If you want to read up on it in film photography literature. The terms to look for are "push" and "pull". "Pushing" is rating film higher giving it less light during exposure and over-develop to compensate. Makes for higher contrast and accentuates grain. "Pulling" is essentially what later became ETTR. You rate the film lower and therefore purposefully overexpose the film. In the lab you underdevelop the negative to pull the exposure back to correct levels. There's technically just as much graininess in both of these negatives but when pulling, the low exposure grain gets pulled into pure black. You lose a bit of dynamic range from these methods but if you don't clip, it should be recoverable. The same exact methodology works in the digital era. You have a sensor at, say ISO400 which is generally really clean nowadays. You rate it two stops lower, at ISO100, this makes you overexpose things on the sensor that's actually set at ISO400. And in post, you pull the exposure back to what it would have been with the sensor at ISO100. And you get really clean shadows and all that. Now. I basically just reiterated a bunch of what was said in the video. But. If you think about what I chose to excerpt. You might realize something nifty about digital cameras. Especially those using RAW files. RAW video cameras have a native ISO and the other settings are just pushing and pulling from it. That's how you can change ISO in post with RAW. So. With my own dual native BRAW camera. If I film at ISO100. The file on my SSD will be at the closest native ISO of 400 and the playback software will read the metadata that says "treat it as ISO100" and it will correct the exposure for me. No special exposure corrective luts needed. No extra filters on the camera while clients look. No explaining to clients. No compensation in post color grading. No nothing. It turns out that engineers actually thought things through there. You want it pulled? Set the ISO to be lower than Native. That's all there is to it. :) At least in RAW land. And it'll be the same for other Raw Formats of similar natures. Oh, and with dual native ISO (and beyond), you need to know where the cutoff between the native ISO's. Because on my camera, at ISO1000 I'm recording at ISO400 with over a stop of underexposure. Making it grainier in the shadows than setting it at ISO1250, where I'm actually recording it at ISO3200 with more than a stop of over exposure.
Thanks for this! I’m definitely gonna be trying this out with my camera! Unfortunately it’s in pro res raw and as you may know pro res raw is not in DaVinci so I have to convert my raw to cinema dng and it does not show the actual iso for obvious conversion reasons. Do you know how I would work with that for cleaner shadows in this situation of “pushing” my digital image? Once again thanks for this info. Every day I’m learning something new and you definitely gave me the best tip of the month by far!
@@JanikBrosFilms I'm not too sure about ProResRAW, as I have not used those files myself. But if my theory is correct. It should be much the same. Since it's true RAW (I think?) until the DNG conversion. Simplest way to test it out is to find out which ISO is the native one on your camera. And set it to use ISO two stops under that. Light set up a scene that looks good with that setting. Record a take. And changing nothing else in camera, you set it to the native ISO and you record another take. You then do the DNG procedure as usual. And in Resolve, you play the lower ISO take as it is and with the over exposed shot you add the exposure correction. If the DNG conversion is exposure correct, you should have pretty much the same noise level in both clips. I'm saying "should", because I don't know for sure what the DNG conversion does to the image beyond exposure. It could be doing something funky to the rolloffs that messes with my theory. But it sounds correct in my head.
@@jmalmsten yeah I did a test in raw and exposed like normal for iso 200 and recorded at native iso of 800(2 stops over) and got same grain level) seems like nothing is different on dynamic range which is great. I think log might work differently I am not sure yet. I had issues as when you expose normally for a daylight scene at a low iso you lose dynamic range but if you shoot at native iso you still get noise so if you ettr at native iso and bring down in post you get better noise but I’m thinking when shooting in raw these factors don’t matter as much am I correct?
I agree with this method, I kept running into problems with image quality because the luts I’m using are 2 stops above middle grey, causing me to drop my exposure in camera. It feels kinda uninspiring to look at an over expose image on my monitor, but false colors tells me I’m where I need to be for that exposure, and oh yeah, I subscribe to your channel btw, great stuff man!💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽
No problem man! I’m using the Sony a74 picture profile Slog 3. I tried using the lut calculator, and was able to go down two stops, but it still kinda feels off. Maybe the highlights are set to high?🤔 There’s bit of a learning curve to using the lut calculator so it may take me some time. Do you by any chance sell any of your luts? Also it would be cool if you can do a tutorials on how to use lut calculator.
@@braxtonwoullard1188 Make sure when you generate lut on that site make sure you select 3D lut at 33x33x33 and select camera/monitor lut(MLUT) and then generate lut. There is also a tab on the site right below “generate lut” button that has instructions also. Hope this helps.
Reminds me of me testing out my insta360 camera. I put it in log mode and got so horribly low quality mushy results.... Until I had a reality check. And realized that it performs quite well at its lowest ISO's. But the preview was throwing me off with what to expect from the exposure I was giving the sensors. It looked correctly exposed in Log. But when corrected, everything was in the deep shadows. And it just don't have the shadow detail to allow correction there. But the solution was simple. Set it to ISO 100. Ignore totally what was on the display and light with the light meter and a normal camera for preview. I was my own clueless client there at the start. Not realizing how much light ISO100 actually needs.
I can promise you that 99% of hollywood DP's will not do ANYTHING other than expose the image perfectly for that camera system. Shooting on film they may push or pull because this impacts other parts of the image than the density.
If you over expose more than 2 stops you might lose some dynamic range. Keep that in mind.
If you want to read up on it in film photography literature. The terms to look for are "push" and "pull".
