M Joel W

This guy's not preaching; he's spamming. He's posted on a bunch of other forums this short tirade, followed by a link to some $350 lighting program. (The worst part is that the frame grabs showcased there look pretty uhh...video-y.)

The beam angle is similar; I think it's actually wider with the fresnel at full spot than with the par with no lens, so score one more for the par. Of course, spending my own money on a light for a shoot where the producer doesn't even want lights makes me hesitant to buy anything, but I need an HMI in my arsenal one way or the other...

Thanks for the advice. I doubt I will be using cookies with either, thankfully. I looked at Arri's site and noticed that their 1.2kw fresnel offered (at ten meters) 9125 lux at full spot, whereas the Arrisun 12 offered 16450 with a spot lens (and 33250 with no lens!). And the PAR actually had a wider beam, so that's nearly four times the efficiency as a spot light. At full flood, however, both were neck and neck in terms of efficiency, but the par's oval lenses allow for a tiny edge. But, the PAR with the frosted fresnel (like you mentioned) is about 15% less efficient than the fresnel, and far less versatile in terms of focusing range. Hmm... I need to think this one through before I blow all my cash...

I disagree. While DoH has some of my favorite cinematography ever, I generally dislike the use of only natural light. If you've got the ability to shape light however you want, why let it be shaped by chance? DoH has amazing lighting because it was shot primarily at magic hour with the sun smartly placed as a backlight, and the few lights that are used in it are used well. Most films I see without much lighting look either too flat or too harsh. Cinematography is about controlling light, and the idea that natural light is best because it's natural seems foolish to me. Using natural light isn't faster, either; if (like Malick) you wait until sunset to shoot everything, you've wasted most of your day. (Although in his films it's usually worth it.) I think Lawrence of Arabia is a visual powerhouse, but I was so engrossed by the story that I ignored its cinematography, at least on a technical level... I agree about The Searchers and whatnot, but I think that this is because of the film stock, too. Technicolor and the like were very garish. Certainly high speed stocks have facilitated natural lighting, but I hold that their greatest innovation is still in heavily-lit movies. As you noted, old movies look overlit because they don't use soft light and thus the lights scream out at you. Fast stocks allow for more filtration (from classic softs and nets on the lens, to diffusion on the lights). While soft light is a nice way of hiding one's ineptitude (I do this all the time), I think it's quite beautiful. IMO, the best cinematography today is being done by the likes of Richardson and Kaminski, who use very fast stocks (Minority Report had day exteriors shot at 800ISO!), lots of filtration and diffusion, but still tons of light (one scene in Minority Report (I just read ASC on it...) had nearly a million watts of HMIs, while Richardson is known to go four stops over (I think) on edge lights)... So, yeah, fast stocks have allowed for natural lighting, but I think very few films shot with natural light actually look any good and when they do, it's not something special about the light but about the time of day, position of camera in relation to the sun, or filtration and processing (or DI). And (just my opinion here) the true masters are those who use natural light when necessary or desirable, but also make innovative use of artificial lighting. Again, just my opinion, but the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan alone clinhed the cinematography Oscar over The Thin Red Line, stunning though it may be.

I think I've asked this very same question before, but... This time it's more specific. Basically, what is the (practical) difference between a par and a fresnel? I may be DP'ing my first feature this summer (yay?) on an hvx200, and I am trying to get a 1.2k HMI because most of the film takes place at night, frequently outside...but the producer wants to use a kit that maxes out at 1k (tungsten) and I'd want to put CTB over that and that isn't enough light for the 250ISO hvx, especially when slow motion will be involved! (Apparently, the producer doesn't really want any lighting, which upsets me...so this would be the best I could do!) So I have a chance to buy (and I'd use it for "personal" reasons later) a par or a fresnel for myself for pretty cheap, but the frensel is much cheaper than the par. My "personal" use would be as a key light for night scenes, as a soft fill for day interiors, and (in particular) as a backlight/keylight for day exteriors (CTO 1/4 because I love warmth, and a muslin butterfly over the talent...this would be for close ups only!) To summarize: I need a light (1.2k max due to edison...) for night exterior key (motivation: moon), bouncing for soft fill (although chances are I'll use kinoflos for this), and to shape light during the day (but only in close up, of course). Would the fresnel be good for me, or would the more versatile and efficient lenses that a par can offer be much better? The spotlight par would probably rock during the day for fill...my inkies are no more powerful than 75w par I bought at home depot... Anyhow, thanks as always for the help. This is a tough call since I think I need this light (and rental is not an option; too expensive for these long shoots) badly, but when I told my dad I was going to spend 1/3 of my savings on a light he flipped out. :-<

