back a lot of contrast with either a contrast adjustment or by using curves and adding an S-like shape to the curve. Then, tweak to taste.

 

[cayenne]

cayenne - I read over your other thread, too - so I'll respond to a couple of things.

First, to your question here: yes, I tend to underexpose (according to the camera's meter) when using Marvel. Actually, I rarely even refer to the in-camera meter. Rather, I use the histogram to set my exposure. As Axilrod suggests in the other thread, it is often desirable to preserve the highlights. The only way you can do this is to use the histogram. Also, the histogram I use is Magic Lantern's, which has a very helpful clipping indicator and a way to set/change white balance (and a vectorscope, if you prefer to set white balance by looking at the vectorscope).

Second, I prefer Marvel as a "flat" style compared to Techinicolo Cinestyle in many circumstances because it isn't so flat that you must do a ton of work in post to get some contrast back. However, Marvel is flat enough to preserve some shadow detail and some highlight detail in my experience. Properly exposed (as you are seeing), Marvel looks pretty good out of the camera, yet holds up nicely in grading.

Regarding the lack of LUT for Cinestyle: I never used a LUT and was pretty happy with what I could get Cinestyle to achieve. The problem is that I HAD to apply something to every clip and I sometimes suffered problems with banding because I was stretching so much. My point is that, without a LUT, you get most of the way there by adding back a lot of contrast with either a contrast adjustment or by using curves and adding an S-like shape to the curve. Then, tweak to taste.

Thank you!!

Are you using a 5D3 with one of the beta versions of ML ?

I'm going to shoot some more test footage...maybe just another short of my 'cooking show'...and make sure to try the histogram trick to check exposure...I can get them both up at same time on camera, so will try to work with those then, I can definitely see where it would be handy to make sure highlights aren't blown out, which does seem to be one of my main problem.

I've remedied the mixing of light colors in my kitchen, everything is now 2700K, so that should take some variability I've been having to deal with...out of the picture so to speak.


Thanks for the feedback all!!

cayenne

 

[JasonATL]

Thank you!!

Are you using a 5D3 with one of the beta versions of ML ?

You're welcome. Yes, I've been using the the ML 5D3 beta. Whenever I use the 5D3 for video, I've been using the ML beta. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to shoot much video recently.

Good luck!

 

[cayenne]

Thank you!!

Are you using a 5D3 with one of the beta versions of ML ?

You're welcome. Yes, I've been using the the ML 5D3 beta. Whenever I use the 5D3 for video, I've been using the ML beta. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to shoot much video recently.

Good luck!

Ok, thanks for the info.
While I've read about ML, I've not ever tried using it...and I was waiting for Magic Lantern for the 5D3 to get a little more closer to 'gold' stage before trying to use it. I've read that it is safe and won't brick the camera, but still, I'm being a little overly cautious.

So, I'll give it a new look and read up on how to download and install it on the SD card (I think it resides and boots from there?).....and see how it goes.

Thank you,

cayenne

 

[JasonATL]

The alpha version that I'm using does not auto-boot. You must load it each time you want to use it by going into the Canon menu and selecting Firmware update. Not a huge deal. The nice thing is that it can be on your SD card and only loaded when you need/want it.

Also, the alpha that I was using on the 5D3 is quite conservative in not writing over Canon settings. Thus, there are key ML features that aren't there right now. But, for me, having focus peaking, zoom, histogram, and vectorscope make it very useful and address a lot of shortcomings on the 5D3 with respect to video.

 

[cayenne]

The alpha version that I'm using does not auto-boot. You must load it each time you want to use it by going into the Canon menu and selecting Firmware update. Not a huge deal. The nice thing is that it can be on your SD card and only loaded when you need/want it.

Also, the alpha that I was using on the 5D3 is quite conservative in not writing over Canon settings. Thus, there are key ML features that aren't there right now. But, for me, having focus peaking, zoom, histogram, and vectorscope make it very useful and address a lot of shortcomings on the 5D3 with respect to video.

Ok, thanks...

Just on the ML site and appears a new Alpha version is out. I think I may download, read up and try it this weekend!!

Thank you!

C