Examples of only one light source

Dimitrios Koukas · September 30, 2005

Hi,

The watch shot is a motion control shot from a 1:1 close on the back of the watch strap, the camera rolling 180 degrees as the name and logo were upside down!

The camera was covered with paper covering about 245 degrees. There was no possibly to put any form of light or mirror in front or to the side of the watch. So the light from the right is bounced key light!

The lamp was placed behind and to the left of the watch, pointing at the white paper. The white paper was spray painted with black paint to break the light and stop the face going milky!

During the camera move the light got brighter by 2 stops in the close up, very handy as the bellows compensation was around 2 stops.

To work out how to mount the watch, programme the move and light took about 14 hours! There was no crew, just myself and the client! It turned into a series with another 5 watches. The quickest shoot was 10 hours! The lighting had to work throughout the move, a still shot would have taken an hour or so to light!

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very nice Stephen,

and I was about to ask you why you didn't use a pola!!

:) :) :)

Dimitrios Koukas

Tomas Koolhaas · October 1, 2005

Actually you want a setup with a single fixture or a single light source.?

Cause bounching, means that you are using two light sources.

Here is one of mine that I ve found sry the grab isn't so good and blurs.

It is a 2,5 Kw cinepar thru 4x4 m diffusion from the left side, the right side is illuminated by a wall near.

Dimitrios Koukas

Hello,

Since light bouncing off any surface could technically be considered a "light source", when I posted this topic I actually stated that bounce boards etc doesn't count as a source, otherwise we could say that you having used a wall for bounce was technically another source, since most light sources, unless used in a room covered in Duvatyn, bounce off some surfaces I thought it would be best if the definition didn't include bounced surfaces (walls or bounce boards). But Thanks for your concern.

Also, I was just wondering about the difference in the two shots, in the wide there is a lot more fill (presumably from the wall you mentioned) and in the close up there seems to be less fill and more of a cooler edge, I was wondering why the diffrerence in the two shots. Also you seem to have got a LOT of bounce from that wall especially considering the fact that it isn't even in shot so must have been at least a few feet away, especially since you went with a 4x4 over the light. What color was the wall?

Cheers.

Dimitrios Koukas · October 1, 2005

Hello,
Since light bouncing off any surface could technically be considered a "light source", when I posted this topic I actually stated that bounce boards etc doesn't count as a source, otherwise we could say that you having used a wall for bounce was technically another source, since most light sources, unless used in a room covered in Duvatyn, bounce off some surfaces I thought it would be best if the definition didn't include bounced surfaces (walls or bounce boards). But Thanks for your concern.

Also, I was just wondering about the difference in the two shots, in the wide there is a lot more fill (presumably from the wall you mentioned) and in the close up there seems to be less fill and more of a cooler edge, I was wondering why the diffrerence in the two shots. Also you seem to have got a LOT of bounce from that wall especially considering the fact that it isn't even in shot so must have been at least a few feet away, especially since you went with a 4x4 over the light. What color was the wall?

Cheers.

Tomas,

In the general shot it was just the angle of his head in relation to the single source.And different camera axis too.But as you noticed it is overexposed,

U see the director did the telecine, so I don't know why he wanted the CU to be down two f/stops.U can see this by the brightness on his neck.

The wall was white but I believe the rim on hat is from skylight.The 2.5 cinepar was with a 1/2 CTO on.That made the colour from the sky tinted blue.

Film was kodak 250D.If I remember right, this shot is from 1998.

No extra fill added there.

I didn't even moved the light at all.

Dimitrios Koukas

oscar jimenez · October 4, 2005

It is simply beautiful!!!!

Michael Collier · October 13, 2005

most cool white floros have a fair bit of green in them. if you ballance your camera for tungsten (or use a tungsten stock) the floros will go greenish anyway (check requium for a dream, the dp in that loved it for the winter scenes) though that shot might have a 1/2 plus green.

at work I have a warm card that is specificaly for shooting under floros. Its a 1/2 neg-green I believe.