Mathew Rudenberg

A menace arm is certainly an option, but for a novice that's potentially a fair amount of weight you're putting over your talent, and thus potentially dangerous. Also, it's possibly overkill considering how light a china ball is (the rest of the rig will be far heavier) What about the simplest of simple solutions? Tape - just get a role of 2" photo black and tape the hell out of the cable, just remember to 'H' the tape for support. another possibility is to see if there are a couple of architectural elements (eg columns) you could tie a rope between, and then hang the china ball off of it.

I finished a shoot recently where Art Dept would occasionally mix LED christmas lights in with the old school ones. It was pretty easy to tell the difference - the LED's flickered and we couldn't find a shutter angle that would eliminate that flicker. I did, however. find that it was only the plug in (AC) LEDs that flickered, the battery powered LEDs we had on set did not. I suspect this is due to the sine wave cycle of the AC power/ not having a great transformer on cheap christmas lights, however I didn't take the time to test them or anything, we just stopped using the LED models.

Be aware, photofloods are designed to burn very hot in order to match a traditional 3200k tungsten - most household fixtures are not designed to withstand that kind of heat for extended periods of time. I've seen photofloods crack glass and scorch fabric, and I have no doubt that one could easily start a fire if left unattended. They can certainly give you a nasty burn. If you have limited experience when using professional lighting equipment, make sure to use gloves and only to change globes when the fixture is off. Electricity is dangerous and you can easily get seriously hurt if you are not careful.

I've done a few projects on the RPP's and I've been very impressed with their quality. I'd definitely place them as the best cost to quality ratio, although I still prefer something about the cooke S4s and S5s... I can't compare them to the zeiss ultraprimes as I have developed an unfair distaste for zeiss after using the standard and super speeds way too much. Things to know about them: They're heavy, especially the 25mm and the 18, which are even heavier then the rest. I noticed some chromatic aberration in the 100mm when under a 2.8, increasing up to 1.9. I did not notice such in the other lenses. The flare is different. I personally quite like it for music videos - they can create a rainbow soap sheen type of effect. If you'd like to take a look, here is a very simple music video I shot on the RPP's. It will give you a good idea of how they perform slightly stopped down in daylight and also wide open at night, as well as some of their flare characteristics... why

Keith, I'm glad to see you're reading my posts a little more carefully ;) Now perhaps we can put aside this unpleasantness and return to the topic at hand? The argument that the process Frank and I describe is not the one being used is based on Jim's denial of it, but I cannot find the post where Jim says it doesn't work like that - perhaps you could link to it? All I could find is one where he denies that it's 'just' two exposures, and with your knowledge of grammar I'm sure you'll agree that that's a fairly ambiguous comment :)

Keith : You think you're funny, I guess, but I don't take kindly to your facetiousness, which is I guess one of the pitfalls of having any kind of discussion an open board. I'm well aware that once a pixel is overloaded there is no information there, as should be apparent from my posts. I believe I was fairly clear that the algorithm is not some kind of magic that retrieves lost highlights from a single exposure, but rather a theoretical attempt to understand how RED might be integrating two shots to create an HDR effect, much like 'merge to HDR' in photoshop is an algorithm comprised of a series of photoshop functions. But since you didn't even spell check your own post I guess expecting you to read mine before responding is a lot to ask :) John : I agree that for any kind of motion HDR to be perfectly done a prism set-up would be best. However, unless the Epic has substantially changed it seems unlikely that that is what they are doing, and for me this is just an attempt to examine what RED might be doing to create this HDR effect with the limited tools available to them - ie. with a single chip. I also agree with you that if a luminance key was applied to both images it would create holes. What I would do would be to only apply a luminance key to exposure B (highlight detail), and lay it over exposure A (mids and shadow detail). That way any holes in B would show the shadow and midtone details beneath, while the additional highlight detail from exposure B would cover the blown highlights in A. I would also lower the white output levels of A so that it's highlights don't seem brighter then B. And yes, this would create artifacts in motion because the two shots are not identical with only a varying exposure. I believe the comet tailing of the lights is an example of that.

