Light Meter

[enny]

Do you guys use light meters at all in your production and how important are they?

[Policar]

I use a 758 cine. Whether you use a spot or incident meter you should use something, but different cameramen prefer different things. So I bought a dual meter as I'm pretty inexperienced. 

I couldn't imagine shooting without it, but if you find you don't need it, there's no reason to have one.

[Cinegain]

I remember there being a topic on that somewhat recently:

Combined with the poll:

that might give you some interesting perspectives. Shane Hurlbut seems to always use one and how he uses it makes sense. I never felt like I needed to, though. Maybe because I'm not legit enough, or I know how my camera handles certain conditions and know how to expose it to get the most out based on the metering/histogram and displayed image. But in the discussions there for example it is a good point that you can use one to light a scene before even rolling a second on camera.

[tupp]

1 hour ago, enny said:

Do you guys use light meters at all in your production and how important are they?

I use a light meter:

•  when scouting locations (to learn any ambient levels or to determine the exposure of any unchangeable lighting/display entity);
•  to get/set lighting ratios;
•  to keep green screen and other broad areas smoothly lit;
•  to keep levels and aperture consistent from one shot/scene to the next (when needed).

[Hans Punk]

Mostly common to use a monitor with scopes when shooting digital (tends to be quicker). Pre-light and scouting are great use for meters...green screen is often better to use scopes to check colour Luminance and a green screen pan glass to visually check for dark spots and faint shadows. But you can still wave the light meter about when the BTS stills photographer is around (but make sure that you periodically stroke your chin and mutter to yourself after taking a reading). 

[tupp]

1 hour ago, Hans Punk said:

Mostly common to use a monitor with scopes when shooting digital (tends to be quicker).

Infinitely more difficult with scopes to get lighting ratios and consistent aperture (from scene to scene).  Much quicker and more accurate with a meter.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hans Punk said:

Pre-light and scouting are great use for meters...

Agreed, as I stated earlier.

 

1 hour ago, Hans Punk said:

...green screen is often better to use scopes to check colour Luminance and a green screen pan glass to visually check for dark spots and faint shadows.

No.  Much easier to use a meter with green screen -- you don't need to keep walking back and forth between the lights and the monitor/camera, like you have to with scopes.

 

Desired "color luminance" works best relative to the subject's brightness/color and also depending on the subject's distance from the green screen (and it is usually never too critical).  Something that complex is often best to eyeball.

 

Also, it is easy to keep green screen brightness within a 1/2 stop variance, using a meter.

 

I have found that except for instances of critical exposure, it is almost always better to use one's eyes, rather than rely on scopes.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hans Punk said:

But you can still wave the light meter about when the BTS stills photographer is around (but make sure that you periodically stroke your chin and mutter to yourself after taking a reading). 

Or, you can peer intently at your scopes in front of the client, while twiddling a few dials, then throw your hands up and exclaim, "Perfect!"  Make sure to keep twiddling those dials throughout the shoot!

[Hans Punk]

Very valid points...but I think the importance of meters with digital is sometimes overstated. Shooting drama is a different story, refinement and accuracy in lighting a crafted scene is where meters obviously still rule if you have the time to design and execute setups. I mainly do runs of commercial shoots (mostly green screen) where we do everything from monitor and scopes - no question. Often when a split Is taken to mix with precomp lineup or previs backgrounds. So 'twiddling the knobs in the tent' and checking by eye is often more efficient around a 100ft green stage. I don't care what a DP says with his meter or their eyeballs, if they don't fulfil technical requirements for me, I'll have a fat screen to show them why (happily not happened yet). There is not always the luxury to manually meter on some projects...and now that monitors are far more reliable and accurate they have become less prevalent in many cases when shooting digital. Not saying that is a good thing...it just appears to be a thing.

[tupp]

9 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

I think the importance of meters with digital is sometimes overstated.

Except for determining exposure, the importance of light meters with digital is the same as it is with film (and the same as it was with analog video).  Occasionally, one still needs to get/record lighting ratios, keep apertures consistent, scout existing lighting conditions, and smoothly light some areas (not just green screen).

 

Prior to the actual takes one is often "lighting air," with no subjects nor stand-ins, sometimes along large areas of expected movement, and scopes are sort of useless in that scenario.  Additionally, when lighting air there are many instances in which one needs to be ready to shoot the moment the subject(s) step in -- not a lot of time for "knob twiddling" with scopes at that point.

 

10 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

Shooting drama is a different story, refinement and accuracy in lighting a crafted scene is where meters obviously still rule if you have the time to design and execute setups.

Shooting drama is the same as shooting anything else.  In most instances, a diligent gaffer will get/record lighting ratios, get meter readings when scouting and get/record readings when lighting green screes and "air."  I have found that the bigger the budget, the more such methods are practiced.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

I mainly do runs of commercial shoots (mostly green screen) where we do everything from monitor and scopes - no question.

Commercials usually have a lot of money behind them, so the DP and/or gaffer (or lighting cameraman) should probably be taking meter readings long before you set-up your scopes.  However, scopes  are undoubtedly helpful in such a situation.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

Often when a split Is taken to mix with precomp lineup or previs backgrounds. So 'twiddling the knobs in the tent' and checking by eye is often more efficient around a 100ft green stage.

I often never need a scope when keying live and/or matching previous images -- a good set of eyeballs along with duplicating the previous meter readings usually nail the match.

