Fluctuating exposure

[Peter Copestake]

My PD 170 still seems to show slight fluctuations in exposure levels, eg when a white balloon blows into shot, even when on fixed (manual) setting. Do all camcorders do this? Is there a way of stopping this?
Peter.

[tom hardwick]

The short answer is no, Peter, no camcorders do this in manual mode. If the camera's set to manual then the exposure will be locked down, full stop.

On the PD170 you have to have the shutter speed, the gain and the iris figures all visible on the sidescreen as you film. If any of these are not visible it means that facility is still in the auto mode. So you can indeed be filming at a locked f/5.6 (say), but the (invisible) fluctuating gain can be giving you this unacceptable varying exposure you describe.

tom.

[Peter Copestake]

Thanks, Tom, will look into this. Sorry for the delay in acknowledging your reply - I thought I'd ticked to be informed of any reply but either I didn't or it didn't work.

Peter.

[tom hardwick]

I see you're still using the PD170 Peter. My question is, are you happy with its performance in the 16:9 mode or do you shoot using an anamorphic lens?

[Peter Copestake]

As I've said before, Tom, I don't like and don't feel happy with 16:9 but it seems OK as far as I can tell.
You were right, of course, about the solution to the fluctuating exposure. I should revise from the instructions more often but actually I'm not sure that I really understood them in the first place. I see I've put underlining and red circles on that page but that wasn't enough for it to sink right in. I'll pass the information to the club because I know others have noticed the same thing.
I have now fixed no gain and shutter speed (at 50 - I hope that's right for normal use) but not locked because when I come to alter white balance for the next event I'll have forgotten why I can't alter it!
I use daylight if there is any, preferring warmer tones from lighting if it happens to the occasional cool tones set any other way.

Thanks again,

Peter.

[tom hardwick]

Yes - leave the camera locked on 1/50th sec unless you want some special effects. You can still alter the white balance independently with the other three disciplines firmly locked down. That's the way to shoot movies.

[Michael Slowe]

Peter, you say you don't feel comfortable with the 16:9 aspect ratio. Surely by now you will be well used to seeing most TV pictures in this aspect and cinemas ceased projecting the old 'academy' aspect in the late 50's. Personally I find it so much more satisfying composing for 16:9 as against 4:3 and whenever the wider aspect appears on the screen amongst a programme of films it looks so much better.

As you know, there will be no more new cameras shooting 4:3 and I think Tom was alluding to the fact that a chip designed for 16:9 gives a much better picture than an older one 'adapted' in some way.

Referring to your white balance comments I was interested that you prefer a 'warmer' picture than that resulting from a manual white balance. I find that a white balance obtained by using a white card in a tungsten setting is generally too 'cold'. I then manually adjust my Kelvin figure from the approx 3300K to something like 3900 to 4000 giving a bit more red. Can you manually set a figure in your camera?

[Dave Watterson]

An old tip, but perhaps helpful ... point the camera at a tinted card when setting the white balance. A a hint of bluish will make for a warmer pinkish setting. Half an hour experimenting should get something you like. Carry that card in your camera case. Lock the auto white setting when you have used the card.

[Peter Copestake]

Thanks for your interest, Michael. I'll try to explain what I think lies behind my unhappiness with 16:9.
I tend to make films where the proportion of landscape to portrait is much lower than some people's.
My main interest is in people doing things that I find interesting. People stand upright. I made a film about the work in a bakery. Even when the work involved a long bench for rolling pastry to make Danish Pastries, I had no trouble in framing the shot from the side. We have recently completed a film about a Georgian house of relatively modest proportions and that seemed to me to fit the 4:3 format quite well. I have seen posher ones on TV that benefited from widescreen and a recent club film (3 out 0f 4 pictures on p.29 of current FVM) would have benefited from WS but I don't think the close up would. If I made films where expanses of country were the major part I would probably think again. I love the wide landscapes I sometimes see on TV but I (probably boringly) keep saying to my wife -'look, the top of his head's off the top of the frame and still there's empty space at the side doing nothing'. Even with HD the cameras are getting in so close to give impact that even on a 37 inch TV faces are grotesquely enlarged to fill the space. So, no, TV doesn't convince me.
I hope to make a short film that changes aspect ratio as it goes along but that will have to wait.
As for colour balance - I've nowhere near your, or Tom's, expertise so will not be trying anything else, I think; just that if daylight is a significant part of the illumination of a room, I leave the camera on sunlight as I don't like any hint of blue coming from windows, preferring the warmth from the artificial lights.
I haven't quite got the difference between proper 16:9 and 4:3 with the top and bottom chopped off which is all the PD 170 will do but I shall not be buying another camera and my DSR 300 doesn't do it at all, though I suppose I could crop it in edit and try.
Best wishes,
Peter.