OK, I see what you're saying now and you have a good point, but let me ask you this... If you were going to combine two exposures into one to create an HDR image, wouldn't you have to manipulate the images somewhat in order to get a 'realistic' image? Jim said it's not 'just' combining two exposures... To explain: Let's say A is a wider shutter exposure that captures most of the mid tones and shadow detail, but the highlights are blown out. Now let's say B is a tight shutter exposure to preserve additional highlight detail that A couldn't hold. If you simply combined the two images, the bright spots in B would be darker then the blown out bright spots in A right? And I imagine it would look pretty odd for the highlights in A to have a dark center... even if it held more detail... So, what I would do is create some kind of algorithm that reduced the brightness of the highlights in A, and then I would increase the brightness of B so that it seemed that B continued the brightness curve of A but held the highlight detail. And that could explain why the streaks from A (the longer exposure) are dimmer than the points from B (the shorter exposure). B)

I'd go with the 150w across the board and wire them all to a 2k variac - that way you can dial in the brightness to your heart's desire... or if you feel inspired you can play with the brightness during the shot :) As for the tungsten noise, if it bothers you throw an 80 (2 stops lost) or 82b (2/3 stop loss, but less blueing) filter on the camera to cool everything down, depending how much light you're willing to lose.

I don't mean to sound negative, but I'm just highly skeptical that the engineers at RED have discovered a way to do something that was until now undoable. I'm going to rant briefly, but first let me say that I shoot more with the RED now than any other camera, and I do believe that it is currently the best intersection of budget, footage quality, and practicality. /start rant My problem with RED is the effing hype - the magical 'mysterium' sensor just happens to be the same size, megapixels, and native color temp as an APS-C DSLR chip. Nothing mysterious about that to me. The K's are just a byproduct, hell, the raw was quite possibly just a byproduct of how they pull info off the chip (too much data to transcode and store at that speed). Now, I do think hooking up a DSLR chip to a computer and streaming motion images off it is a pretty freaking genius idea - I'd have 10 000 times more respect for the company if they'd just admitted it from the start. They should shout about it - it's a really really clever idea. Instead they wrap everything in this pretentious jargon about revolutions and mysteries. I guess it works for the fan boys, but I think that the more solemn and reflective types who actually make a living off of cinematography might like a little honesty and transparency with the tools they are expected to entrust their careers to. But that is simply not the market that RED chose to appeal to, and that is my problem with RED. /end rant Anyway, my point is ... well ... my point is ... Oh yes: Jim doesn't actually say that it isn't two exposures, he says (for some reason I cannot post a screen grab of this so you'll just have to trust me) Quote: Originally Posted by Gavin Greenwalt View Post So you are just doing two exposures. Nope... "just two exposures" gives disjointed (unconnected and stuttering) motion. Jim __________________ There's a huge difference between 'not two exposures' and 'not just two exposures'. Marketing smoke and mirrors my friends.

As I said, this is pure theorizing from what is logically possible and what I see, in other words, wtf do I know? I don't think you fully follow theory though - since the second exposure is longer the trail is spread over multiple photosites, creating a dim trail. If the camera was static that trail would possibly be a dot brighter then the first dot, but it would be in the same exact place, and it would have it's information replaced by the detail in the other dot (from the shorter exposure) hence the HDR preserving more highlight detail... As I said before, this process could have some weird motion artifacts...

Thanks for the link, I'd say this strongly supports my theory, although I think I got it the wrong way around - it's the tight shutter first, not second :) Look at this image: This is a punch in still from the HDR video they posted. I took it from the fastest part of the pan. Notice how the brightest information (in the lights of the casino) consist of a bright point source followed by a blurred tail. (the pan was right to left for those of you who haven't watched the vid) This, to me, indicates that two exposures were taken - first a fast shutter speed one to capture highlight detail. Due to the tighter shutter there is very little motion blur. The second, (probably) 180 degree exposure captures the shadow detail with more motion blur, hence the trails. This could produce some pretty interesting effects if one could effect the two shutter speeds individually... Imagine shooting a 60 degree shutter exposure followed by a 300 degree and composited together - you could possibly get a sharp image followed by motion blurred trails... interesting... As for the HDR - unimpressive example - Vegas at night simply looks good, even on an hvx, I can't see any increased DR. Similarly that front lit still of a lake doesn't indicate extended dynamic range to me. If they post a moving shot with bright sunlight and deep shadow both holding detail I might change my tune pretty damn quick though. I want to believe, I just can't help being skeptical. Thoughts?

