Video (and that's essentially what digital cameras are) is WAY
sensitive to changes in light temperature. It used to be nightmarish.
I don't know how bad it is anymore, but back when I was toting around
a tube-based Ikegami that was 'portable' in about the same way that a
gas generator is 'portable' and fed it into a shoulder-slung 3/4" U-
Matic deck (that was about as dainty as a microwave oven) I used to
have to carry a white balance card and manually set the white balance
*constantly*. Unless I accidentally caught the sun in the frame and
then I could just throw the whole rig in the garbage. Minor changes
in color temperature can manifest themselves as drastic shifts in
color response. Ambient light as reflected off different surfaces can
even screw with you. I shot an ambient-light interview against a
peach-colored wall one time without rebalancing (since I'd just moved
from one room to another under similar light) and pretty much never
got the skin-tones to make any sense in the footage. I sat there with
the color corrector for hours making her look jaundiced and then
making her look like she had high blood-pressure and those were the
good results.
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:50 PM, Simon Worby wrote:
> Can I hijack your question: why is white balance such an issue in
> digital photography? With film you either get daylight or
> incandescent,
> not 10 different films for different light temperature colours. Or
> have
> I missed something obvious?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|