As a film student, I definitely appreciate what you said at the end about "RUclips lighting". I've had plenty of rants about RUclips "filmmakers" on a variety of aspects. RUclipsrs often unintentionally make these seem like the experts in filmmaking when often they're just amateurs or fellow students of the art. The thing I'm the most annoyed about is that a large of chunk can't take criticism without thinking of it as just hate. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some great channels with legit pros in the film industry making fascinating videos about the film industry or gear reviews that are specific to how they would or do use them on set. But there are a lot of videography channels posing as film "pros" whether they realize it or not. Just because you can make several cool or interesting gear reviews doesn't make you a professional cinematographer, director, or gaffer. Those come from making actual films, working with real pros, and staying humble while learning what you can on the day. Or get as educated as you can via film school or deep diving for great channels with good insight for on set practice, techniques, and other useful information.
Hey Justin - just wanted to let you know that your videos are absolutely great. I started watching them with the FX30 one, I think... and I absolutely hated you. You spoke too fast, had too many opinions, and were just too much. But then, I just couldn't stop watching them. The amount of info that you put in these, and the quality of what you put out there is just really great. And you're funny, and the opinions are good, and you say shit because you know it. I am an aspiring filmmaker - hoping to get funding to shoot a documentary next December - and I watch your videos almost religiously knowing that they'll make me a better cinematographer. Thank you so much man, for real. Keep them coming.
You have to remember that the show LUT used for each production affects the final contrast ratio by quite a bit. Contact printed film, like Oppenheimer, increases the perseved contrast ratio, so your 4 stop contrast ratio was probably shot at a lower ratio on set, with added contrast as a result of the print
11 месяцев назад+8
Came here to say this. Making these judgements on final image is not how to do this. Just looking at Yedlins last talk at Cameraimage, the LUT he used created such contrast it hard to actually use that image to reverse the on set contrast ratio.
@ Agreed, this is why I always shoot with a LUT that's relatively similar to the final look, if not identical, and even if it's just a commercial, I shoot contrast ratio tests to check how the image is affected by the grade
You are both correct but also you both clearly missed the point of this video. I also disagree to some extent. The amount of contrast added to the show LUT or in post, will never magically remove the lighting.
11 месяцев назад+5
@@JustinPhillip the point is to illustrate contrast ratio. Which is great. But you are using a processed image to do it. It’s like teaching a writing class by only looking at the final product. The result is there, but getting there isn’t as obvious.
@@JustinPhillip I agree that the lighting creates the contrast, but metering from final images doesn't account for what could have been done in grade and there for isn't an accurate representation of the on set contrast ratio. If you have high contrast tone mapping on your monitoring lut, then your likely to light with a lower contrast ratio, or vise versa. It's something I was taught at one of the recent BSC convention in the UK, this is also something that Steve Yedlin ASC is constantly talking about and is one of the most missundertood aspects of contrast ratio in the digital age. Your contrast ratio should be set so that you like it when applied with your show LUT, we're not saying you should change your contrast ratio in grade.
@@shadowshapers Not sure how to share it here. Easy to make though. You just need a light and a spotmeter. Measure and mark f-stops, take a photo. Import into Resolve and use the False Color FX plug-in to match the bands of colours with your marked f-stops.
Your videos are super interesting, you’re a great instructor of your craft. I don’t work in the industry, but find this information very fascinating. This helps and inspires me when I pick up a camera as a hobbyist. Thanks for sharing your work!