If I want a steady shot inside a vehicle I've found that the best simple approach is to simply firmly strap the tripod or hi hat to the vehicle - it's suspension should take care of the bumps. If there's a massive amount of vibration you can rent vibration isolation mounts from chapman...

I think of it in terms of RED being a fairly simple camera that can handle a fairly high bandwidth of data. The simplest way to get HDR out of a camera that can shoot highspeed would be to shoot one exposure at 180 degrees, followed immediately by another exposure at a tighter shutter (for example 22.5 would give you a 3 stop difference) I believe my iphone does something similar for still images. This is much like shutter bracketing still images for HDR - and would probably work better for static frames, as naturally the tighter shutter shot would have different motion blur characteristics and could have a slightly different frame, both of which could cause issues when the frames are merged. Maybe these issues wouldn't be noticeable, I couldn't say without seeing a motion demo. Considering they've only posted still frames this seems to be the most likely solution they've found. Also Jim posted on reduser that HDR would reduce the high speed capabilities of the camera. Now excuse me while I go throw up after reading through all that sycophancy...

if you specify the movie and scene maybe we can answer your question better. For example in terminator 2 for the director's cut scene where they take the chip out of Arnie's head they used an elaborate mirrored set with no mirror and Linda Hamilton's twin sister. Nowadays there's a good possibility they used greenscreen or simply roto'd out the camera...

The hardest question is whether the job is real, as craigslist can be a little dodgy. If so, I think the question is whether you ultimately want to shoot narrative/ features. There's definitely good money doing small commercial and videographer stuff, but if you never take a risk there is a possibility that is all you will do. It's hard to give up that security, and I would bet it's only going to get harder as the years go on. I'd say the best time to make that leap is as soon as possible. As for shooting 35, it's easy, just use your meter and the latitude will take you the rest of the way. If you're really nervous take the easy route and shoot stills with your DSLR, if they look good I guarantee the 35mm film will... Also, I wouldn't worry about the union - if they try to turn the show and you're non-union they can't really penalize you, chances are they'll offer you a reduced rate entry if you walk (that's happened to several friends of mine) Even if the show does turn you probably won't have to join because you don't have to until you've accrued 30 union days...

Anyway, Ronald, When I first started shooting I was very concerned with where the lighting would realistically come from. Which I still think is an important consideration, but not the most important consideration. As I worked more and more I frequently found myself in situations where realistic light sources were not suitable. Perhaps the light would not be flattering to an actress, or reflect the mood of the scene accurately. As a result I had to light unrealistically, but in a way that better suited the story and the project, and ultimately was better for the film. There are also certain visual elements that the audience has essentially been trained to accept over years of imbibing visual media. Examples such as the Bill Murray picture you posted are a good example of that. Blue = night. Soft toplight = general ambiance. When I am placed in a position that I have to light a room at night with the lights off in such a way as to see the characters face, I usually take that exact approach, because it feels right. That's not to say you shouldn't motivate your lights. I generally prefer to shoot in a direction that has windows in the frame as I can use them to motivate light sources. But when it comes to motivation as long as the light is coming from the correct general direction the audience will usually accept it. How you choose to light, including to what extent you choose to follow realistic lighting is part of your style. I believe the only way to develop this is to experiment and see what works for you. Just don't let yourself get stymied by light not being totally realistic.

Look guy, I know tone doesn't necessarily come across in text, but I though it was pretty obvious that when I said the 'great' wikipedia I was being somewhat facetious. Similarly, when I said non-diegetic lighting it was more a pun on the previous joke then an attempt to invoke a new form of film criticism. The only reason I'm bothering to respond to you is that your blatant troll behavior annoys me.

