Jump to content

Adrian Sierkowski

Premium Member
  • Posts

    7611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adrian Sierkowski

  • Birthday 09/03/1983

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles, Ca

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.adriansierkowski.com

Recent Profile Visitors

70113 profile views
  1. As far as I know no black magic has any stabilizer
  2. It's kept mattebox makers in business for years! Wanna look pro; put on a mattebox! And a few antenna here and there. They don't even need to do anything.
  3. Technologically though; if they shot at 50HZ/25P/180Deg then that would mitigate most, if not all, flicker issues; correct?
  4. Used both. Get the 300. The c70 is fine, but it really isn't worth the price and the lack of sdi is very annoying. I don't hate it, but it isn't what I would grab for anything but the smallest of gigs
  5. I think the best if you going right to rec709/2020 is going to be the canons. Sony is better in low light and I prefer they're ergonomics but slog can be.....a thing. Bm is really nice to look at but quality control, robustness of build, and matching are a bit of concern. I think of them all, the canon might not be the most revolutionary, but it's a robust system. I would personally reach for a Sony because I'm much prefer the ergonomics; and that's about it.
  6. 12x12 is in feet; it's a large frame, 4x4 is 4ft by 4ft, and 410 / 251 (what I meant to type) are diffusion gels (opal and 1/4 white respectively) The 12x12 might be full grid or maybe bleached muzz; both diffusion fabrics. Also yes makeup is a huge factor, as is overall production design of cool v warm tones
  7. Where it me I'd use a large 12x12 frame of something for the over all lighting and then from the same side a an unit though a 4x4 of 410 or maybe 250.
  8. I use either meter, but I tend to incident and cover. Though my meter (zoom 508) has a retractable dome; others have an interchangeable disk. Numbers were just an example; experiment. It might well be a 2:1 ratio (e.g the "shadow" is a 2.8 and the "bright" is a 4) Also I'm sure she was lit with frames of diff to help spread. (Maybe a beauty dish?) She also is being filled in by her environment/show card/many other things than 2 lights more than likely. If you look at the setups for typical glamor magazine photography you can get an idea if what's around her to fill in under chin. There are very many diffusion filters. I would start with a promist personally, but that would be something to really test.
  9. Hope this makes some sense The lighting for the highlights is over exposed relative to the "shadow" side of the face that you would expose for. Note the numbers are arbitrary. You need to meter you key/fill/kicker and background lights separately. In this case we are exposing for our "fill" so that the key light over exposes and blooms (probably helped by a diffusion filter as well because female talent)
  10. It's noting to do with the background. It's about the key and fill sides of her face. The background is irrelevant to what you are trying to achieve on her face. Though you would want it as bright as your exposure so she doesn't disappear into darkness. Let me try to whip up a visual
  11. That's your problem, that's taking an average reading and exposing everything to average out. What you would really want would be for your highlight side to be overexposed by two, three or four stops and your Shadow side to be at your exposure level. For example; Shadow @2.8(your exposure set at 2.8) and highlights reading at a 5.6 or 8 even then you'll push the highlights higher in post. you could also keep shadow at a 2, expose at 2.8 and highlights at a 5.6/8 for a little bit 2 contrast
  12. Sounds like you're lighting flatly... You'd want to set up a nice overall exposure, your base, beauty stuff, and then over-expose just one side of the face. You say you are "under" and "over" exposing; but what is your contrast ratio? What are you reading for your high-light and your mid, and your shadow off of your meter? And, then, what are you setting your exposure based on?
  13. That's very true. But in that case color tunable led is becoming more and more ubiquitous.
×
×
  • Create New...