White Balancing

[svp]

I was given these tips not long ago and hesitant to use them but once I did the results were amazing.

1. Indoors/Interviews - Set up your light kits and adjust the light the way you want it. Turn off your lights and turn on the room light (flourescent) and then white balance. Turn off the room lights and turn on your lights and you'll get a rich and more natural color. If you're doing a quick interview and only using your camera light, do the same thing. White balance with only the room lights on, then turn on your cameral light to do the interview. You'll be pleasantly surprised with the results.

2. Clear Day/Bright Blue Sky - This may sound odd to some of you but after trying it I swear by it. I would always white balance but the color would never quite be right on bright clear days. Then I was told about this trick. After changing to the correct filter, aim just above the horizon and white balance off the sky. The sky is usually a little white near the horizon, aim just above that where white and blue start to fade together. You should get a reading between 6.6 and 8.2. You'll be amazed at how rich and wonderful your color is. I was scared to try it the first time but yesterday I thought "what the hell, if its messed up I'll color correct it in AVID." My video was perfect and I'll never white balance any other way again.

[shootercub]

1...

Seems to me that the temperature balance off flourecents would be about 4-4.5k... So when you use your top light that should give you a nice warm color with a balance in the 2.9-3.2 range... Nice trick!

I'd do the same, but throw away the toplight... Placing your key light away from the same agle of your camera will add some depth as well.

Or sometimes I'll save a 3.6 on my B side and just use that with a key light.
2....

Sounds simple! I'll have to try it.
And thank god for avid.

[LongTimePhotog]

Kind of disturbing that most now feel as though they can screw up video and fix it later. What happened to the work ethic and following the standards that got you where you are. Lets practic good photography and do it right the first time. JMO

[khoushooter]

If your still learning how light works, I would not recommend that you try this.
The safest way to achieve warmer light is by investing in some warm cards.
In theory you are right. If you get a higher balance than you are going to shoot under, then your video will be warmer. However, as mentioned you could get a flourecent temperature of 4.4 and be shooting under 2.9-3.0 lighting. That could be some very warm video.

Some good advice, just be careful!!!!

[IAStrmChsr]

Learn to play the numbers game. If you don't understand what the white balance numbers mean, find out. That is the best way to KNOW that you are white balancing correctly and you will not have to crutch on your Avid. Do it right the first time and save yourself some stress and time.

White balance as you normally would. Remember that number. Then, whitebalance again until you get a number that is 200-400 degrees Kelvin above the first white balance. In daylight this works great. Under manmade light, be hesitant to balance more than 200 degrees above your white balance.

Also...watch out for florecent lights. They can have a color temp anywhere from 2400 degrees Kelvin to over 6000 degrees Kelvin. Many are somewhere around 3200-4000 (3.2 to 4.0) but other temps are sold at your local hardware store.
SV

[2000lux]

I'd be a little cautious about using the flourescent white balance too. Most of the new ones these days are ok, but you might get one with a nasty green streak that will leave your subject looking a bit purple (I think). I usually set up the lights and then white balance. If I get a 2.8 - 3.2 I switch it over to 3200K preset which gives me a slightly warmer white. There's also warm cards.

Sky balancing works in a pinch but it washes out your sky a bit. I just try to make sure I have a fresh piece of white printer paper in my pocket each morning and use that. I find that a lot of printer paper has a slight bluish tint which doesn't hurt.

[OmegaRed]

Kind of disturbing that most now feel as though they can screw up video and fix it later. What happened to the work ethic and following the standards that got you where you are. Lets practic good photography and do it right the first time. JMO

Seemed to me he DID do it right the first time as he didn't have to fix it on the AVID.

But I'm sure you feel much better now after that rant.

[svp]

Hey, all I was doing was trying to pass along a few tips that really work well for me. That's all. And it doesn't matter how perfect I try to shoot it originally, I still tweak it a bit in the AVID. Keep in mind that every camera is a little different. We have DVCPros and I can tell you every camera in our arsenal shoots a little different from the others. I was just trying to help. If you don't like the tips don't use them. For me, the results are amazing and I'm going to keep shooting that way.

[Dink]

I still don't understand why people think that orange video looks good. You can call it "warm" in an attempt to legitimize it, but it's basically a justification of a bad white balance.

