Aapo Lettinen

the main issue with tungsten lights is the colour temperature, if you want a cold look with daylight film it is best to use high colour temperature to help exposing the emulsion layers for lower grain (otherwise would be no benefit of using the low sensitivity stock) and to be able to get the correct exposure for the look as well (better to boost the blue channel to the right exposure level on set rather than underexposing it and gaining it in post) , but that means you would need to gel the tungsten lights to maybe around 7000K or so and the gels then eat up so much light that you need really powerful tungstens to use the 50D film you have on a larger set (meaning that you would like to light an area wider than couple of feets/maybe 1.5 - 2 meters at a time). The HMIs have both much better efficiency (about 4x more light per watt than with tungsten lights) and they are already somewhere around 6000K native so you don't have to gel them as much. if doing a very unscientific "calculation" you would get maybe something like 8x - 9x more light with the HMI compared to similar wattage tungsten light if gelling the tungsten to the same high colour temp? So the 1.2k hmi compares to at least 10K tungsten light in your application, maybe more if you compare the reflectors and spread ("punch") as well if the tungsten is fresnel and the HMI is a new par or Max model. Your power options are probably limited so I really don't think you are really able to replace a hmi with any kind of tungsten in your application, you will just limit your set size so much that it makes shooting difficult and you have to use mostly tight shots and light a very small area at a time to be able to get the exposure you need for the very insensitive film. with 250D it would be not that much of a problem or with 200T not at all but with the 50 it certainly is. I personally use the 2k tungstens for cold look on limited budget only if the camera can do 1000 - 1600 ISO or more so that gelling is possible and I can still light an area wider than couple of meters at a time. otherwise it would be HMI of at least one or two 1.2K's or more, preferably 1.8K's or 2.5K's (those still can use household power here in 230V country) or with that insensitive film I would maybe use two 4K's or one 4K and one 1.8K so that could light a slightly larger area at a time and don't have to shoot wide open all the time. Of course if lighting very tight shots at a time, shooting wide open and limiting the actor movement to an area not exceeding couple of feets at a time, then some smaller tungstens would do. Could be best, however, if you could use a 200T film if limited to tungsten lights so that you would not need as much gelling than with a daylight film, you will lose about two stops on the gels so you will effectively waste about 3/4 of the intensity of the light. added with the low efficiency of tungsten lights the 2K's or 5K's are very small in your application but of course you can use them (on a small area at a time) if not having any better option available ;)

"Academy of Motion Picture Entertainment and Sciences" maybe? most of the movies have not much to do with "art" anyway, they are like pop music = pure entertainment for the masses where the "artistry" is limited to certain art and creature design related things...

that differs quite much from the look you were describing. the kind of lighting in the video could be done with some smaller fresnels and /or larger led units easily but if you are after a lower contrast look, especially if needing a cool rather than warm look, then you would need lots more light. you would then need to gel the lights past 6000K or alternatively neutral around 5000 - 5600K+ grading later to cooler look (pulling the reds down) which loses the same amount of light than gelling to the same color on set but makes a slightly different grain texture because of the different colour layer exposure. How did you light the 2-perf scenes, could you just use the same supplier for the lights, just getting more of them this time? I would get lots and lots of shiny blankets, mirrors, kapa reflectors etc. reflecting media for the daylight in scenes and experiment a little on the locations for how much you can bring the exposure up with them and how much you actually need extra lighting units and how much can be done with directing natural light

if using the 250D stock on ultra16 but overexposing quite much to tighten the grain it would be easier to light, even if getting to around 125ISO or so would be much easier... are you shooting mainly day or night interiors+exteriors? If you really need to use tungsten lights as you main units you could try gelling with 1/2 ctb only and go with that warmer look, possibly gelling the windows with a quarter cto or so? depending on the look you are after of course. I would use lots of mirrors and reflectors to direct natural light, especially if you are for a flatter look, and then use something at least 2k tungsten gelled and diffused to fix the rest. If there is only video production stuff available, you could use Blondes? they may have some 2k fresnels as well... at least some studio versions which are pretty basic stuff, even some theaters may have them. 5K's would be nice but would be more difficult to find and you may have problems arranging the needed power even for the bunch of 2k's. If you have possibility to get even a single hmi unit it would be much easier for you to light, even a single 1.2k would make your life much easier :)