I actually enjoyed this one. Yes, we should be using light meters and not depend on EL zone, but for the sake of the video, the EL zone represented the full image as a visual reference.. The point came across, especially when you mentioned the script. It all starts and ends with what’s on the page. I just shot a documentary that had no script but still went through my logline and the interviews, and now I’m shooting 2 more shorts before end of the month here in LA…. one story has both high key and low contrast and the other is a horror with barely any lights. I appreciated the video. good job
You should ideally do all your false color monitoring on log images as that is what they are reading on set and in camera. The way this is currently set up, he is reading the "stop" differences in contrast after final color. It is not an accurate representation. Contrast can be added or removed depending on the grade. You want to know where those values lie at the beginning of the pipeline. The EL Zone system isn't perfect and you would be better off relying on an actual light meter and regular false color that reads IRE. I think this is a good way to take images and learn what is roughly being one to establish mood, but do not rely on it on set. Get yourself a great monitor that you trust, make a LUT, and use your eyes. Your eyes are the most useful tool.
What size diffusion rags would you recommend to start out with? 6x6 or 8x8? You have a video on recommended light packages, but do you have one for a small diffusion set?
Great video, as always! How are you looking at the EL Zone spectrum in Davinci or other NLEs? I'd like to study the contrast ratios of some stills but can't find a way to do so.
This video is super helpful! One thing I've struggled to understand is how to determine stops with dimmable LED lights without a light meter (if it's possible). How do you know what brightness percentage equals a stop?
@@JustinPhillip hi Justin.. Patron is the way for now. Can I ask questions regarding my projects related to lighting to you in Patreon? Please tell me the way. Thank you
terrific video, Justin! Btw, how did you get the EL Zone readings from stills? Doesn't it behave like False color which requires log footage to display the scale? Keep it up. Cheers from Madrid!
it's designed to work with log, but not required. On set for our own stuff, most certainly feed the EL the correct color pipeline (as demonstrated in my previous videos on this topic), but for the purpose of what this video is about, i think it works great. Projects of this caliber are always being monitored on set with specific show LUTs that were built specifically for that project, so in this manner, even though I'm not able to feed the log image into EL, we can still get a pretty accurate depiction of what's going on with the lighting. How i did it is quite simple, i just imported the screen grabs into the smallHD.
Great video! Have you come across a way to use the EL Zone in Premiere, Photoshop or Lightroom, I think it would be an awesome tool for correcting exposure in Post or making some guides for later matching shots, reshoots etc.
Everyday's a school day. Oh, by the way, thanks for introducing me to the Rokkors. My life is so much more enriched, un-like my bank account. So from 25 miles north of London, be lucky stay safe.
I tried taking some screen grabs from my favorite shows and loading them into my smallhd monitor which I did correctly but somehow it’s not letting me see the EL Zone.
@@JustinPhillipEL Zone is needing a log file soo I think false color makes more sense because elzone tells me the image is -6 stops but on the false color the image is not even in the Blue/ purple color. So my question is: is ELzone correct or is it only because the image is below 6 stops an the elzone can’t show us that ?
Scandinavian here. The emphasis is on the first syllable in MIDSOMMAR. It's just like MIDSUMMER, just with an O replacing your U, and an A replacing your E.
I think it's because English speakers tend to learn and admire romanic languages which are trocheic languages. Germanic languages are all iambic and very, very rarely have the accent on the second syllable
American here. So basically you missed everything in the video about contrast ratios, to spell out a common situation that has nothing to do with filmmaking. Lame. *I’m sure lame is pronounced the same, and carry over the same meaning in your neck of the woods. Lol
I don't know if comparing digital and film should have been used here. You cannot expose digital 7 stops over on skin tones without it looking pretty much white and blown out. It's one of the differences of film and digital. Film will protect color and texture on the high end in a way digital has never been able to. Maybe just a note in case somebody watches this video and tries to expose a digital image the way they exposed Oppenheimer.