Perhaps there are times when a golden hue fits the product. Beer commercials, maybe. But if you're shooting news, it not only looks bad, but has ethical ramifications as well. By changing the look of the scenes you shoot, you are altering the accuracy of your work. You're not showing the audience the scene as it actually existed. You're changing the same assumptions that make staging unethical.

Perhaps you're also inadvertently influencing value judgements in your viewers. A study came out a while back showing that when people use slow motion video in news packages, viewers unconsciously feel that the people being shown are sinister. Could orange video make viewers feel a certain way about someone they see on your newscast? News is usually shot straight to avoid that possibility.

Suppose it isn't the orange video itself that causes the negative impression, but the contrast of the orange video with the rest of the newscast. Maybe the orange video creates a positive impression, but normal video, in contrast, begins to look too cold and washed out in comparison. Now the guy in the package after yours is presented in a negative light.

This is why everyone who contributes to a newscast should be shooting to the same standard. The entire newscast is the product, not just your little piece of it. As such, the entire newscast should be as consistent as possible. Color shifts should be avoided as much as possible. It seems that most people want to make their video orange to stand out among their colleagues. That's the worst reason to do it, because you're devaluing your newscast to draw attention to yourself.

If your cameras actually shoot too cool, as many do, your engineers should point them at a color chart and set them up with a better look. If there are inconsistencies among the looks of the different cameras, the engineers should standardize them. Or they should bring someone in to set them up. Even if you warm up the video in the camera itself, at least everyone is shooting to the same standard, and your newscast maintains consistency.

By way of analogy, suppose your station had a general assignment reporter who decided that, to differentiate himself from all the other reporters and to add "urgency" to his work, he would begin shouting all his tracks and standups at the top of his lungs. Maybe he heard a loud sports guy do it and thought it sounded cool, so he decides to adapt that style to news. Do you think your news director would like that choice, or would he tell him to stop it? I'm guessing that in most case, the ND would select the latter. Why do you suppose that is?

You guys are doing the video equivalent, screaming for attention. I wonder why your chiefs won't tell you to stop it.

[LongTimePhotog]

I don't think it was a rant as much as an observation. Many young photogs coming out of college are using a crutch with fixing it in editing. Seems that they are being taught go ahead, do what you want we will fix it later. I'm glad your tips worked. For me, I'll just do it the old fashioned way. JMO again.

[Widescreen]

Experience has taught me that any method that has a shortcut or a trick that appears simple, usually has a trap.

There is nothing wrong with bending the rules, as long as you know and understand the rules to begin with. One of the traps of 'warming' your picture is that you warm your entire frame. I have to agree with Dink, orange pictures suck.

Personally, I would prefer to warm just a face or an area of the frame, using gells or dimmers, leaving the rest of the lighting as it was intended. We have some shows here that are colour graded and they look great, but slightly over rich for my liking. The real world is not like that.

I know with my SX I have to be very careful with balance. I often work with monitors so it's not always an issue. Keep up the new ideas as that's how we all learn. But judging by the responses, it seems that most are advising you to err on the side of caution.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Hey, all I was doing was trying to pass along a few tips that really work well for me. I was just trying to help.
Well don't let it happen again.

[OmegaRed]

Well don't let it happen again.

I lol'd.

Here's the thing. As much as it sucks, video quality is diminishing. But honestly it doesn't matter to people outside of our business. The reason being that things like Youtube and Google Video have really lowered people's perception about what is good video. Its no longer the style that gets people's attention, its the immediacy and availability. If our stringer can get his dv-cam shaky video on his blog before our 6pm news. People are going to watch his blog, and when they see it at 6 will think its old news.

As much as it irks you to see orange video, Joe and Betty Beercan could give a crap as long as they're seeing something thats in focus and remotely steady. If you don't believe me, show someone two pieces of video of the same thing. One from a consumer cam and one from your camera. Then ask them what was different about each piece of video. Joe and Betty Beercan aren't gonna come up with a whole lot.

Gone is the appreciation for great video. Welcome to the new school.

[SimonW]

Gone is the appreciation for great video. Welcome to the new school.

Then I'm very glad I don't work in the US!