not compared to Fresnels no :) but they are lightweight so can be rigged to some weird places and may have quite ok light quality if diffused

then I would go mostly with rental lights instead. you could use the daylight leds though. but I would add some higher power HMI pars or max's (at least couple of 1.2k or 1.8k) and if you have lots of power available then you could supplement with some gelled 5k or 2k and 1k tungsten fresnels if you can get a good rental deal for them. It is just, a 50D film with CTB gelled tungsten lighting =not effective at all, you will lose half of the light output even if gelling to around 4500K for "warm daylight" look. the vnsp 1k's would probably do something useful if the ctb does not melt on them but I would really try to use mostly natural daylight reflected around and add some punch with cool led and hmi units. Of course if you have a very cold indoor location with no heating then the tungsten units may be a good idea, you can use them for heating up the space and will also get a noticeable amount of light as a side effect :lol:

redheads are very good as working lights though, I have one of the Chinese ones as a backup which is most of the time used as a work light and is not actually lighting anything within the frame :) (you can use market work lights for that as well if attaching barndoors and spigot for a stand. technically that would not differ much from a redhead except being a little heavier and having rectangular housing :P )

I would not base a movie lighting kit on 800Redheads unless I would get them for free... they are not good for much else than bouncing or filling up diffusion frames. of course you can light with them if setting them up to the actors face but they are not very useful as multi-purpose lights and are pretty bad for direct lighting (too much spread and falloff, poor shadow quality, not very adjustable) , their main design point is only them being lightweight for ENG use and cheap to manufacture so that they can be sold for huge profit :P . I would look for fresnels and par cans and some leds instead. Samuel, did you mean by 50D the Canon camera or the Kodak film? I think you could use a mixed tungsten +led kit. The leds can be expensive but they are good for daylight use if they are punchy enough (I would choose mainly narrow spot ones and add diffusion if needed instead of having only wide angle ones and not being able to light from distance at all) For example: 1pc 300 tungsten fresnel 2pc 650w tungsten fresnel 2 pcs 1000w vnsp ("firestarter") par64 can with barndoors etc. other par cans like source fours can be added as well if you need them. (2pcs of 800w redheads OR a 2k Blonde for diffusion frames and bouncing if you can get them very cheaply or free and really need them) 1pc high power daylight LED panel, SPOT ANGLE (something like 50w minimum, I would have close to 100w if possible. I would prefer daylight balanced instead of adjustable colour temp because of more output, it will be mostly needed for daylight applications anyway) 1pc lower power LED panel in the 30-50w range if you need it, can be adjustable or daylight balanced. I would prefer spot but can be wider angle if needed Lots of frames, kapa and styrofoam reflectors, flags. A small adjustable hazer! you may think you don't need it but you can't live without it when having one :) One dedolight type very narrow spot tungsten or led light may be handy at times but not absolutely needed. I personally use lots of 2kw tungsten fresnels (Filmgear, Arri, Desisti) which are handy and can be used to substitute expensive-to-rent HMI lights in some applications but if you want to own the gear I would try to use the par cans instead, you can save on stands and can still make some nice punchy lighting effects on smaller areas. Consider renting if you only need some piece of gear irregularly couple of times a year.

what was the point of that Yedlin test? to show us that one can have about similar framing and FOV with two different cameras? all this "they can be made look the same, no one will notice the difference" assumes that there is only one visual look all the movies should have and anything which differ from that is "FALSE" or "WRONG" :blink: it also forgets that the greatest differences come from the different working process which affects the director, editor, DP, acting and operating performances, lighting design, shooting ratios, setup times, freedom/restrictions to capture additional footage on the fly, etc. (the look may differ just a little but the storytelling differs a lot) Audience may not notice the difference in the technical LOOK of the movie but they will absolutely notice the difference in everything else. all the other things are therefore much more relevant in the FILM vs. DIGITAL conversation than the actual technical or look differences. For example how the storytelling differs if you are operating a Panaflex compared to Alexa Mini. I didn't particularly like that b/w screenshot either btw, have seen 100x more beautiful material shot on both film and digital, some of the stuff also in the movies I have worked on. Movie is not a single still image screenshot which can be analysed with photography terms and methods. And cinematography needs to be always analysed at least within the scene when seeing all adjacent shots and having the complete soundtrack also available. Cinematography also has nothing to do with the shooting medium, and with still frames you are basically just comparing lighting design and composition, nothing else cinematography related there :blink: again, the Deakins etc. argument that "no one will notice the difference between film and digital because they can be made look so similar" is simply not true. the look may be close but the look is not the point here: even if the look is somewhat same, all the other aspects are different when switching FILM <---->DIGITAL because the different working method affects the STORYTELLING so much and EVERY PERSON in the audience can spot the storytelling related differences right away