Editor most definitely. There is no such thing as a coveted script. I know some bigger shows make crew sign NDA. But everyone involved gets access to the script. Not to mention daily sides printed & passed out to everyone every single day on set
This is an interesting video conceptually, but you’re using EL Zone on display tonemapped imagery when it’s designed for scene-referred inputs (such as log or raw linear) and it’s wildly misrepresenting your references. Your 3 stop example from The Leftovers is suggesting his forehead is landing 5 stops above the shadow by his nose, while only being a stop under middle gray. There’s not a gaffer alive who would light that hot, nor would that contrast level render this low. Shadow wouldn’t be that deep, and the forehead would be practically clipping. Similarly, with your Oppenheimer shot. It’s nowhere near a 7-stop ratio. Again, I think lighting ratios are useful to think about and I applaud broaching the topic, but your examples are going to end up strongly misleading people on both how to judge and measure those ratios and how they’re going to look. I would test the differences in camera through your monitor, shooting log. This way your EL Zone is performing the intended spot meter level function it was made for and you can see realistic versions of your scenarios. You’ll quickly find that people rarely shoot beyond 4-stop diff for very apparent reasons.
Im well aware how EL Zone works. I was one of the first people to demo it. I’m using it here as a reference example to educate about contrast ratios. Im not saying any of these jobs lit like this on the day, but we can clearly see that these ratios were the final intended look. To explain the scope of lighting on set down to delivering a color graded final product would require a 6 week course. Comments like these are valid, but you’re completely missing the point of what this video is about. I’m certainly not the first person to use exposure tools to study lighting. But just because EL Zone is compatible with log, everyone needs to remember, you can also map it for Rec709. Which is what I’ve done here. Contrast ratios has nothing to do with how “hot” a light was or not, but rather the stop differences between key & fill. And i personally would like to study the image in the way it was intended to look for the audience.
I think all the examples are wrong...! There's NO WAY the Oppenheimer scene has 7 stops of difference between the key and the fill!!! Do you know the difference of light that is 7 stops???????
Do you not realize how EL Zone works? Just look at the guide. Also, if you cared to actually pay attention to the video, i lit myself at 7 stops under. It’s called dynamic range. None of these referenced are wrong. You should do more research & practice yourself.
@@JustinPhillip you are saying that Jason Bateman at 6:46 is being lit at a 64:1 ratio?? It doesn't look like that at all, sorry to disagree. It's 5 stops difference, not 7. You can count them in your own coloured example. The image at 3:15 is not 8:1 contrast ratio either. I guess we are counting differently. Your color image there shows his nose is overexposed, which is clearly not. So I guess there's something off somewhere in the process. But congratulations, these concepts are hard to explain. I only think the examples are not showing that amount of contrast. Btw I did my research and downloaded Oppenheimer's frames from Shotdeck, added them to Resolve and used a DCTL to show EL Zone and found most of the frames have 4 stops difference of contrast ratio. Only the scene at 5:54 looks like 5 stops of difference. Anyway, my process can have something off, too, remember we are using screenshots that have already been converted to rec709 after heavy color grading processes.
And btw, for 'more research', I recommend you and everybody else interested in lighting ratios, check WanderingDP's article on the subject. It's a short read and it's very well explained. He expresses ratios in stop levels, which I also prefer, and that makes it much easier to understand.
You’re comment about being a “real filmmaker” definitely doesn’t come off well. I agree that there’s a lot of inexperienced DP’s out there trying to teach lighting…however, you DO NOT need IMDB credit to be a real filmmaker. The beauty of this career is there is not a thing we need to do or accomplish to be a “real filmmaker”
I never said anyone was or was not a real filmmaker. I just stated facts. You do get IMDb credits when you work on narrative works, that actually have a script. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Wow someone came off very aggressive. You literally said “Theres a lot of RUclipsrs that are “real filmmakers” that have no credits on IMDB” You very much are saying that. I didnt put any words in your mouth. Chill TF out dude jeez
As a film student, I definitely appreciate what you said at the end about "RUclips lighting". I've had plenty of rants about RUclips "filmmakers" on a variety of aspects. RUclipsrs often unintentionally make these seem like the experts in filmmaking when often they're just amateurs or fellow students of the art. The thing I'm the most annoyed about is that a large of chunk can't take criticism without thinking of it as just hate. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some great channels with legit pros in the film industry making fascinating videos about the film industry or gear reviews that are specific to how they would or do use them on set. But there are a lot of videography channels posing as film "pros" whether they realize it or not. Just because you can make several cool or interesting gear reviews doesn't make you a professional cinematographer, director, or gaffer. Those come from making actual films, working with real pros, and staying humble while learning what you can on the day. Or get as educated as you can via film school or deep diving for great channels with good insight for on set practice, techniques, and other useful information.