Really? So you think if he was lying in complete darkness the filmmakers would have just cut to a black frame? I think there's an awful lot of filmmakers that light the darkness so the audience can see what is happening, even though the characters cannot.

Oh good lord, are we going to get into a battle of semantics? That is nit-picking. According to the great wikipedia "In film studies, diegesis refers to the story world, and the events that occur within it. Thus, non-diegesis are things which occur outside the story-world." Since the lights we use to cast light don't exist within the story world, those lights are technically non-diegetic. I would thus argue that lighting with non-diegetic lights = non-diegetic lighting. Pretty straightforward.

Oh boy - yes, it's about suspension of disbelief. Non-diegetic music and non-diegetic lighting are equally acceptable. If movies were about lighting things perfectly realistically we wouldn't use lighting and everything would look like a Dogma 95 film. Lighting is more about the mood and feel then about slavishly trying to imitate reality. Focus less on what logically makes sense and more on what supports the narrative and feels right. Or not. There's no right or wrong answer - everyone has their own process and style, and the truth is 99% of the people that watch a movie won't notice the lighting on anything more than a subconscious level. Experiment, find what works for you and go with it.

Scripty to DP "Where's that light coming from? There's no window or lamp there" DP "Same place the music is coming from."

A good colorist should be able to match the contrast and color of the footage - most likely the 'better' footage will have to be degraded to match the less good footage. The thing that can't be matched is the lens and DOF properties of the cameras which are in this case significantly different. This will depend how you use the cameras and what you are shooting. If it's a live concert the audience probably won't notice or be bothered by the differences, If you're shooting a conversation and cutting reverses on the ex3 and 7d the difference will probably be more distracting. Try to use the Ex3 for shots where the dof doesn't matter as much, such as wide shots or inserts and you have a better chance of getting away with it...

No real reason I don't use the mighty moles, I just seem to order Blondes by force of habit. I think I got a couple of burns from Mighty's back in film school and have avoided them since... One thing to keep in mind with the single globe unit is that you should have a dimmer to make slight adjustments, as you can't just drop a scrim in it... Buying equipment is always a tricky choice. If it helps I own a 750w Rifa with the eggcrate, which is great for a controlled softlight on smaller shoots or an obie on music vids. My theory is that if it's a bigger shoot they should have money to rent bigger lights. One other intermediate option is the Woody light I haven't used it but some DP's I know swear by them...

Yeah, if you're going for bigger than 1k those options won't really work for you. A fresnel is, as you supposed, very inefficient for the purposes of using with a chimera, you're giving up at least a third to half your light for that clean beam. a 2K open face like a mighty mole is certainly better (still somewhat directional, but you will get a higher percentage of footcandles out of the lamp). The problem I've found in the past with these lights is that the yokes often aren't strong enough to hold up a larger chimera, which can be a very annoying issue I've had to solve with bailing wire before :) This is definitely a problem with the arrilight 2k and 2k Blondes, I think the Mighty mole is a little sturdier, but for some reason I never use those. Also 2k open faces tend to be somewhat poorly ventilated and get very very hot. The Barger is definitely your best bet for a greater than 1k tungsten chimera if you can afford it. I use them frequently and have always been happy with them - they are well ventilated, have a strong yoke, and the switchable globes makes changing intensity a breeze. My gaffer likes to get the 6k with Edison tails, and put a dimmer on one of them for maximum flexibility. One caveat is that if you're looking for more throw, using a mighty mole with thinner diffusion and spotting it in can give you that (at the cost of softness of light). You can't spot a barger.

Any directional light isn't optimal for a chimera because the light is focused and then fired into the diffusion, which gives you a smaller source. The baffles usually aren't far enough away from the front diffusion to give a really good double break. Your best bet for the softest light is to go for essentially a bare globe inside the chimera. You'd be giving up the flexibility of the light being useful without the chimera so that's a choice for you to make. Rifa lights (by lowel) are great, lightweight and quick to set up. Perfect for interviews, but they're a little delicate for the rigors of full time production (unless you can afford to replace them often, but they're great for a handheld key) Alternatively the triolet is a pretty cool head if you want to go with the quartz bank.