Anybody got any suggestions as to how to compensate for greatly
over-exposed Digital video(Mini-DV) It's probably about 4--5 stops
over.
Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

Regards,
Peter Mason

<cine***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Reshoot it maybe?

When all the samples are going to FFFFFF, there's not much you can do...
the top of the waveform gets chopped off and information is lost.  Once
information is lost there is nothing to be done to get it back other
than to draw it back in again (a la animation).

How could anybody manage to do this?  In the video world, not ONLY do you
have the light meter, you also have the waveform monitor.  And on top of
that you have the image in the finder as a sanity check.
--scott

Yes, one does wonder what the operator was looking at. High-key isn't THAT
high.
Show quoteHide quote

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteI was operating the camera inside a chuurch and was using "manual
exposure" (due to backlight coming from the windows which was
under-exposing everything) I then gave the camera to another person who
walked outside with it and of course since it was on "manual"
everything burnt out when he walked outside and he didn't understand
why everything was over exposed. By the time I realised what was going
on and changed it back to automatic exposure a considerable amount of
footage was spoilt.

By the way if it had been shot on Film it could easily be printed down
and although you might lose a bit of contrast, you would still get a
useable image.

Regards,
Peter Mason

Show quoteHide quote

cine***@hotmail.com wrote:
Show quoteHide quotebe printed down
as was mentioned above, once its gone, its gone. Even if you did play it
back and pull the luminance down, all you will get is a gray soup.

I would consider re-editing the project to to shift emphasis away from
the outside of the church.

keith

keith wrote:

Another suggestion: leave in parts of the original soundtrack, but
insert still images of the scene (shot with still cameras by whoever was
present there), possibly with Ken Burns effects to liven them up a bit.

Jukka Aho wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteWhat do you mean by "Ken Burns effects"?

cnau***@yahoo.com wrote:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_burns#Ken_Burns_Effect>

In article <aUW6h.53131$Xg4.***@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
Jukka Aho <jukka.***@iki.fi> wrote:
Unfortunately, the place that used to do the animation-stand photography
for Burns (Frame Shop in West Newton, MA.) went out of business earlier
this year.  You'll have to find someone else with an Oxberry animation
stand and the requisite operator skill if you want to do this.

Scott Norwood wrote:

Fortunately, these kind of effects can now be created entirely in
digital domain in any half-decent NLE app (and even with cheap and
simple consumer-level applications), just like the article linked to the
above suggests.

The basic prerequisite is that you will have to source
larger-than-video-resolution still images somewhere. In the age of
n-megapixel still cameras and equally capable flatbed scanners, that
shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Show quote Hide quote No, you don't.  As the Wiki above notes, many non-linear editors have these
effects built into them.  Maybe that's why the shop above went out of
business?

Derek

cnau***@yahoo.com writes:

A little googling will guide you on that....
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns#Ken_Burns_Effect

On Nov 9, 2006, cine***@hotmail.com <cine***@hotmail.com> commented:

That is not exactly true.  You'd still wind up with a blown-out, hazy image
without a lot of black detail, with film overexposed that badly (assuming it
was overexposed by 3 stops or more).  Even if you tried to correct it
digitally, you'd tend to get a lot of visible grain in the whites.

It might be "tolerable," but I'm not sure I'd call it "usable."

--MFW

Marc Wielage  <m**@musictrax.com> wrote:
Well, it depends on the film.  I'll say that I am really amazed at the
degree of compensation that the Fuji 250D stock has.  You really CAN
overexpose three stops and get away with it... it's just like old Verichrome
Pan almost.   The bad news is that the highlights always get a little crushed
even when properly exposed, but it's next to impossible to make them block up.

I wouldn't try that with Ektachrome.
--scott

On Nov 11, 2006, Scott Dorsey <klu***@panix.com> commented:

Yeah, that's true.  I'm currently working on a DI of a film shot on Fuji 500,
and I'm really surprised by how well this stock holds up.  I'd say you could
go 2 stops either way and hardly notice it in the final print, after timing. 
I was never a big fan of Fuji until now.

Mind you, I'm not saying films are easier to light nowadays.  But I do
believe they're much more forgiving when mistakes happen.  As an example,
there's an upcoming film (whose title I won't mention) where about half a
day's worth of shots were overexposed by at least 3 or 4 stops.  You'd never
know it to see the final prints.  We just cranked the density back down
digitally, and did a very mild grain-reduction pass, and the results were
amazing.  (I'm not generally a fan of grain reduction, because of the
artifacts, but to me, it's a necessary evil in situations like this, provided
it's used very carefully.)

Then there was a major feature film that came out this year that had about
three major scenes underexposed by three or four stops.  They cut around the
problem, and again, nobody noticed.  That's a lot uglier than overexposure,
especially for a night scene, and even a DI won't save you there.

But overexposing HD or DV is a nightmare.  Nothing can fix that.  There's a
close comparison you can make to a digital audio signal that's completely
clipped -- just a flat-line waveform, with no detail.  Very sad when that
happens.

--MFW

Marc Wielage wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteI've seen KODAK VISION 7218  a 16mm 500 ASA  Color neg. film,
over-exposed 4 stops and printed down. It looked a bit flat but  to
most people it would be perfectly acceptable.
The overexposure actually reduces the grain in color neg.  films since
about 1973-74 when DIR color couplers first came into wide use. Also
double structured and later triple structured layers contributed to
lowering granularity with over-exposure.
Another good reason to stick with Film.

The DOP on " Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid " deliberately used
this technique to soften the image.
There is an article about it in an American Cinematographer article
from circa 1970-71.

Regards,
Petwer Mason

cine***@hotmail.com wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteThe American Cinematographer article is in the May 1970 AC on page 436.
Conrad Hall was the cinematographer and he states on page 438:

"I had become obsessed with the cliche of the blue sky..........I tried
my best to get rid of
  this by over-exposing the film radically and forcing the laboratory
to print it back.This pales
  the blue out to something soft and light,and I could stomach that.
Also, it's easier and faster to work this way because you don't need
any booster lights when you over-expose the film.There's no need to
fill the shadows because you've already exposed far beyond
what the normal exposure for shadows would be."

Regards,
Peter Mason
Show quoteHide quote

RCA ColorTrack 2000 - Picture faded/washed out
Problem with LCD screen on Sony DCR-TRV350
Faulty Sony Handicam
Digital camcorder needed for high school application class... advice...
Good MiniDV cameras on a budget
help !!! to read from videocam and write to file/cd
New DCR TRW 730 BEST $700
How to convert MP4 in divx format?
WWW.ARTWEBSHOW.COM
( Cameron Diaz Wardrobe Malfunction )