💯
BRO DECIDED TO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF FACTS
Your videos are educational and entertaining, and have helped me to up my filmmaking game. Thank you Justin!!
Thank you! 🙏🏼🙌🏼
Hey Justin - just wanted to let you know that your videos are absolutely great. I started watching them with the FX30 one, I think... and I absolutely hated you. You spoke too fast, had too many opinions, and were just too much. But then, I just couldn't stop watching them. The amount of info that you put in these, and the quality of what you put out there is just really great. And you're funny, and the opinions are good, and you say shit because you know it. I am an aspiring filmmaker - hoping to get funding to shoot a documentary next December - and I watch your videos almost religiously knowing that they'll make me a better cinematographer.
Thank you so much man, for real. Keep them coming.
Thanks man! LOL, yea those Sony videos was right after i got robbed, i was angry for a couple months! LOL, glad you stuck around
You have to remember that the show LUT used for each production affects the final contrast ratio by quite a bit. Contact printed film, like Oppenheimer, increases the perseved contrast ratio, so your 4 stop contrast ratio was probably shot at a lower ratio on set, with added contrast as a result of the print
Came here to say this. Making these judgements on final image is not how to do this.
Just looking at Yedlins last talk at Cameraimage, the LUT he used created such contrast it hard to actually use that image to reverse the on set contrast ratio.
@ Agreed, this is why I always shoot with a LUT that's relatively similar to the final look, if not identical, and even if it's just a commercial, I shoot contrast ratio tests to check how the image is affected by the grade
You are both correct but also you both clearly missed the point of this video. I also disagree to some extent. The amount of contrast added to the show LUT or in post, will never magically remove the lighting.
@@JustinPhillip the point is to illustrate contrast ratio. Which is great.
But you are using a processed image to do it.
It’s like teaching a writing class by only looking at the final product. The result is there, but getting there isn’t as obvious.
@@JustinPhillip I agree that the lighting creates the contrast, but metering from final images doesn't account for what could have been done in grade and there for isn't an accurate representation of the on set contrast ratio. If you have high contrast tone mapping on your monitoring lut, then your likely to light with a lower contrast ratio, or vise versa. It's something I was taught at one of the recent BSC convention in the UK, this is also something that Steve Yedlin ASC is constantly talking about and is one of the most missundertood aspects of contrast ratio in the digital age.
Your contrast ratio should be set so that you like it when applied with your show LUT, we're not saying you should change your contrast ratio in grade.
It's incredible. My eyes were constantly deceiving me while watching movies about the difference in stops. Thanks
I built a 5 stop False Color Powergrade for analysing stills in Resolve.
Any chance you can share that on youtube?
@@shadowshapers Not sure how to share it here. Easy to make though. You just need a light and a spotmeter. Measure and mark f-stops, take a photo. Import into Resolve and use the False Color FX plug-in to match the bands of colours with your marked f-stops.
Are you a part of any facebook groups for film lighting? @@mecan5196
Pro cinematographer here, and great video, wish budding filmmakers would get the philosophy behind this
Thank you!
Bravo on this one Justin. Excellent explainer and especially that ending diatribe on why lighting is important to filmmakers.
Thank you
As always, a great video!
🙏🏼
Great content! Keep it up!
Great Work 🙌🏽
Thanks!
Awesome video! Thank you for sharing.
Legend! thank you for creating this
You the man! Love the Oppenheimer look.
