Sivanesan Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Hi, I want to correct the color temperature of my lighting kit...... is the following convertions is correct? Film's Temperature 3200 Light's Temperature 2700 Mired Correction -58 Correctin Filter 80D Film's Temperature 5500 Light's Temperature 6500 Mired Correction 28 Correctin Filter 81B Regards Siva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Are you doing this for s***'s and giggles? Or are you seriously using lights of those color temps? To correct the "daylight" source, you should just gel the light itself with a 1/4 CTO or so, instead of putting a filter on the lens. Same goes for the "tungsten" source and slapping on a 1/4 to 1/2 CTB. Just curious, why is your tungsten light so low? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted December 18, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 18, 2007 Just curious, why is your tungsten light so low? Regular household bulbs are quite a bit under 3200, by varying amounts. I like to use 1/8 CTO on tungsten movie lights when trying to match the output of practicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted December 19, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 19, 2007 Are you doing this for s***'s and giggles? Or are you seriously using lights of those color temps? I think Sivanesan is using those lamps. Looking at where he's from, his tone might not have come across in the way intended in the email. It's not unusual at all for tungsten lights, domestic bulbs or even regular film fixtures to be under 3000K, and if that was the only light source and he wanted to be accurate, then the 80D or 80C would be the way to go. And again with daylight sources, more often than not a HMI is up in that 6000k+ range, so if he was tring to match a daylight stock to that then that would be the way to go. In that case though, it's a pretty big assumption to say that the daylight really is 5600K, cause more often than not it won't be. IN this case, it's better to try and gel the lights to match the daylight ambient. The reality is Sivanesan that you don't have to be that accurate with your photography, because the power of modern colour correction means that it's easily adjusted later. It is a little more difficult once you start MIXING your colour temps, as would be the case with your daylight scenarios, and in this case you may want to pay a little more attention to the differences. As I said though, it's unlikely that your daylight will actually be 5600K and it changes a lot during the course of a day. The boxing day test at the MCG won't be played under lights though, so you'll only have to account for the slight yellow green shift of the green and gold from the fans.....daylight aside of course (err..sorry...cricket lighting humour) jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted December 19, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 19, 2007 (err..sorry...cricket lighting humour) jb You mean that game that improved into baseball? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivanesan Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 OOps..... i think i made some mistakes in the post....... those filters 80D and 81B are camera filters...... sorry for the error...... my aim is to correct the color temp of the lights only......... these bulbs are basically home lights....... we have fixed this on our own fixtures..... the colour temp of the warm bulbs are 2700k and day bulbs are 6500k as mentioned by the manfacturer....... these bulbs are from PHILIPS....... in our earlier projects we have used these day light bulbs without gels to get a mild green tone. i was going thru the lee website and found the following result. The Calculator in the following page says this: http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/products/mired/ Original Source Value (kelvin) 6500 Converted Source Value (kelvin) 5500 Mired correction value +28 mired of Eighth C.T. Orange (223) +26 Original Source Value (kelvin) 2700 Converted Source Value (kelvin) 3200 Mired correction value -58 mired of Quarter C.T. Blue (203) -35 Hope my tones will be under control........... Regards Sivanesan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Sorry if I came off wrong, the "s***'s and giggles" only meant that I suspected you were just throwing out an equation to us to confirm your findings according to your calculations, and that you weren't throwing us a practical question that you REALLY needed, ha ha I see now, I was under the impression that you were at least using studio grade lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirsty Stark Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 You mean that game that improved into baseball? ;) Improved??? I don't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 The Americans adopted rounders before it refined itself into cricket, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Everything I know about the history of cricket, I learned from Douglas Adams...which is all lies and fantasy :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Everything I know about the history of cricket, I learned from Douglas Adams...which is all lies and fantasy :) I've watched documentaries and read books on Douglas Adams, and I honestly think he was a bit of a tortured genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted December 20, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 20, 2007 Improved??? I don't think so... I couldn't resist. You British Empire dwellers are so protective of cricket. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) The Americans adopted rounders before it refined itself into cricket, I think. I don't think so. Cricket traces it roots back to the 13th century. Both baseball and rounders trace themselves back to the 18th centuries. Cricket was cricket before America was even American ;) Edited December 20, 2007 by Daniel Sheehy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim O'Connor Posted December 20, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 20, 2007 I don't think so. Cricket traces it roots back to the 13th century. Both baseball and rounders trace themselves back to the 18th centuries. Cricket was cricket before America was even American ;) You agree then that brand new is better? Also, although we usually don't tell non-Americans this, if you look at the structure of the game in mathematical terms the game clearly lays out a unified field theory that explains everything. Good luck with your productions, Sivanesan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I've watched documentaries and read books on Douglas Adams, and I honestly think he was a bit of a tortured genius. You should READ Douglas Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) You agree then that brand new is better? No. Come on, what isn't there to love about cricket? Its one of those sports that can cause diplomatic outrage, and cause country relationships to go from friendly to icy. The New Zealanders have yet to forgive the Australians for that infamous delivery in 1981. To be honest, I've never understood how you can call it a 'World Series' when no one else in the world takes part. ;) Edited December 20, 2007 by Daniel Sheehy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted December 20, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 20, 2007 To be honest, I've never understood how you can call it a 'World Series' when no one else in the world takes part. ;) Hear Hear ! jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rohtash chandel Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) Improved??? I don't think so... Edited December 21, 2007 by rohtash chandel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rohtash chandel Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 You agree then that brand new is better? Also, although we usually don't tell non-Americans this, if you look at the structure of the game in mathematical terms the game clearly lays out a unified field theory that explains everything. Good luck with your productions, Sivanesan. YEAH I GUESS WHEN CRICKET WAS INTRODUCED TO SOME GENIUS WHO COULD NOT DEAL WITH THE BOUNCE, DECIDED TO PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY AND THUS BASEBALL WAS BORN........... I GUESS AS FAR AS MATHEMATICAL CACULATIONS ARE CONCERND DUDE JUST TRYN DEAL WITH THE BOUNCE AND THE MOVEMENT OFF THE WICKET AND FROM THE WICKET........SOUNDING COMLICATED!!!!!!!!THIS IS JUST THE BEGINING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now