In the UK it is a different matter. Whenever people find out I'm a cameraman, or see me with the camera, I am quite often asked about the crappy quality picture the likes of the BBC are getting from using those damn PD170's and Z1's for news reports, documentary and current affairs programmes. They are okay for small places like car interiors, but they are being used more and more VJ style and the general public IS noticing and DOESN'T like it. I know. I've been told by members of the public on quite a number of occasions that they've noticed a drop in quality in recent years.

On top of which, if nobody gives a rats arse about picture quality, the high def TV manufacturers are going to have their work cut out for them. Luckily the sales of large flatscreen high def TV's and the demand for Sky HD for the World Cup shows that this isn't the case.

[svp]

I'd like to point out that none of my video is coming out orange.

[shootercub]

Geez... Try it. If you don't like it, don't use it. How hard it that? Why does it have to become a steadfast rule? If it works, it works! If not, it doesn't!
There is a time and a place for everything.
Nothing wrong with adding some tricks to your toolbox.

[svp]

Now I remember why I don't post on here much anymore.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Now I remember why I don't post on here much anymore.
Oh. I thought it was because everybody hated you.

[Tippster]

The problem with this method of white balancing is it might work fine 19 out of 20 times. It's that one out of 20 that you avoid by using a white piece of paper. It's also what keeps your video from looking "good enough."

[Dink]

I'd like to point out that none of my video is coming out orange.

That doesn't make much sense. If you're not changing the color of the video, what exactly do you think you're doing to it?

[WestCoast]

I do think there is a difference between "orange" and "warm". I happen to like the look of (slightly) warm video just not for every story.

But I agree with ShooterClub. If someone wants offer a few tips I'm all for it. I think it's more useful than reading yet another VJ rant.

[2000lux]

I never said "don't do it at all," I just said I'd be careful. As was said it will work fine 19 out of twenty times, but that one time it doesn't could be a doosey. If it's working for you, that's cool.

[Widescreen]

Don’t get so precious SVP. None of the responses were bagging what you are doing. All they were suggesting is that you add caution to what you are doing.

There are a number of Senior and very experienced shooters on this site who all have an opinion and we are not always right, but you can bet that most of the time we do know what we are talking about.

There is also an element that errors can be easily fixed in a booth. Don’t like the colour? Then change it. Post production is a wonderful thing. It also makes us lazy and it removes you further from the skills you should have and be using.

We have two shows colour graded. The camera ops on them just shoot on the right filter and that’s it. They don’t even white balance anymore. I know others who leave the camera on auto white all the time. It’s okay but not quite there sometimes.

Don’t have the “won’t post anymore” attitude. Without post like that, we don’t have debate. You can’t learn from that and neither can us.

[Widescreen]

I meant to add........

OmegaRed what does this mean?

"Its like a Koala Bear crapped a rainbow in my brain."

Do you know what a Koala is? It aint no bear!

[OmegaRed]

It's a quote from Sealab 2021. But yes, I do know what a Koala Bear is.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://koalas.org/koala-australia.jpg&imgrefurl=http://koalas.org/koala-australia.html&h=1196&w=800&sz=84&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=8fcq3uCWPWEF3M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkoala%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

[PhotogsLounge]

Here's some really good info on use of filters and color temperature at PhotogsLounge.net if you're interested.
Thanks guys.



http://www.photogslounge.net/infocus10.html

[Widescreen]

Then stop calling it a 'Bear'

[Fotoografa]

I have a related question....and one that will certainly 'out' me as a rookie.

I've only shot at night a couple times. The first time I didn't balance because I didn't know how, so I just used the auto white. It turned out OK, but I know it could have been better.

So, the question: What filter should you use at night, and how do you get enough light to white balance it?

[patssle]

good question.

I also have one...what about white balancing on the actual light? Thats assuming its the only light source in the room (or all the sources are the same type), is that ok to do or are there big negatives there?

[OmegaRed]

Then stop calling it a 'Bear'

Stop spelling color with a "U". =P

[Lost in Alaska]

I have a related question....and one that will certainly 'out' me as a rookie.

I've only shot at night a couple times. The first time I didn't balance because I didn't know how, so I just used the auto white. It turned out OK, but I know it could have been better.

