Match flash light head to tungsten

[Jose Fonseca]

Here is my situation. I did a photoshoot using photography flash head light. After reviewing my pictures I loved the colors and over all feel of the images I posted below. The problem I am having is that now I setup the shot using my xl2 and lowels tungsten lighting and I don't get the same effect using the same gels as my photoshoot.

 

This is what I am tring to match (this one has black background):

 

This is the same setup just different model, white background and light intensity.

 

Here is my shot with my xl2 and lowels light kit:

 

If anyone can guide on the right path to match my photoshoot that would be highly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advanced,

----------------------

Jose Fonseca

josef@klipartstudio.com

http://www.klipartstudio.com

Edited January 5, 2007 by Jose Fonseca

[Matt Sandstrom]

first of all i see two glints in the eyes in the still images but only one in the video ones, leading me to believe that the lights aren't set up the same way, which changes the colors since skin looks different lit from different angles. other than that it just looks like a white balance issue. use the tungsten preset on the xl2 and gel the lights a bit blue and green?

 

/matt

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

To me it just looks like you gotta cool down the image using white balance. Also, your actress' skintone is a little darker than the girls from your photoshoot, so there's that to take into account.

 

I would gel a light with a certain grade of CTO and set my white balance to that, then remove the CTO for a cooler look. The green light on the other side should pop better as well (oh, also, be sure to not have your green light turned on while white balancing)

[chris kempinski]

It does look like a quarter CTS on the key and perhaps a Cyan CAL15 on the fill and background. Perhaps a quarter Green quarter Blue combined instead of the Cyan. :unsure:

[Dino Giammattei]

It looks to be an entirely different lighting setup to me also. Another factor worth considering is that most studio strobes have considerably more pop than a your average portable tungsten light. If your using a softbox for the stills, perhaps acquiring a speed ring for your tungsten light would allow you to use the same setup for both photography and video. On top of that, remember that mini DV does strange things to your pictures. Because of the bizarre compression algorithms going on there, you may only be able to get a close approximation of your still shot. I don't know the capabilities of your camera, but I've matched between 35mm stills and a BVW600 Betacam by using HMI's or gelled tungsten, the daylight preset, and tweaking the color if necessary, in post. It really wasn't that much of a big deal. I think if you match the wonderful technique you used on the first shot, and WB that thing properly, you'll have no problems.

You do very nice work?

 

dino

[Matt Sandstrom]

mini DV does strange things to your pictures. Because of the bizarre compression algorithms going on there, you may only be able to get a close approximation of your still shot.

nah, dv uses almost exactly the same compression as jpeg, which is the format of these stills. the limiting factor with most dv is the lens and ccd, which both underperform compared to a still camera, not the compression.

 

/matt

[Jose Fonseca]

Thanks everyone,

 

Everyones input really helped out on my shoot. Light setup was different cause of the out of the lights(tunsten) had to be closer to subject due to intensity. Also I did the white balance after I gelled it which I should of known better. I also notice the color depth of a digital still camera compared to a mini dv XL2 (has way less color depth then my canon 5d).

 

In my finds I noticed going for a richer blue and richer red gels for my tota, omni tungsten lighting came close to what I did in the photography.

 

Soon as I get to the footage I can show all of you what my shoot looked like. It is not exact but the look and feel is close and that is what matters most to me. Thanks to all of you I was able to problem solve quicker. I can't imagine a life without the forum community it really makes deadline projects possible for people like me. Thanks.

 

----------------------

Jose Fonseca

josef@klipartstudio.com

http://www.klipartstudio.com

Edited January 8, 2007 by Jose Fonseca

[Dino Giammattei]

nah, dv uses almost exactly the same compression as jpeg, which is the format of these stills. the limiting factor with most dv is the lens and ccd, which both underperform compared to a still camera, not the compression.

 

/matt

 

You have me there Matt, I stand corrected.

Somehow I got it into my head that we were comparing video to film. If the stills are digital, your right, it's a different story. You just made me realize that my dislike of miniDV and DvCam, may have more to do with the differences between the cameras than the recording media. I guess it's not surprising that a BVW600 with 2/3" chips is going to look different than a DSR570 with 1/2" chips. I'll say this though, I have a lot more trouble getting the picture to look the way I want since having to switch to DvCam digital cameras. On occasions where I'm able to use DigiBeta, I don't seem to have these issues. Again, this probably has more to do with the camera than the tape format.

 

As for the original topic of this thread, It's still more an issue of technique rather than technology, isn't it?

 

 

dino