Your videos are super interesting, you’re a great instructor of your craft. I don’t work in the industry, but find this information very fascinating. This helps and inspires me when I pick up a camera as a hobbyist. Thanks for sharing your work!
Awesome. Thank you🙌🏼
Wonderfully put Justin.
You are amazing man, I love to hear some useful lighting/recording tips like this, not just mindless gear videos.
Great video Justin!
Thank you!
I actually enjoyed this one. Yes, we should be using light meters and not depend on EL zone, but for the sake of the video, the EL zone represented the full image as a visual reference.. The point came across, especially when you mentioned the script. It all starts and ends with what’s on the page. I just shot a documentary that had no script but still went through my logline and the interviews, and now I’m shooting 2 more shorts before end of the month here in LA…. one story has both high key and low contrast and the other is a horror with barely any lights. I appreciated the video. good job
Holy crap. I need follow your patreon. The amount of information you give is insane
💯
Great video! Thanks Justin!
You bet!
Cool. I'm trying to get better at every aspect of video making and haven't ever come across this concept in any lighting tutorial.
🙏🏼
I thought the EL zone was supposed to work only on log color spaces, not on color-corrected images.
Dont overthink it
You should ideally do all your false color monitoring on log images as that is what they are reading on set and in camera. The way this is currently set up, he is reading the "stop" differences in contrast after final color. It is not an accurate representation. Contrast can be added or removed depending on the grade. You want to know where those values lie at the beginning of the pipeline. The EL Zone system isn't perfect and you would be better off relying on an actual light meter and regular false color that reads IRE. I think this is a good way to take images and learn what is roughly being one to establish mood, but do not rely on it on set. Get yourself a great monitor that you trust, make a LUT, and use your eyes. Your eyes are the most useful tool.
The fact That I’ve watched all those films you mentioned and we both did a video for Scotty Nando makes me think we will work one day.
Nice!
Is there any way to get EL zone (or something similar) as an overlay in Resolve/display LUT to help dial in ratio’s?
Yes i believe someone made one
@@JustinPhillip do you have a link? I saw another YT video but he had to delete everything for copyright reasons
Such a clean set of examples. Saving this for reference.
💯👊🏼
What size diffusion rags would you recommend to start out with? 6x6 or 8x8? You have a video on recommended light packages, but do you have one for a small diffusion set?
6x6 wag flags for indoors. 8x8 for outdoors
@@JustinPhillip thanks so much!
Great video, as always! How are you looking at the EL Zone spectrum in Davinci or other NLEs? I'd like to study the contrast ratios of some stills but can't find a way to do so.
smallHD monitor
This video is super helpful! One thing I've struggled to understand is how to determine stops with dimmable LED lights without a light meter (if it's possible). How do you know what brightness percentage equals a stop?
No way to tell with LEDs. They are all too drastically different. Have to use a light meter.
Another banger JP! like the movie examples to go along with your previous EL Zone vid.
Thanks, John! 🙌🏼
This is sick! 🧨
🙌🏼
Well done Justin!
Thanks!
ENJOYED. Thank you!
Thank you!
Love this! So glad I follow you!
🙌🏼
Is there a specific app you're using to see the EL Zone values of the images?
Nope, just carried them over to the monitor
Oh snap this is helpful
True educator ❤
🙏🏼
Love your videos Justin. Please make a lighting course. I am ready to pay. 🙏
😆 Patreon? Weekly breakdowns over there. But maybe i’ll look into this
@@JustinPhillip hi Justin.. Patron is the way for now. Can I ask questions regarding my projects related to lighting to you in Patreon? Please tell me the way. Thank you
terrific video, Justin! Btw, how did you get the EL Zone readings from stills? Doesn't it behave like False color which requires log footage to display the scale?
