How to fix overexposure?

There are some ways. For me, the most simple - look at the scope and use curves at primary room. Not all overexposure can be fixed. Since media now is mostly digital born.

I don't understand why you're asking this multiple times.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2258696&tstart=0
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2258631&tstart=0

Perhaps you should hire some learning aides if you're not understanding very basic functionality of the application.

Do you know what it was shot on? was it a 10-bit format? Holding detail in overexposed whites is a big weak spot for any Digital camera and if you are working with a 8-bit format with allot of compression it will be hard to pull anything out. A curve on the top to soften up the clipping might be as far as you can go.

-Rob-

Unfortunately with a format like HDV once it is clipped there is no recovery trying to make it look a bit less clipped will be your only real option. Trying a curve is really going to be it. I would also suggest putting the clip on the timeline in Final Cut and exporting it as a pro-ResHQ and grade that instead of trying to directly grade the HDV clip you won't get more information but what you do have will be in a solid container.

-Rob-

I'd be VERY careful about trying to render the clip out of FCP in any codec -- you will only be compounding the clipping since Final Cut will "bake" the exposure.

This is where film snobs cross their arms and turn up their noses -- and in truth, any media will eventurally saturate to the point that any detail will be unrecoverable -- but also true that digital media (since it is sampled) is particularly vulnerable. You cannot make the Mona Lisa out of a blank canvas without supplying a bit of paint.

BTW, this has nothing to do with depth of field. What Rob is talking about is +bit depth+. 8-bit formats sample the image with up to 255 levels (insufficient for work in HD) while 10-bit formats resolve the grey scale to 1023 discrete values. Do you see how a few levels will make a massive difference in the detail that it is possible to manipulate? However, if your white levels are compressed to being nearly all the same value, it will be impossible to coax any contrast at all.

This can be made worse by re-rendering the material. Re-rendering to any bit-depth will not make any difference if all the white values are 99-100. They will still be 99-100, but more exactly so.

jPo

All true.

Still, certain color channels may retain some information that the others have lost. Since 4:2:0 and 4:1:1 codecs do not evenly sample all colors, you may be able to pull something out of (iirc) the Green channel where the Red and Blue are completely blown out.

Patrick Sheffield wrote a simple FCP plugin called the "captain's blowout filter" to deal with this problem. If you are not completely skilled in Color, this plugin may be useful.

x

ProRes is the best choice for sure but... if you have a totaly overexposed areas with 255 white ProRes is helpless as any other format. It is that simple! If you have overexposed sky you may want to color it with blue. Or superimpose some clouds (using Motion or FC). If overexposure hits the face of the character... hm... noway...

Your original material was recorded as HDV - a 4:2:0 format. Upping the bit depth to ProRes422 will not bring back any detail that was not present in the original recording. What ProRes codecs give you is a bit more nuance when working with what is there.

x

I suggested Pro-Res but I could be wrong about doing that, I do know that allot of people ingest HDV as uncompressed to mix it with better footage and or to grade it just so you are rid of the HDV codec.

-Rob-

Over the years, the discussion has gone back and forth with respect to what to do about HDV. Processor Intensive. In a ProApp, every frame has to be converted to an i-frame on-the-fly.
HDV was not supported in earlier versions of COLOR, and there are those who would argue that it is a triumph of engineering (over common sense) that it is editable.
I know we 'sneak it by' a lot of broadcasters who uncategorically regard it as a useless "consumer format". It does wreak a bit of havoc, since it can contribute to errors related to frame count -- since COLOR does not pay much attention to absolute frame numbers, but mostly goes by predictive duration based on frame rate.

However it does have it uses. Under the right shooting conditions, it looks alright -- that can also be said about Super8 reversal -- and there might even be some similarities there.

Where the HDV/COLOR workflow breaks down, is that most users of this format are usually strapped for one of those good/fast/cheap criteria, and also burdened by storage and bit-rate ceilings. COLOR does NOT export HDV, so a project will change horses at this point in the stream. That has ramifications for aspect ratio, storage, and data-rate, all at the same time. Rendering out of COLOR in ProRes is pretty much the only option if Uncompressed isn't attractive for the above-mentioned reasons.

If breaking up a codec into its color components is really necessary for last-ditch recovery efforts, then the Nattress Plugins are very useful for doing RGB/YRB splits. At this point, it might also be useful to observe that COLOR does do an RGB conversion on input and then grades are applied in those channels. Just one more layer of complication. So an operator isn't really dealing with the original native-format HDV files, anyway.

jPo

All I will add to this is that I feel that Super-8 still looks allot better than HDV but then I am biased 😉 still Kodachrome S8 (not to mention 7217 and 7219 color negatve) does look great in HD and has much better color space than hdv.

-Rob-