So, the question: What filter should you use at night, and how do you get enough light to white balance it?

Is this "night" with a little light in the sky, or is everything lit by street lights? If your primary source is still a little daylight, use filter 3, outdoor, no ND. If it is lit by streetlights, use filter 1, and expect a reeding of around 2.5, sometimes lower. Sometimes you will need a little gain to get enough light. Black balance after you white to reduce the grain a little.

The reason I ask about the "night" light is here in Alaska in the summer, it never really gets dark. I walked out of a place at 1:00 am and could still see clearly. In the winter, I will hardly use filter 3 after 6:00 pm.

In thinking about this, if you need to use your car headlights, try filter 1. As always, experiment with it until you find something you like.

[Pesky Media]

you have all shed some 'light' on this situation. (forgive me, I HAD to):rolleyes:

[Mighty Dyckerson]

you have all shed some 'light' on this situation. (forgive me, I HAD to):rolleyes:

Now THAT'S comedy with a capital K!

[The Daywood]

use filter 3, outdoor, no ND. use filter 1,
try filter 1.

Be aware that different cameras have different filter settings....3200K being a tungsten light bulb filter, and 5600k being a sunlight filter....

Know these numbers and how they apply to your specific camera....

[svp]

The last thing I'd like to add to this discussion is no matter what ou do the video is never going to go straight to tape with perfect color. Why doi you think Hollywood spends millions to color correct every frame of a major motion picture? Granted, we are news and far from Hollywood, but my point is, we are blessed to be able to use non-linear systems like AVID. Those tools are there for a reason, so use them. I'm not implying that you should just throw the camera on preset and forget about it. But what I am saying is that AVID gives you the luxury to experiment a little without ruining your package. I agree you should use your skills to shoot the best possible video, but utilize all the tools available to you and don't get stuck with the "old school" mentality.

[Dink]

Why doi you think Hollywood spends millions to color correct every frame of a major motion picture?

Very bad analogy, for more reasons than you admitted. Film has no equivalent of a white balance in video. The film is made either for 3200K or 5600K light. If your scene is lit at 4300K, there is no button to push that adjusts the color gains to correct for it. Therefore it MUST be corrected in printing or transfer in that case. Shooting with film is, in fact, like throwing your video camera in preset.

Because of that, most cinematographers working on feature films correct all the light entering the camera back to either 3200K or 5600K (or start from these values when adding color to a scene). When you read interviews with the top guys, you'll find that many of them actually specify to the lab what lights to use when printing to get the color they intended when they shot it. Those guys do their best to match the color of everything they shoot on set, because they know that adjusting printer lights later causes inconsistency in the film grain that causes subtle shifts in the look of the film. When you talk to colorists, you'll find that in many cases when they work with a top DP they do little more than tweaking here or there, even at the release print stage, to correct for subtle differences in film stock and temperatures and chemical concentration in the processing bath.

Even on the recent HD features, cinematographers try to get the most consistent picture on set. Thats why the camera crew on an HD feature often includes a video operator who works with the DP to paint the picture to a previously determined look. They don't actually need all that extra gear and extra people to shoot HD; it's possible to shoot a feature with just the HD camera. They do it so they won't have to fix it in post.

The ones who shoot with the attitude that they'll fix it in post generally suck as DPs. This attitude among videographers who have never worked with the restrictions of film and film style shooting that you can just fix problems later is the primary reason film shooters don't take you seriously as craftsmen. That's the origin of the term vidiot.

And someday it will burn you.

[SimonW]

This isn't the case at all. Some modern film stocks are designed with the DI process in mind, and quite often it isn't just a case of making the picture look 'normal'. Quite often the grading process aims for a completely different look that that which existed on set. It depends how the production was designed.

There is a difference between a slack 'fix it in post' attitude, and one that wants to capture as much range as possible in order to create a certain look in post. Sure, the lighting style is decided on set. But post grading through DI often manipulates the colours quite drastically. Bleech bypass is one look that is done digitally now rather than risking it through the traditional chemical process.

The Bond films are also a prime candidate with many scenes usually shot in dreary England on overcast days, and then graded to look bright and sunny, and like the characters are in Cuba or somewhere.