Yes; dimming can be an unfortunate practice. With cheap dimmers, you can create tons of noise that will destroy your audio. Also, the orange factor. No fun. "For movie making" isn't exactly enough information as everyone has pointed out. If you're limited to $2500, though, I'd get one 1k, preferably with a softbox and even an open face is fine, a couple 650s and a couple 350s.... Remember, you'll probably want three lights per person, although often times I just use a lot of bounced soft light as a fill for everything when I'm rushed. None of this wil help you outdoors, though. Also, two 1ks will max out most circuits so if you're shooting video or 200ISO film or higher, try to stick with more efficient or less powerful lights, even if it means renting kinoflos. Also load up on CTB, CTO, and diffusion gel, and consider cheap fixtures like photo floods and china balls when you need more than four or five lights, which will be often. I DP'ed a short with a few 300s, 1ks, 2ks, a few 650s, a kino bank, and a few inky dinks and I was still running around with a couple standard light sockets throwing 100w bulbs in them to fill the background or provide edge lights, etc. I also rarely used more than one 1k or 2k in a given scene, but the shoot was almost entirely interiors. Renting is also a nice option when need be. Also, say what you will about Arris but the quality of their stuff is pretty top notch. (It should be for the absurd prices they charge.) Also, they look so cool.

Madness. Well, I'm glad it's some semi-esoteric instrument and not a common type of light (for narrative filmmaking, at least) I have yet to learn about since I already worry about my dearth of technical knowledge. It seems like a steal at $900, though. 1200w HMI, ballast, all sorts of mirrors and cookies and color filters inside... Anyhow, thanks for the help.

Cyberlight 1200? It looks like an HMI globe in a rocket launcher or something... Is this some sort of complex mirror system to shape light? Is it efficient at all? Why is it so cheap? Why no ballast? http://cgi.ebay.com/Cyberlight-DMX-1200-Hi...1QQcmdZViewItem

The problem for me isn't so much color temperature (an HMI with CTO 3/4 is still twice as efficient as a tungsten bulb) as it is quality of light. Except for HMIs, there's not much in the way of hard sources that aren't incandescent. Flouresents are nice, but they're soft and don't have much throw. And I can't afford to replace my 300w fresnels with 150w HMIs (75w if everyone's shooting in black and white....); that would cost ten times as much. And I thought my fresnels were expensive for what they are.... Oh well, I don't live in CA. Yet....

Well, it seems like I'll be renting or buying a 1.2kw fresnel (or possibly par) most likely since that seems to be what's availible and safe off edison power. Thanks for all the advice. Hopefully soon I'll have the money to hire a professional gaffer, but for now I suppose I can make do with +3db of gain when it's necessary.

I'm sure he's exaggerating, but when you read AC and he's the one doing the talking and not his a-list DP, you have to at least give some respect for his obvious technical skill and attention to image quality. I'll respect him for his skill as a director, too, but I know not everyone else will.

Michael Bay went to my college (and we're both majoring in the same things) so I've heard some stories about him. Apparently, he was an excellent photographer, a fraternity member, and basically the exact opposite of most of the other writers and directors who have come from my school (they are mostly artsy intellectuals). That said, I've heard good things about him for the most part, and the only bad things I've heard usually started with him being unfairly maligned by others. I think, as a visual artist, he is nearly unparalleled. While Spielberg's films are more visually evocative (and the two have stolen a lot from each other), Bay's films are simply beautiful. I read an interview with him regarding The Island in AC, and he (rather than his talented DP), did all the talking. He was upset by the quality of Super35 in Bad Boys II (I was upset by the quality of story....) and insisted on shooting Anamorphic, even insisting that Panavision craft custom lenses for him. He's known for being a total jerk on set, but also for doing a ton of set ups, doing complex camera work, and orchestrating amazing camera moves. He even claims to do a lot of the work in setting up lights. Simply from the perspective of visual art, he's brilliant, and he's definitely a hard, dedicated worker. Plus, Transformers has a pretty low budget for what it is. He knows what he's doing. I think people just see his dumb action movies with average stories and average acting (inoffensive in and of itself) juxtaposed against beautiful compositions and innovative shots that don't necessarily forward the story. He's a perfectly competent director and a decent storyteller, but he's a great visual artist, and the two tendencies reconcile in a frustrating way. He's also apparently a bit of a jerk and egomaniac, and this makes him easier to hate. But come on, compared with Simon West and Bret Ratner, Bay not only has more talent, but has loads and loads more style.