 

Of course, on large scale green screens or other situations in which an incident meter can't be used, one must deal with the light that is reflected off of the subject and background, so scopes can certainly help in that situation.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

I don't care what a DP says with his meter or their eyeballs, if they don't fulfil technical requirements for me, I'll have a fat screen to show them why (happily not happened yet).

Not being too familiar with how things are done on the other side of the pond, I am genuinely curious as to what is one's position on set who requires the DP to fulfill one's technical requirements.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

There is not always the luxury to manually meter on some projects...

Up until scopes were built-in to cameras, I had always found the opposite to be true -- it was always a luxury to use scopes, as the rental was always hefty (and it was an extra thing to tote around set, and tethering it to the camera made it that much more difficult to move freely).

 

Meters are relatively inexpensive, are not unwieldy nor tethered to the camera  and meters usually give more more useful info.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

...and now that monitors are far more reliable and accurate they have become less prevalent in many cases when shooting digital. Not saying that is a good thing...it just appears to be a thing.

There is a huge difference in the information regarding the incident illumination that is striking the subject and the light that is reflecting off of the subject.

 

I use a meter to confirm the levels/ratios of illumination that strikes the subject.  Knowing those incident levels is often more important (for the reasons previously stated) than further analyzing what I can see reflecting off of the subject with my own eyes.  I can understand how scopes are helpful to those who are inexperienced/untrained and how scopes are important in getting critical exposure for digital.  However, light meters provide a lot of useful information that scopes cannot, and a meter can make lighting much  easier than using scopes alone.

[Jonesy Jones]

I asked this question recently, and here's what I've learned. 

I have never had or used a light meter previously. But with DP's and whatnot always talking about this being a stop lower than that, and that being 2 greater than this other part over there, I wanted hands on experience with this myself. 

I ended up getting the Kenko KFM-1100. I think it's about $250. It is simple and straightforward and based on the exact same design as an age old light meter that bazillions of photogs and DP's have been using for decades. It did exactly what I had hoped and I was immediately able to test and compare the exposure here vs there, and the light output of one light vs another. I love it.

That said, I still use false color or a histogram or whatever 98% of the time because it's so much faster. Not saying there isn't value in the light meter, and it's way more accurate and specific, but the monitoring tools are super fast, and a lot of DP's like Shane Hurlbut don't use light meters any longer and use false color instead. But I am still very happy I have a light meter and will continue to use, measure, and experiment with it. But the monitoring tools are just faster.

So will all that said, I would definitely not spring for an expensive $800 light meter or anything. The Kenko will do everything you need, last forever, and save you money over a pricey light meter.

[Policar]

Yeah I agree. I don't necessarily use a meter to expose the shot anymore because I expose digitally different from film (with more concern for highlights than shadows and sometimes just ETTR with the Alexa) whereas with film I just exposed 1/3 stop over most of the time.

But for everything else–ratios, vfx, going between set ups multiple times, etc. I always use a meter. Also, most DPs I see without meters are secretly getting shade from their gaffers. I know some people can read ratios by knowing which IRE values correlate with what on which camera at a certain gamma setting and looking at the face in the scopes, but that doesn't work for me because there's so much variation there between cameras and gamma settings nor am I able to pre light a set without a meter whereas with one there's absolutely no need for a camera and you and your crew can get way ahead.

If you can expose and light purely by eye as some can (Slocombe etc.) then you don't need a meter at all, of course, but your gaffer should still carry one.

Unless you're that good, someone on set should really really really have a meter. Even if you're not lighting, it'll dictate how you use fill and negative fill. Just because you don't need it to expose, doesn't mean you don't need it to light. If you don't know how to light and always leave it to your gaffer, that's fine, but make sure your gaffer has a meter then.

I agree that a cheap meter (spectra is the industry standard and a lot cheaper than a dual meter) is all you need, though some DPs will use incident meters and others will use spot meters. Elswit and a lot of AFI guys use spot meters primarily. I use an incident meter for everything except green screens (which should always read at 18% gray and which are almost always overexposed or sloppily lit these days) and occasionally looking to see if highlights will blow out.

[jax_rox]

Depends what you're shooting. If you're truly run 'n' gunning it, you're probably exposing off the VF anyway.

Anything that's got a little bit of setup time - I use mine all the time. It lives around my neck for the day. 

Even though I tend to use a combo of false colour and waveform on digital, I still use it to set lights and ratios. I find overall it gives me more of a 'feel' of what the light is doing, plus it makes it infinitely easier to dial in light levels to where you want, and to then match those ratios in subsequent setups.

That's how I learned to set lights so maybe if you're super comfortable with the monitor and the waveform you might be able to do the same with just that...

Plus you look like you know what you're doing when you pull your light meter out! Haha. At least much moreso than standing at the monitor yelling across set at your Gaffer

[Dan Wake]

how do you use light meter? I mean, what fo you do for first? I mean... do you find the white balance for the light that will light the face of the actors for best skin tones and then you "color" all the other lights using the light meter for artistic/mood reasons?

I mean the priority is to set the white balance for the white giving priority to neutral skin tones? thx

[jax_rox]

Dan, I think you're thinking of a colour Meyer - which measures the colour of a light so you can balance the colour temps and shifts.

A light meter measures the output of the light so you can balance your exposure and lighting ratios.