"Pushing" is rating film higher giving it less light during exposure and over-develop to compensate. Makes for higher contrast and accentuates grain.
"Pulling" is essentially what later became ETTR. You rate the film lower and therefore purposefully overexpose the film. In the lab you underdevelop the negative to pull the exposure back to correct levels.
There's technically just as much graininess in both of these negatives but when pulling, the low exposure grain gets pulled into pure black. You lose a bit of dynamic range from these methods but if you don't clip, it should be recoverable.
The same exact methodology works in the digital era. You have a sensor at, say ISO400 which is generally really clean nowadays. You rate it two stops lower, at ISO100, this makes you overexpose things on the sensor that's actually set at ISO400. And in post, you pull the exposure back to what it would have been with the sensor at ISO100. And you get really clean shadows and all that.
Now. I basically just reiterated a bunch of what was said in the video. But. If you think about what I chose to excerpt. You might realize something nifty about digital cameras. Especially those using RAW files.
RAW video cameras have a native ISO and the other settings are just pushing and pulling from it. That's how you can change ISO in post with RAW.
So. With my own dual native BRAW camera. If I film at ISO100. The file on my SSD will be at the closest native ISO of 400 and the playback software will read the metadata that says "treat it as ISO100" and it will correct the exposure for me.
No special exposure corrective luts needed. No extra filters on the camera while clients look. No explaining to clients. No compensation in post color grading. No nothing. It turns out that engineers actually thought things through there. You want it pulled? Set the ISO to be lower than Native. That's all there is to it. :)
At least in RAW land. And it'll be the same for other Raw Formats of similar natures.
Oh, and with dual native ISO (and beyond), you need to know where the cutoff between the native ISO's. Because on my camera, at ISO1000 I'm recording at ISO400 with over a stop of underexposure. Making it grainier in the shadows than setting it at ISO1250, where I'm actually recording it at ISO3200 with more than a stop of over exposure.
Thanks for this! I’m definitely gonna be trying this out with my camera! Unfortunately it’s in pro res raw and as you may know pro res raw is not in DaVinci so I have to convert my raw to cinema dng and it does not show the actual iso for obvious conversion reasons.
Do you know how I would work with that for cleaner shadows in this situation of “pushing” my digital image?
Once again thanks for this info. Every day I’m learning something new and you definitely gave me the best tip of the month by far!
@@JanikBrosFilms
I'm not too sure about ProResRAW, as I have not used those files myself. But if my theory is correct. It should be much the same. Since it's true RAW (I think?) until the DNG conversion.
Simplest way to test it out is to find out which ISO is the native one on your camera. And set it to use ISO two stops under that. Light set up a scene that looks good with that setting. Record a take. And changing nothing else in camera, you set it to the native ISO and you record another take.
You then do the DNG procedure as usual. And in Resolve, you play the lower ISO take as it is and with the over exposed shot you add the exposure correction. If the DNG conversion is exposure correct, you should have pretty much the same noise level in both clips.
I'm saying "should", because I don't know for sure what the DNG conversion does to the image beyond exposure. It could be doing something funky to the rolloffs that messes with my theory. But it sounds correct in my head.
@@jmalmsten yeah I did a test in raw and exposed like normal for iso 200 and recorded at native iso of 800(2 stops over) and got same grain level) seems like nothing is different on dynamic range which is great. I think log might work differently I am not sure yet. I had issues as when you expose normally for a daylight scene at a low iso you lose dynamic range but if you shoot at native iso you still get noise so if you ettr at native iso and bring down in post you get better noise but I’m thinking when shooting in raw these factors don’t matter as much am I correct?
I agree with this method, I kept running into problems with image quality because the luts I’m using are 2 stops above middle grey, causing me to drop my exposure in camera. It feels kinda uninspiring to look at an over expose image on my monitor, but false colors tells me I’m where I need to be for that exposure, and oh yeah, I subscribe to your channel btw, great stuff man!💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽
What camera do you use? I’m curious. Thanks for the sub by the way.
No problem man! I’m using the Sony a74 picture profile Slog 3. I tried using the lut calculator, and was able to go down two stops, but it still kinda feels off. Maybe the highlights are set to high?🤔 There’s bit of a learning curve to using the lut calculator so it may take me some time. Do you by any chance sell any of your luts? Also it would be cool if you can do a tutorials on how to use lut calculator.
@@braxtonwoullard1188 Make sure when you generate lut on that site make sure you select 3D lut at 33x33x33 and select camera/monitor lut(MLUT) and then generate lut. There is also a tab on the site right below “generate lut” button that has instructions also. Hope this helps.
@@JanikBrosFilmsOk thanks man. I’m going to try that out today.🙏🏾💪🏽
Reminds me of me testing out my insta360 camera. I put it in log mode and got so horribly low quality mushy results.... Until I had a reality check. And realized that it performs quite well at its lowest ISO's. But the preview was throwing me off with what to expect from the exposure I was giving the sensors. It looked correctly exposed in Log. But when corrected, everything was in the deep shadows. And it just don't have the shadow detail to allow correction there.
But the solution was simple. Set it to ISO 100. Ignore totally what was on the display and light with the light meter and a normal camera for preview.
I was my own clueless client there at the start. Not realizing how much light ISO100 actually needs.
Wow, thanks for this.
yeah of course! hope this helps you out
I can promise you that 99% of hollywood DP's will not do ANYTHING other than expose the image perfectly for that camera system.
Shooting on film they may push or pull because this impacts other parts of the image than the density.