Fantastic, thanks. I already own a Bates to Edison, but I think it's just a single Edison plug so I'll have to call my local rental house. For some reason, I can't get around the idea that fresnels are just more efficient, though. I once used 75w pars from home depot as hair, back, and edge lights and they were every bit as strong as my mole inking spotlight (250w fresnel). A pain to set up, though. By the way, would something like this work? http://www.simoneband.com/ebay/obrazki/a127a.jpg

I may be working on a project in which it will be necessary to shoot a lot of night scenes on an hvx200, possibly with filtration/lens gadgets enough to drive its effective ISO down around 100. It's going to be low budget and I'll basically be using my own lights plus a few that are provided... I was going to pick up a 1.2kw par for key (soft flourescents and/or tungsten for fill), but I can get a flicker free 2.5kw par for about the same price as the 1.2kw. Is there any way to buy some magic box to drive it off of two edison outlets (two circuits) or would it need three and a magic box? What kind of generator would I need to run it if no such magic box exists? Also, how much more efficient is a par can than a fresnel? I know (with the right lenses) it can throw light much further, but just in terms of a similar FOV of light, how much more efficient is the parabolic design and seperate lenses? Thanks as always, -Matt

That's the catch-22, though. If I use full flood the light is too dim, so I need to move it closer, resulting in fuzzy shadows. If I use full spot the light is bright, but it is fuzzy so I have to move it back...resulting in it being too dim. Damn you, fresnels. It's a medium shot and the light only has to hit the actor from the waist up, but I still may consider just not bothering with this effect. It's not integral to the story, just something that would help. The ellipsoidals seem like the best option but I don't understand how they work (are they focusable?) or where you get gobos for them, or how switching lenses effects them. I also found a 400w HID with a CRI of 91 (I know...) for $199 with an electronic ballast, and this is tempting, but it's open face so I would have very little control of the light. Gah. Oh well, thanks for all the help. If nothing else it's been very educational (and maybe I'll pull off the shot after all, even)... Edit: And I just discovered that dichroic par 64 bulbs are $600 and have a short life. Yikes.

It was two different shoots; the bleach bypass was with Vision 2 500T (if I remember correctly.)

The Tri-X was Kodak 200D, I don't know the specific number. I was DP/director/whatever; it was an intro to film class. This looked fine sometimes, but when I had to shoot pick ups and accidentally under or overexposed....it didn't work at all. I think the bleach bypass film I helped shoot (my friend was DP and he let me help light and expose a few shots) was Kodak 500T, probably Vision 2 since I think the Expressions stock was too hazy. It looked very nice when it was developed, but not quite exactly how we imagined it. I think the lab our school uses prints warm. Another thing I notice with these grainy stocks is that even if the lab does a nice job pushing or pulling to get exposures correct, there is a difference in grain pattern (particularly against solid grey/green/blue walls) that still appears due to inconsistent exposure.

My only experience with film is with Tri-X and bleach bypassed high speed film, but from what I can tell, video is infinitely easier to work with. Sure it's easier to blow highlights on video, but with film you don't really know what you'll get unless you run around with a light meter pointing at everything on set, taking into account its brightness, color, and the brightness and color of the light hitting it. White balance is a lot simpler (when you're mixing 1/4 CTOs and CTBs) than 85B filters and the like... Then again, Tri-X (and bleach bypass) result in terrible exposure lattitude, so this could just be me. But when I shoot video, issues of exposure inconsistencies are generally less. The same goes for how video handles vast differences in color temperature; it handles it worse, but you know how bad it's going to look to start. I still think film can look better even on a very low budget and if it weren't for my inability to compose in 1.33:1 I'd shoot more 16mm, but the set up times are much longer with a small crew. That said, I think it's only at the very low end of production where it matters. A competent DP can shoot both, but if you don't know what you're doing, film will show this worse than video. Video also allows for a massive shooting ratio, so you can do tons of set ups and choose in post the good ones--a terrible habit of mine. Video also allows for more takes with complex monitoring systems, easier focus pulling and camera move set ups (unless you rent a video tap), etc. For ultra low end productions I absolutely think video can be a huge advantage, in terms of cost and aesthetics. And if you can't afford an HD telecine or carefully timed printing, video can be easily color corrected in virtually any NLE. This is at the VERY low end, though...like student films and the like.

