Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Well, that may have answered...

...that question.

The question being, why the hell do photos shot in the Vashon High School gym come out with such wildly different color renditions between two photos shot within fractions of a second from one another?

Example #1 (you'll need to click on the image to see the full details);


And Example #2:



Obviously these two photos were shot within a fraction of a second from one another.

And yes, (Spoiler Alert!) they were shot on Auto White Balance, which may turn out to be half the problem.

But only half.

So while the color cast in photo Number One looks pretty much OK, Number Two (particularly look at the color of the back wall) has a distinctly orangey-pinky cast to it.

W, as they say, TF?

I haven't moved; the gym hasn't moved; so why the hell is the color cast so different (and this is a relatively mild example) between the two photos?

Now, it's a standing joke that the halide lights in the Vashon High School gym are appallingly bad anyway: they're literally different colors, such that you can stand out on the gym floor and almost see no two light of the same visible color.

This is due to age and maintenance, I'd bet: when the individual bulbs have needed replacement I'm sure that no thought whatsoever was given to buying a metal-halide bulb identical to those already installed. Let's get the cheapest, and be done with it.

Add in age (halide lights change color as they get older) and you've got lighting that pretty much sucks.

But why would two photos shot within moments of one another, pointed at identical parts of the gym, have such different color casts?

Turns out the real culprit is alternating current, and the way halide (and fluourescent) lights work.

Halide (and fluorescent) lights are actually cycling on and off at 120 hertz or 120 times per second -- at least those with older non-electronic ballasts -- which I'm sure is what the VHS gym lights are.

Way too fast for the human optic system to see, but not too fast for a camera taking ten shots per second at an exposure of 250th second per.

So apparently what I'm catching here is the actual change in light output/color output of the lights as they cycle on and off at 120 hz.

OK: fine.

What to do about it?

Slowing the shutter speed down to, say, a 60th or a 30th of a second might do it, but that's not going to work for shooting sports.

So I think the strategy is to register a Custom White Balance in my EOS 1D Mark IV and 5D Mark II, and not have the camera think that it's doing it correctly when it's looking at light that's constantly flickering and thinking it's got a valid reading for Auto White Balance.

During RAW conversion and post-processing I just tell BreezeBrowser "This is what color the light is, period" instead of whatever the camera thought it was at the instant a particular photo was shot.

I think.

At least that's the Plan of the Moment(tm).

Friday, September 17, 2010

File and workflow management...

...have become the major new issues now that I'm shooting with my new Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, and in fact for major sports events, shooting with both the 1D M4 and with my EOS 5D Mark II as well.

For field sports the 1D M4 has the 70-200mm f2.8.L zoom, often with the Extender EF 1.4 II for an effective focal length range of 98-280mm, while the 5D M2 has the 24-70mm f2.8L zoom for closeups.

Setups for both cameras is as identical as I can get it regarding ISO, White Balance, Exposure Mode, Metering Mode, and Focusing Mode and focus point.

Since I'm shooting in Continuous Shooting mode while the game is underway the 1D M4 is taking something less than 10 shots per second, while the 5D M4 is taking something less than 4 per second.

I'm shooting in M-RAW on the 1D M4 which is spec'ed at "9.0 mB 3672x2448" and in S-RAW-1 on the 5D M4, which is spec'ed at "9.9 mB 3861x2574".

Despite the fact that Canon says both of these produce files roughly in the 9.0-10.0 mB range, most of the RAW files I get seem to end up somewhere north of 15 mB each.

Go figure.

So I shot 2,341 photos in a Saturday of Vashon Island Soccer Club games.

(As a matter of policy I shoot *everyone* -- not just the "star" players -- on any team I photograph).

That comes out to 38.26 gB (that's gigabytes, folks) of photos as they came off the Compact Flash cards and onto a hard drive.

So my old method:

1) move Canon RAW files from CF card to hard drive on a Ubuntu Linux box,
2) burn to DVD,
3) copy off the DVD onto the hard drive on one of the two Win XP boxes I use for post-processing,
4) post-process on the Win XP box,
5) generate jpegs and web pages back on the Ubuntu Linux box that contains the local copy of my web site,
6) archive the DVD

has become:

1) move Canon RAW files from CF card to hard drive on a Ubuntu Linux box I'm now using as a file server,
2) review and tag acceptable RAW files over the network from a Win XP box,
3) move the tagged files to a new directory on the file server,
4) post-process the tagged RAW files over the network from a Win XP box,
5) generate jpegs and web pages on the Linux box that houses my web site,
6) delete unused RAW files that never made the cut, and
7) burn the tagged RAW files and the tiffs produced by post-processing onto a DVD for off-line archiving

It's taken a little thinking and fiddling to get this down and streamlined, but so far it seems to be working.

And it may be more separate steps, listed out like this, but in actual practice doing RAW conversion and post-processing using two instances of BreezeBrowser running on each of two Win XP boxes means I'm really able to keep things moving.

And one major advantage is that I'm no longer even keeping photos that never make the cut, which I did in the old method.

Although I'm paying only about $0.66 per DVD/c-shell case for storage, I don't need to keep something I've only looked at once and will never look at again...