the main problem with the Chinese stuff is that they don't seem to have any quality control and some of the materials are too low quality. design faults are another problem... but you need to be able to, for example, change the power cables by yourself if using this type of lights. the originals are low quality and thin material and will break in use after a while (mine lasted less than a year in very light use and had to modify the lights for thicker standard power cable to continue to use them) . and you need to be able to constantly monitor the gear for problems and repair if needed before anything serious happens. They are not "as arri" in that regard, you can't for example use them in any kind of rain without very heavy protection (compared to some Arri tungstens which can tolerate mild rain pretty well if the angle is right) . Treat them like they would be indoor-use-only without plastic-bag fully-tape rain-cover everything

most B/W negatives can be developed reversal even if they are not advertised to be capable for that. you need to test the developer first though, if using a very heavy process (like the one on Ilford papers) you may experience emulsion separation or other damage (excessive swelling etc) . Some reversal films, for example Fomapan reversal, cannot be developed as negative because of the silver "remjet" backing of the factory fresh film but some others can be alternatively developed as negative even if the stock is advertised as reversal film. negative vs. reversal stocks are not fully similar in how they handle exposure when used with alternative process (negative for reversal, reversal for negative) because the reversal stock normally is optimised for reversal processing (different density image in 1st developing compared to similar negative film) but as said can be done on most films as long as you don't use totally wrong formulas on reversal process which damages the emulsion irrecoverably

couple of years ago I ordered some Chinese fresnels and tested them out, couple of results here: http://aapolettinen.blogspot.fi/2014/09/chinese-fresnels-are-they-any-good.html

we have covered the Chinese Fresnels thing before couple of times... for small jobs they may be ok but THEY ARE NOT ELECTRICALLY SAFE out of the box by my experience and really need to be checked by professional electrician before even tested briefly. the "CE" markings etc. are a total joke (there is probably a huge factory in China which only manufactures those fake CE marking stickers) and the build quality is generally quite lazy which may mean, for example, loose wires inside the casing or too thin insulation or strain reliefs which are not attached correctly or hazardous electrical design with cheap thin wires and no grounding, underrated dimmers which may catch fire, etc. It may be a good idea to save some money on gear but in this case it may cost you your life (or in the worst case, someone else's life instead of one's own) :(

or could use a power tool battery if you can find one with the right voltage. I personally use the airsoft batteries because they are flat and long so they are easy to stack and attach to the camera with velcro

if you need 16v and have a spare 4-pin power cable (you can have one made too) you could use two 8.4v nimh airsoft batteries in series so would have 16.8v output. you would need some tamiya connectors for it and small amount of wire for the connections.

orwo films can be developed both negative and reversal. If you are intending to scan the image then negative is much easier to work with

should'nt be much difference compared to new film. freezing is only necessary if you need to store the film for many years, for example knowing that you won't shoot the stuff in the next 4 years or more. It may not be a good idea to freeze opened cans, you never know how much humidity there is inside and it may lead to unexpected results. factory fresh unopened cans can be frozen more reliably. for storing film about an year or two, I would never freeze it. completely unnecessary and there is always a risk of damaging the film when freezing. EXPOSED film is a different matter, it ages much quicker than raw stock. you start to see clear effects in couple of months and if storing for example one year before developing, there is serious effects in the image already and you need to compensate with special processing

Of course, he definitely did something right if lots of people willingly watched the movie and paid for it and maybe even thought they liked it :) and even thought that it was "challenging and intelligent"! It's just like... why the mass entertainment needs to be done in a way that it feels like I would need to tune down my brain activity to 20% or alternatively multitask web+email+some gardening conversation at the same time to be able to watch a hollywood film... they are generally somewhat entertaining but most of them are just plain dumb and underestimate the viewer a lot just to ensure that even those persons like it who can't concentrate 2 minutes to a movie without doing something else at the same time, like playing/checking web on the phone or talking with someone when the movie is rolling :blink: I don't know how much film origination would benefit a generic Hollywood movie if at all. depends on the movie I guess. film is generally much better for some genres than others and it would need "more humane" approach to the characters and a deeper, more emotional story which is kinda unseen in Hollywood in general. Maybe it just adds to the viewing experience on some films to have those countless slaughtered animals running and screaming on the screen rather than projecting the neat and slick story on the skin of thousands of tortured slaves suffering quietly for our viewing experience ;)