Keep it up. Cheers from Madrid!
it's designed to work with log, but not required. On set for our own stuff, most certainly feed the EL the correct color pipeline (as demonstrated in my previous videos on this topic), but for the purpose of what this video is about, i think it works great. Projects of this caliber are always being monitored on set with specific show LUTs that were built specifically for that project, so in this manner, even though I'm not able to feed the log image into EL, we can still get a pretty accurate depiction of what's going on with the lighting. How i did it is quite simple, i just imported the screen grabs into the smallHD.
Hi, where can I get the LUT you used for the false color?
It’s not a LUT. It’s the EL Zone System, ruclips.net/video/XyLUGYXV4o4/видео.htmlsi=vIT7iCxPu4Rur1J2
@@JustinPhillip IC TYSM!
Great info
🙏🏼
Am I tripping, or did you light your talking head portions to match the ratio of lighting that you were explaining?! Genius!
That exactly is correct
So cool.
Hi Justin very subtly brought...😅 nice vid thank you and EL zone is the best there is!
Hey, thanks!
Amazing info brother 👍🏽🔥
🙌🏼
Awesome & Thanks Sir 🙏🕊
Thank you!
Great video! Have you come across a way to use the EL Zone in Premiere, Photoshop or Lightroom, I think it would be an awesome tool for correcting exposure in Post or making some guides for later matching shots, reshoots etc.
I have not, but that would be amazing in LightRoom.
Great video
Everyday's a school day.
Oh, by the way, thanks for introducing me to the Rokkors.
My life is so much more enriched, un-like my bank account.
So from 25 miles north of London, be lucky stay safe.
I tried taking some screen grabs from my favorite shows and loading them into my smallhd monitor which I did correctly but somehow it’s not letting me see the EL Zone.
Change the color pipeline to Rec709
I'm getting not supported by the input color pipe :/ @@JustinPhillip
trying to do it with image overlay
He glazed that sponsor's bag 🤣
what?
@@JustinPhillip It means you promoted it with a great deal of enthusiasm.
How did you get the images in the el zone ?
Imported them in
@@JustinPhillipEL Zone is needing a log file soo I think false color makes more sense because elzone tells me the image is -6 stops but on the false color the image is not even in the Blue/ purple color.
So my question is: is ELzone correct or is it only because the image is below 6 stops an the elzone can’t show us that ?
How does gio scope correspond to el zone?
Gio scope is probably more accurate. But essentially working the same
@@JustinPhillip Thank you🤩
Scandinavian here. The emphasis is on the first syllable in MIDSOMMAR. It's just like MIDSUMMER, just with an O replacing your U, and an A replacing your E.
👌🏼
I’ve been telling people this for years, and no one believes me.
I think it's because English speakers tend to learn and admire romanic languages which are trocheic languages. Germanic languages are all iambic and very, very rarely have the accent on the second syllable
American here. So basically you missed everything in the video about contrast ratios, to spell out a common situation that has nothing to do with filmmaking. Lame.
*I’m sure lame is pronounced the same, and carry over the same meaning in your neck of the woods. Lol
@@4sightfilmsLLC You’re a moron.
Superb
Clean
🧼
Stellar
Thank you
I don't know if comparing digital and film should have been used here. You cannot expose digital 7 stops over on skin tones without it looking pretty much white and blown out. It's one of the differences of film and digital. Film will protect color and texture on the high end in a way digital has never been able to. Maybe just a note in case somebody watches this video and tries to expose a digital image the way they exposed Oppenheimer.
Good note, but the flip side to that is digital will perform better on the underexposure
How far up the chain is the script passed - this is lighting but does the editor get a copy of the script? How about the colorist?
Editor most definitely. There is no such thing as a coveted script. I know some bigger shows make crew sign NDA. But everyone involved gets access to the script. Not to mention daily sides printed & passed out to everyone every single day on set
👑⚡️
Barbie is possibly the silliest concept for a picture ever. I can’t believe more than 5 people actually went to watch it.