[tom hardwick]

Peter, you say you haven't quite got the difference between proper 16:9 and 4:3 with the top and bottom chopped off, but there is no difference - they both have the same aspect ratio. By 'proper' you probably mean a camcorder with native 16:9 chips, whereas the PD170 does a 16:9 fudge by only using the middle ¾ of its 4:3 chips.

Do you ever go to the cinema and think those thoughts about top of heads off the top of the frame and empty space at the side doing nothing? I doubt it, yet you'll be watching a much wider widescreen, probably 2 or 2.35:1 instead of TV's feeble approximation of widescreen, 1.77:1. It's all down to good cinematography, because commercial films often employ expensive vertical people.

tom.

[TimStannard]

Peter, I'm sure I'm not going to persuade you to change but I'd just like to respond to:

'look, the top of his head's off the top of the frame and still there's empty space at the side doing nothing'

I'd suggest that in a properly thought out shot, the space one side or the other of the interviewee/presenter (the space should not be on both sides) is far from empty - it is there to provide a "context" in which to place your subject. This may be purely functional or decorative or a mixture of both. The viewer is not simply aware of the subject, but also visual clues as to in what capacity the subject is speaking.
We see examples of this all the time on TV - a lawyer or academic is often shot against a bookcase; a sports coach against people training in the background; a farmer against a field. All of this is lost or barely visible and has to be shown with cutaways in a 4:3 frame.

I'd go so far as to suggest that it is beneficial - certainly to me. As I am aware that the background will make up a significant part of the picture, it forces me to consider the background which otherwise I might have left to fate - with potentially poor results.

[Peter Copestake]

Tom asks - Do you ever go to the cinema.
Answer not for many decades. Last time was probably the super huge screen (have forgotten what it's called) at the Film Museum & it's not in my league!
Thanks for all your replies.
Peter.

[Michael Slowe]

Peter, oh Peter - you are a film maker (and quite an ambitious one I feel) you don't go to the cinema? I know there is a lot of rubbish in many of the 'chain' cinemas but also some quite exceptional films from (mostly European) artists. It is really educational to absorb the moods created, the timing and pace of the cutting and the imaginative camera work, quite apart from enjoying the stories of course.

Referring to your colour balance, I agree with you that in any situation indoors where there is a even a slight contribution of daylight, a daylight setting of 5,500K gives a far more pleasing image than that obtained by taking a setting from a white card. Dave's suggestion of using off white colour cards is often followed by the professionals and there is a company (called Warm Cards I think) who sell various grades of white cards for this very purpose.

[Peter Copestake]

Thanks for the compliment, Michael.
Main reason we ( and I wouldn't want to go on my own) don't go to the cinema is because my wife has for many years been troubled by vestibular hyperacusis. Result - she would be screaming in pain. Also she cannot go to church weddings, funerals, even. Fortunately we are Quakers so there's no problem there. Even before this we found the sound was often excessively loud and didn't like that. We watch any films that we do see on TV but mostly watch documentaries which we like and are what we make and, of course, one is always learning from these though we tend to be very critical of the over-use, as we see/hear it, of music on them. You'll have seen letters to Radio Times about this? Presenter says 'Listen, what can you hear? Nothing!' Cue loud chords! 'The household used to wake up to this - (squeal of blinds being drawn) cue, yes, loud chords!
Keep making yours, Michael.
Peter.

[Michael Slowe]

Understood Peter but I'm glad you enjoy docs on TV.(in 16:9?).

You're right about the aversion to silence though but I must admit it does take some courage to leave a period of silence in an edit, I'm always worried about losing the audience's attention. On the other hand some of the most dramatic sequences in film history have been silent - the bank robbery in a famous French film the title of which escapes me comes to mind - Dave will immediately supply it no doubt!