Cant tell the difference duh. Mr Deakins have been captured by the story then which is good for him because it may be very difgicult for a professional cinematographer to actually watch movies without analysing them at the same time for everything :)

I just realised that the digital devices will definitely have a soul or two as well..think of all that child/forced labour used by the warlords for mining the minerals used for the camera electronics. Maybe thats why digital imaging does not look as pleasant and calming to the eye: instead of just dead animals the digital image has a lot more frightening souls in it and the viewer of course senses that difference

Maybe it has something to do with the slaughtered animal souls going to the gelatine and later transforming to the film's silver crystals and finally to the colour specs when the film image is exposed and developed. So a film image DEFINITELY has more "soul" in it compared to a digital image. (Though I don't know if electrons have souls, maybe they are too small for it, who knows ^_^ ) When projecting a film image, the souls are in response of moving around randomly in the image area so that the audience can experience pleasant "grain" structure in the image. That is, actually, millions and millions of small piggy and calf and chicken souls running around in great soothing harmony, creating an artistic expression of the reality :lol: ---------- Anyway, I think that the "soulless" would reference to the colour+contrast (grading) of the finished image which is purely an artistic choice of the filmmakers and may enhance the story/mood of the film or not. The texture is a different matter but most of the content is shot rather clean anyway, both film and digital and noise/grain can be enhanced or reduced if needed. film can also be shot relatively grainless looking depending on the format and lighting conditions and one can also make film image look "clean and flat and soulless" very easily

Yep the problem is the IGNORANT OPINIONS and persons bashing the movies with too little information (or experience) to analyse which cinematography related things were made for which reasons and what were the faced restrictions and challenges. Kids analysing movies like Instagram photos is the main issue and people commenting on cinematography without necessarily even knowing which parts of the critique were actually cinematography related and which were actually acting or directing or art dept or script related.

the main problem is that most of the persons commenting on cinematography of the films don't have enough information about the actual working conditions on set, the challenges which needed to be solved, how the cinematographer collaborated with the other departments and actors (simplifying the lighting to give more room for the actors for example) . persons analysing movies as a series of stills images (I like that shot, I don't like that shot) forgetting that most of the actual "cinematography" in movies is about finding the most practical solutions (THE BEST COMPROMISES) for any challenges during the production (extremely quickly if needed) and making the best compromise possible to get the best possible end product AS A WHOLE. It may sometimes require making the image look less perfect because you are trading that perfection for something more important, more needed for the scene. It is not Vimeography or Photography you know, the idea is not just put beautiful looking images after each other to make a slideshow with music. the goal is to tell the story the best possible way and one has to compromise for that, every single shot and scene

to me it had lots of those moments when I'm feeling like some kindergarten teacher is trying to teach me how a drinking glass is used :blink: Loved the visuals and most of the music and sound design except those moments when the screeching sound was too overwhelming, the audience being like Anyway, would have hoped the movie to have a better script and less dumb characters. it was not Shyamalan-bad but could have used a lot more work on the script before actually shooting anything I think. maybe Nolan script =no need for quality control before green light :P

I don't particularly like the Nolan movies that much btw, that is because of the scripts and twists he uses. the movies look great in general and the look suits the story and world of the movie quite well. the Interstellar was especially bad, so many plot holes and stupid twists (and the annoying and illogical child characters!) and the freaking Matt Damon character who has gotten himself in trouble (AGAIN) and thus needs to be saved so that lots of better characters can be killed for it Private Ryan style. The whole "we have this secret facility which we want you to find and come to so that you can save the world but we do everything possible so that you won't find out its existence or location" Of course there was also this sound design + music which made one's ears bleed (the wormhole scene was an absolute nightmare, so difficult to watch because the screeching and music hurts one's brains) but that's another matter though I'm sure it was also one of Cris's great ideas <_<