😳
Studios splooge out 5000 movies on comic book figurines for the last 20 years and barbie wins out?
👍
This is an interesting video conceptually, but you’re using EL Zone on display tonemapped imagery when it’s designed for scene-referred inputs (such as log or raw linear) and it’s wildly misrepresenting your references. Your 3 stop example from The Leftovers is suggesting his forehead is landing 5 stops above the shadow by his nose, while only being a stop under middle gray. There’s not a gaffer alive who would light that hot, nor would that contrast level render this low. Shadow wouldn’t be that deep, and the forehead would be practically clipping. Similarly, with your Oppenheimer shot. It’s nowhere near a 7-stop ratio.
Again, I think lighting ratios are useful to think about and I applaud broaching the topic, but your examples are going to end up strongly misleading people on both how to judge and measure those ratios and how they’re going to look. I would test the differences in camera through your monitor, shooting log. This way your EL Zone is performing the intended spot meter level function it was made for and you can see realistic versions of your scenarios. You’ll quickly find that people rarely shoot beyond 4-stop diff for very apparent reasons.
Im well aware how EL Zone works. I was one of the first people to demo it. I’m using it here as a reference example to educate about contrast ratios. Im not saying any of these jobs lit like this on the day, but we can clearly see that these ratios were the final intended look. To explain the scope of lighting on set down to delivering a color graded final product would require a 6 week course. Comments like these are valid, but you’re completely missing the point of what this video is about. I’m certainly not the first person to use exposure tools to study lighting. But just because EL Zone is compatible with log, everyone needs to remember, you can also map it for Rec709. Which is what I’ve done here. Contrast ratios has nothing to do with how “hot” a light was or not, but rather the stop differences between key & fill. And i personally would like to study the image in the way it was intended to look for the audience.
im a batman
👌🏼
I think all the examples are wrong...! There's NO WAY the Oppenheimer scene has 7 stops of difference between the key and the fill!!! Do you know the difference of light that is 7 stops???????
Do you not realize how EL Zone works? Just look at the guide. Also, if you cared to actually pay attention to the video, i lit myself at 7 stops under. It’s called dynamic range. None of these referenced are wrong. You should do more research & practice yourself.
@@JustinPhillip you are saying that Jason Bateman at 6:46 is being lit at a 64:1 ratio?? It doesn't look like that at all, sorry to disagree. It's 5 stops difference, not 7. You can count them in your own coloured example.
The image at 3:15 is not 8:1 contrast ratio either. I guess we are counting differently. Your color image there shows his nose is overexposed, which is clearly not. So I guess there's something off somewhere in the process. But congratulations, these concepts are hard to explain. I only think the examples are not showing that amount of contrast.
Btw I did my research and downloaded Oppenheimer's frames from Shotdeck, added them to Resolve and used a DCTL to show EL Zone and found most of the frames have 4 stops difference of contrast ratio. Only the scene at 5:54 looks like 5 stops of difference.
Anyway, my process can have something off, too, remember we are using screenshots that have already been converted to rec709 after heavy color grading processes.
And btw, for 'more research', I recommend you and everybody else interested in lighting ratios, check WanderingDP's article on the subject. It's a short read and it's very well explained. He expresses ratios in stop levels, which I also prefer, and that makes it much easier to understand.
You’re comment about being a “real filmmaker” definitely doesn’t come off well. I agree that there’s a lot of inexperienced DP’s out there trying to teach lighting…however, you DO NOT need IMDB credit to be a real filmmaker. The beauty of this career is there is not a thing we need to do or accomplish to be a “real filmmaker”
I never said anyone was or was not a real filmmaker. I just stated facts. You do get IMDb credits when you work on narrative works, that actually have a script. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Wow someone came off very aggressive. You literally said “Theres a lot of RUclipsrs that are “real filmmakers” that have no credits on IMDB” You very much are saying that. I didnt put any words in your mouth. Chill TF out dude jeez