Photo by Zak ForsmanI love the waveform monitor, which you can see pictured above.
Those wavy lines aren't an x-ray of the subject. They're a scatter chart of all the pixels in the image, arranged according to brightness (luminance.)
When I've got the camera pointed at, for example, an actor in front of the sky, the "sky pixels" will most likely be at the upper end of the waveform diagram.
If they are at or above the thick line at the top, which is 100 IRE, the camera records the pixels as white.
If I wanted to see details in the clouds, I'd probably have to decrease the amount of light entering the camera by stopping down (increasing the f-stop) and putting an ND (neutral density) filter in front of the lens.
Now the clouds will look darker, with more detail than just white. Of course my actor will likely be underexposed (too dark.)
The waveform monitor gives me confidence in analyzing what the camera is recording, so that I don't have to rely only on what the camera's little LCD monitor looks like, which can be misleading.
It still comes down to taste, though. You can't be bullied by what the waveform likes, because you can wind up with bland imagery that way.
Ideally you've got a field monitor (I'm in love with our 17" Panasonic, which actually has its own waveform monitor, but that's another love note) so that you can see exactly what you're getting, and use your eye and the data to achieve beauty.
Love this feature.
- PH