What about an ellipsoidal? They seem to be pretty cheap on ebay (500w-750w). Aren't these the focusable lights where you can put the cookie right in front of the light? The 35mm adapters eat up tons of light, sadly. It really is somewhere around 100ISO, max, and I like to expose one stop over on video interiors since I can control highlights, anyway and the dvx is noisy.

I'll adress the problems first: we had very little light (there may have only been one 300w fresnel and an inky at that point; I blew a bulb during the shoot) and I wanted to use soft (bounced) light for that scene. My light meter told me it was an acceptable exposure but slightly under; Tri-X's poor exposure lattitude and chunky grain structure didn't render the scene well, though. That was a beginner's mistake and I will take the blame! I now rate Tri-X at ISO 125 under tungsten light. I did write a screenplay, which you can read here: http://homepage.mac.com/mwauhkonen/handsomeman.pdf Between mistakes on set, limits of only having a minute and a half of film, and my professor's distate for certain jokes which he made me cut in editing, a lot of the film was lost. I think if Jim's hand had not functioned in the last scene it would have made for a better story; this was a continuity error since a crew member quit and my actor and I were tired. No problem about the criticism; it's along the same lines as what others have told me so I suppose it must be right. (Although I did post it here primarily for critiques in cinematography rather than direction, but I suppose I should appreciate both.) -Matt

Thanks for the help; since this is in my garage sans generator I can't go much above a 1k (tempted to rent a 1.2k hmi but it's not worth it for two brief shots) but I'll keep an eye out for a diachroic par64 and set something up like you've suggested. I may just limit myself to my 50mm f1.4 for the master and 85mm f1.8 for the close up (where I can move lights in...) but unfortunately gain and removing the adapter are out of the question. Anyhow, thanks again. I really appreciate the advice.

Actually, it's a 35mm adapter plus the fact that I have to adjust my taking lens to f2.8-f3.4 to get decent sharpness....but as soon as I mention I'm shooting video people stop offering as helpful advice! That said, if I could I'd be all over Super 16.

I am shooting a scene in an office set (in my garage...so echoey it guarantees post-dubbing!) and I want light to be hitting the character's face like this http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp.../JackBlinds.jpg but a finer pattern. Here's my problem! I'm shooting between 40 and 80ISO at f2.0 (but I could do f1.4 if need be) and in color. The blinds will be covered with a FULL CTB...and the strongest light I have (save for open face 1ks) is a 650w fresnel! If I put a cookie between the light and the actor's face it's always out of focus...unless I move it back, and then the light is WAY too dark. So... Where can I get a good cookie for venetian blinds? I don't know how big to make my pattern! What do I do for a focusable light source! I can't afford a xenon, but I could maybe get a Par64 1k or a diachroic par. But how do I focus this? I've heard about focusable pars but uhh...where and how much? Where do I find the legendary diachroic par64 bulb I may need...I've looked all over and can't find one for under $500! I hear this loses no light versus a 3200K par64, but burns out super fast. True? Should I just give up?... Thanks all!

This is the first narrative film I shot; the only thing before this was a single daylight spool for exposure tests. Anyhow, we were meant to have just 100' of Tri-X 200D, a bolex with an angeniuex zoom, a light meter, and a tripod, but I got my hands on two 300w fresnels and an inky or two. I screwed up some of the titles so I redid them digitally; otherwise it's all unmodified 16mm except that I pushed one or two shots digitally. Edited on a Steinbeck. Enjoy! http://homepage.mac.com/mwauhkonen/handsomeman.mov (1 minute)

Easy question: three-hour adaptation of The Master and Margarita.